EXPLORING THE NATURE OF THE SYNTAX-PHONOLOGY INTERFACE:A POST-SYNTACTIC ACCOUNT OF THE OLD IRISH VERBAL SYSTEM
Glenda Newton
University of Cambridge

1. Introduction
There is a growing tendency within minimalist syntax for syntactically troublesome data
to be accounted for post-syntactically. Many phenomena that cannot be accounted for
comfortably by syntactic theory are argued to be a result of post-syntactic processes operating
at the interface between syntax and phonology. The notion of an interface level and interface
processes is not in itself controversial. Problems arise, however, from the fact that there is no
unified theory of the PF interface and few restrictions on the operations that take place there.
There is nothing in place to prevent each new post-syntactic account proposing new postsyntactic operations. As a result it seems that virtually anything is possible. This is clearly
undesirable within the theory of minimalist syntax, where research focuses on developing atheory of syntax that is highly constrained. Allowing a post-syntactic level which isunrestricted and where anything is possible clearly detracts from this.
This paper begins to consider how a more minimalist theory of PF might be developedby using only conceptually motivated post-syntactic principles. To do this we examine one
problematic case, namely the Old Irish verbal system, and consider how this might beaccounted for within such a minimalist theory of PF. The structure of the paper is as follows.
Section 2 of this paper provides an introduction to the Old Irish verbal system. Section 3
considers why syntax alone cannot account for Old Irish. Section 4 develops a new postsyntactic account of the Old Irish verb. Section 5 concludes the paper.
2. An introduction to the Old Irish verbal system
2.1 Old Irish as a Celtic language
The term ‘Old Irish’ refers to the language found in Irish and Continental European
manuscripts dating from the eighth and ninth centuries AD. It is the direct predecessor of Irish
and Scots Gaelic spoken today in Ireland and Scotland. Old Irish is a Celtic language, part of
the Celtic branch of Indo-European. Celtic languages can be divided into two main classes,
namely Continental Celtic, those languages spoken in Continental Europe, and Insular Celtic,
the languages spoken in the British Isles (and Brittany in France). Insular Celtic can be further

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 2, 19-44© 2007 Glenda Newton

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 2

divided into Brittonic and Goidelic, sometimes described as P Celtic and Q Celtic. The
relationships between the Celtic languages can be seen in the tree below:1(1)
Proto-Celtic
Continental Celtic

Insular Celtic

Celtiberian Lepontic Gaulish

Old Irish

BritishIrish Scots Gaelic Manx

Welsh Breton Cornish

Celtic languages are in many ways quite different from other Indo-European languages.
From a syntactic perspective the most apparent idiosyncratic feature is that all the Insular
Celtic languages, with the exception of Breton, they all demonstrate unmarked verb-initialword order.2 This can be seen in the Modern Irish and Welsh examples given in (2) and (3)below.
(2)

Chonaic
see.PAST

Seán anSean the

madra
dog

(Modern Irish)‘Sean saw the dog’(3)

GwelaiEmrys ddraig
would-see Emrys dragon(Modern Welsh)‘Emrys would see the dragon’
Old Irish resembles its modern counterparts in this respect, showing unmarked verb
initial order in both main and embedded clauses:(4)a.

béoigidirin spirut
vivifies.PRES.3SG the spirit

in corpthe body‘The spirit vivifies the body now’inthefect sotime this(Wb 13d7)

1

The relationship between the Continental and Insular Celtic languages is somewhat controversial.
See Russell (1995: 15–18) for an overview and further references.
2

Breton is argued to be a verb-second (V2) language (Stephens 1982; Borsley, Rivero and Stephens
1996; Borsley and Kathol 2000; Wilford 2005).

- 20 -

Exploring the Nature of the Syntax-Phonology Interface (G. Newton)b.

as-rubartdía friu-som
say.PERF.3SG God to.3PL

ara celebartisthat celebrate.PAST.SUBJ.3PL

ahissollumnu3
feasts(Ml 102d3)‘God said to them that they should celebrate his feasts’

Although Old Irish is similar to the modern Celtic languages in terms of basic word
order, it differs in one crucial respect: Old Irish has a double system of verbal inflection. Let
us examine exactly what this entails.
2.2 The Old Irish double system of verbal inflection
In Old Irish the form of the verb differs depending on the position of the verb in theclause. In the case of simple verbs, the verb differs in terms of its inflectional ending. Whenthe verb is in absolute initial position in the clause it has absolute inflection:(5)

léicid-som
release.PRES.3SG.ABS-emph.part.3SG.M

cloich
stone

asa
tailm
out-of-his sling‘He releases a stone out of his sling…’(LU 6210–6211)

When the verb is in non-initial position, for example when it is preceded by a so-called‘conjunct particle’ (e.g. a complementizer or a negative or interrogative particle), the verb has
conjunct inflection, as shown in (6).
(6)

cenid
leci
although.NEG allow.PRES.3SG.CONJ

inthe

metur…
metre…

‘Although the metre does not allow…’(Ml 30a10)

The verbs given in examples (5) and (6) are identical in terms of person, number, tense,
aspect and mood. The different forms, léicid and leci result purely from their different
positions in the clause. The distinction between absolute and conjunct is present in all persons.
This can be seen in the paradigms for the present tense of léicid ‘lets’, marbaid ‘kills’ andberid ‘carries’ given in table 1 below:
Table 1: The present tense of léicid ‘lets’, marbaid ‘kills’ and berid ‘carries’
Absolute ConjunctAbsolute ConjunctAbsolute
1sg léiciu
-léiciu
1sg marbu-marbu1sg biru
2sg léici
-léici2sg marbai-marbai
2sg biri
3sg léicid
-léici3sg marbaid -marba
3sg berid
1pl léicmi
-léicem
1pl marbmai -marbam
1pl bermai
2pl léicthe-léicid
2pl marbthae -marbaid
2pl beirthe
3pl léicit
-léicet
3pl marbait-marbat
3pl berait

3

Conjunct
-biur
-bir
-beir
-beram-berid-beratIn this example the conjunction aran ‘in order that’ functions as a generic ‘that’ complementizer.
This usage is not very frequent in Old Irish. See Ó hUiginn (1997) for discussion.

- 21 -

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 2

In addition to simple verbs, Old Irish also has a large number of compound verbs.
Compound verbs consist of a simple verb plus one or more preverbs. Preverbs are particles
etymologically related to prepositions that change the meaning of the verb in generally
unpredictable ways. For example, the compound verb fo-reith ‘helps’ consists of the simple
verb reithid ‘runs’ and the preverb fo ‘under’.
Unlike simple verbs, compound verbs show no variation in terms of their endings.
Compound verbs always have conjunct inflection. However, in different clausal positions
compound verbs have different stems. When a compound verb appears in absolute initial
position in the clause, it is deuterotonic, so called because the stress falls on the secondsyllable:(7)

do-beir in fer in claideb don macc
gives.DT the man the sword to.the boy‘The man gives the sword to the boy’

When a compound verb is in non-initial position, it is prototonic, i.e. the stress falls on
the initial syllable, the regular Old Irish stress pattern.
(8)

ní
NEG

tabair ingives.PT the

fer inman theclaideb don macc
sword to.the boy‘The man does not give the sword to the boy’Deuterotonic and prototonic forms differ from one another to a great extent. This can be seen
in table 2 below.4
Table 2: The present tense of do-beir ‘gives’, ad-cí ‘sees’ and do-gní ‘does’
1sg
2sg
3sg
1pl
2pl
3pl

Deuterotonic
do-biurdo-birdo-beirdo-beramdo-berid
do-berat

Prototonic-tabur-tabair-tabair-taibrem-taibrid-taibret

1sg
2sg
3sg
1pl
2pl
3pl

Deuterotonic
ad-cíuad-cí
ad-cí
ad-ciamad-ciidad-ciatPrototonic-aicciu-aci-aicci-accam-accid-accat

1sg
2sg
3sg
1pl
2pl
3pl

Deuterotonic
do-gníu
do-gní
do-gní
do-gníam
do-gníith
do-gníat

Prototonic-dén(a)im-dén(a)i-dén(a)i-dénam-dénid-dénat

For the purpose of this paper we will focus primarily on simple verbs. Little more will be said
regarding compound verbs. For more details on this topic see Newton (2006).

4

The phonological differences between deuterotonic and prototonic forms are a result of soundchanges affecting the different forms differently because of the difference in stress. See McCone(1997) for details.

- 22 -

Exploring the Nature of the Syntax-Phonology Interface (G. Newton)

3. Why syntax alone cannot account for the Old Irish verb
3.1 Two types of verb movement: Carnie, Harley and Pyatt 2000
The main existing syntactic account of the Old Irish double system of inflection is that ofCarnie, Harley and Pyatt (2000 – hence CHP). CHP build on the basic insight that thedifferent verbal forms are linked to different positions in the clause, by arguing that the verb
is spelled out differently depending on its syntactic position. CHP assume that absolute
inflection is associated with the C position. Therefore, only when the verb is in C will it haveabsolute inflection. In any other syntactic position it will have conjunct form.
CHP propose that Old Irish has a filled C requirement, in other words C must receive aphonological realisation. Since Chung and McCloskey (1987) it has been widely assumed that
conjunct particles are complementizers. This being the case, we would expect them to bemerged in the C position. Therefore, whenever there is a conjunct particle, C is necessarily
filled, and the filled C requirement is satisfied. As a result the verb appears in T and has
conjunct inflection. When there is no conjunct particle merged in C, however, some otherelement must move to fill C. When the verb is compound and there is no conjunct particle, theinitial preverb of the compound verb moves to fill the C position. In this case the remainder ofthe verb stays in T, and so has conjunct inflection. When the verb is simple, however, andthere is no conjunct particle in C, the whole verb moves from T to C, and so is spelled out
with absolute inflection. This is shown schematically in the trees below:
(9)

a.

C
C
ní

b.
T

T
beir

C
C
berid

V

c.
T

T
tV

C
C
do

V

T
T
beir

V

The idea that different verbal forms can be linked to different syntactic positions istheoretically appealing. However, there must also be empirical data to support this view. Thisis the topic of the next section.
3.2 A closer look at simple verbs – the empirical evidence
CHP invoke two types of evidence to support their claim that simple verbs in Old Irish
raise to the C position, namely object pronouns and relative constructions. We will examine
each of these in turn.
3.2.1 Object pronouns
As in many other Indo-European languages, object pronouns in Old Irish are enclitic andalways appear in second position. If the verb form is simple and in initial position, the object- 23 -

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 2

pronoun is suffixed to it, as in (10). If the verb follows a conjunct particle, the object pronoun
is infixed between the conjunct particle and the verb, as in (11). If there is no conjunct particle
and the verb is compound, the object pronoun is infixed between the initial preverb and theremainder of the verb, as shown in (12).
(10)

Eorum is do apstalaib
beirth-i
Eorum COP to apostle.DAT.PL carries-SUFF.3SG.M‘The Eorum he applies it to the apostles’

(11)

Ní-m
NEG-INF.1SG

charat-sa
loves.PRES.3PL.CONJ-emph.part.1SG(Wb 5c6)‘They do not love me’(12)(Ml 94b1)

du-s
n-gní
PVB-INF.3SG.F makes.3SG.PRES.DT(Ml 29a3)‘He makes it (f)’According to syntactic accounts of clitic placement, object clitics have a set position in
the clause (Kayne 1991). In many languages object pronouns seem to appear between C and T(see Kayne 1975, 1991, 1994, Cardinaletti and Roberts 2002 on Romance; Grohmann 2000
on dialects of German; Ackema and Neeleman 2005 on Middle Dutch). As clitics appear
between these two functional projections, it is not entirely clear to which they belong.
Cardinaletti and Roberts (2002) argue that clitics move to the left edge of the T complex.
Uriagereka (1995) argues that they move to a projection, FP, which encodes point of view andis part of the C-projection. A full discussion of the target for and motivation behind clitic
placement is beyond the scope of this paper. Crucially, object pronouns in Old Irish seem tooccur in a similar position to those found in other European languages. If we consider theexample given in (11) above, we find that the pronoun appears between the conjunct particle,a C element (Chung and McCloskey 1987) and the verb, in T. This suggests, that as in other
European languages, object clitics in Old Irish appear between C and T. For concreteness it
will be assumed that these pronouns occupy the lowest projection of the CP, equivalent to
Rizzi’s FinP. If this is the case, and the position of the clitics remains constant, then this
supports CHP’s analysis of simple verbs. CHP argue that when the verb is simple object
pronouns appear to its right and are suffixed to it; this is what we would expect if the verb hadraised to C.
The evidence from object pronouns, however, is not as clear-cut as CHP suggest.
Crucially, the use of suffixed pronouns in Old Irish is restricted. Generally only third singularforms of the pronoun are found attached to third singular indicative verb forms, and even inthese cases suffixed pronouns are not used consistently. The productive pattern in Old Irish
seems to be infixation using the dummy preverb no.

- 24 -

Exploring the Nature of the Syntax-Phonology Interface (G. Newton)(13) a.

no-s
PVB-INF.3PL

nguid-sombeseech.PRES.3SG.CONJ-emph.part.3SG.M(Wb 25b9)‘He beseeches them’
b.

ni
NEG

hed no-t
it
PVB-INF.2SG

beir
í nem
carry.PRES.3SG.CONJ in heaven‘It is not this that brings you into heaven’(Wb 6c9)

The restricted use of suffixed pronouns in Old Irish is problematic for CHP in two
respects. First, the fact that suffixed pronouns are not productive and are only used in
restricted contexts means that they do not provide convincing evidence that simple verbs
move to C. The second, and perhaps more serious, problem is that CHP must be able toaccount for the productive pattern. It seems to be the case that when there is an object
pronoun present V-to-C movement is blocked. One way to explain this could be to say thatthe infixed pronoun satisfies the filled C requirement (except in certain numbers and persons).
However, if this is the case, then we would expect movement of the initial preverb to C also
to be blocked when there is a pronoun and that does not seem to be so (see section 3.4 below).
Similarly it could be argued that the dummy preverb no is merged into the C position
whenever there is an infixed pronoun, and this satisfies the filled C requirement and prevents
verb-movement to C. However, again this does not occur with compound verbs. If no wereinserted with the pronoun we would expect this to be the case across the board, and so again
movement of the initial preverb of the compound verb would also be blocked.
It seems, then, that instead of providing evidence to support CHP’s view, object
pronouns pose a significant problem for it. In the regular, productive case simple verbs clearly
do not move to C when there is an object pronoun, as they appear with the dummy preverb no.
Under CHP’s theory there seems to be no satisfactory explanation as to why V-to-C
movement is blocked in these cases. If, on the other hand, there is no filled-C requirement in
Old Irish so the verb never moves to C and only ever moves as far as T, then the productive
system is easily accounted for and it is only the irregular suffixed forms that require extra
explanation.5 A theory that accounts primarily for the regular construction seems clearly
preferable to one that focuses on the irregular one. The evidence from object pronouns, then,is better accounted for if it is assumed that there is no filled-C requirement and the verb in
Old Irish only raises as far as T.
3.2.2 Relative clauses
The second piece of evidence invoked by CHP is that of relative marking. In Old Irish
there are many different ways to mark a relative clause (see Thurneysen 1946: 312–325;
5This is reasonably straightforward. The irregular nature of suffixed pronouns can be accounted for if
we assume that the combination of verb+suffix is learnt by rote as an irregularity and inserted into theappropriate syntactic context, rather than being derived through a regular syntactic process ofcliticization.

- 25 -

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 2

McCone 1980; Ó hUiginn 1997). One way that a clause can be marked as relative is to use a
special relative form of the verb. This can be seen in example (14) below, where the nonrelative form would be gaibid ‘takes, seizes’.
(14)

is

oinfergaibes
COP one man take.PRES.3SG.REL

búaid diib
victory of.3PL

inna chomalnadin its completing(Wb 11a4)‘It is one man of them that gets victory for completing it’

As noted above, relative clause marking is associated with the C position so the fact thatspecial relative morphology is only found on simple verbs in absolute clause-initial position
supports the idea that simple verbs move to C in Old Irish.
Like suffixed pronouns, special relative verb forms in Old Irish are restricted in
distribution to verbs in the third person and, in the earliest texts, first plural (Thurneysen
1946: 313). In all other persons when there is no special relative form, the dummy particle nois inserted, which either lenites or nasalizes the initial segment of the verb and causes it tohave conjunct inflection, as shown in the examples in (15).
(15) a.

is
COP

hed in so no chairigur (non-rel cairigur)
itthis PVB reprimand.PRES.1SG.CONJ(Wb 11d1)‘This is what I reprimand’b.

cid no mbetha (non-rel betha)
why PVB be.PAST.SUBJ.2SG.CONJ(Wb 4c24)‘Why (is it that) you should be?’It seems on closer inspection, then, that instead of supporting CHP’s theory, the evidence
from special relative forms is problematic. As is the case for suffixed pronouns, the special
relative verb forms are so restricted that they cannot provide convincing evidence that simple
verbs move to C. Moreover, CHP must be able to account for these restrictions, explaining
why movement to C is blocked in the majority of relative contexts. This could perhaps be
explained if we argue that a relative feature in C satisfies the filled C requirement or that no is
inserted into the C position in relative contexts, preventing verb-movement to C. However, as
was the case with object pronouns, a relative feature in C does not stop the initial preverb of acompound verb from appearing in C. As with object pronouns, it seems that in relative
contexts, the productive pattern seems to be that where the verb only moves as far as T andthe cases that seem to demonstrate V-to-C movement are exceptions, suggesting that weshould not postulate a filled-C requirement for Old Irish.
There is further evidence from relative clauses to suggest that the verb only moves as far
as T in Old Irish. The most common way to mark a relative clause in Old Irish is through- 26 -

Exploring the Nature of the Syntax-Phonology Interface (G. Newton)

lenition. When the verb is compound, lenition affects the segment after the initial preverb, asshown in (16).
(16)

a
that

nNAS

ad-chiam (non-rel ad-ciam)
PVB-see.PRES.1PL.DT(Ml 112b13)‘That which we see’

When the verb is simple and a special relative form is unavailable, the dummy preverb
no is inserted and the initial segment of the verb is lenited, as in (17) below.
(17)

is
COP

hed in so no chairigur (non-rel cairigur)
itthis PVB reprimand.PRES.1SG.CONJ(Wb 11d1)‘This is what I reprimand’

These data can be made sense of if we assume that when C is specified as relative it
causes lenition of the initial segment of the following word.6 Crucially, the particle thatappears in the C position is not lenited. If special relative verb forms move to C, then, we
would expect them not to be lenited. Although this is the case in the earliest sources of Old
Irish, by the time of the Milan Glosses (AD 800) we find that simple relative verb forms
begin to undergo lenition. This becomes widespread by the St Gall Glosses (AD 850)
(Thurneysen 1946: 315):(18) a.

indí chomallaite (non-relative comallait)
those fulfil.PRES.3PL.REL(Ml 114b7)‘Those who fulfil.’b.

cisí aimser derbthechtas (non-relative techtaid)
what time
definite possess.PRES.3SG.REL‘What is the definite time that he has?’(Sg 26a6)

This development suggests that although historically special relative verb forms were in
the C position and so unlenited, by the time of the Milan Glosses this is no longer the case.
The fact that such verb forms are unlenited in the Würzburg Glosses written some fifty years
earlier could imply that V-to-C movement was lost between these 750 and 800. Alternatively,
and perhaps more likely, V-to-C movement may have been lost before the time of the
Würzburg Glosses, but it was not until the time of the Milan Glosses that the full effects ofthis change came to be seen in the written language.

6

A similar analysis has been provided for relative clauses in Modern Irish. The main difference is thatin Modern Irish relative C is phonologically realised as a particle a that either lenites or nasalizes thefollowing word (McCloskey 2001, 2002)- 27 -

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 2

3.3 Summary
Although CHP’s analysis of absolute and conjunct inflection in Old Irish is theoreticallyappealing, the empirical evidence does not seem to support it. The evidence that CHP provide
from object pronouns and relative constructions, when considered more closely, not only fails
to support their analysis but also poses significant problems for it. It is difficult to account for
the use of no to infix pronouns and mark relative clauses within a theory that postulates acrossthe board V-to-C movement. In both cases the productive pattern seems to show that the verb
only moves as far as T. The examples that seem to show V-to-C movement are marginal andirregular in the Old Irish period. These data seem better accounted for if the verb only moves
as far as T in Old Irish. The irregular forms that appear to demonstrate V-to-C movement arearchaisms from an earlier period, when V-to-C movement was productive.
Before we move on there is a further piece of evidence that could be taken to support theview that simple verbs only raise as far as T in the syntax, namely stress patterns. Generally
all other elements that CHP propose can fill the C position in Old Irish are unstressed, i.e.
conjunct particles and the initial preverbs of deuterotonic compound verbs (Thurneysen 1946:28–30). This being the case, if a fronted verb appears in the C position we might expect it to
be unstressed. If, on the other hand, the verb only ever moves as far as T, then we have aunitary explanation for the stress patterns of the Old Irish verbal complex, namely stressalways falls on the first syllable of TP.
So it seems that there is good reason to believe that simple verbs do not move to C in
Classical Old Irish. However, if simple verbs only ever move as far as T in the syntax, thenthe different morphological endings cannot reflect different syntactic positions. This meansthat we need an alternative explanation for the different morphological forms. This is the
topic of section 4.
4. A new post-syntactic account of the Old Irish verb
In section 3 it was argued that the verb in Old Irish never raises higher than T. If this is
the case, then the different morphological forms cannot be a result of different syntactic
positions, as CHP suggest. It seems we need more than syntax to account for the distributionof absolute and conjunct endings in Old Irish. We need some kind of post-syntactic processes.
Let us consider, then, what these post-syntactic processes might be.
4.1 The syntax-phonology interface
Post-syntactic operations can be divided into two kinds, those that are conceptually
motivated and so must occur in all languages, and those that are empirically motivated andonly occur in individual languages. Let us examine each in turn.
According to Chomsky’s architecture of the grammar, after syntax is complete, thederivation proceeds to the phonological component. However, the structures manipulated by- 28 -

Exploring the Nature of the Syntax-Phonology Interface (G. Newton)

syntactic operations are somewhat different to those manipulated by phonology. Syntactic
structures are hierarchical, whereas phonological structures are flat. Furthermore, syntactic
operations refer purely to morphosyntactic features, whereas phonological operations refer
only to phonological features (Chomsky and Halle 1968). Therefore, after syntax is complete,
but before phonology begins there are two post-syntactic operations that must take place in allcases: hierarchical syntactic structures must be linearized and (assuming Distributed
Morphology) morphosyntactic feature bundles must be replaced by phonological featurebundles.
Chomsky (1995a: 340) argues that the operation responsible for the linearization ofsyntactic structure might be Kayne’s (1994) Linear Correspondence Axiom (LCA). For
Chomsky the LCA is operative at the syntax-phonology interface and is responsible for theconversion of the hierarchical output of syntax to the linear order found in phonology.7 We
will follow Chomsky on this point and little more will be said about it below.
The idea that syntactic operations make no reference to phonological features, andphonological operations make no reference to morphosyntactic features can be easily
explained if we assume that there are no phonological features present in the syntax, and nomorphosyntactic features present in phonology. This is one basic assumption behind
Distributed Morphology (DM – Halle and Marantz 1993, 1994). DM assumes an operation
Vocabulary Insertion, which takes place at the syntax-phonology interface and replaces
morphosyntactic feature bundles with phonological exponents. More will be said on thisoperation below.
So far we have outlined two post-syntactic operations that must take place crosslinguistically to convert syntactic structure to phonological structure, namely Linearize andVocabulary Insertion. However, there is a further conceptually necessary post-syntactic
operation, namely Chain Reduction.
If, following Chomsky (1995a, 2000 et seq.), we adopt a copy theory of movement, thenat the output of the syntax the derivation will contain multiple copies of any element that has
been moved. As noted in chapter 1, Chomsky (2001) argues that Move can be seen as Internal
Merge. The element to be moved is copied and remerged in the higher position. So, forexample in a passive construction, such as (19), the object John is merged as the complementof the verb, in the VP, and then copied and remerged in the subject position.
(19)[TPJohn was [VPkissed tJohn]]

At the output of syntax, then, there will be two copies of the DP John. However, only one ofthese copies can be phonologically realised as sentences of the type *John was kissed John

7

Kayne (1994) maintains that the LCA is operative throughout the syntax.

- 29 -

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 2

are ungrammatical.8 This suggests that there must be some operation that marks one copy of aset of identical elements to be realised and deletes the subsequent copies. This operation,
which we will term Chain Reduction, marks the leftmost, or highest copy of the element inquestion for realization and deletes the lower copies (see Brody 1995, Pesetsky 1997, Nunes
1999, 2004, Bobaljik 2002 ).9
So far it has been argued then, that the syntax-phonology interface contains threenecessary operations: Linearize, Chain Reduction and Vocabulary Insertion. These operations
are conceptually motivated, and so must take place in all languages. Within DM, however,there are a number of further operations that are argued to take place between syntax andphonology. These operations manipulate the output of syntax, changing the morphosyntactic
feature structure of syntactic terminals and so influencing the way that these terminals are
realised phonologically (e.g. fission, fusion, impoverishment see Halle and Marantz 1993,
Harley and Noyer 1999 for further details). These operations operate only in particular
contexts in particular languages, and so are harder to justify.
A truly minimalist theory of the syntax-phonology interface will include only operations
that are conceptually motivated. Let us examine now whether such an interface can accountfor the Old Irish verbal system.
4.2 The absolute/conjunct distinction
We saw in section 3 above that the main problem for CHP’s syntactic account of the Old
Irish verbal system is the use of object pronouns with simple verbs. Crucially it is difficult for
CHP to account for the regularly attested, productive pattern, namely the use of an infixed
pronoun and a dummy preverb no:(20) a.

no-s
PVB-INF.3PL

nguid-sombeseech.PRES.3SG.CONJ-emph.part.3SG.M(Wb 25b9)‘He beseeches them’
b.

ni
NEG

hed no-t
it
PVB-INF.2SG

beir
í nem
carry.PRES.3SG.CONJ in heaven‘It is not this that brings you into heaven’8(Wb 6c9)

Although see McDaniel (1989) and Nunes (1999) for examples of so-called multiple Spell-Out.

9

Nunes (1999, 2004) attempts to explain why this should be the case, whereas others simply stipulate.
It could simply be a principle of the grammar that the leftmost copy of identical feature sets is realised.
If the Spell-Out of syntactic terminals operates from left to right, then it could simply be the case thatas a maximally economical operation, Spell-Out simply ignores subsequent copies of an element it has
already spelled-out.

- 30 -

Exploring the Nature of the Syntax-Phonology Interface (G. Newton)

If we consider this construction more closely, it seems that there is reason to believe thatthe behaviour of verbs in Old Irish is in some respects parallel to that of English verbs.
It is well known that in English verbs do not raise to T. Instead, it seems that tense andsubject agreement inflections ‘Affix-Hop’ from T to V (Chomsky 1957). When an element,such as the negative not, intervenes, the tense and agreement inflections cannot hop and arestranded in T. In this environment we find a dummy auxiliary do is inserted to provide a hostfor the affixes. A parallel situation could be envisaged for Old Irish. As we saw in section 3,
there is evidence to suggest that in Old Irish the verb does not raise to C; instead absolute
inflections Affix-Hop from C to T. When an infixed pronoun is present, this prevents AffixHopping and so the dummy preverb no must be inserted to host the absolute inflections in C.
If this parallel holds then we should be able to account for English and Old Irish in the sameway.
Traditionally Affix-Hopping has been viewed as problematic as it involves downward
movement. Downward movement is prohibited in the syntax, as a moved element must ccommand its trace. 10 Under the current version of minimalism, however, an alternative
analysis is available. The appearance of tense and subject-agreement-(φ)-features on the verb
in its base position can be seen as a result of the operation Agree (Chomsky 2000 et seq). T
and V both have tense and φ-features. When these features enter the derivation they are
different in terms of their value. The tense and φ-features on T are valued, whereas those on V
are unvalued. During the syntax, the operation Agree values unvalued features, therefore,
after Agree has taken place the tense and φ-features on T will be identical to those on V. At
the point of Spell-Out, one set of these features receives a phonological realisation. Whatappears to be downward movement, then, is the realisation of these tense and φ-features on V
rather than T. The implementation of an Agree relation between V and T can explain howtense and φ-features can be present on both V and T, and so can potentially be realised ineither position; however, this does not explain why these features are sometimes realised in V
and sometimes in T.
It is perhaps possible to account for the position in which tense and φ-features are
realised through the operation of Chain Reduction. In section 4.1 we saw that in canonicalcases Chain Reduction marks the leftmost copy of a moved element for realisation and deletes
all subsequent copies. To account for Affix-Hopping as proposed above, the concept of Chain
Reduction needs to be extended so that it applies not only to movement chains but also tofeatures in an Agree relation. At first sight this seems problematic. Once feature valuation has
taken place between two features there is no link between them; therefore, we cannot talkabout chains between valued features. However, Chomsky also makes such a claim about
moved elements. Chomsky (2001: 11) suggests that chains cannot be considered ‘real’, as thepostulation of chains or indices to mark multiple instances of a moved element would violate
10

Embick and Noyer (2001: 584–591) and Bobaljik (2002) account for Affix-Hopping via Lowering,a type of post-syntactic movement. As post-syntactic movement falls under the category of anempirically motivated post-syntactic operation, we will not examine this approach here.

- 31 -

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 2

the Inclusiveness Condition. If there is no concrete link between moved elements how does
the operation Chain Reduction know which of these elements form a chain and should be
subject to deletion? The two main possibilities are identity and c-command.11 After feature
valuation has taken place, a pair of features in an Agree relation will by necessity be identical.
Furthermore, in order for an Agree relation to take place in the first place the Probe and Goal
must be in a c-command relation.12 So, it seems that the identical features resulting from
Agree fulfil the same requirements as moved elements in terms of Chain Reduction.13
Under this revised view of Chain Reduction then we would expect the tense and φfeatures to be realised in the highest or leftmost position, namely T. However, as we saw
above, this is not always the case. Let us consider the operation Chain Reduction in moredetail. So far it has been assumed that Chain Reduction is a post-syntactic operation, and thedecision as to which copy is marked for realisation is determined at the PF-interface.14 If thisis the case, then it seems plausible that this decision should be determined by PF requirements(Landau 2006: 54):(21) a.
b.

PF copies that are demanded by PF requirements cannot be deleted
PF copies that are excluded by PF requirements must be deleted

For example, Franks (1999) argues that second-position clitics in Serbo-Croatian move
to C in the syntax and are usually spelled-out there. However, these clitics need a host to theirleft. If no such host is available the top copy, i.e. that in C, cannot be realised, and a lower
copy is spelled-out instead. Similarly, Bobaljik (2002) argues that in cases of object shift, thehighest copy of the object cannot be realised if it appears between V and T. V and T must be
string adjacent in order for morphological merger to take place. An intervening object thatinterrupts this adjacency requirement cannot be realised, and so a lower copy will receive aphonological realisation instead.

11

Nunes (1999) argues that chains cannot be determined in terms of identity as, if this were the case,
why is one occurrence of John not deleted in sentences such as Johni hit Johnj. Clearly each instanceof John has a different referent, and they are, therefore, distinct. However, it is not clear how thisshould be accounted for within the syntax.
12
Chomsky does not explicitly mention c-command in his definition of Agree, however, he does statethat the Probe searches for a Goal in its domain/complement. This will result in a c-command relation
between Probe and Goal.
13

It is plausible that in some situations more than one instance of a pair of valued features will bephonologically realised. However, this also occurs in movement chains, for example in cases ofmultiple Spell-Out in German (McDaniel 1989). This can be explained through some independent
phonological requirement demanding that the lower copy be realised (Landau 2006).
14

Landau (2006) argues that this is a result of the modular nature of the grammar – the decision as towhich copy to pronounce/interpret is determined at PF/LF respectively, as there can be no interaction
between the two.

- 32 -

Exploring the Nature of the Syntax-Phonology Interface (G. Newton)

It seems that a similar argument could be made for the spell-out of tense and φ-featuresin English. If, as is often assumed, tense and φ-features in English are affixes, then in order tobe realised they must have a host, i.e. they must satisfy the Stranded Affix Filter (SAF –Lasnik 1981, 1995). The SAF can be seen as a PF requirement (Halle and Marantz 1993;
Lasnik 1995; Bobaljik 2002; Landau 2006). Therefore, if at PF, tense and φ-features have nohost and are stranded in T they cannot be realised there, and so the lower copy in V will bespelled-out instead, resulting in Affix-Hopping. So, it seems then we have the beginnings ofan explanation as to why tense and φ-features are sometimes spelled-out in T and sometimesin V. However, there are several aspects of the above proposal that are in need of further
clarification. First, what exactly does it mean for a feature to be an affix? Second, what
constitutes ‘a host’? In other words, how is the SAF satisfied? Let us examine each of theseissues in turn.
The first issue to be addressed is what it means for an entity to be an affix. If, assuggested above, the SAF is a PF-requirement, operative at the syntax-phonology interface,then [affix] cannot be a purely phonological property, as the SAF must be satisfied before thephonological features enter the derivation. Halle and Marantz (1993) argue that Vocabulary
Insertion, i.e. the replacement of morphosyntactic features with phonological features, is thelast stage in the post-syntactic component, marking the beginning of phonology proper (seealso Ackema and Neeleman 2005: 185–6). At the point of Chain Reduction, then,phonological information is not yet available. Therefore, the property [affix] must be encodedin the morphosyntactic features.
There is empirical evidence to suggest that affixation is not purely a phonologicalprocess. In addition to their obvious phonological deficiency, affixes also seem to show acertain level of syntactic dependency. Unlike clitics, which can in many cases appear freely
with any type of host, affixes tend to be restricted in their distribution, appearing only in aparticular syntactic position with a particular type of host (Zwicky and Pullum 1983: 504–5).
Often, if a clitic’s phonological requirements are not met, it seems that it can move in thephonology to find an appropriate host (so-called Prosodic Inversion – Halpern 1995). This is
not generally true of affixes.15 This suggests that affixation, or at least part of affixation, takes
place before the insertion of the phonological material, and so the property [affix] must be
specified in the morphosyntactic features. It will be assumed in what is to follow that [affix] isa morphological property that is associated with individual features, i.e. a morphologicalsubfeature relevant at the PF-interface.
Having established what it may mean for an entity to be an affix, let us now consider
what may constitute a host and how the SAF can be satisfied at PF. It was argued above that[affix] is, at least in part, a morphosyntactic property, therefore affixation must be, at least in
15

The distinction between affixes and clitics is not clear-cut. There is a tendency within the DM
literature to assume that there is no distinction between them. It is perhaps possible that a distinction
can be drawn between entities that are specified as morphosyntactically affixal and those that arephonologically affixal. However, we will not go any further into this issue here.

- 33 -

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 2

part, a morphosyntactic operation. A feature that is specified morphosyntactically as [affix]
requires a morphosyntactic host. What this means, I propose, is that it must be able tocombine in the syntax or the post-syntactic component with another morphosyntactic feature.
In the simplest case, what this means is that a feature with the property [affix] will satisfy the
SAF if it appears under the same syntactic terminal node as another morphosyntactic
feature.16 One final question that must be raised is whether the morphosyntactic feature thatprovides a host for the affixal feature requires any specific properties. I would suggest that the
only requirement is that the feature in question has a positive value. By the PF-interface,where the [affix] feature is relevant, all morphosyntactic features will necessarily have beenvalued by the syntactic operation Agree. However, these values are not necessarily positive. If
a feature has its default value, then it could be argued that its feature specification is 0. For
example, present tense, third person, singular number could all be seen as a lack of a positive
value. Features that lack a positive morphosyntactic value can have an LF interpretation andcan also be realised at PF; however, I propose, they cannot play a role in the post-syntactic,
morphological component (see Harley 1994, Harley and Ritter 2002 for a similar proposal).
Having outlined our basic assumptions regarding the nature of affixation, let us return tothe case in hand, namely tense and φ-features in English. These features in English aremorphosyntactically specified as [affix]; therefore, in order to satisfy the SAF and receive aphonological realisation they must occur under the same terminal node as at least one othernon-default-valued feature. When there is an aspectual or modal auxiliary in English, there
will clearly be aspectual or modal features in T. Therefore, the [affix] property will besatisfied, and the tense and φ-features will be realised in T and deleted in V. When there is no
aspectual or modal auxiliary, for example in the simple present or simple past tenses thenthere will be no positively-valued features with which the tense and φ-features can combine,
and as such they cannot be realised in T and are spelled-out in V. It seems, then, that byimplementing the SAF Affix-Hopping in English can be accounted for by the operations
Agree and Chain Reduction. Before we consider the related phenomenon of do-support, let us
turn to Old Irish.
It was argued in section 3 above that the verb in Old Irish does not raise above T.
Therefore, to account for the appearance of absolute morphology on the verb we seem to havea case of downward movement parallel to Affix-Hopping. When C is not filled by a conjunctparticle the absolute verbal endings move from C to T. As with Affix-Hopping above, this
could also be seen as a result of Chain Reduction. If the feature conditioning absolute
inflection appears in both C and T, and like tense and φ-features in English has the property[affix], the position in which it appears will be determined by the morphosyntactic featurescontained in C and T. When C contains positively-valued morphosyntactic features, these will
provide a morphosyntactic host for the affixal features, satisfying the SAF and allowing therealisation of these features in the leftmost position. When C contains no positively-valued
16

This does not rule out the possibility of post-syntactic operations such as Morphological Merger inthe sense of Marantz (1988). This may be an alternative way in which the affixation requirement canbe met. However, we will not investigate this possibility further here.

- 34 -

Exploring the Nature of the Syntax-Phonology Interface (G. Newton)features, however, the affixal features cannot be realised in C, as a result of the SAF, and so
will be spelled-out in T. Let us consider this proposal in more detail.
The first issue to consider is what the feature(s) shared by C and T in Old Irish might be.
Absolute inflections express subject agreement; therefore we would expect them to be arealisation of φ-features. However, conjunct inflections also mark subject agreement, and so
there must be some factor that distinguishes the two. Under CHP’s view, the difference
between absolute and conjunct inflection could simply be a result of the fact that the verb
occupies different syntactic positions, with φ-features being spelled-out as absolute inflection
when they appear with a verb in C and as conjunct when they appear with the verb in T.
However, as we saw in section 3 above, there is evidence to suggest that the verb does notraise above T in Old Irish. If this is the case, then φ-features will always be realised on theverb in T, and so the distinction cannot be explained in this way.
A further possibility is that absolute endings are the realisation of φ-features combinedwith some other feature. It is difficult, however, to determine exactly what this feature mightbe, as the double system of verbal inflection seems to have no clear function in the Old Irish
period.17 One possibility is that it is a force feature. As we saw in section 3.2.2 above, incertain numbers and persons absolute verb forms can show special relative endings. The
existence of relative and non-relative absolute endings could be seen as the presence ofrelative and non-relative force features in the T position. When a relative force feature
combines with T’s φ-features this results in special relative morphology, and when a nonrelative force feature combines with T’s φ-features this results in absolute morphology. We
will assume for what follows that the relevant feature that is shared by C and T is a force
feature.18
In the case of Affix-Hopping in English it was argued that tense and φ-features wereshared by T and V as a result of Agree. This may also be the case with the force feature in Old
Irish. However, as this feature is shared by C and T there is an alternative possibility.
Chomsky (2005, 2006) proposes that T enters the derivation with no features of its own andinstead receives its features from the phase head C. Under this view, it is plausible that certain
features could be shared by both heads.19 It seems likely that this will be a matter of crosslinguistic variation. In English for example, tense and φ-features appear on T and not on C
and so do not seem to be shared. In Germanic complementizer agreement constructions,however, we find φ-features on C, suggesting perhaps that they are shared by C and T (22).
17

Although see Koch 1987; Isaac 2001.

18

There is also diachronic evidence to support the idea that absolute inflection results from a force
feature. Newton (2006) argues that absolute endings developed due to the presence of a declarative
clause-typing particle that was reanalysed as a verbal affix.
19

Chomsky is not entirely clear as to whether ‘spreading’ means ‘sharing’ or simply ‘passing on’. The
data seems to suggest, however, that sharing is a possibility.

- 35 -

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 2

Similarly, in Modern Irish we find tensed complementizers alongside tensed verb forms,
suggesting a shared tense feature (23).
(22) a.

ob-stwhether-2SG

(du)
(you)

noch Mingato
Munichkumm-stcome-2SG‘Whether you come to Munich’b.

wem-mawhen-1PL

(mia)
(we)

aaf
to

(Fuß 2005: 159)

Minga fon
Munich drive‘When we drive to Munich’(23) a.

Níor
NEG.PAST(Fuß 2005: 165)

oscailCáit anopen.3SG.PAST Cáit the

geata
gate

‘Cáit did not open the gate’b.

Deirsé gursay.3SG.PRES he that.PAST

oscailCáit anopen.3SG.PAST Cáit the

geata
gate

‘He says that Cáit opened the gate’Let us assume, then, that the force feature in Old Irish, like tense in Modern Irish, isshared by both C and T. However, unlike tense in Modern Irish, force in Old Irish can only berealised in one position, like tense and φ-features in Modern English. Furthermore, like tenseand φ-features in English, the force feature has the property [affix] and so can only be realised
in a position where it satisfies the SAF.
It was argued above that in order to satisfy the SAF a feature that is specified as [affix]
must appear under the same terminal node as an additional positively valued morphosyntactic
feature. When a conjunct particle or the initial preverb of a compound verb appears in the C
position this will provide positively valued morphosyntactic features with which the affixal
force feature can combine. Therefore the SAF will be satisfied and the force feature will be
realised in C and deleted in T, as shown in the tree below.20

20

When force is declarative it has no phonological realisation when it is spelled-out in C. When force
is relative it can be realised as a special relative form of the preverb or as a relative complementizer,
such as the negative relative nad. See Newton (2006) for further details.

- 36 -

Exploring the Nature of the Syntax-Phonology Interface (G. Newton)

(24)

CP
C
TP
Conj/Pvb[ForceAFF] T
Verb[T, φ][ForceAFF]⇒
VP[Cco-ø
[Tléici…]]
until-FORCE allows.PRES.3SG.CONJ‘Until he allows’

When there are no other morphosyntactic features present in C, i.e. no conjunct particle
and no preverb, force will have no host, and so as a result of the SAF cannot be realised there.
In this case, C will be completely empty, and so will receive no realisation, and force will be
realised in T, in conjunction with the φ-features, giving rise to absolute verbal inflection. Thisis shown in the tree below:
(25)

CP
C
[ForceAFF]

TP

T
Verb
[T, φ][ForceAFF]⇒
VP[Cø [Tléicid]]ø allows.PRES.3SG.ABS‘He allows’

So far in this section it has been argued that the appearance of absolute morphology in
Old Irish is conditioned in a similar way to the well-known phenomenon of Affix-Hopping in
English. Both constructions can be explained in current theoretical terms through the use of
Agree (in the English case) or feature spreading (in Old Irish) and the post-syntactic operation
Chain Reduction. In the second half of this section we turn to the second parallel between
English and Old Irish, namely in the use of do in English and no in Old Irish.
Both do in English and no in Old Irish seem to have the status of last resort elements,
used to provide a phonological realisation for a functional projection that for some reason
needs to be realised, but has no phonological realisation of its own. Neither do in English nor
no in Old Irish are associated with a single meaning or function, and both can be used in avariety of environments. Let us consider each in turn.
There are 4 main constructions in which the dummy auxiliary do appears in the T
position: namely negative clauses, emphatic clauses, VP ellipsis and VP raising, shown in theexamples in (26).

- 37 -

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 2(26) a.
b.
c.
d.

John does not know
John DOES know
John knows and Mary does too
Bob asked Mary to leave John, and leave him she did

Biberauer and Roberts (to appear) argue that in all these contexts T contains a[+affective]-feature, a type of polarity feature. Polarity is often argued to be associated with T
cross-linguistically (Laka 1990, Zanuttini 1997).21 The example in (26a) is a negative clause,
so it could be argued that T contains a negative polarity feature. In (26b) the auxiliary do isemphatic. In this case then, T could be argued to contain an emphatic-positive polarity feature.
Although the auxiliary in (26c) and (26d) is not stressed as it is in (26b), there is evidence tosuggest that in these environments, the auxiliary is still emphatic. For example, in cases of VP
ellipsis and VP raising the auxiliary cannot be phonologically reduced, so sentences such as
those in (27) are ungrammatical.
(27) a. * John has left and Mary’s toob. *She said she had left and left she’dEmphatic auxiliaries cannot be phonologically reduced. This could explain why we do notfind reduced auxiliary forms in VP ellipsis and VP raising constructions.
Clearly a [+affective]-feature on T will not always result in the insertion of do. When
there are modal or aspectual features in T then T will be realised as a modal or aspectual
auxiliary rather than do. In DM terms, this can be explained by the elsewhere principle. The
auxiliary that matches the largest number of features in T will be inserted there. So, when
there are modal or aspectual features on T, the more highly specified modal and aspectual
auxiliaries (e.g. will, can, must, is, have) match the feature specification of T more closely andare chosen in place of do. When, however, there are no aspectual or modal features in T, thendo will be inserted.
Biberauer and Roberts’ account of do-insertion works well with the account of AffixHopping provided above. When T contains a [+affective]-feature there will be a positively
valued morphosyntactic feature with which the affixal tense and φ-features can combine.
Therefore, in all the environments where we find do-insertion the tense and φ-features can berealised in T and deleted in V.22 Let us consider now whether we can account for no-insertionin Old Irish in a similar way.
The environments in which we find no in Old Irish are considerably more diverse thanthose in which we find do in English. The dummy preverb no is used with object pronouns, in
relative clauses and when the verb has a secondary tense. We saw in sections 2.3 and 3.3.1
above that suffixed pronouns are no longer productive in the Old Irish period and are used
21

Although see also Déchaine and Wiltschko (2003) who propose a parametric difference between Tand C-related PolP.
22
Biberauer and Roberts (to appear) propose a different view of Affix-Hopping.

- 38 -

Exploring the Nature of the Syntax-Phonology Interface (G. Newton)

only in restricted circumstances. When there is no available suffixed form, the dummy
preverb no is inserted and the pronoun is infixed between them as in (28). In this case no
seems to be associated with the presence of an enclitic object pronoun.
(28) a.

no-s
PVB-INF.3PL

nguid-sombeseech.PRES.3SG.CONJ-emph.part.3SG.M(Wb 25b9)‘He beseeches them’
b.

ni
NEG

hed no-t
it
PVB-INF.2SG

beir
í nem
carry.PRES.3SG.CONJ in heaven(Wb 6c9)‘It is not this that brings you into heaven’Turning to the relative clauses, we find that when there is no special relative form
available, a relative clause is marked through the use of the dummy preverb no followed byeither lenition, (29a), or nasalization, (29b).
(29) a.

is
COP

hed in so no chairigur (non-rel cairigur)
itthis PVB reprimand.PRES.1SG.CONJ(Wb 11d1)‘This is what I reprimand’b.

cid no mbetha (non-rel betha)
why PVB be.PAST.SUBJ.2SG.CONJ(Wb 4c24)‘Why (is it that) you should be?’Due to cross-linguistically observed similarities with interrogative marking, relative
marking is associated with the C position. As a result, we can assume that whenever theclause is relative, the C position will be specified with a feature [+wh]. So, in this case, noseems to be associated with a wh-feature.
The third case is that of secondary tenses. When a simple verb appears in the imperfect(30a), past subjunctive (30b) or the conditional (30c) and there is no conjunct particle, thedummy preverb no is inserted.
(30) a.

no
PVB

scarinnfriu
part.IMPF.1SG.CONJ to.3PL(Wb 24a4)‘I should part with them’b.

cia
althoughnu
PVBtiastaisgo.PAST.SUBJ.3PL.CONJ‘Although they should go from me’- 39 -

huaim
from.1SG(Ml 117d3)

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 2

c.

no
PVB

comallaibthe
fulfil.COND.PASS.SG.CONJ(Ml 105b14)‘It would be fulfilled’
In these cases, no seems to be an aspectual particle.

It seems, then, that unlike English do there is no one feature that can account for all
occurrences of no, not even a very general feature like Biberauer and Roberts’ [+affective]. It
seems, then, that Biberauer and Roberts account of do-insertion cannot be carried over to Old
Irish. There are two possible alternatives. First, it could be argued that for each different
environment in which no appears no is a different vocabulary item (VI), so in Old Irish there
are three homophonous VIs no, one that realises C [+wh], one that realises C[+objectCL] andone that realises C[+aspect]. At first sight, this seems possible, but unappealing. If weconsider the analysis in more detail, however, there seems to be a more serious problem. If
the VI for no contains feature specifications of this kind, we might expect it to behave more
like a conjunct particle; so whenever C contains an aspect or wh-feature we might expect noto be inserted. However, this does not seem to be the case. The particle no appears only when
there is no other element that could appear in the C position. This includes not only conjunctparticles, but also, as we shall see in the next section, the initial preverbs of compound verbs.
An alternative is to characterise the particle no as an elsewhere morpheme. In this case,the appearance of no is not conditioned by any one feature in particular. The VI for no has nofeature specifications, apart from the fact it can appear in C. In DM terms, no will always
compete for insertion into the C position, but will only be inserted when there are no more
highly specified VIs (i.e. conjunct particles or initial preverbs) that match the feature content
of C more closely. When C contains a negative feature, or a conjunction feature or a preverbfeature (see (31) below), the corresponding VI will be inserted. However, if none of thesefeatures are present, the elsewhere morpheme no will be inserted.
(31)[C [+negative]][C [+conjunction]][C [+preverb]]
[C]

→
→
→
→

ní
con, dian, arando, fo, as, ronoThe characterization of no as an elsewhere morpheme accounts well for the intuition that
it appears simply whenever it is needed; however, the VI for no listed above is perhaps
slightly misleading. C is not, as (31) suggests, realised as no in all clauses where there is no
conjunct particle and no initial preverb. We saw in the first half of this section that when C
contains no features other than a declarative Force feature C receives no realisation at all. Let
us consider now how these two scenarios can be reconciled.
The crucial point is that C is only realised as no when C contains an extra feature in
addition to its default features. When C contains only its default features it receives nophonological realisation. One way to account for this could be to argue that there is a specific- 40 -

Exploring the Nature of the Syntax-Phonology Interface (G. Newton)

VI, such as that given below, that is in effect more specific than the elsewhere case,specifying that when C has its default features it is realised as null.
(32)[C [Force0 Finiteness0 v0]]ø→However, this is problematic. Under the principles of Vocabulary Insertion, (Halle andMarantz 1993) the VI that matches the feature content of the terminal node most closely isinserted. When the C node is specified with an object clitic feature, it will have the feature
structure given below (assuming it is non-relative and the verb is simple):(33)[C [Force0 Finiteness0 v0 ObjectCl]]

This feature structure is more closely matched to the VI in (33) than that for no and so
we would expect ø to be inserted rather than no.
If we return to the account of Affix-Hopping and absolute inflection presented above a
new solution emerges. It was argued above that when C contains only an affixal Force feature
this feature cannot be realised due to the SAF, as the affix does not have a host. If we further
assume, however, that the SAF prevents not simply the Force feature, but the entire C headfrom receiving a phonological realisation, then we can perhaps explain the distribution of thenull C and the elsewhere particle no. When C contains only an affixal Force feature, C ismarked for deletion as it violates the SAF. Therefore, C cannot receive a phonologicalrealisation and so is simply not considered during the spell-out of the syntactic terminals at
Vocabulary Insertion. In this case, then, C is necessarily null as it does not even have theoption of being spelled-out. When C contains an extra feature, the SAF is satisfied as theaffixal Force feature has a host. Therefore, C is marked for realisation. It is considered by theoperation Vocabulary Insertion and so is realised as the elsewhere particle no. Viewed in thisway the alternation between ø and no reflects whether the C head reaches the point of SpellOut, and whether or not it is marked for deletion during the process of Chain Reduction. It
seems then that the postulation of an affixal Force feature can account not only for the
distribution of absolute and conjunct endings but also for the distribution of the particle no.
5. Conclusion
The main aim of this paper has been to show how we might begin to develop a moreminimalist theory of the interface between syntax and phonology. In order to do this we haveconsidered evidence from Old Irish. It seems that the complexities of the Old Irish verbal
system cannot be accounted for by syntax alone. A new post-syntactic account has been
proposed that uses only the conceptually motivated syntactic and post-syntactic operations ofAgree, Vocabulary Insertion and Chain Reduction. The challenge for future research is toestablish whether other syntactically complex data can be accounted for in a similar fashion.

- 41 -

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 2

References
Ackema, P. and A. Neeleman (2005). Beyond morphology: interface conditions on word formation.
Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Biberauer, T. and I. Roberts (to appear). “Subjects, tense and verb-movement in Germanic andRomance.” To appear in Proceedings of GLOW V in Asia.
Bobaljik, J. (2002). “A-chains at the PF interface: Copies and ‘covert’ movement.” Natural Language
and Linguistic Theory 20, 197–267.
Borsley, R. and A. Kathol. (2000). “Breton as a V2 language.” Linguistics 38, 665–710.
Borsley, R., M. Rivero, and J. Stephens (1996). “Long head movement in Breton.” In R. Borsley and
I. Roberts (eds.) The Syntax of the Celtic Languages. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, 53–74.
Brody, M. (1995). Lexico-logical form: a radically minimalist theory. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Cardinaletti, A. and I. Roberts (2002). “The Extended Projection Principle as a condition on the tense
dependency.” In P. Svenonius (ed.) Subjects, expletives, and the EPP. Oxford University
Press, Oxford, 125–156.
Carnie, A., H. Harley and E. Pyatt (2000). “VSO order as raising out of IP? Some evidence from Old
Irish.” In A. Carnie and E. Guilfoyle (eds.), The syntax of verb-initial languages. Oxford
University Press, New York, 39–59.
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. Mouton, The Hague.
Chomsky, N. (2000). “Minimalist inquiries: the framework.” In R. Martin, D. Michaels and J.
Uriagereka (eds.) Step by step: essays in minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik. MIT
Press, Cambridge Mass, 89–156.
Chomsky, N. (2001). “Derivation by phase.” In M. Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: a life in language.
MIT Press, Cambridge Mass, 1–52.
Chomsky, N. (2004). “Beyond explanatory adequacy.” In A. Belletti (ed.) Structures and beyond: thecartography of syntactic structures, volume 3. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 104–131.
Chomsky, N. (2005). “On phases,” unpublished manuscript, MIT.
Chomsky, N. (2006). “Approaching UG from below,” unpublished manuscript, MIT.
Chomsky, N. and M. Halle (1968). The sound pattern of English. Harper and Row, New York.
Chung, S. and J. McCloskey (1987) “Government, barriers and small clauses in Modern Irish.”
Linguistic Inquiry 18, 173–237.
Déchaine, R. and M. Wiltschko (2003). “Negation at the left periphery. Evidence from Algonquianand Salish.” In L. Carmichael, C-H. Huang and V. Samiian (eds.), Proceedings of WECOL
2001. CSU Fresno, Fresno CA 104-117.
Embick, D. and R. Noyer (2001). “Movement operations after syntax.” Linguistic Inquiry 32, 555–596.
Franks, S. (1999). “Optimality Theory and clitics at PF.” In K. Dziwirek, H. Coats and C. M.
Vakareliyska (eds.) Proceedings of Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 7. Michigan
Slavic Publications, Ann Arbor, 101–116.
Fuß, E. (2005). The rise of agreement. A formal approach to the syntax and grammaticalization ofverbal inflection. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Grohmann, K. (2000). “Towards a syntactic understanding of prosodically reduced pronouns.”
Theoretical Linguistics 26, 175–210
Halle, M. and A. Marantz (1993). “Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection.” K. Hale and
S. J. Keyser (eds.) The view from building 20. MIT Press, Cambridge MA, 111–176.
Halle, M. and A. Marantz (1994). “Some key features of Distributed Morphology.” In A. Carnie and
H. Harley (eds.) Papers on phonology and morphology, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics
21, 257–288.
Halpern, A. (1995). On the placement and morphology of clitics. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA.

- 42 -

Exploring the Nature of the Syntax-Phonology Interface (G. Newton)

Harley, H. (1994). “Deriving the Morphosyntactic Feature Hierarchy.” In A. Carnie and H. Harley(eds.) MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 21, Papers on Phonology and Morphology, 289–
320.
Harley, H. and R. Noyer (1999). “Distributed Morphology.” GLOT International 4:3–9.
Harley, H. and E. Ritter (2002). “Person and number in pronouns: A feature-geometric analysis.”
Language 78, 482–526.
Isaac, G. (2001). “The function and typology of absolute and conjunct flexion in early Celtic: Somehints from Ancient Egyptian.” Transactions of the Philological Society, 145–168.
Kayne, R. (1975). French syntax: the transformational cycle. MIT Press, Cambridge MA.
Kayne, R. (1991). “Romance clitics, verb movement and PRO.” Linguistic Inquiry 33: 409–442.
Kayne, R. (1994). The antisymmetry of syntax. MIT Press, Cambridge MA.
Koch, J. (1987). “Prosody and the Old Celtic verbal complex.” Ériu 38, 143–176.
Laka, I. (1990). Negation in syntax. On the nature of functional categories and projections. PhD
dissertation, MIT.
Landau, I. (2006). “Chain resolution in Hebrew V(P) fronting.” Syntax 9, 32–66.
Lasnik, H. (1981). “Restricting the theory of transformations: A case study.” In N. Hornstein and D.
Lightfoot (eds.) Explanations in linguistics. Longman, London.
Lasnik, Howard (1995) “Verbal morphology: syntactic structures meets the minimalist program.” In H.
Campos and P. Kempchinsky (eds.) Evolution and revolution in linguistic theory: Essays inhonor of Carlos Otero. Georgetown University Press, Washington DC, 251–275. [Reprinted
in Lasnik, H. (1999). Minimalist analysis. Blackwell, Oxford.]
McCloskey, J. (2001). “The morphosyntax of wh-extraction in Irish.” Journal of Linguistics 37: 67–
100.
McCloskey, J. (2002). “Resumption, successive cyclicity, and the locality of operations.” In S. Epsteinand D. Seely (eds.) Derivation and explanation in the minimalist program. Blackwell,
Malden MA, 184–226.
McCone, K. (1980). “The nasalizing relative clause with object antecedent in the glosses.” Ériu 31,
10–27.
McCone, K. (1997a). The Early Irish Verb. Maynooth: An Sagart.
McDaniel, D. (1989). “Partial and multiple wh-movement.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory
7, 565–604.
Newton, G. (2006). The development and loss of the Old Irish double system of verbal inflection. PhD
dissertation, University of Cambridge.
Nunes, J. (1999). “Linearization of chains and phonetic realization of chain links.” In S. Epstein and N.
Hornstein (eds.) Working minimalism. MIT Press, Cambridge MA.
Nunes, J. (2004). Linearization of chains and sideward movement. MIT Press, Cambridge MA.
Ó hUiginn, R. (1997). “Aspects of clause subordination in Celtic.” In F. Josephson (ed.) Celts andVikings: proceedings of the Fourth Symposium of Societas Celtologica Nordica. Meijerbergs
institut för svensk etymologisk forskning, Gothenburg, 69–87.
Pesetsky, D. (1997). “Optimality theory and syntax: movement and pronunciation.” In D. Archangeli
and T. Langendoen (eds.) Optimality theory: an overview. Blackwell, Malden, MA, 134–170.
Russell, P. (1995). An introduction to the Celtic languages. Longman, London.
Stephens, J. (1982). Word order in Breton. PhD dissertation, University of London.
Thurneysen, R. (1946). A Grammar of Old Irish: An Enlarged Edition with Supplement translated by
Daniel A Binchy and Osborn Bergin. Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, Dublin.
Uriagereka, Juan (1995) “Aspects of the syntax of clitic placement in Western Romance.” Linguistic
Inquiry 26, 79–123.
Wilford, E. (2005). An analysis of the Breton auxiliary system. MPhil dissertation, University ofCambridge.

- 43 -

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 2

Zanuttini, R. (1997). Negation and clausal structure: A comparative study of Romance languages.
Oxford University Press, New York.
Zwicky, A. and G. Pullum (1983). “Cliticization vs. inflection: English n’t.” Language 59, 502–513.

- 44 -