Wh-clitic-doubling and wh-Cliticisation

©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!vol!4.2,!2012,!78?103! ! !http://revistas.ojs.es/index.php/iberia!ISSN!1989?8525! ! ! Wh$clitic$doubling!and!wh$Cliticisation! ! Abdelhak!El!Hankari! [email protected]! The)University)of)Newcastle,)Australia) ! Jamal!Ouhalla! [email protected]! University)College)Dublin! DOI!to!be!assigned! ! Abstract:!This!article!explores!a!pervasive!phenomenon!in!Berber!whereby! the!extraction!of!dative!arguments!(of!verbs,!nouns!and!prepositions)!gives! rise!to!two!occurrences!of!wh.!One!is!a!wh?word!located!in!Spec,C!and!the! other!a!wh?clitic!in!the!dative!form!located!in!C!(wh?clitic?doubling).!Close! examination! reveals! that! the! wh?word!in!Spec,C!functions!as!an!operator! base?generated!in!its!scope!position!and!the!dative!wh?clitic!in!C!provides!it! with!a!derivational!link!to!the!variable!in!the!dative!position!it!binds!(wh? Cliticisation).! Wh?clitic?doubling! and! wh?Cliticisation! amount! to! direct! evidence! for! Cliticisation! as! a! derivational! interpretive! mechanism! of! Grammar!that!obviates!the!need!for!indexing!(Lebeaux!1983,!Chomsky!1986,! 1995).!They!also!provide!evidence!for!the!conclusion!in!Kayne!(1989)!that! Cliticisation!is!an!instance!of!Head?Movement,!more!precisely,!feature?based! Head?Movement.!! Keywords:!wh<clitics,) wh<clitic<doubling,) wh<Cliticisation,) wh<Movement,) operator<variable)links.! Resumen:!Este!artículo!explora! un!fenómeno! generalizado! en! bereber,!en! virtud!del!cual!la!extracción!de!argumentos!dativos!(de!verbos,!sustantivos!y! preposiciones)!produce!dos!tipos!de!palabras!qu?,!una!situada!en!la!posición! de!especificador!del!SC,!y!otra!en!la!posición!CL2!(doblado!del!clítico!qu<).! Un! examen! detallado! revela! que! la! palabra! qu?! que! se! encuentra! en! la! posición!de!especificador!del!SC!se!genera!en!la!base!de!este!sintagma!y!que! la! relación! entre! su! variable?operador! y! la! posición! del! argumento! se! establece! por! medio! de! la! cliticización! qu?! al! SC.! Esto! proporciona! sólida! evidencia!para!el!estatus!de!la!Cliticización!como!mecanismo!derivacional! interpretativo!de!la!Gramática,!algo!que!de!manera!abstracta!han!asumido! estudios!previos,!tales!como!los!de!Lebeaux!(1983)!y!Chomsky!(1986,!1995).! Proporciona,! asimismo,! evidencia! de! la! conclusión! presentada! por! Kayne! (1989)!de!que!la!Cliticización!es!un!ejemplo!de!movimiento!de!núcleo,!más! precisamente,!movimiento!de!núcleo!basado!en!los!rasgos.!! ! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!vol!4.2,!2012,!78?103! ! ! http://revistas.ojs.es/index.php/iberia!ISSN!1989?8525! 79! Abdelhak!El!Hankari!&!Jamal!Ouhalla! Palabrasclave:!doblado! de!clíticos! qu?,! clíticos! qu?,! Cliticización! qu?,! Movimiento!qu?,!indexación,!Cliticización?A’/A’.! Resumen:!Este!artigo!explora!um!fenómeno!do!bebere!que!consiste!no!facto! de!a!extração!de!argumentos!dativos!(de!verbos,!nomes!e!preposições)!gerar! dois!constituintes!wh?,!um!localizado!em!Spec,C!e!o!outro!na!posição!de!CL2! (redobro! do! clítico! wh?).! Uma! análise! mais! detalhada! mostra! que! o! constituinte! wh?! em! Spec,C! é! gerado! na! base! e! a! relação! do! operador? variável!com!a!posição!de!argumento!é!estabelecida!através!da!cliticização! de! wh?! para! C.! Desta! forma,! a! cliticização! é! tida! como! um! processo! interpretativo!derivacional!da!Gramática,!considerado!na!sua!forma!abstrata! em! trabalhos! anteriores,! como! Lebeaux! (1983)! e! Chomsky! (1986,! 1995).! É! também! sustentada! a! conclusão! de! Kayne! (1989),! segundo! o! qual! a! cliticização! é! um! exemplo! de! Movimento! Nuclear,! mais! precisamente,! Movimento.! Palavras5chave:!redobro)do)clítico)wh<,)clíticos)wh<,)Cliticização)wh<,)Movimento) wh<,)indexação,)Cliticização)A)'ʹ/)A'ʹ.! 1.!Wh$clitic$doubling! The!phenomenon!explored!in!this!article!can!be!seen!in!the!Tamazight! examples! (1a&b),! with! counterparts! across! Berber! varieties,! including! Tashelhiyt!(Radford,!Felser!and!Boxell!2012)1.!The!examples!are!wh?questions! where! the! operator?variable! link! corresponds! to! the! second! dative! argument! (indirect!object)!of!verbs!such!as!‘give!to’!and!‘read!to/for.’!Their!most!striking! property!is!that!they!include!two!occurrences!of!wh.!One!is!a!wh?word!situated! to! the! left! of! the! wh?Comp(lementiser)! a(y)! in! the! position! corresponding! to! Spec,C.!The!other!is!a!wh?clitic!in!the!dative!form!situated!to!the!right!of!the! wh?Comp!in!the!clitic?position!associated!with!C!(the!CL2/C=CL!position).!We! refer!to!this!phenomenon!as!wh?clitic?doubling2.! (1)!a.!!m?a(y)=mi!! i?uša!!lktab?!(Tamazight)! ! ! WH?COMP=WHDAT!he?gave!book! ! ! ‘To!whom!did!he!give!the!book?’!(Ouali!2006:123)! !b.!m?a=mi!! i?ġra!!tabrat?! ! ! WH?COMP=WHDAT!! he?read!!letter! ! ! ‘To/for!whom!did!he!read!the!letter?’!(Sadiqi!1997:155)! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! 1!The!Berber!example!cited!in!Radford,!Felser!and!Boxell!(2012)!is!sourced!from! Alami!(2011).! 2!We! adopt! a! broad! system! of! transcription! of! Berber! data! that! aims! at! identifying! the! underlying! forms! of! (function)! words! and! therefore! abstracts! away! from!general!and!dialect?specific!phonological!processes.!! ! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!vol!4.2,!2012,!78?103! ! ! http://revistas.ojs.es/index.php/iberia!ISSN!1989?8525! 80! Wh?clitic?doubling!and!wh?Cliticisation! The!wh?word!to!the!left!of!Comp!is!also!prosodicaly!dependent!insofar!as!the! Comp?complex!wh<Comp=whDAT!is!pronounced!as!one!prosodic!word.!However,! it!is!not!a!(syntactic)!clitic!because!syntactic!clitics!are!normally!pro?clitics!in! Berber! (Ouhalla! 1988,! 2005).! For! current! purposes,! we! will! assume! the! distinction! between! prosodic! clitics! and! syntactic! clitics! outlined! in! Klavans! (1980,! 1985)! and! subsequent! literature.! The! former! are! a! function! of! the! mapping! of! syntactic! structure! onto! prosodic! structure! and! involve! linear! adjacency.! Rightward! attachment! of! the! wh?word! in! Spec,C! to! the! wh< Comp=whDAT!!complex!s!an!instance!of!this!process.!Syntactic!clitics!are!subject!to! displacement!from!the!positions!associated!with!their!grammatical!function!and! therefore!do!not!involve!(linear)!adjacency!relative!to!their!host.!Displacement! of!the!dative!wh?clitic!=mi!to!C!is!an!instance!of!this!process,!referred!to!here!as! wh?Cliticisation! and! understood! as! an! instance! of! Clitic! Placement! in! the! transformational!sense!of!Kayne!(1975).!Syntactic!clitics!are!designated!with!the! symbol!=.! Wh?clitic?doubling!is!found!in!other!Berber!varieties,!although!it!may!be!partly! hidden! by! prosody?driven! processes! that! distort! the! underlying! form! of! the! Comp?complex.!Example!(2)!is!from!Tashelhiyt!and!involves!the!extraction!of!a! dative!argument!of!a!noun!(possessor).!The!Comp?complex!has!pretty!much!the! same!form,!with!Comp!flanked!by!two!wh?words,!the!second!of!which!is!the! dative!wh?clitic!=mi.!It!differs!in!that!the!wh?Comp!has!the!form![ad]!rather!than! [ay],!which!we!take!to!be!insignificant.!! (2)!m?a(d)=mi!! i?ḥsa!![tanddamt]?!(Tashelhiyt)! !WH?COMP=WHDAT!he?learn!!poetry! !‘Whose!poetry!does!he!know!by!heart?’!(El!Moujahid!1993:394)! A!slightly!different! situation!is!found! in!Tarifit.!As!shown!in!(3),!the!Comp? complex! has! the! form)immi,! which! appears! to! lend! itself! to! more! than! one! analysis!depending!on!how!the!morpheme!i!in!the!initial!position!is!parsed.!!! (3)!a.!i$m=mi!! i?uša!lktab?!(Tarifit)! ! ! to?WH=WHDAT!he?gave!!book! ! ! ‘To!whom!did!he!give!the!book?’! !b.!i$m=mi!! i?ġra!!tabrat?! ! ! to?WH=WHDAT!he?read!!letter! ! ! ‘To!whom!did!he!read!the!letter?! One!possibility!is!that!the!initial!i!corresponds!to!the!wh?Comp!a(y),!which!is! generally!pronounced!as![i(g)]!in!Tarifit!(Cadi!2006,!El!Hankari!2010,!Ouhalla! ! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!vol!4.2,!2012,!78?103! ! ! http://revistas.ojs.es/index.php/iberia!ISSN!1989?8525! 81! Abdelhak!El!Hankari!&!Jamal!Ouhalla! 1988).!This!would!mean!that!the!Comp?complex!has!the!form!i=mmi,!consisting! of!the!wh?Comp!i(g))and!a!prosodicaly!augmented!form!of!the!dative!wh?clitic,! but!no!wh?word!corresponding!to!Spec,C.!However,!there!are!good!reasons!to! exclude! this! parsing.! Although! null! wh?words! corresponding! to! Spec,C! are! common!in!relatives!(see!below),!this!is!not!the!case!in!wh?questions.!Moreover,! although! the! wh?word! corresponding! to! Spec,C! and! Comps! are! subject! to! variation!across!varieties!and!operator?variable!constructions!(see!below),!the! dative! wh?clitic! has! a! constant! form! and! distribution.! The! more! plausible! parsing!is!one!where!the!vowel!in!the!initial!position!is!the!dative!preposition!i! ‘to’!seen!in!the!non?extraction!contexts!(4)?(6),!including!the!one!that!involves! possessors!of!nouns!(5)!(more!on!this!below).!Accordingly,!the!Tarifit!Comp? complex!has!the!form!i<m=mi,!which!consists!of!the!dative!wh?PP)i<m)‘to?wh’! corresponding! to! Spec,C! and! the! dative! wh?clitic! =mi,! with! a! null! Comp! in! between.! (4)!uši?x!!lktab!!i?Fatima!(Tamazight)! !gave?I!!book!!to?Fatima! !‘I!gave!the!book!to!Fatima.’!(Ouali!2006:113)! (5)! i?ḥsa!![tanddamt!!i?Sidi!Ḥmmu].! (Tashelhiyt)! !he?learn!![poetry!!to?Sidi!Ḥmmu]! !‘He!knows!the!poetry!of!Sidi!Ḥmmu.’!!(El!Moujahid!1993:396)! (6)!uši?x!!lktab!!i?ufrux!(Tarifit)! !gave?I!!book!!to?boy! !‘I!gave!the!book!to!the!boy.’! It! is! possible! to! abstract! away! from! variation! across! varieties! and! assign! the! relevant!Comp?!complex!a!uniform!underlying!representation!along!the!lines!in! (7).!The!constituent!corresponding!to!Spec,C!can!be!either!a!dative!wh?PP!of!the! form! ‘to?wh’,! as! in! Tarifit,! or! a! merely! a! non?Case?marked! wh?DP,! as! in! Tamazight! and! Tashelhiyt.! The! Comp! a(y/i(g)! is! subject! to! partial! or! total! deletion,! possibly! an! effect! of! the! Doubly! Filled! Comp! Filter.! The! third! constituent!is!the!dative!wh?clitic!=mi!in!the!C=CL!position,!which!is!not!subject! to!deletion!and!has!a!constant!form!across!varieties3.! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! 3!To! the! extent! that! the! proposed! uniform! structure! of! the! Comp?complex! is! plausible,!we!hope!it!justifies!the!reporting!of!some!of!the!data!here!in!an!adapted!form,! where! adaptation! involves! the! parsing! of! the! Comp?complex! into! its! constituent! morphemes.!Comp?complexes!are!reported!in!the!literature!in!various!different!ways! that!result!in!disguising!underlying!patterns!of!the!type!sought!here.!! ! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!vol!4.2,!2012,!78?103! ! ! http://revistas.ojs.es/index.php/iberia!ISSN!1989?8525! 82! Wh?clitic?doubling!and!wh?Cliticisation! (7)! [CP!([PP!to)![C’![C!a(y)/i(g)]!=[whDAT]![TP!....! The! Doubly! Filled! Comp! Filter! effects! that! manifest! themselves! in! a! complementary!distribution!between!wh?words!in!Spec,C!and!Comps!are!more! evident!in!relatives.!The!Tamazight!example!(8)!includes!the!relative!re?Comp! da!and!the!dative!wh?clitic!=mi,!but!lacks!the!wh?word!corresponding!to!Spec,C.! On!the!other!hand,!the!Tashelhiyt!and!Tarifit!examples!(9)?(10)!lack!a!re?Comp! and!instead!include!the!wh?word!corresponding!to!Spec,C!in!addition!to!the! dative!wh?clitic!=mi.!Whether!this!variation!involves!deletion!or!null!categories! or!indicates!the!involvement!of!Head?raising!in!some!relatives!(Kayne!1994)!is! unclear!and!irrelevant!to!current!purposes.!What!is!clear!and!crucially!relevant! is!that!all!three!examples!show!the!dative!wh?clitic!=mi!in!the!C=CL!position.! (8)!argaz!![da=mi!! i?sġa!!lktab]! ! (Tamazight)! !man!!COMP=WHDAT!! he?bought!!book! !‘The!man!for!whom!he!bought!the!book.’! ! (Sadiqi!!1997:164)! (9)!afrux!![m=mi=t!!nni?x]! ! (Tashelhiyt)! !boy!!WH=WHDAT=itACC!!told?I! !‘The!boy!to!whom!I!told!it.’! ! (Dell!&!Elmedlaoui!1989:184)! (10)!argaz!![i$m=mi!! sġi?n!!lktab]! ! (Tarifit)! !man!![to?WH=WHDAT!bought?they!!book]! ! ‘The!man!for!whom!they!bought!the!book.’! The!situation!in!clefts!is!pretty!much!the!same,!bearing!in!mind!that!clefts!tend! to! share! their! Comp! and! other! properties! with! wh?questions! rather! than! relatives!(11)?(13)!(Cadi!2006,!El!Hankari!2010,!Ouali!2006,!2011,!Ouhalla!1988,! Sadiqi!1982,!1997).!Worth!singling!out!is!the!Tarifit!example!in!(13),!where!the! cleft!constituent!appears!in!the!dative!form!and!the!Comp?complex!consists!of! the! animate! wh?word! u! ‘who’! and! the! dative! wh?clitic! =mi,! presumably! separated!by!a!null!wh?Comp.!! (11)!argaz!!a=mi!!i?fa!!iqaridn.!(Tamazight)! !man!!COMP=WHDAT!he?gave!mone! !‘It!was!to!the!man!that!Hmad!gave!the!money.’! (Sadiqi!1997:216)!! (12)!rrays!ad=mi! t?fka!ijjign.! ! (Tashelhiyt)! !singer!COMP=WHDAT!she?gave!flowers! !‘It!was!to!the!singer!she!gave!flowers.’! (El!Moujahid!1993:442)! (13)!i!?rmusakin!!u=mi!!i?uša!!tmnyat.!(Tarifit)! !to!?poor!!WH=WHDAT!he?gave!money! !‘It!was!the!poor!that!Ḥmd!gave!the!money!to.’!!!(Cadi!2006:309)! It! is! our! judgement! that! the! examples! cited! so! far! already! contain! sufficient! information!to!exclude!the!possibility!that!the!dative!wh?clitic!is!a!copy!of!the! ! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!vol!4.2,!2012,!78?103! ! ! http://revistas.ojs.es/index.php/iberia!ISSN!1989?8525! 83! Abdelhak!El!Hankari!&!Jamal!Ouhalla! wh?word!in!Spec,C.!This!possibility!arises!in!the!context!of!the!Copy!Theory!of! Movement,! whereby! the! extraction! of! arguments! from! within! vP! operates! through! the! left?edge! of! vP,! where! it! leaves! a! copy! that! normally! deletes! (Chomsky! 1995).! According! to! this! scenario,! the! dative! wh?clitic! may! be! the! copy!left!on!the!edge!of!vP!by!wh?Movement!of!the!wh?word!in!Spec,C.!The! copy!does!not!delete!and!instead!cliticises!to!C!for!some!reason.!The!two!wh? constituents!in!wh?clitic?doubling!are!not!exact!copies!of!each!other!as!can!be! seen!in!many!examples!above.!The!differences!include!the!fact!that!while!the! dative!wh?clitic!is!invariably!in!the!dative!form!across!varieties,!the!wh?word!in! Spec,C!shows!a!dative!marker!in!Tarifit,!but!not!in!Tamazight!and!Tashelhiyt.! They!also! include!the! fact!that! the!wh?word!in!Spec,C!shows!in!an!animacy! effect!in!Tarifit!but!the!dative!wh?clitic!does!not.!Moreover,!it!is!unclear!if!and! how!Cliticisation!of!the!copy!to!C!is!a!substitute!for!deletion,!particularly!in! view!of!the!fact!it!brings!the!copy!closer!to!the!antecedent!in!Spec,C.!Rather,! dative!wh?clitic?doubling!shows!the!significant!role!of!wh?Cliticisation!to!C!in! syntactic!derivation!relative!to!wh?Movement!to!Spec,C!and!its!preponderance! in!Berber!is!a!reflection!of!the!fact!that!the!language!relies!on!wh?Cliticisation!(=! Linking)!rather!than!wh?Movement!for!extraction.!This!will!become!clearer!as! more!data!are!examined4.!! 2.!Wh$clitic$doubling! It! is! tempting! to! treat! dative! wh?clitic?doubling! as! an! instance! of! the! more! general! phenomenon! of! dative! clitic?doubling,! available! across! Berber! varieties!(Cadi!2006).!Doubling!by!the!dative!pronominal!clitic!can!be!seen!in! (14)?(15).! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! 4!Wh?clitic! doubling! is! partly! reminiscent! of! the! distribution! of! wh?words! in! multiple!wh?questions!in!some!Slavic! languages,! where! one! wh?word!is!situated!in! Spec,C! and! the! others! in! the! CL2! position! associated! with! C! (Boškovič! 2001,! 2002).! However,!Berber!wh?clitic?doubling!differs!in!that!it!involves!two!occurrences!of!the! same!wh?word.!As!such,!it!is!more!reminiscent!of!partial!wh?Movement!(Horvath!1997,! Fanselow! 2006,! Mc! Daniel! 1989).! Here! again,! while! partial! wh?Movement! is! characteristic! of! long?distance! extraction,! wh?clitic?doubling! is! characteristic! of! local! extraction.!Long?distance!extraction!generally!makes!use!of!the!resumptive!strategy!in! Berber!varieties!such!as!Tamazight!and!Tashelhiyt!(Boukrhis!1998,!El!Moujahid!1993).! ! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!vol!4.2,!2012,!78?103! ! ! http://revistas.ojs.es/index.php/iberia!ISSN!1989?8525! 84! Wh?clitic?doubling!and!wh?Cliticisation! (14)!uši?x=as!! lktab!!i?Fatima! ! (Tamazight)! !gave?I=herDAT!!book!!to?Fatima! !‘I!gave!the!book!to!Fatima.’! ! (Ouali!2006:112)! ! (15)!ur(d)=as!! uši?x!!lktab!!i?Fatima! ! (Tarifit)! !NEG=herDAT!!gave?I!!book!!to?Fatima! !‘I!did!not!give!the!book!to!Fatima’.! In!view!of!the!general!availability!of!dative!clitic?doubling!in!the!language,!it!is! conceivable! that! dative! wh?clitic?doubling! is! merely! a! manifestation! of! this! more!general!phenomenon.!The!fact!that!the!doubling!clitic!is!of!the!wh?type!in! operator?variable!constructions!would!follow!from!an!Agree?based!analysis!of! clitic?doubling! of! the! kind! outlined! in! Ouali! (2006,! 2011).! When! the! dative! complement! is! not! a! wh?phrase,! it! is! doubled! by! a! pronominal! dative! clitic! (pron?clitic?doubling),!and!when!it!is!a!wh?phrase,!it!is!doubled!by!a!wh?clitic! (wh?clitic?doubling).! Arguably,! this! analysis! would! also! correctly! rule! out! doubling! of! a! dative! wh?phrase! by! a! dative! pronominal! clitic! in! relevant! varieties!such!as!Tamazight!(16).!These!examples!were!previously!considered!in! the! context! of! resumption! reduced! to! binding! (Ouhalla! 1993),! but! they! can! equally!conceivably!be!considered!as!instances!of!a!mismatch!in!a!chain?link! (Ouali!2006,!2011).!! (16)! m?a=mi!! (*=as)!! i?uša!!lktab?!(Tamazight)! !WH?COMP=WH!! (*=herDAT)!!he?gave!!book! !‘Who!did!he!give!the!book!to?’!(Ouali!2006:123)! However,!there!are!at!least!three!major!differences!between!the!two!types!of! dative!clitic?doubling.!One!is!that!while!both!constituents!are!in!the!dative!form! in!pron?clitic?doubling,!only!the!wh?clitic!is!consistently!in!the!dative!form!in! wh?clitic?doubling!in!Tamazight!and!Tashelhiyt.!The!second!difference!is!that! dative!pron?clitic?doubling!is!optional!in!the!sense!that!the!relevant!sentences! can!feature!either!of!the!two!dative!constituents!in!isolation!and!the!presence!of! the!dative!PP!does!not!necessarily!require!the!presence!of!a!dative!pronominal! clitic!(17a&b)!(Boukhris!1998,!Cadi!2006).!In!contrast,!dative!wh?clitic?doubling! is!obligatory!in!the!sense!that!the!presence!of!both!wh?constituents!is!required,! bearing!in!mind!that!relatives!have!a!null!wh?word!in!Spec,C.!! (17)!a.!ur!!uši?x!!lktab!!i!?ufrux.!(Tarifit)! ! ! NEG!! gave?I!!book!!to!?boy! ! ! ‘I!did!not!give!the!book!to!the!boy.’! !b.!ur(d)=as!! uši?x!!lktab.! ! ! ! ! NEG=himDAT!! gave?I!!book! ! ! ‘I!did!not!give!him!the!book.’! ! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!vol!4.2,!2012,!78?103! ! ! http://revistas.ojs.es/index.php/iberia!ISSN!1989?8525! 85! Abdelhak!El!Hankari!&!Jamal!Ouhalla! The!third!difference!is!more!subtle!and!involves!the!clitic!position!targeted!by! pronominal! clitics,! including! the! dative! one,! compared! to! the! clitic! position! targeted!by!the!wh?clitic.!A!useful!way!of!explaining!this!difference!is!to!invoke! a!debate!in!the!literature!on!Berber!as!to!whether!clitics!and!Cliticisation!target!a! high! position! in! the! C?domain! (Ouhalla! 1988)! or! a! lower! position! in! the! T? domain!(Boukhris!1998,!Sadiqi!1992).!The!latter!view!is!based!on,!among!other! things,!the!rather!straightforward!fact!that!in!sentences!that!include!functional! heads!of!the!T?domain!such!as!Tense!and!sentence!Negation,!clitics!appear!to! the! right! of! these! functional! heads,! as! shown! in! (18a?b).! The! fact! that! clitics! appear!attached!to!a!Comp!element!in!sentences!that!do!not!include!intervening! functional! heads! in! the! T?domain! such! as! (18c)! is! merely! a! (misleading)! prosodic! effect! whereby! the! clitic! seeks! an! adjacent! prosodic! host! to! its! left.! These!contexts!mask!the!fact!that!Cliticisation!targets!a!lower!position!in!the!T? domain!rather!than!a!higher!position!in!the!C?domain.! (18)!a.!is!ur!!dad=tn!! clu?x?!(Tamazight)! ! ! Q!NEG!! FUTURE=themACC!!see?I! ! ! ‘Will!I!not!see!them?! !b.!is!ur!!lli=tn!! ucu?x?! ! ! Q!NEG!! PART=themACC!!see?I! ! ! ‘Will!I!not!see!them!often?’! ! ! !c.!is=tn!! cli?x?! ! ! Q=themACC!saw?I! ! ! ‘Did!I!see!them?’!(Boukhris!1998:318)! El! Hankari! (2012)! undertakes! an! evaluation! of! both! views! and! reaches! the! conclusion! that! they! are! both! correct,! but! for! different! sets! of! data.! We! will! adopt! this! conclusion! here,! though! from! a! different! angle.! We! make! a! distinction!between!two!types!of!clitics!and!Cliticisation.!One!type!targets!the!T? domain,!and!mostly!involves!clitics!linked!to!argument!positions!within!VP!but! not! to! an! operator! in! the! C?domain.! Typical! examples! of! this! type! are! the! pronominal!clitics!in!(17b)!and!(18a?c).!The!other!type!targets!the!C?domain!and! involves!clitics!linked!to!an!operator!in!Spec,C.!The!most!notable!example!of! this!type!is!the!dative!wh?clitic,!although!there!are!others!discussed!below.!As! shown!in!(19),!the!dative!wh?clitic!appears!to!the!left!of!functional!heads!such!as! sentence!Negation!and!Tense,!suggesting!that!it!targets!the!C?domain!directly! skipping!over!all!intervening!heads!in!the!T?domain.!!! ! ! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!vol!4.2,!2012,!78?103! ! ! http://revistas.ojs.es/index.php/iberia!ISSN!1989?8525! 86! Wh?clitic?doubling!and!wh?Cliticisation! (19)!argaz!![da=mi!! ur!!mad!! !f?x!!iqaridn]!(Tamazight)! !man!! [COMP=whDAT!!NEG!!FUTURE!give?I!!money! !‘The!man!to!whom!I!will!give!money.’! (Sadiqi!1997:165)! We!conclude!from!the!noted!differences!that!dative!wh?clitic?doubling!is!not! reducible!to!dative!clitic?doubling!in!general,!while!not!excluding!the!possibility! that!there!may!be!a!significant!link!between!the!two!instances!of!dative!clitic? doubling.!We!will!not!pursue!this!line!here!as!the!focus!is!mainly!on!wh?clitic? doubling!and!operator?variable!constructions.!! In! view! of! the! proposed! classification! of! clitics! and! Cliticisation,! the! question! whether! Cliticisation! is! an! instance! of! XP?Movement! or! Head? Movement!(Kayne!1989)!arises!in!an!arguably!stronger!way.!The!possibility!that! Cliticisation! involves! a! combination! of! XP?Movement! followed! by! Head? Movement!is!conceivable!on!the!view!that!clitics!are!heads!that!do!not!take!a! complement! (i.e.! they! are! both! heads! and! XPs).! A! version! of! this! mixed! derivational! scenario! is! applied! to! Berber! in! Boukhris! (1998),! whereby! pronominal!clitics!move!as!XPs!to!the!edge!of!vP!and!subsequently!attach!to!the! nearest! functional! head! to! their! left,! yielding! the! pattern! seen! in! (18a?c).! Extended! to! wh?clitics,! the! analysis! could! be! understood! to! mean! that! they! target!the!edge!of!TP!and!subsequently!attach!to!the!nearest!constituent!to!their! left,!yielding!the!pattern!seen!in!(19).!According!to!this!analysis,!sketched!in! (20a&b),!the!first!leg!of!Clitic!Placement!in!(20b)!might!as!well!as!be!an!instance! of!wh?Movement,!in!which!case!it!would!remain!unclear!why!it!does!not!target! Spec,C!instead.!Stipulating!that!Spec,C!is!already!filled!with!the!other!wh?word! would!amount!to!circular!argumentation!that!fails!to!explain!the!essence!of!wh? clitic?doubling.!! (20)!a.! [CP!C![TP!Neg/T![vP!=[pron]![vP!v![[VP!...!=[pron]!...! !b.! [CP![wh]![C’!C![TP!=[whDAT]![TP!Neg/T![vP!v![[VP!...!=[whDAT]!...! The!facts!discussed!here!are!consistent!with!the!view!in!Kayne!(1989)!that!clitics! move!as!heads!and!target!head!positions!in!the!T?domain!and!C?domain.!At!the! same!time,!the!fact!that!the!wh?clitic!targets!the!C?domain!directly,!skipping! over!functional!heads!in!the!T?domain,!clearly!indicates!that!Cliticisation!is!not! subject! to! the! Head! Movement! Constraint! (HMC).! This! would! follow! if! Cliticisation! =! Head?Movement! were! feature?based! and! therefore! discriminatory! with! respect! to! the! head! positions! it! targets.! Presumably,! the! ability!of!the!wh?clitic!to!target!the!C?domain!directly!is!a!function!of!the!wh? ! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!vol!4.2,!2012,!78?103! ! ! http://revistas.ojs.es/index.php/iberia!ISSN!1989?8525! 93! Abdelhak!El!Hankari!&!Jamal!Ouhalla! seemingly!bare!P!has!the!form!P[wh]!and!its!Cliticisation!to!C!is!an!instance!of! wh?Cliticisation.!! (37)! [CP![wh]![C’![C]=[P!with[whDAT]![TP!...![VP!sit![PP!with![DP=[whDAT]]!...! The!analysis!outlined!in!(34)!and!(37)!is!consistent!with!and!provides!additional! evidence!to!the!conclusion!here!that!the!Berber!relies!on!wh?Cliticisation!to!C! rather!than!wh?Movement!to!Spec,C!in!extraction.!To!the!extent!that!PP?pied? piping!of!the!type!found!in!English!(e.g.!With)whom)did)she)sit?)!is!an!instance!of! wh?Movement! to! Spec,C,! this! also! explains! its! absence! in! Berber.! The! conclusion! is! also! reflected! in! the! internal! structure! of! some! wh?phrases! traditionally!thought!to!be!listed!items,!which!on!closer!inspection!turn!out!to! include!an!occurrence!of!a!P[wh]?Clitic.!The!pattern!that!involves!a!wh?PP?clitic! can!be!found!in!Tarifit!mrmi!‘when’!seen!in!(38a),!which!includes!an!instance!of! the! locative! temporal! preposition! ar! ‘at/in’! seen! in! (38b).! This! preposition! is! situated! in! a! Comp?complex! of! the! form! wh<Comp<whDAT! familiar! from! independent!contexts!that!involve!extraction!of!the!object!of!a!preposition!such! as!(32a&b).!Accordingly,!Tarifit!mrmi!‘when’!and!the!wh?questions!that!include! it!such!as!(37a)!have!the!structure!and!derivation!shown!in!(34),!where!mrmi! ‘when’! is! assembled,! derived! in! the! C?domain! and! the! temporal! meaning! reduces!to!something!like!‘at[time]!what.’!! (38)!a.!Q.!!m=[r=mi]! t?kka!zg?idas?!(Tarifit)! ! ! WH?COMP=[at=WH]! she?wake!from?sleep! ! ! ‘When!did!she!wake!up?’! !b.!A.!ar?!uʕšši/sbah/xmsa.! ! ! in/at!afternoon/morning/five!!o’clock! On!the!other!hand,!the!pattern!that!involves!a!bare!P!can!be!found!in!the!Tarifit! wh?word! mixf! and! arguably! also! maġa,! both! of! which! used! to! convey! the! meaning!‘why’!(39a).!For!example,)mixf!clearly!incorporates!the!preposition)x(f)) ‘on/about’!seen!in!(39b)!in!addition!to!the!wh?Comp!i!and!the!wh?word!m!in!the! initial! position.! The! Comp?complex! wh<Comp=P! is! the! one! familiar! from! independent! contexts! that! involve! extraction! of! the! object! of! a! preposition! shown!in!(35)?(36a&b)!with!the!derivation!shown!in!(37).!The!meaning!‘why’!is! ! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!vol!4.2,!2012,!78?103! ! ! http://revistas.ojs.es/index.php/iberia!ISSN!1989?8525! 94! Wh?clitic?doubling!and!wh?Cliticisation! compositionally!derived!from!the!complex!‘what!on/about?’!and!possibly!‘what! for’!for!maġa7.! (39)!a.!m$i=xf!!tmnaqar?n?!(Tarifit)! ! ! WH?COMP=on!argue?they! ! ! ‘Why!are!they!arguing?’! ! ! ‘What!are!they!arguing!about?’! !b.!tmanaqar?n!! x?tinʕašin.! ! ! argued?they! !on?money! !‘They!are!arguing!about!money.’! 5.!Dative!arguments!of!nouns!(possessors)! As!indicated!above,!wh?clitic?doubling!is!found!in!contexts!that!involve! the!extraction!of!a!dative!argument!of!a!noun!(El!Moujahid!1993).!The!relevant! Tashelhiyt!example!is!repeated!in!(40).! (40)!m$a=mi! i?ḥsa!![tanddamt]?!(Tashelhiyt)! !WH?COMP=WHDAT!he?learned![poetry]! !‘Whose!poetry!does!he!know!by!heart?’!(El!Moujahid!1993:394)! In!his!discussion!of!this!context,!El!Moujahid!(1993)!points!out!that!possessors! can!appear!either!in!the!dative!form!or!the!genitive!form,!as!shown!in!(41a?b),! but! only! the! dative! form! can! be! extracted.! This! is! arguably! more! evident! in! focus?constructions!such!as!(42a?b).!!In!view!of!the!fact!that!Berber!makes!use!of! wh?Cliticisation!for!extraction,!the!inability!of!the!genitive!form!of!possessors!to! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! 7Carrying! the! deconstructionist! approach! to! Berber! wh?words! to! what! may! appear!to!be!an!absurd!level,!Tarifit!min!‘who,!what’!appears!analysable!into!the!wh? word! m,! the! wh?Comp! i!and! the! semantically! vacuous! genitive! preposition! n) ‘of’! arranged! in! the! familiar! pattern! wh<Comp=P.! This! implies! that! the! derivation! of! sentences! such! as! (i),! which! involve! extraction! of! a! direct! object,! includes! wh? Cliticisation! of! genitive! P[wh]! to! C,! with! the! wh?word! in! the! initial! position! base? generated!in!Spec,C.!If!this!reasoning!is!on!the!right!track,!the!only!context!left!where! wh?Movement!might!apply!is!the!one!that!involves!subject?extraction!(ii).!However,! although! the! Comp?complex! in! local! subject?extraction! contexts! does! not! show! an! occurrence!of!P[wh],!it!is!known!to!trigger!anti?agreement,!the!implications!of!which! are!yet!to!be!fully!understood!(El!Hankari!2010,!Ouali!2006,!2011,!Ouhalla!1993,!2005).!! (i)! m?i=n!!t?zra?! ! (Tarifit)! !WH?COMP=of!she?saw! !‘Who/what!did!she!see?’!! (ii)! u?ig!! i?qqim?n!!diha?! !WH?COMP!he/it?sit?PTCP!!there! !‘Who!is!sitting!there?’! ! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!vol!4.2,!2012,!78?103! ! ! http://revistas.ojs.es/index.php/iberia!ISSN!1989?8525! 95! Abdelhak!El!Hankari!&!Jamal!Ouhalla! extract!can!reasonably!be!thought!of!as!a!function!of!the!fact!that!the!language! lacks! genitive! clitics! (of! the! Romance! type).! The! exclusive! reliance! on! wh? Cliticisation!for!extraction!also!accounts!for!the!absence!of!the!DP?pied?piping! strategy!used!by!various!languages!for!the!extraction!of!possessors,!including! English!(e.g.!Whose)poetry)does)Brahim)know)by)hear?)!on!the!reasonable!view!that! pied?piping!is!an!instance!of!wh?Movement.!! (41)!!a.! i?ḥsa!!![tanddamt!!i?Sidi!Ḥmmu].!(Tashelhiyt)! ! ! he?learned![poetry!!to?Sidi!Ḥmmu]! ! ! ‘He!knows!Sidi!Ḥmmu’s!poetry!by!heart.’! !b.!!i?ḥsa!!! [tanddamt!!n?Sidi!Ḥmmu].! ! ! ! he?learned!![poetry!!of?Sidi!Ḥmmu]! ! ! ‘He!knows!Sidi!Ḥmmu’s!poetry!by!heart.’!(El!Moujahid!1993:395?6)! (42)!a.!i$Sidi!Ḥmmu!! a(d)!! i?ḥsa![tanddamt].!(Tashelhiyt)! ! ! to?Sidi!Ḥmmu!COMP!!he?learn!![poetry]! ! ! ‘It!is!Sidi!Ḥmmu’s!poetry!he!knows!by!heart.’! !b.! *n$Sidi!Ḥmmu!a(d)!! i?ḥsa!!![tanddamt].! ! ! Of?Sidi!!Ḥmmu!COMP!!he?learn!![poetry]! ! ! ‘It’s!Sidi!Ḥmmu’s!poetry!he!knows!by!heart.’!!(El!Moujahid!1993:398?9)! Example!(40)!has!the!structure!and!derivation!shown!in!(43),!where!the!dative! wh?clitic!undergoes!wh?Cliticisation!from!the!possessor!position!inside!DP!to!C! though!D!(the!escape!hatch!out!of!DP).!Wh?Cliticisation!through!D!is!consistent! with!the!fact!that!Berber!lacks!definite!articles,!although!the!question!whether! wh?Cliticisation!out!of!DP!operates!through!D!needs!closer!examination!than! we!are!able!to!offer!here.!! (43)! [CP![!wh]![C’!C=[whDAT]![TP!...![VP!learn![DP!=[whDAT]![NP!poetry!=[whDAT]...!! Sadiqi!(1997:166?7)!discusses!another!possession!context!that!gives!rise!to!wh? clitic?doubling,!shown!in!(44).!This!context!differs!in!that!it!involves!possessors! of!inalienable!nouns!such!as!‘man’!=!‘husband.’!The!Tarifit!equivalent!is!given! in!(45a)!along!with!an!example!that!includes!a!body?part!noun!(45b).!! (44)!tamṭut!![da=mi!! i?mmut!!wargaz]!(Tamazight)! !woman!! [COMP=WHDAT!!he?died!!man! ! ‘The!woman!whose!husband!died.’! (Sadiqi!1997:166)! (45)!a.!tamṭut!! [i$m=mi!! i?mmut!!wargaz]!!(Tarifit)! ! ! woman![to?WH=WHDAT!! he?died!!husband! ! ! ‘The!woman!whose!husband!died.’! !b.!i$m=mi!! qss?n!!azakuk?! ! ! to?WH=WHDAT!! cut?they!!hair! ! ! ‘Whose!hair!did!they!cut?’! ! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!vol!4.2,!2012,!78?103! ! ! http://revistas.ojs.es/index.php/iberia!ISSN!1989?8525! 96! Wh?clitic?doubling!and!wh?Cliticisation! The!additional!examples!in!(46a&b)!show!the!possessor!of!the!inalienable!noun! in!the!form!of!a!pronominal!clitic!located!in!the!T?domain.!These!are!arguably! the!equivalent!of!French!examples!such!as!Le)médecin)leur)a)examiné)la)gorge!for! which! Vergnaud! and! Zubizarreta! (1992)! propose! a! representational! analysis! that! exploits! a! (predication)! binding! relation! between! the! pronominal! dative! clitic,!treated!as!an!external!possessor,!and!the!inalienable!object.!In!view!of!the! broader! context! here,! we! will! pursue! a! derivational! account! for! the! link! between!the!possessor!clitic!and!the!inalienable!object.!! !(46)!a.!ur(d)=as!! i?mmut!!wargaz.!(Tarifit)! ! ! ! ! NEG=herDAT!! he?died!!husband! ! ! ‘Her!husband!did!not!die.’! !b.!ur(d)=as!! qss?n!!azakuk.! ! ! NEG=him!DAT!! cut?they!!hair! ! ! ‘They!did!not!cut!his!hair.’! Focusing!on!the!contexts!that!involve!the!extraction!of!the!possessor,!example! (44)?(45a&b)!have!the!derivation!shown!in!(47).! (47)! [CP![wh]![C’!C=[whDAT]![TP!...![VP!died![DP!=[whDAT]![NP!husband![DP!=[whDAT]]]...! A!useful!aspect!of!this!context!is!that!it!can!be!used!to!test!if!wh?Cliticisation!is! subject!to!constraints!characteristic!of!syntactic!movement,!in!particular!those! that!fall!under!the!heading!of!subject?object!asymmetries.!The!outcome!turns! out!to!be!familiar!from!Romance!Cliticisation,!in!particular!ne?Cliticisation!in! Italian! (Burzio! 1986).! Wh?Cliticisation! of! a! possessor! can! operate! out! of! arguments! of! unaccusative! verbs! such! as! ‘die’! in! (44)! and! (45a)! and! direct! objects! of! transitive! verbs! such! as! ‘cut’! in! (45b),! but! not! out! of! subjects! of! transitive!verbs!such!as!‘catch/arrest’!in!(48).!The!latter!example!is!fine!under! the!irrelevant!benefactive!reading!‘the!woman!for!whom!the!man!caught!the! thief’! bearing! in! mind! that! argaz! is! ambiguous! between! the! non?inalienable! meaning! ‘man’! and! the! inalienable! meaning! ‘husband’! and! that! benefactive! arguments!in!general!are!in!the!dative!form!and!therefore!feed!wh?Cliticisation.! (48)!tamṭṭut![i$m=mi!! i?ṭṭf!!wargaz!!axwwan]!(Tarifit)! !woman![to?WH=WHDAT!! he?caught!!husband!!thief]! !*‘The!woman!whose!husband!caught!the!thief.’! !‘The!woman!for!whom!the!man!caught!the!thief.’! ! ! ! ! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!vol!4.2,!2012,!78?103! ! ! http://revistas.ojs.es/index.php/iberia!ISSN!1989?8525! 97! Abdelhak!El!Hankari!&!Jamal!Ouhalla! 6.!Single!dative!objects!of!verbs!and!objects!of!locative!prepositions! We!saw!above!that!wh?clitic?doubling!is!found!in!contexts!that!involve! the!extraction!of!the!second!dative!argument!of!verbs!such!as!‘read!for’,!‘give!to’! and!so!on.!Berber!has!a!class!of!verbs!that!take!a!single!argument!in!the!dative! form,!the! extraction!of! which!also! gives!rise! to!wh?clitic?doubling.! This!class! includes!ġrs)‘slaughter’,!qqs!‘sting’,!qqd!‘burn’!(Guerssel!1986),!llf!‘divorce,’!ġms! ‘cover’!(El!Hankari!2010,!Ouhalla!1988)!and!others!with!various!idiosyncratic! (and!equally!gruesome)!meanings!(see!below).!As!shown!in!the!Tarifit!examples! (49a?d),! with! counterparts! across! Berber! varieties,! the! single! object! of! these! verbs!appears!in!the!dative!form,!its!corresponding!pronominal!clitic!takes!the! dative! form,! and! its! extraction! gives! rise! to! wh?clitic?doubling.! Close! examination! of! this! particular! context! reveals! that! it! is! reducible! to! the! inalienable!possession!context.! (49)!a.! i?ġrs!! i?tġaṭ.! (Tarifit)! ! ! he?slaughtered!!to?goat! ! ! ‘He!slaughtered!the!goat.’! !b.!ad=as!!! i!ġars.! ! ! FUTURE=itDAT!! he?slaughter! ! ! ‘He!will!slaughter!it.’! !c.!tġaṭ!! [i$m=mi!! i?ġars]! ! ! goat!![to?WH=WHDAT!! he?slaughtered! ! ! ‘The!goat!he!slaughtered.’! !d.!i$m=mi!! i?ġrs?! ! ! to?WH=WHDAT!!he?slaughtered! ! ! ‘What!did!he!slaughter?’!! In!his!study!of!the!lexical!conceptual!structures!of!various!classes!of!verbs!in! Berber,!Guerssel!(1986)!points!out!in!connection!to!the!verbs!that!take!a!single! object!in!the!dative!form!that!they!have!more!complex!and!precise!meanings! than!can!be!rendered!with!English!translations.!For!example,!ġrs!‘slaughter’!has! the!more!precise!meaning!‘kill!by!cutting!throat,’!which!Guerssel!suggests!has! the!lexical!conceptual!structure!repeated!in!(50).!A!close!look!at!this!structure! reveals!that!what!superficially!appears!as!a!dative!object!of!the!verb!actually! corresponds! to! the! possessor! argument! of! the! understood! body?part! noun! THROAT!(e.g.!‘cut![[throat]!to?goat]]’!in!(49a)).! (50)!LCS)ġrs:![x!CUT!THROAT!y]!(Guerssel!1986:45)! Guerssel!(1986:45?46)!illustrates!this!point!further!with!an!additional!member!of! the!class,!namely!mrz!‘wound!someone!in!the!head.’!Perhaps!a!more!accurate! ! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!vol!4.2,!2012,!78?103! ! ! http://revistas.ojs.es/index.php/iberia!ISSN!1989?8525! 98! Wh?clitic?doubling!and!wh?Cliticisation! rendition! of! the! meaning! of! mrz) is! ‘wound! x’s! HEAD,’! where! the! body?part! noun!is!HEAD!and!the!human!victim!of!wounding!is!the!possessor!of!HEAD.! This!suggests!the!lexical!representation!roughly!shown!in!(51)!modelled!on!the! one!in!(50),!which!includes!the!understood!body?part!noun!HEAD8.!!! (51)!LCS!mrz:![x!WOUND!HEAD!y]]!!! According!to!the!analysis!outlined!in!Guerssel!(1986),!the!body?part!component! is!lexically!incorporated!into!the!verb!and!consequently!does!not!project!as!a! syntactic!constituent.!A!plausible!slight!variation!on!this!analysis!could!exploit! the!mounting!evidence!for!the!presence!in!syntactic!structures!of!silent!nouns! (Kayne!2005).!!According!to!this!analysis,!the!verbs!that!take!a!single!dative! object!project!vPs!of!the!form!shown!in!(52),!where!the!object!includes!a!silent! (body?part)!noun!that!selects!the!‘dative!object’!as!a!possessor!argument9.!! (52)!...![vP!x![VP![V!WOUND]![DP!D![NP![N!HEAD]![y]DAT]]]...! Given!(52),!the!context!with!verbs!that!select!a!single!object!in!the!dative!form! turns!out!to!be!a!possession!context!on!a!par!with!the!others!discussed!above.! Focusing!on!the!examples!that!involve!the!extraction!of!the!dative!object!such!as! the!wh?question!(49d),!they!have!the!structure!and!derivation!shown!in!(53).!! (53)! [CP![wh]![C’!C=[whDAT]![TP!T![vP!v![VP!CUT![DP!=[whDAT]![NP![N!THROAT]!=[whDAT]]]...! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! 8!Other!instances!of!this!class!such!as!qqs!‘sting’,!qqd!‘burn’!and!ġms!‘cover’!may! involve!the!body?part!noun!BODY.!This!is!indicated!by!the!fact!that!qqd!has!the!precise! meaning!of!‘touching!someone’s!body!with!a!hot!object!such!as!a!needle,’!a!method! used!in!traditional!healing.!! 9!Guerssel’s! (1986)! analysis,! which! assumes! lexical! incorporation! of! an! inalienable!noun!into!the!verb,!is!more!suitable!for!other!instances!of!such!verbs!such! as! Tarifit! sfunzar,! which! has! the! meaning! ‘wound! someone! in! the! nose’! or,! more! accurately,! ‘cause! someone’s! nose! to! bleed.’! The! verb! clearly! incorporates! the! noun! anzar!‘nose’! in! addition! to! the! causative! prefix! s<!and! the! morpheme! f(u)<!the! exact! identity!of!which!is!unclear.!The!verb!can!be!said!to!project!the!vP!shown!in!(i),!which! differs!in!that!the!body?part!noun! is!overt!rather!than!silent.!The! dative!object!is!a! possessor!of!the!body?part!noun.!The!verb!mrz!too!is!likely!to!have!the!more!precise! meaning!‘x!CAUSE![BLEED![HEAD![y]DAT]],’!where!the!CAUSE!component!is!abstract! on!a!par!with!equally!causative!verbs!with!an!abstract!CAUSE!such!as!arz!‘break,’!qqn! ‘close,’)arzm!‘open’!(Guerssel!1986).!!! (i)!...![vP!x!CAUSE![VP![V!BLEED]![DP!D![NP![N!NOSE]![y]DAT]]]...! ! ! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!vol!4.2,!2012,!78?103! ! ! http://revistas.ojs.es/index.php/iberia!ISSN!1989?8525! 99! Abdelhak!El!Hankari!&!Jamal!Ouhalla! Another! wh?clitic?doubling! context! that,! on! closer! inspection,! turns! out! to! involve!hidden!inalienable!possession!involves!objects!of!locative!prepositions! such! as! the! one! in! the! Tarifit! example! (54).! The! latter! is! modelled! on! the! Tashelhiyt!example!repeated!in!(55),!reported!in!Dell!&!Elmedlaoui!(1989)!to! require!a!resumptive!pronoun!in!the!object!position!of!the!locative!preposition.!! (54)!urthu! i?m=mi! i?ṭ?ṭṭas!swadday!(Tarifit)! !fig.tree!to?WH=WHDAT!he?sleeps!under! !‘The!fig!tree!he!sleeps!under.’! (55)!aswik!! ![m=mi!! i?ggan!!ddaqay?s]!!(Tashelhiyt)! !walnut![WH=WHDAT!!he?sleeps!!under?itDAT]! !‘The!walnut!tree!he!sleeps!under.’!! The!background!of!Dell!&!Elmedlaoui’s!description!is!the!fact,!discussed!above,! that!prepositions!the!object!of!which!is!extracted!normally!cliticise!to!C!rather! than!take!a!resumptive!pronoun.!In!view!of!this,!the!preposition!in!(55)!and! similar!locative!ones!appear!to!be!exceptions!to!this!general!pattern.!However,! Guerssel!(1987)!discusses!numerous!properties!of!these!locative!prepositions!in! Tamazight!which!show!that!they!are!nouns!rather!than!prepositions.!Ouhalla! (1988:216?219)! shows! further! that! their! Tarifit! versions,! repeated! in! (56a?d),! include! a! morpheme! in! the! initial! position! that! corresponds! to! a! light! directional?locative! preposition! with! the! meaning! ‘by’! seen! in! independent! contexts!such!as!(57a?b).!! (56)!!a.! s?wadday!‘under’!(Tarifit)! !b.! s?daraʕ!‘over/above’! !c.! s?dixr!‘inside’! !d.! z?dat!‘in!front!of’! (57)!a.! i?kka!!ss?a/ss?iha.!! ! ! ! ! ! ! he?passed!by?here/by?there! ! ! ‘He!passed!by!here/there.’! !b.! i?ffġ!!s?uzir.! ! ! he?left!!by?noon/day! ! ! ‘He!left!by!noon/day.’! In!view!of!the!fact!that!the!items!in!question!are!all!locative,!the!combination!of! the!properties!mentioned!points!to!a!structure!in!line!with!more!recent!findings! about! locative! prepositions! across! languages! (see! contributions! to! Cinque! &! Rizzi!2010).!The!structure!is!shown!in!(58)!and!takes!the!form!of!a!PP!headed!by! the!locative?directional!preposition!‘by’!that!takes!a!DP?complement!headed!by! a!place!noun,!and!where!what!appears!superficially!as!the!object!of!preposition! is!actually!the!dative!possessor!of!the!place!noun.!!Variation!on!this!underlying! ! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!vol!4.2,!2012,!78?103! ! ! http://revistas.ojs.es/index.php/iberia!ISSN!1989?8525! 100! Wh?clitic?doubling!and!wh?Cliticisation! structure!revolves!around!whether!locative?directional!P!is!overt,!as!in!Tarifit,! or!null,!as!in!Tamazight!and!Tashelhit.! (58)! [PP!s!‘by’![DP!D![NP![N’!wadday!‘(the)!under’![DP!=as]!‘itDAT’]!...!! On!this!analysis,!the!extraction!context!in!(54)?(55)!turns!out!to!be!a!possession! context,!where!the!operator?variable!link!corresponds!to!the!possessor!of!the! place!noun.!The!derivation!of!the!Tarifit!version!(54),!which!does!not!involve!a! resumptive!pronoun,!is!as!shown!in!(59).!! (59)!‘the!tree’![CP![wh]![C’!C=[whDAT]![TP!...![VP!sleep![PP!P![DP![whDAT]![NP!under![DP![whDAT]]...! The!occurrence!of!the!resumptive!pronoun!in!the!Tashelhiyt!version!(55)!is!part! of! a! more! general! pattern! in! the! Tashelhiyt! dialect! reported! in! Dell! and! Elmedlaoui!(1989),!which!also!includes!examples!such!as!the!one!repeated!in! (60).!A!full!explanation!requires!delving!into!the!broader!issue!of!resumption! relative!to!wh?Cliticisation!and!indexing,!which!we!leave!to!future!research10.! (60)!ifrxan!![m=mi!! zri?x! tigmmi!nn=sn].!(Tashelhiyt)! !boys!![who=WH!DAT!! saw?I!! house!! !of?them! ! !‘The!boys!whose!house!I!saw.’! ! ! ! (Dell!&!Elmedlaoui!1989:184)! 7.!Conclusion! Wh?clitic?doubling! is! a! manifestation! of! the! involvement! of! wh? Cliticisation!(to!C)!in!the!derivation!of!operator?variable!links.!Wh?Cliticisation! applies!in!contexts!where!the!operator!is!base?generated!in!its!scope!position! and! has! the! function! of! linking! the! operator! to! the! variable! it! binds.! Wh? Cliticisation!is!in!complementary!distribution!with!wh?Movement!(to!Spec,C),! which!applies!in!contexts!where!the!operator!is!base?generated!in!the!variable! position,!and!where!the!operator?variable!link!is!a!function!of!wh?Movement.! Wh?clitic?doubling! and! wh?Cliticisation! amount! to! direct! evidence! for! Cliticisation!as!an!interpretive!mechanism!of!Grammar!that!obviates!the!need! for!indexing!(Chomsky!1995,!Lebeaux!1983).!They!also!amount!to!evidence!for! the! conclusion! in! Kayne! (1989)! that! Cliticisation! is! an! instance! of! Head? Movement,! more! precisely,! an! instance! of! feature?based! Head?Movement.! Berber! is! a! language! where! wh?operators! are! base?generated! in! their! scope! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! 10!For!derivational!accounts!that!reduce!resumption!to!movement!in!Syntax!or! at!LF,!see!Aoun! and!Benmamoun!(1998),!Aoun,!Choueiri!and!Hornstein!(2001)!and! Ouhalla!(2001).! ! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!vol!4.2,!2012,!78?103! ! ! http://revistas.ojs.es/index.php/iberia!ISSN!1989?8525! 101! Abdelhak!El!Hankari!&!Jamal!Ouhalla! position,!leading!to!a!situation!where!it!relies!mostly,!if!not!exclusively,!on!wh? Cliticisation!for!extraction.!This!is!reflected!not!only!in!contexts!that!involve!the! extraction!of!dative!arguments!(of!verbs,!nouns!and!prepositions),!but!also!in! various!wh?words,!which!turn!out!to!have!a!compositional!form!that!includes! an!occurrence!of!a!wh?clitic.! REFERENCES! Achab,!Karim.!2003.!Alternation!of!state!in!Berber.!In!Jacqueline!Lecarme!(ed.)! Research)in)Afroasiatic)Grammar)Vol.)II,!1?20.!Amsterdam:!John!Benjamins.!! Alami,!Lahcen.!(2011).!Word) Order,)Agreement)and)Resumption)in) the) Tashelhiyt) Variety)of)Berber.)Ph.D.!dissertation,!University!of!Essex.! Aoun,!Joseph!&!Elabbas!Benmamoun.!1998.!Minimality,!reconstruction!and!PF! movement.!Linguistic)Inquiry!29,!569?597.! Aoun,! Joseph,! Lina! Choueiri! &! Norbert! Hornstein.! 2001.! Resumption,! movement!and!derivational!economy.!Linguistic)Inquiry!32,!371?403.) Bošković,!Želko.!2001.!On)the)nature)of)the)syntax<phonology)interface:)cliticization) and)related)phenomena.!Amsterdam:!Elsevier.!- Boškovič,!Želko.!2002.!On!multiple!wh?fronting.!Linguistic)Inquiry!33,!351?383.!! Boukhris,! Fatima.! 1998.! Les) clitiques) en) berbère) tamazight:) approche) minimaliste.! Phd!dissertation,!Université!Mohamed!V,!Rabat.! Burzio,!Luigi.!1986.!Italian)Syntax.!Dordrecht:!Reidel.! Cadi,!Kaddour.!2006.!Transitivité)et)diathèse)en)tarifit:)analyse)de)quelques)relations) de) dependences) lexical) et) syntaxique.! Rabat:! Publications! of! the! Royal! Institute!of!the!Amazigh!Culture.! Chomsky,!Noam!1986.!Knowledge)of)Language.!New!York:!Praeger.! Chomsky,!Noam.!1995.!The)Minimalist)Program.!Boston:!The!MIT!Press.! Cinque,! Guglielmo! &! Luigi! Rizzi! (eds.).! 2010.! Mapping) Spatial) PPs:) The) Cartography)of)Syntactic)Structures,)Vol.)6.!Oxford!and!New!York:!Oxford! University!Press.) Dell,!François!&!Mohamed!Elmedlaoui.!1989.!Clitic!ordering,!morphology!and! phonology!in!the!verbal!complex!of!Imdlawn!Tashelhiyt!Berber.!Langues) Orientales)Anciennes)Phonologie)et)Linguistique)(LOAPL)!2,!165?194.! El!Hankari,!Abdelhak.!2010.!The)Morphosyntax)of)Tarifit)Berber.!PhD!dissertation,! The!University!of!Queensland.! El! Hankari,! Abdelhak.! 2012.! Agreeement,! pronominal! clitics! and! negation! in! Berber:!A!review!of!Ouali!(2011).!To!appear!in!Brill’s)Annual)of)Afroasiatic) Languages)and)Linguistics.! ! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!vol!4.2,!2012,!78?103! ! ! http://revistas.ojs.es/index.php/iberia!ISSN!1989?8525! 102! Wh?clitic?doubling!and!wh?Cliticisation! El!Moujahid,!El!Houssain.!1993.!Syntaxe)de)groupe)nominal)en)berbère)tachelhiyt.! Doctoral!dissertation,!University!Mohamed!V,!Rabat.! Fanselow,!Gisbert.!2006.!Partial!wh?movement.!In!Martin!Everaert!and!Henk! van!Riemsdijk!(eds.)!The!Blackwell)Companion)to)Syntax,)Vol.)III.!437?492.! Malden,!CA:!Blackwell!Publishing.!! Guerssel,!Mohamed.!1986.!On!Berber!verbs!of!change:!a!study!of!transitivity! alternations.! Lexicon! Project! Working! Papers! #9,! Cambridge,! MA:! The! MIT!Press.! Guerssel,! Mohamed.! 1987.! The! status! of! the! lexical! category! preposition! in! Berber:!implications!for!the!nature!of!the!construct!state.!In!M.!Guerssel! &! K.! Hale! (eds.)! Studies) in) Berber) Syntax.! ! 159?190.! Lexicon! Project! Working!Papers!#14,!Cambridge,!MA:!The!MIT!Press.! Halle,!Morris!&!Alec!Marantz.!1993.!Distributed!Morphology!and!the!pieces!of! inflection.!In!Ken!Hale!&!Samuel!Jay!Keyser!(eds.)!The)View)from)Building) 20.!111?176.!Cambridge,!Mass.:!MIT!Press.! ! Horvath,!Julia.!1997.!The!status!of!‘wh?expletives’!and!the!partial!wh?movement! construction!of!Hungarian.!Natural)Language)and)Linguistic)Theory!15:!509? 572.! Kayne,!Richard.!1975.!French)Syntax:)The)Transformational)Cycle.!Cambridge,!MA:! MIT!Press.! Kayne,! Richard! 1989.! Null! subjects! and! clitic?climbing.! In! Osvaldo! Jaeggli! &! Ken!Safir!(eds.)!The!Null)Subject)Parameter.!239?261.!Dordrecht:!Kluwer.! Kayne,! Richard.! 1994.! The) Antisymmetry) of) Syntax.! Linguistic! Inquiry! Monograph!25.!Cambridge,!MA:!MIT!Press.!!! Kayne,!Richard.!2005.!Movement)and)Silence.!New!York:!Oxford!University!Press.! Klavans,!Judith.!1980.!Some)Problems)in)a)Theory)of)Clitics.!Doctoral!dissertation,! University!College!London.! Klavans,! Judith.! 1985.! The! Independence! of! Syntax! and! Phonology! in! Cliticization.!Language)61,!95?120.! Lebeaux,! David.! 1983.! A! distributional! difference! between! reciprocals! and! reflexives.!Linguistic)Inquiry!14,!723?730.!) Ouali,!Hamid.!2006.!Unifying)Agreement)Relations:)A)Minimalist)Analysis)of)Berber.! Doctoral!dissertation,!The!University!of!Michigan.! Ouali,! Hamid.! 2011.! Agreement,) Pronominal) Clitics) and) Negation) in) Berber.! London/New!York:!Continuum!International!Publishing!Group.! Ouhalla,! Jamal.! 1988.! The) Syntax) of) Head<movement:) A) Study) of) Berber.! PhD! dissertation,!University!College!London.! Ouhalla,!Jamal.!1993.!Subject?extraction,!negation!and!the!anti?agreement!effect.! Natural)Language)and)Linguistic)Theory)11,!477?518.)