The Copy Theory of Movement : A view from PF

ly, we have the same pattern in both Greek and English. Both languages disallow aparticular verbal form to co-occur with negation, switching to another verbal form in thenegative context. Miyoshi (2002) (see also Bošković 2004a) provides a uniform account of theban on negative imperatives in Greek and the ban on negative indicatives in English (seeMiyoshi 2002 for references to alternative accounts of the ban on negative imperatives, whichhowever cannot be extended to the ban on negative indicatives). More precisely, he extends thePF merger account of the ban on negative indicatives in English (see Chomsky 1957, Hale andMarantz 1993, Bobaljik 1995, and Lasnik 1999) to the ban on negative imperatives in Greek.Focusing for the moment on the ban on negative indicatives, consider the structures of (30a-c)given in (31) before PF merger and Do-Support apply. (31) a. [IP Johni I (ed) [vP ti laugh]]b. [IP Johni I (ed) [NegP not [VP ti laugh]]] Assuming that English I is a verbal PF affix, it must merge with a verbal element in PF underadjacency. The adjacency requirement is not met in (31b) due to the intervening negative head,which blocks PF merger. Do-Support, a last resort operation, then takes place to save thestranded affix, deriving (30c). In (31a), the merger is not blocked since no phonologicallyrealized element intervenes between I and the verb. I then merges with the verb, deriving (30a).The crux of the analysis is that indicatives cannot co-occur with negation in English because theco-occurrence results in a violation of the Stranded Affix Filter.Miyoshi (2002) puts forward the same explanation for the ban on negative imperatives. Heproposes that imperatives in languages like Greek contain a functional head, the precise identityof which is not important for our current purposes (for Miyoshi, it is an imperative C), which is aPF affix that must merge with a verb under adjacency. PF merger can proceed without anyproblems in (28a), where the verb and the functional head in question, which we will refer to asF, are adjacent. However, the negation in (28b) disrupts the necessary adjacency relationbetween F and the verb, as illustrated in (32) below. PF merger is then blocked and theconstruction is ruled out due to the presence of a stranded affix, just like (30b)/(31b). (32) F[+affix] den/mi diavase Greek does not have the language specific rule of Do-Support, which English employs in (30c)to save the stranded affix. Instead, Greek uses a different verbal form, namely subjunctive. We 11 See Miyoshi (2002) and Bošković (2004a) for further discussion as well as discussion of languages that do not have the ban on negative imperatives.