Pseudo-incorporation and its movement patterns

While movement of pseudo-incorporated arguments seems to be restricted generally, there is considerable variation across languages to what extend dislocation can take place. Whereas Turkish, German, and Hindi have been shown to allow for certain movement operations, pseudo-incorporated objects in Tamil for example are argued to require surface adjacency with the verb. This paper provides new evidence against surface adjacency in Tamil. More importantly, the study points out a striking parallel between movement of pseudo-incorporated objects and the respective VP-movement patterns within Tamil, Mongolian, Turkish, and German. Pseudo-incorporated objects are argued to constitute partially verbal categories, which explains the movement patterns, along with two other trademark properties of pseudo-incorporation – lack of case marking and scope inertness.

Rarely addressed within PNI studies are the movement patterns PNI-ed arguments exhibit. A common cross-linguistic observation is that they seem to be restricted, if not completely immobile. Less nominal structure has been tied to lack of phase status (López 2012), no needtomoveintoacaseposition(Massam2001)ortherequirementforcase-licensing under adjacency with V (Levin 2015) -strategies aiming to derive complete immobility or even linear adjacency. This paper provides a cross-linguistic study on movement patterns of PNI-ed arguments in Turkish, Tamil, Mongolian, and German, contributing two important empirical observations: (i) movement patterns of PNI-ed arguments are not uniform, norissurfaceadjacencywiththeverbnecessarilyrequired,and(ii)movementproperties of PNI-ed arguments pattern with VP-movement in the respective languages. The second observationhasalreadybeenmadeforTurkishbarenounsbyGračanin-Yüksek&İşsever (2011),albeitwithadifferentgeneralization.Whiletheyclaimthatclause-internalscrambling is an option for PNI-ed objects and VPs, but long scrambling is only an option for VPs, this study shows that caseless bare nouns as well as VPs can scramble even across clause boundaries. German stands out in that PNI does not interact with case marking. Frey (2015) arguesthatGermanbarepluralsandnon-specificindefinitescanbepseudo-incoporated, based on the observation that they do not occur in derived positions and receive obligatory low scope. Frey demonstrates that scrambling of PNI-ed objects is prohibited, which he ties to a general compactness contraint that results from complex predicate formation of object and verb. German PNI-ed objects can, however, undergo topicalization -a fact that remains unexplained in Frey's work but serves as crucial evidence in the current study for the parallelism between VP-movement and movement of PNI-ed arguments. Finally, Tamil and Mongolian prohibit short, intermediate, and long scrambling of PNI-ed objects, mirrored by the respective VP-movement patterns, as a detailed investigation in this study reveals. This movement pattern cannot be extended to a surface adjacency requirement between PNI-ed objects and verbs, contrary to what has been shown for Tamil in the recentpastbyBaker(2014)andLevin (2015).Thecross-linguisticvariationfoundwith movementpatternsofPNI-edobjectsisproblematicforDP/NPtheoriesaswellashead movement accounts, as they can only derive complete lack of mobility by the reduced syntacticstructurewithinthenominaldomain(Massam2001;Kornfilt2003; Dobrovie-Sorin etal.2006;López2012;Baker2014;Levin2015;Barrie&Li2015).Thispaperoffersan account that covers cross-linguistic variation, while also providing an explanation as to why PNI-ed objects are generally more restricted in their movement behaviour, compared to the respective case-marked counterparts. 2

Section2willpresentthemainideasthathavebeenproposedconcerningthemovement
properties of pseudo-incorporated arguments. In section 3, I point out empirical problems previousaccountsface.Section4contributesthemainobservation,whichwillbecapitalized on in section 5 where the proposal for the movement patterns of PNI-ed arguments isintroduced.Section6concludes.

Previous accounts
Previous PNI accounts that focus on distribution and syntactic mobility predict a general ban on dislocating PNI-ed objects from their base positions due to the reduced nominal status -be it because case marking and movement is intrinsically linked to the presence of a DP(Massam2001;Gračanin-Yüksek&İşsever2011)orduetotheabsenceofaphasestatus (López 2012) or the fact that they undergo complex predicate formation (Frey 2015). For some PNI languages, one of them being Tamil, pseudo-incorporation has been claimed to leadtostrictsurfaceadjacencywiththeverb,eitherasaconsequenceofheadmovement (Baker2014;Kornfilt2003)orasaresultofapost-syntacticfilter(Levin2015)thatrelies onlocaldislocation(Embick&Noyer2001)ofobjectandverbtolicensecase.Bothtypes ofapproachesthuspostulateacompactnessrequirementbetweenPNI-edobjectandverb.
Important for the present study is the connection between a reduced nominal domain and apparent immobility. Frey (2015: 243) for example argues that PNI-ed objects in GermanconstituteNPsanddenoteproperties,therebyrequiringcomplexpredicateformation with PNI verbs to ensure semantic composition, which in turn leads to a general compactness requirement. 3 A very different account is provided by Massam (2001) for Niuean, an Oceanic language with obligatory verb-initial word order. Consider the minimalpairin(5),where(5b)constitutesthePNIscenario.Bothverbandobjecthavetobe adjacent,whiletheobjectisstrippedoffitsnumberandcasemarking.

(5)
Niuean ( López(2012)attributesmovementrestrictionsforSpanishlow-scopeindefinitesandbare plurals to the assumption that they form syntactic phrases which do not constitute phases. He analyzes accusative case as the spell-out of a K head which, if present, introduce a choicefunction(Reinhart1997)thatenablesflexiblescope.KheadsprojectKPswhich constitute phases and thus are able to undergo scrambling. Any nominal argument smaller thanaKP,i.e.DPs,NumPs,andNPsdenoteproperties,mustremainintheirbasepositions and can only be interpreted via the compositional rule Restrict(Chung&Ladusaw 2004),asemanticoperationtailor-madeforPNIcontextswhichcombinespropertieswith verb denotations that apply to individual type arguments.

Adjacency
While head movement accounts were predominantly proposed for noun incorporation (Sadock1980; Baker1988;Chung&Ladusaw2004;Bakeretal.2005), 4 Baker (2014)extendsthisanalysistopseudo-incorporation,takingSakhaandTamilascasestudies.AccordingtoBaker,pseudo-incorporationisdifferentfromnounincorporationinthat it has to be string vacuous, i.e. noun and verb have to be linearly adjacent. Crucial for Baker'sanalysisisthatheadmovementisnotenforcedbyfeaturechecking,therebymaking its application completely optional. PNI semantics, however, can only be generated if N and V form a complex head, that is N denotes a property only if it is dominated by a V node (Baker2014:20-21).BakeradoptsthecopytheoryofmovementandfollowsNunes (2004) inthatlowercopiesaredeletedduetothepresenceofuninterpretablefeatures.Sincethe type of head movement shown in (7b) is not feature driven, either one of the copies can be spelled-out, leading to potential linearization issues if movement is not string vacuous. Thus, BakerderivessurfaceadjacencybetweenNandVthroughtheavoidanceoforder-ingparadoxesatPF.Inordertoexplainthecaseloss,BakerfollowsBakeretal.(2005)by making use of a parameterized deletion rule which removes Φ-features on traces of head movement. Along with Φ-features,Bakerassumescaseinformationcanalsobelost.
Evidence for his proposal comes from the ban on scrambling of caseless objects in Tamil andSakha,whichisinlinewithourobservationsforTamilinsection4.1.Baker,furthermore, claims that low manner adverbs cannot intervene between the verb and the object, shownin(8).

(8)
Tamil(Baker2014:8-9) Maala (veegamaa) pustagam (*veegamaa) paɖi-cc-aa. Mala quickly book quickly read-pst-3.f.sbj 'Malareadabook/booksquickly.' Resultative structures provide further evidence for surface adjacency. He uses the word order contrast between (9a) and (9b) to illustrate that surface adjacency can be achieved within the course of a derivation by moving the resultative PP out of the intervening position.Bakersuggestsasimilaranalysisfor(9c),althoughincaseofadverbialresultatives an additional movement step as in (9b) is disallowed for independent reasons.  it fruit-acc/fruit big-adv make.prs-3.n.sbj 'It makes (the) fruit big.' The second type of adjacency approach I want to take a closer look at is the head-to-head requirement between verbs and PNI-ed arguments proposed by Levin (2014; to account for PNI in Tamil, among other languages. The main empirical observation Levin wants to capture is that the highest nominal projection within these arguments seems to requiresurfaceadjacencywiththelexicalverb.Levinredefinesthecasefilterasarestriction on size rather than a restriction on feature valuation. All categories must be part of a complete extended projection which in case of noun phrases is a KP. (10) Levin's case filter (Levin2015:46) Noun phrases must be KPs.
To sum up, both adjacency and immobility accounts predict that PNI-ed arguments and verbs behave like a unit, preventing the PNI-ed object to dislocate from its base position. As the next section will show, both kinds of approaches turn out to be empirically inadequate,oncealargerdatasetistakenintoaccount.

No surface adjacency in Tamil
Aswaspresentedinsection2.2,caselessobjectsinTamilarearguedbyBaker(2014)and Levin(2015)toonlybelicensedinpositionslinearlyadjacenttotheverb. Baker(2014) uses low manner adverbs and resultative constructions to illustrate the compactness constraint. Counter-evidence against surface adjacency comes from focus adverbs/particles which occur to the right of the nominals they scope over, and thus potentially in between PNI-ed objects and verbs. As it turns out, PNI scenarios do not block the occurrence of suchfocusoperators.Bothmaṭṭum in (13) and kuuţain(14)intervenebetweenacaseless objectandtheverb,contrarytowhatBaker(2014)andLevin(2015)predict.Evenifthe focus adverbs were to be analyzed as part of the nominal domain, pustagam would not be abletoundergostringvacuousheadmovementtoVinBaker'ssense.Likewise,pustagam constitutes the highest nominal projection but is not adjacent to V, thereby violating Levin's head-to-head adjacency constraint.

(14)
Tamil Maala pustagam-kuuţa paɖi-cc-aa. Mala.nom book-mir read-pst-3sg.f 'Mala even read a book/books.' Moreover,thestudywasnotabletoverifyBaker'ssurfaceinterventioneffectswithlow manneradverbs,recall(8).AllfourTamilspeakersagreedontheacceptabilityofveegamaa placed between a caseless bare noun and a verb. 5 The speakers do, however, agree with the judgements of the resultative structures discussed in section 2.2. In light of the data above, we cannot attribute the unacceptability of such examples to violations of surface adjacency. One alternative explanation can be given in terms of different base orders. Under the assumption that locative PPs in (9a) and (9b) are introduced by a high applicative head (Marantz 1993), the surface order of such structures would have to come about by scrambling the PNI-ed object across the PP -an illicit movement step accordingtoBaker(2014)aswellasthecurrentapproach.Theunderlyingstructurefor (9a)issketchedin(15),wherethemovementstepisassumedtotargetaninnerspecifier of vP.Consequently,resultativeslike(9b)inwhichthePPprecedesthedirectobjectare acceptable since they constitute the base order where the PNI-ed object still occupies its base position.

(15)
Structure for (9a) Theunacceptabilityoftheadverbialresultativein(9c)isquitelikelyduetothefactthat resultatives necessarily include a control structure, as it is often discussed for adverbial smallclausesco-occuringwithtransitivepredicates ( López(2012)pointsoutafairlyrobustrequirementofobligatorycasemarkingonobjectsactingascontrollers in control clauses on the one hand, and acting as subjects in adjectival small clauses on the other. This observationholdsacrossDOM/PNIlanguages,asSpanish,Italian,Persian,Romanian,andHindipatternthe same way. Juan forced dom a boy to do.inf the homework 'Juanforcedaboytodohishomework.' LópezanalyzescasemarkersasspellingouttheheadofaKPshell,projectedaboveDP,whichenables objects to move into a designated case position. In the absence of a KP, objects must find an alternativecaselicensingmechanism.HeproposesthatinsuchcasesDmusthead-moveviaVtov, the case assigninghead.Thismovementisblockedforobjectsinobjectcontrollclauses,astheyarefirstmerged in spec,VP and thus higher than V. The subject position of small clauses also bans this movement, presumablybecausesubjectsblockextraction.Sincenon-KPsarearguedtobeimmobile,recallsection2.1, this analysis provides an attractive alternative explanation for the Tamil facts. There is, however, reason to doubt the existence of a correlating movement restriction. Turkish for example has been reported to requirecasemarkingonbarecontrollersofcontrolclauses(Öztürk2005;2009),yetTurkishbarenouns can scramble freely within clauses and across clause boundaries, even if they do not show case morphology, as section 3.2 will show. Hindi provides another counter-example to the correlation of immobility with licensing as controllers and as subjects in small clauses. The fact that objects have to be case marked in such positions does not prevent them from scrambling across the subject without case marking, as Dayal(2011)hasshown.
To sum up, PNI-ed objects in Tamil are not able to undergo scrambling, yet they do not have to be surface adjacent to the verb. 7
In (21), we see that caseless bare nouns are acceptable preceding and following the indirect object.

(22)
Turkish(Gračanin-Yüksek&İşsever2011:10) a. *Kitap i Ali [Ayşe-nin __ i oku-duğ-un]-u biliyor. book Ali.nom Ayse-gen read-nmlz-3sg-acc know.prs.3sg 'Ali knows that Ayse does book-reading.' Ali-gen read-nmlz-3sg-acc think-neg-prs-1sg 'I don't think that Ali does book-reading.' 7 One might wonder at this point how low manner adverbs are able to intervene between the PNI-ed object and the verb, while the paradigm in (19) suggests that PNI-ed objects are not able to dislocate from their base positions. Two possibilities come to mind: (i) PNI-ed objects can move after all, albeit only short distance, e.g. adjoin-ingtoVP,or(ii)PNI-edobjectsareimmobilebutlowmanneradverbscanalsoadjointoV.Thefirstsolution encounters an Anti-locality problem (Abels 2012), which can potentially be circumvented by adopting a more elaborate verbal domain where the internal argument can move out of VP into spec,vP and the external argumentisintroducedinspec,voiceP,asitwasrecentlyproposedbyTollan (2018)forthePNIlanguageSamoan. This type of extremely short scrambling would be available in Tamil assuming that low manner adverbs adjoin to VP, so that PNI-ed objects are able to precede them, yet obligatorily follow indirect objects and subjects.
Turkishlongscramblingseemstobesensitivetowhetherthematrixverbqualifiesasa bridging verb. Verbs of saying often allow long distance extraction more readily than e.g. lowfrequencyfactiveslikeregret,whilesomelanguagesalsoblockhighlyfrequentfactives like know(Kluender1992;Hawkins1999).Theacceptabilityoflongscramblingwith a typical bridging verb like söye 'say' in (24) confirms this hypothesis. Cross-linguistic observations concerning long distance extraction ascribe söye and düşün a better chance forenablinglongscramblingsincetheyqualifyasprototypicalbridgingverbs.Hence,it can be concluded that the unacceptability of the structures in (22) is not tied to pseudoincorporation.

Topicalization in German
So far, we have limited our investigation to PNI languages showing a correlation between case loss and scope inertness. German has been argued by Frey (2015) to exhibitPNIeffectsforbarepluralsandnon-specificindefinites,albeitwithoutaneffect in case marking. Frey's diagnostics consist of scope inertness of certain noun types in combination with certain positional restrictions. He observes that there is only a small classofarguments,madeupofnon-specificindefinitesandbareplurals,thatcanfollow manner adverbs and negation, shown for the adverb wunderbar in (25) and (26). Theindefinitein(25a)occursnexttotheverbandcanonlybenon-specific,provenby the infelicity of adding bestimmt 'certain'in(25b).Iftheindefinitescramblesoutofthe verbphrase,itreceivesaspecificreading,see(26a),wheretheunderlyingstructureis given in (26b).

(29)
German ( (29a)and (28b)tobeindicative of different types of movement operations PNI-ed objects can undergo. The discussion in this section suggests that PNI-ed objects are prevented from scrambling but are free to undergo topicalization. In this sense, movement of PNI-ed objects in German is not as restricted as the movement pattern in Tamil, yet also not as unrestricted as the Turkish pattern.

Problems with cross-linguistic variation
A cross-linguistic comparison between Tamil, Turkish, and German provides evidence against the compactness constraint argued for in section 2. The observations create an insurmountable problem for DP/NP accounts which explicitly argue for the NP status based on observations of complete immobility and/or surface adjacency of PNI-ed objects withtheverb(Massam2001;Dobrovie-Sorinetal.2006;López2012;Levin2015;Barrie &Li2015).Surfaceadjacencyisalsopredictedbyhead-movementaccountstoPNI (Baker 2014;Kornfilt2003) 8 aswellascomplexpredicateformation(Aydemir2004;Frey2015). Incontrast,DP/NPaccountsthatdonotmakereferencetomovementrestrictionsofPNIed objects in the first place (Öztürk 2005;Dayal 2011) cannot explain why PNI generally leads to mobility restrictions, in comparison to non-PNI scenarios. The current account is able to overcome these issues by drawing a parallel to VP-movement patterns which are commonly known to vary from language to language.

PNI-ed objects move like VPs
Key to understanding the distributional patterns of PNI-ed objects is a parallelism to VPmovement patterns within the respective PNI languages under investigation. Section 4.1 argues that there is no positive evidence for VP-movement in Tamil, in line with the observations made for PNI-ed objects in section 3.1. The empirical picture is, furthermore, extended to Mongolian, another PNI language that bans PNI-ed objects and VPs from leaving their basepositions.Section4.2providespositiveevidenceforVP-scramblinginTurkishandVPtopicalization in German, in line with the observations made for PNI-ed objects in sections 3.2 and 3.3, respectively.  Baker (2014: 37-38) suggests that V-to-T movement can circumvent the PNI surface adjacency requirement. He provides data from Tamil indicating that V stays in situ. In contrast, V raises in Hindi, he argues, sothatcaselessbareobjectscanundergointermediatescrambling(Dayal2011:137).Aswasshowninsec-tion3.1,thereisnosurfaceadjacencyrequirementinTamil,contrarytoBaker'sprediction. 9 There is some disagreement about the general possibility of long scrambling in Mongolian. Fong (2019) arguesagainstmovementacrossfiniteclauseboundarieswithdataliketheoneshownbelow.Thespeakers of this study disagree on the acceptability of long scrambling structures. The general availability of long scrambling,thus,remainsanopenquestionandneedstobeinvestigatedfurtherinfutureresearch. The task of this section will now be to demonstrate that neither Tamil nor Mongolian allow for VP-scrambling. In order to investigate the possibility of VP-movement in Mongolian, we test for the acceptability of postverbal constituents. The Mongolian speakers of this study rejected any type of postverbal constituent, ranging from adverbials over indirect objects tosubjects,shownin (34) [OV]S dem student-acc examine-pst director.nom 'The director examined this student.'

(40)
Fong (2019: 16) Dorj [(*khurdan) Nara (khurdan) baishin (khurdan) bari-san gej] khel-sen. Dorj quickly Nara quickly house quickly build-pst comp say-pst 'DorjsaidthatNarabuiltahousequickly.' SuchadverbsshowingpositionalrestrictioncanbeusedtotestremnantVP-scrambling.Let us assume for now that V raises to T, thus vacating the VP, and low manner adverbs adjoin to VP. By dislocating the adverb together with the direct object, we can probe for VPmovement.Theunacceptabilityof (41) In order to test for VP-movement within clauses, we again consider the possibility of postverbalconstituents.Asisshownin(45),subjectsandindirectobjectsareprincipallyable to occur in such positions. The translations, however, already signal a marked information structure with such word orders. They are often translated as clefts or pseudo-clefts in which the post-verbal phrase constitutes the pivot. Alternatively, they have been analyzed as mono-clausal structures with narrow focus on the post-verbal phrase.
NotethatSarma'sanalysisrequiressideward movement(Nunes2001;Hornstein&Nunes2002),anoperation which forms a copy and re-merges this copy with an unconnected phrase marker, assembled independentlyintheworkspace.Sidewardmovementisdifferentfromordinarymovement,inthat(i)thereisno c-commanding trigger and (ii) the moved phrase is merged in a tree from which it was not taken.

Incontrast,Selvanathananalyzes-adu as the result of anti-agreement(Ouhalla1993;
Schneider-Zioga 2007) between an N-layer and the clefted phrase: φ-agreement is disrupted because the clefted phrase is involved in another A'-dependency, here the Foc head.
Note that neither of the analyses makes use of VP-movement. The observations can, however, be made to follow from such an analysis. Let us assume for the moment the analysis in (57) where the focused phrase vacates the VP into a leftward branching focus position, withsubsequentleftwardVP-movementacrossthefocusedphrase.Thistypeofanalysis hasinfactbeenproposedforequivalentpost-verbalstructuresinMalayalam (Jayaseelan 2001;.Casecanbeassignedtotheobjectinfirst-mergedposition,thesameposition intowhichtheobjectreconstructsforreflexivebinding.Weakcrossoverisnotameliorated sinceobjectmovementistriggeredbyafocusfeature,arguablyanĀ-typemovement.We can understand the analysis in (57) as the full agreement counterpart version of (51). 12 (57) An alternative VP-movement analysis?
One might doubt the VP-movement analysis in (57) against the background of the Müller-Takano Generalization(Takano1992;Müller1996;,whichmakesreferencetothefactthatextractionandremnant movement cannot involve the same type of movement. In German e.g. DP-scrambling out of infinitival clausesfeedstopicalizationbutbleedsscramblingofremnantinfinitives. (56) German (Müller1996:357-358 The analysis in (57) makes both the focused phrase and the remnant VP target spec,FocP positions, presumably involving the same type of movement. This makes the acceptability of post-verbal constituents in Tamil stand in clear contrast with the observation made for German above.
There is, however, one piece of evidence suggesting that rightward movement for post-verbal constituents has to be at least an option. Tamil bans subextraction, that is extraction out of a phrase which has already been moved. This is shown with the set of examples in (59)-(61). An embedded CP can in principle move over the matrix subject, compare (59a) to (59b). In (60), we see that arguments can also dislocate to the right periphery across clause boundaries. Both movement operations, however, cannot cooccur,asthecontrastin (61) raajyatt-ai i ] say-pst-3sg.m kingdom-acc 'ShakunisaidthatDharmawilllose(his)kingdomin(thegameof)dice.' 13 The unacceptability of (61b) cannot be attributed to information structure. As the following example shows, both leftward and rightward movement can occur simultaneously. This excludes an alternative analysis of(61b)underwhichunacceptabilitywouldsimplyreflectanimpossibleinformationstructure.Ithanka reviewer for bringing this potential caveat to my attention. If Tamil exhibits freezing effects,we shouldbe able to create similarconfigurationsin mono-clausal structures. In light of the discussion above and under the assumptions in (57), the missing contrast in (62) is unexpected. If postverbal constituents were to come about via remnant VP-movement, it should not be possible to subextract the wh-phrase from the VP in its derived position in (62b), nevertheless this seems possible.
An analysis that derives postverbal constituents directly via rightward movement makes the right prediction for (62) since the arguments undergo movement to the right and to theleftperipheryindependentofeachother.Thederivationisgivenin (64) This argument, of course, does not exclude the possibility of VP-movement altogether, but it does make it unlikely that VP-movement is responsible for post-verbal constituent structures in Tamil.
This concludes our presentation of Mongolian and Tamil -two PNI languages that maximally restrict the movement capabilities of PNI-ed objects. This section investigated the potential of VP-movement in the respective languages and found no evidence. Rather, post-verbal constituent structures most likely receive a bi-clausal analysis in Mongolian and Tamil, the former with subsequent deletion under identity, the latter in the form of a (pseudo-)cleft. The observations made in this section lend support to the idea that PNI-ed objects and VPs should be treated on par, in that both types of phrases are severely restricted in their movement capacities.

German & Turkish
German permits PNI-ed objects to undergo topicalization, i.e. movement to spec,CP, but not scrambling, a generalization that was established in section 3.3. As it turns out, VPs exhibit exactly the same movement restrictions as PNI-ed arguments. In contrast to Tamil and Mongolian, German does not necessarily fuse tense/agreement morphology with V. Hence, VP-movement can be diagnosed in a straightforward manner. It is widely acknowl-edgedthatGermanVPscanundergotopicalization,butnotscrambling(Grewendorf& Sternefeld1990;Grewendorf1995;Müller1998).Aminimalpairisgivenin(65)withthe underlying structures in (66) and (67).

(65)
German (Grewendorf 1995 The parallelism between movement of PNI-ed arguments and VP-movement provides an explanation for Frey's puzzle in section 3.3. Recall that Frey (2015) assumes PNI to be complex predicate formation where fronting of the verbal part leads to unacceptability, butfrontingofthenominalpartdoesnot.Theminimalpairisrepeatedin(68).
Considering the line of argumentation so far and the movement patterns presented in section 3.2, we expect VP-movement in Turkish to be freely available. This prediction seems to be borne out. The paradigm given in (69) shows that post-verbal constituents are acceptable in Turkish. Note, however, that these structures might as well be created via rightward movement into postverbal position, which has been shown to exist independentlyinTurkish(Kural1997;Termücü2005;Kornfilt2005).AsinTamiland Mongolian,verbsareinflectedfortense/aspect,suggestiveofV-to-Tmovement.Thesize of the scrambled constituents in (70) might be even larger, considering the morphology signaling a nominalizer and case.
(69) Turkish a. Öğretmen öğrenci-ler-e ödev ver-di-∅. teacher student-pl-dat homework give-pfv-3 'The teacher did homework-giving to the students.' SincetheVP-statusofthemovedphrasesin (69)and (70)isnotentirelyconclusive, 14 we test for remnant VP-movement, that is movement of the direct object together with a low manner adverb. The examples in (71) and (72) are in line with the previous observations, VPs are allowed to undergo long scrambling in Turkish.

(72)
Context: There was a bad anonymous review in the papers which influenced the book sale. Ali is one of 3 potential reviewers.
[ VP Acımasızca kitab-I __ j ] ben [Ali-nin __ VP eleştir j -diğ-i]-ni ruthlessly book-acc 1sg.nom Ali-gen criticize-nmlz-3sg-acc düşün-m-üyor-um. think-neg-ipfv-1sg 'I don't think that Ali criticized the book ruthlessly.' Finally, let us look at an argument suggesting the independent need for VP-movement in Turkish. This argument is based on an observation coming from discontinuous possessor phrases. Turkish can extract possessors to the left and to the right periphery, shown in (73),butseealsoBošković&Şener(2014).

PNI-ed objects are hybrid categories
Pseudo-incorporated arguments constitute hybrid categories, they are part nominal part verbal. The two core properties of pseudo-noun incorporation -lack of case marking and restriction to low scope -as well as the additional observations with respect to movement can be traced back to its verbal nature. The properties PNI-ed arguments share with properargumentsreflectthenominalstatus,thatistheycheckac-selectionalfeatureof the verb, they are assigned a θ-role.Theycanalsoappearwithadjectivalmodification, which is one of the key characteristics that separates pseudo-noun incorporation from 16 Areviewersuggestsanalternativeaccountofthe3/4puzzlewithpossessorphrases.Thecontrastbetween (73) and (74) could also be explained by assuming that base-generation of a possessor in sententialinitial/finalpositionisallowed,butthatofapossessumisnot.Althoughboththeoriesrelyonadhoc assumptions in one way or another, the current account nevertheless has an advantage. Whereas the VP-movement account only relies on the assumption that remnant possessor phrase movement is not an option, the alternative approach assumes that leftward dislocation from base position on the one hand canresultfrombasegenerationandontheotherisexcludedforpossessums.Sincethereisindependent evidence based on binding and scope for leftward dislocation to instantiate leftward movement (Termücü 2005), the alternative account runs into additional complications.
propernounincorporation(Massam2001).Whereasthenominalpropertiesareuncontroversial, the verbal properties have so far been overlooked in the literature. 17 The nominal traits seem to be relevant early in the derivation -c-selection and θ-role assignmentaswellasnounphraseinternalmodificationareoperationswhichapplybefore oratthepointtheargumentisfirstmergedwiththeverb.Theverbalproperties,however, impact operations that are dependent on other arguments and functional heads in the clause. This observation will be implemented by employing a derivational framework which is capable of turning a nominal category into a verbal category in the course of the derivation. In doing so, the analysis will be able to predict PNI-ed arguments to move like verbal categories, i.e. like VPs. The details are laid out in section 5.1. In section 5.2, the rationale is extended to the two other core properties of PNI, case drop and scope inertness.

Movement properties
The proposal is worked out in a minimalist framework (Chomsky 1995) -a derivational model of grammar in which the basic operations Merge and Agree apply in sequential order.Syntacticstructuresarebuildbottom-upbysequentialapplicationofMergeand Agree from a set of lexical items, taken from the numeration. Syntactic operations are driven by two types of features: (i) structure-building features [•F•] triggering Merge, where movement is defined as internal Merge, and (ii) probe features [*F*] triggering Agree. [•F•]and[*F*]mustbetargetedanddischargedduringthederivation,thereby restricting the possible outcome of syntactic derivations. If a head comes with more than one structure-building or probe feature, where for each feature the context to apply is met, the Earliness Principle (Pesetsky 1989) demands that the syntactic operations the features trigger apply either simultaneously or in a certain order. Recent analyses have made use of the latter option, deriving feeding and bleeding interactions between Merge andAgree,eitherimplicitly(Anand&Nevins2006;Asarina2011)orexplicitlybymaking reference to a feature list or feature stack (Stabler1997;Müller2009;Georgi 2014;Assmannetal.2015;Heck&Himmelreich2017).FollowingMüller(2011, I assume that the features of a head constitute a list and will be discharged one after another, beginning with the first feature in the list. There are no syntactic operations which are not feature-triggered and every probe and structure-building feature can only be targeted once. They will be discharged, after they have undergone an operation, in order to make room for the next feature on the stack. Features become inactive after they have taken part in a structure-building or Agree relation, see also the discussion in Müller (2009:288), Müller(2010:40),andGeorgi(2014. 18 Note that goal features do not have to be discharged for the derivation to converge. They will, however, nevertheless be dischargedaftertheyhavetakenpartinanoperation.Structuralcaseisassignedbythe functional heads T and v(Chomsky1995;whereachecking account of case assignment is adopted, in which both probe and goal enter the derivation with valued case featuresbutAgreerequiresmatchingoffeatures(Müller2009;2011).

17
Withintheliteratureonnounincorporation,categorialstatusplaysamuchmoreprominentrole. Johns (2007) for example proposes that light verbs in Inuktitut can take verbal as well as nominal roots as complements where the latter results in noun incorporation. Although the syntactic behaviour is identical, nominal rootscanneverthelessbefullyreferential.AslightlydifferentpicturecanbefoundinPolynesianlanguages suchasTahitian(Paia&Vernaudon2004)andSamoan(Mosel2004)wherelexemesaregenerallyunderspecified for lexical category, yet object incorporation seems to have an effect on whether a lexeme is interpreted as an entity or a process. The research on noun incorporation provides interesting parallels to thecurrentaccount,althoughthereisoneimportantdifferencethatisworthpointingout.Whereasnoun incorporation theories operate under the assumption that incorporated phrases are generally underspecifiedforlexicalcategory,thecurrenttheoryaimstomodelatransitionfromonecategorytoanotherwithin the course of a derivation. Pseudo-noun incorporation languages call for the transitional analysis since they show both nominal as well as verbal properties.  (83), syntactic case assignment is not blocked inPNIcontexts.Consequently,noothersyntacticoperationpotentiallyinteractingwith caseassignmentshouldbeaffectedbyPNI-relatedcasedrop-adesiredresultsinceno interaction with φ-agreement or valency reduction can be detected for the languages of this study. 21 In section 5.2, a post-syntactic account of case drop is presented. PNI-ed argumentsandproperargumentsareofdifferentcategorialstatusoncetheyarefirst-merged withtheirfunctionalheads.ThisdifferencenowaccountsforthePNIeffectsinvestigated in this paper.

(80)
Tamil Ella students-um pustagam ∀∃,*∃∀ padi-c-aanga. All students.nom-add book read-pst-3pl 'All students read a book.' The order of categorial features also predicts that PNI-ed arguments will never be c-selected as VPs, e.g. as complements of v.
Having set-up the basic system, let us now turn to the movement patterns of PNI-ed arguments. Table 1 summarized the movement properties of PNI-ed objects within the languages investigated in this paper. All languages in this study allow for scrambling of nominal arguments. The overview signals that movement of PNI-ed arguments is generally restricted, yet not every language shows the same restrictions. An ideal way to account for the cross-linguistic variation is to adhere to individual properties of the languages under consideration.Thepresentapproachisabletodosoinastraightforwardmanner.Since PNI-edargumentsconstitutehybridcategorieswhichstartoffasnominalsbutturninto verbal arguments, once they have been c-selected, we predict their movement patterns toparallelVPmovementintherespectivelanguages.SinceVP-movementisoftenmore restrictedthanDP-movementcross-linguistically,themovementpatternsofPNI-edarguments are not surprising.
Movementisdrivenbycategorialfeatures.Whilethisisacommonlysharedassumption for nominal arguments undergoing scrambling, EPP-movement, or object shift (Chomsky 1995;Kitahara 1997 positions. German allows for topicalization of PNI-ed arguments but blocks scrambling. Thus,onlytheCheadcanbeequippedwith [•V•]. 23 How the movement patterns established in this study follow from the featural set-up in Table 2 will be demonstrated in the following, beginning with short scrambling. Indirect arguments are introduced by Appl which takes VP as a complement (Marantz 1993 SincePNI-edobjectsareproperlycontainedinsideVPs,onemightwonderhowmovement-inducingheads cantargettheobjectacrosstheVP.ThisisnotaproblemsinceVP'scategorialfeature[V]becomesinactive via c-selection by v.Hence,VPdoesnotqualifyasagoalbythetimethemovement-inducingheadenters the derivation. German permits topicalization of PNI-ed objects, enabled by a C head with a [•V•]feature,whichisillustratedin(87).

Extension to case and scope properties
Often implicitly assumed amongst many scholars is that case is uniformly expressed on nounsandnotonverbs,seehoweverBlake(2001/2004)andMoravcsik(2012)forexplicit statementsofsuchkind.ThisassumptionfindsempiricalsupportintheworkbyNichols (1986) who identifies case as the predominant morphological category for dependent marking strategies, whereas person, number, and gender morphology are most commonly expressed in head-marking patterns. An early implementation of this dichotomy can be found in the Principles and Parameters tradition of Generative Grammar. Lexical categories were distinguished by two binary distinctive features [±N]and [±V]where[-N]categories assign case and [+N] categories receive case (Chomsky 1981;Stowell 1981). The most recent installment of this assumption can be found within the theory of Dependent Case(Marantz1991;Wunderlich1997)wherecasemarkingexpressesthelicensingofone nominal in the local presence of another nominal. The lack of case-marking on PNI-ed argumentsisthusadirectconsequenceofthenon-nominalnatureofPNI-edarguments. To implement this idea in the current framework, I suggest a post-syntactic treatment of case drop, in line with many proposals for Differential Object Marking(Bossong1991;

Conclusion
This paper ties prominent PNI effects to the verbal nature of PNI-ed arguments. Verbs often do not present hosts for case morphology across languages, nor do verbs shift scope. DetailedcasestudiesoffourPNIlanguagesshowhowmovementpatternsofPNI-edarguments are mirrored by VP-movement patterns in each language, respectively. The account developedonthebasisoftheempiricalfindingspresentsaliteraltakeontheparallelism with VP-movement. Pseudo-incorporation is proposed to result from noun phrases that are made up of a nominal and a verbal category feature. The categorial PNI account is supe-riortotraditionalDP/NPapproaches,astheyarenotequippedtoaccountforthecross-linguisticvariationinmovementpatternsofPNI-edarguments.Byshiftingtheattention fromaDP/NPcontrasttoanoppositionbetweennominalandverbalpropertiesofPNI-ed arguments, the theory paves the way for future cross-linguistic PNI studies that focus on the typology of movement possibilities and its potential to mimick movement patterns of other syntactic categories.
Another important take away from this study is that case loss as well as immobility are notsufficientontheirowntodiagnosePNI.Thisviewisadirectconsequenceofatheory that ties PNI properties to verbal categories. While scope inertness is robustly attested for lexical verbs, absence of case morphology can at most be observed as a strong tendency.Similarly,VPsareknowntomovelessfreelythanDPsbutthereisvariationfrom language to language. Finally, the inability to act as controllers and as subjects of small clauses -two properties that were only marginally discussed -deserve more attention in futureresearch,asthesepropertiesequallypointtoverbalstatusinastrikingfashion.