Mélanie Jouitteau

Verb doubling in Breton and Gungbe: Obligatory exponence at the sentence level

Breton tensed verbs show an synthetic/analytic structure alternation (I.know vs. to.know I.do), that is not conditioned by their semantic or aspectual structure but by their syntactic environment, namely word order. The sentence is correct if and only if the tensed element is not at the left-edge of the sentence. The infinitive form of the analytic construction prevents the tensed element from the most left-edge position. This paper proposes that the analytic structure (to.know I.do) answers the same trigger as expletive insertion (expl I.know). I claim that analytic tense formation is a last-resort strategy that forms the equivalent of an expletive by excorporation of the verbal root out of the complex tensed head. The excorporated lexical verb appears fronted as an infinitive form by default. The tensed auxiliary is either realized as a dummy 'do' auxiliary (to.know I.do), or, for an idiosyncratic list of verbs, as the tensed reiteration of the excorporated verb itself (doubling; to.know I.know).

1.

* This paper benefited from presentations at FACL 2009 (U. Arizona), and the workshop on verbal reiteration (Paris). Thanks to Leston Buell, Anne Zribi-Hertz and Enoch Aboh for their useful comments. Concerning the data in the paper, I have to thank three Breton native speakers: DL from Quimperlé, H.G. from Scaër and SB from Callac. Thanks also to Herve ar Bihan (U. Rennes II). Corpus data from Bijer, ar C'hog and Skragn come from the database built by Milan Rezac during his post-doc in Nantes, and to which he kindly provided me access. New Gungbe data comes from my bothering Enoch Aboh. Any errors or misrepresentations are my responsibility alone. Abbreviations: R marks the preverbal particle, the 'rannig-verb' that appears (syntactically at least) before all inflected verbs (Fin head in the left periphery, cf. Jouitteau 2005). In the examples translations, small caps signal informational salience. OBL = oblique ; POSS = possessive, PRT=particle. 1 The Breton data comes from corpus of different dialects, or elicitations in Quimperlé. The verbal particle, the rannig, noted 'R', is a realization of the Fin Head into which the tensed element incorporates (Jouitteau 2005).

Introduction

Breton, the modern Continental Celtic language, allows for two types of analytic constructions. In the most common case (1)a, an infinitive verb precedes a semantically dummy auxiliary that bears the tense and subject agreement markers. Though this auxiliary means 'to do' in isolation, its semantic import in the construction is null, and the sentence as a whole is fully equivalent to the synthetic constructions in (2)a. A rarer case of analytic construction is illustrated in (1)b, where the infinitive verb precedes its own inflected form. Though the auxiliary repeats the lexical content of the verb, the repetition import in the construction is null, and the sentence as a whole is fully equivalent to the synthetic constructions in [START_REF] Leclerc | Grammaire bretonne du Dialecte de Tréguier, Brud Nevez (réédition de 1908 et 1911[END_REF] Breton is a 'linear verb-second' language (Borsley andKathol 2000, Jouitteau 2009), in the sense that the element that bears both tense and agreement morphemes can not stand as the left-most element in a sentence (3). For clarity and considering analytic orders in (1), I use in this paper the term 'Tense second' instead of 'verb-second'.

(3) * E tebran avaloù. R go.1SG apples 'I eat apples.'

Standard Breton

The goal of this article is to provide an account of the under-documented analytic constructions in (1). I propose that the two analytic constructions in (1), both with 'do' and doubling, represent an expletive strategy alternative to the [expletive + synthetic Tense] groups in [START_REF] Leclerc | Grammaire bretonne du Dialecte de Tréguier, Brud Nevez (réédition de 1908 et 1911[END_REF]. I will show that analytic constructions in (1) appear if and only if they serve as a last resort operation in order to meet obligatory exponence in the pre-tense position. The analysis will derive the odd facts of (1): first, in both cases of analytic constructions in (1), there is at least one element that fails to be interpreted. In (1)a, the auxiliary doesn't seem to do more than providing morphological support, and in (1)b, the lexical verb has two occurrences, only one of which seems interpreted because it does not require two subjects, in apparent violation of the theta-criterion. Second, in both analytic constructions, the two verbal/auxiliary occurrences are phonologically distinct, and obligatorily appear in the relative [Infinitive -Tense] order: in analytic constructions, the infinitive lexical verb never appears on the right of the tensed element. In (4), the pre-Tense position has been filled with a focalized element. Despite satisfaction of the canonical 'Tense second' order, the lexical verb can not appear on the right of the tensed element. The restriction of distribution is even more strict than strictly left-edge, because infinitive verbs of analytic constructions can never appear in a sentence where another element fills in the pre-tense position. In (5), an object and a prepositional phrase have been fronted by focus, and still, the lexical verb can not appear outside of the tensed complex. Only synthetic tenses are allowed (6), showing that analytic tenses have a last-resort dimension.

( This striking distribution recalls the one of the Breton expletive bez' as illustrated in [START_REF] Leclerc | Grammaire bretonne du Dialecte de Tréguier, Brud Nevez (réédition de 1908 et 1911[END_REF]. Like infinitives of analytic constructions, the expletive bez' occurs only to the left of tensed elements, as a last resort strategy to avoid Tense first orders as in (3). In formal terms, this means that there is some kind of a trigger in the language's grammar that imposes that at least one element, head or XP, precedes the inflected element [START_REF] Jouitteau | La syntaxe comparée du Breton[END_REF][START_REF] Jouitteau | La syntaxe comparée du Breton[END_REF][START_REF] Jouitteau | The Brythonic Reconciliation: From V1 to generalized V2[END_REF]. LEIT, as defined in (7), is the unique motivation for expletive insertion in [START_REF] Leclerc | Grammaire bretonne du Dialecte de Tréguier, Brud Nevez (réédition de 1908 et 1911[END_REF].

(7) Late Expletive Insertion Trigger LEIT is a morphological operation that operates at the level of the sentence and bans (Tense)-first orders.

As a last-resort, it either merges an expletive or attracts the closest postverbal element into the preverbal position.

LEIT effects are invisible for the interpretative module.

In this paper, I will show that both analytic constructions (1)a and b pattern alike with expletives and show evidence for the LEIT signature. I henceforth propose that Breton analytic paradigms illustrate the creation of an expletive by means of a morphological excorporation operation (8). The dummy verb 'do' ober is not included in the numeration. Instead, it is generated as a last-resort default morphology as in (8)a illustrated in (1)a. An idiosyncratic alternative to this last-resort insertion is to pronounce the lower copy of the excorporated verb, leading to doubling structures as in (8)b, illustrated in (1)b. I will start in section 2 by investigating the syntactic properties of the analytic construction in 'do', and show that all these properties follow if analytic tense are a last resort expletive strategy. In the third section, I will contrast these properties with those of the doubling construction (1)b. I will propose that despite their differences, verb doubling is a subcase of the 'do' auxiliation case. In a fourth section, I will focus on the main contrast between the two analytic constructions: productivity. The analytic construction in (1)a is fully productive, whereas (1)b is clearly idiosyncratic. Only certain verbs can double. The list of the doubling verbs varies across dialects and even from speaker to speaker. The list of doubling verbs always fails to form a homogeneous syntactic class. In section 5, I discuss several theoretical consequences of the idiosyncratic restriction of doubling in (1)b, and propose that LEIT operates in a post-syntactic morphological module. I provide comparative evidence in Yimas and Basque verbal morphology, and propose an interpretation of V2 in terms of obligatory exponence. Section 6 provides a comparative exploration of verbal reduplication in Gungbe, opening the discussion to non sentence-initial environments.

Analytic construction with ober, 'do'

Syntactic properties of verbal head fronting

The analytic construction (henceforth AC) with ober, 'do' is very productive in Standard Breton and in all dialects, as briefly illustrated here below.

(9) Eva a rafe eur werennad lêz. drink R would.do.3SG DET glass milk 'He would (like to) drink a glass of milk. ' Breton Kerne, Trépos (2001:438) (10) Ober a ray glao a-raog an noz. do R do.FUT.3SG rain before DET night 'It will rain before the night. ' Breton Kerne, Trépos (2001:438) (11) Koéh e hras ar benneu hé deuhlin (…) fall R did.PAST.3SG on ends POSS dual.knee 'She fell on her knees. ' Breton Gwened, Guillevic et Le Goff (1986:161) (12) Tremen a reont evit tud vad. pass R do.PRES.3PL for people good 'They pass for being good people.' Sarmoniou an Aotrou Quere, Quéré (1906:230) Verbal head fronting with 'do' has the syntactic properties listed in (13).

(13) Verbal head fronting properties i.

it is restricted to root tensed clauses. ii.

it is neutral in terms of information packaging. iii.

it is fully productive (except for some compounds of 'be'). iv.

verb fronting is local. v.

the infinitive head is moved alone. vi.

movement violates the syntactic ban on excorporation. vii.

it is restricted to [VINF-do] order. viii. it (sometimes) has a doubling counterpart (1).

All properties, except (viii), directly follow from verb head fronting being a LEIT last-resort operation preventing tense-initial orders. I briefly review them here. Verb fronting with auxiliary ober 'do' occurs only in environments where Tense-second is the canonical word order, hence the restriction to matrices of tensed domains, because embedded domains are canonically Tense first (C-VSO, with complementizers that can be phonologically null). ( 14 We already saw that analytic tense is not possible when focalized material fills in the pre-Tense position, that is, in minimalist terms, when preverbal A-bar material is brought into the left-periphery for independent reasons and accidentally satisfies LEIT by providing pre-Tense material. In terms of information packaging, Stephens (1982:114) qualifies verb head-initial structures as 'neutral', which is also [START_REF] Schafer | Long Head Movement and Information Packaging in Breton[END_REF]'s conclusion from a Modern Breton corpus study. Following [START_REF] Vallduvi | Structural properties of information packaging in Catalan[END_REF] terminology, Shafer states that verb head fronting appears in 'all-focus' and 'focus-tail' sentences (ii). In grammars from the first half of the 20 th century, analytic structures are often said to create emphasis, without further details on the type of emphasis produced (see for example [START_REF] Leclerc | Grammaire bretonne du Dialecte de Tréguier, Brud Nevez (réédition de 1908 et 1911[END_REF]:63,2°, Kervella 1995: §1997). To my knowledge, contemporary speakers of Breton do not use analytic structures in 'do' for emphasis at all. All readings brought by an analytic constructions can be brought by the synthetic ones. The reverse is not true, because of the last-resort dimension of analytic constructions: whenever an element is informationally salient in Breton (topique, focus), it must occupy a place in the clause's left periphery. This element thus automatically satisfies LEIT and cancels the trigger for an analytic construction. Only very high elements in the left periphery that never interfere with V2 orders, like hanging topics (inducing as for readings), scene-setting adverbs, question particles, pragmatic connectors (such as 'but'), and all complementizers associated with prototypical cases of parataxis (la in Central Breton, kar, 'because' in all dialects, sometimes ha…) can precede analytic constructions in 'do' 2 . The last-resort character of infinitive fronting in analytic constructions is further revealed by its mutual exclusiveness with any other element brought into the preverbal area. Such a case is illustrated here by the negation C head in (16) LEIT last-resort verb head fronting is fully productive, except for the verb 'be' and its compounds (iii). The verb bezañ/bout, 'to be', is uniformly rejected, as well as the synthetic verb kaout, 'to have', a compound of the verb bezañ/bout, 'to be' (Kervella 1995: §245 (bis) , [START_REF] Jouitteau | Deriving the Complementarity Effect: Relativized Minimality in Breton Agreement[END_REF], 2008, 2009) as shown in (18). 3,4 (18) * Kaout a ran un oto. have R do.1SG a car D.L Quimperlé, S.B Callac 'I have a car.' [START_REF] Ploneis | Au carrefour des dialectes bretons -Le parler de Berrien: Essai de description phonématique et morphologique[END_REF] signals in Berrien another verb that fails to be auxiliated with ober 'do', that also contains the stem of bezañ/bout 'to be': the verb gouzout 'to know'. For de Rostrenen (1795:97) and Trépos (2001:438), the restriction extends to all stative verbs. However, ACs are readily found with verbs like seblantout 'to seem'; chom 'to stay'; dont da vezañ 'to become', or tremen evit 'to pass for being ', as in (12). The semantic properties of the dummy auxiliary may have evolved over time, leading to these variations. Another LEIT signature is the locality of verb head movement [START_REF] Holmberg | Scandinavian Stylistic Fronting: How any category can become an Expletive[END_REF][START_REF] Jouitteau | La syntaxe comparée du Breton[END_REF][START_REF] Jouitteau | La syntaxe comparée du Breton[END_REF], 2007) Breton Kerne, Trépos (2001:249) One can note that this restriction is not universal, since some cases of [Aux V] order are documented for closely related languages. In Middle Breton, the auxiliary 'do' could precede its infinitive together with a cliticized object (cf. Hemon 2000:238 note 1). In Cornish, the language closest to Breton, […V-AUX…] is the canonical order, and the infinitive only exceptionally precedes 'do' [START_REF] Roux | Le Verbe breton (Morphologie, syntaxe)[END_REF]:409, Fleuriot 2001:21). In Northern Welsh, where the tensed element can be clause-initial, [AUX-V] order is canonical.

There is syntactic evidence that the fronted non-tensed verb is merely a syntactic head (v).

Prototypically, verbs move into the first position of the sentence, leaving its DP arguments stranded as in ( 9) and (10). Oblique arguments also remain IP-internal as in ( 11) and ( 12). The lexical verb can however be more important than a unique head. In (21), it hosts a reflexive clitic, and in (22), a proclitic object.

( Depending on the analysis of clitic that one has, this could be evidence that what fronts is minimally a VP. I disregard this possibility here, and I consider that the fronted elements in ( 21) and ( 22) are complex syntactic heads originating from the tensed complex. Excorporation out of a morphologically complex head is not allowed I syntax, and I take it as evidence that the formation of analytic tenses is indeed not operated in syntax (vi).

Setting aside vP focalisation

We are now equipped with a reasonable set of syntactic tests in order to set aside an additional construction that makes use a dummy auxiliary 'do': the vP focalization construction, illustrated in ( 23), where an entire extended vP structure that has been raised to a preverbal focus position in the left periphery ('anaphoric 'do' in Stephens 1982:99).

( Breton Treger, Le [START_REF] Lay | Bilzig, Buhez Breiz[END_REF]), cited in Le Gléau (1973:45) This focalization construction has characteristic syntactic properties that sharply distinguish it from verb head fronting in (1)a.5

(24) vP focalization properties i.

it is not restricted to the root tensed clauses (26). ii.

it is strictly restricted to focalization readings (sometimes contrastive). iii.

it is fully productive for all vPs. iv.

movement is not local ( 23), (25). v.

the infinitive head is moved inside a large constituent (23). vi.

involves no violation of the head movement constraint. vii.

it is not restricted to [VINF-do] Standard Breton, Dupuy (2007:16) The two [VINF-do] constructions are distinguished by the size of the displaced element (i.e., head versus phrase), and consequently by the type of movement it undergoes (ultra-local LEIT movement vs. XP movement). The motivation for movement is also different: focus which can be understood as feature checking under Chomsky's minimalism. Such an A-bar movement automatically satisfies LEIT. As a consequence, vP focalization is mutually exclusive with verb head fronting, because the former satisfies a rule for which the latter is a last-resort strategy. Finally, because head-fronting resorts to excorporation, and vP fronting to XP movement, the latter is found in compound tenses and the former is ungrammatical in such contexts. In ( 27), the auxiliary 'have' does not contain the lexical verb 'to write' at any point in the derivation, therefore excorporation cannot lead to the fronting of the infinitive of skrivañ, 'to write'. Treger Breton, Leclerc (1986:80) I have shown that AC constructions in 'do' result from a last-resort strategy to satisfy LEIT. This hypothesis accounts for the syntactic properties of verb head fronting (i-vi), and for the contrasts between vP focalization movement and last-resort verb head fronting. The assumption that verb head fronting originates from the Fin site (that is the site where the tensed head itself stands) vs. a post-tense IP internal site is justified by the fact that the infinitive head is never found with this auxiliary 'do' after the tensed head (vii). There is a stronger argument in favor of excorporation: the fact that the AC with 'do' has a doubling counterpart (viii).

Analytic construction with doubling

Verb doubling as a subcase of analytic construction

Unlike analytic constructions with the auxiliary "do", which is already found productively in Middle Breton, analytic constructions with doubling emerged at a later stage in the language (during XVII° century, see Le Roux 1957:416), and appear to be restricted to certain verbs only. I analyze doubling constructions as a subclass of the analytic constructions. Verb doubling exhibits most of the syntactic properties of do-ACs. The contrast lies in their different productivity and their effects on information packaging (italics).

(29) Verbal head doubling properties i.

it is restricted to the root tensed clauses. ii.

it is not neutral in terms of information packaging. iii.

it is lexically restricted iv.

verbal movement is ultra local. v.

the infinitive head is moved alone. vi.

movement violates the syntactic ban on excorporation vii.

it is restricted to the [VINF-Tense] order. viii. It (always) has a 'do' counterpart. Doubling cases are found exclusively in canonical Tense-second environments. No case of doubling in infinitives or imperatives ever arises (i). Verb head doubling is ultra-local (iv), is hence incompatible with long distance extraction (30). ( 30 These facts follow in the excorporation scenario: only elements that can ever be part of the synthetic morphologically complex head (clitics) can be excorporated from it.

The sentence in (37) would be a strong counterexample if it could mean: He will come home walking, which it can not, as confirmed by the ungrammaticality of 'tomorrow'. This is a case of accidental co-occurrence of two unrelated instances of the verb 'walk', rather than copying. A goal argument is topicalized in the pre-tense area: He will come walking [ PP (in order to) come home]7 . Presence of the silent preposition is independently revealed by the e variant of the rannig noted R, providing a contrast with examples of doubling which tend to use the a variant.

(37) [ PP Dont d' ar gêr ] e teuio war droad / * warc'hoazh. P come P DET house R come.FUT P feet / tomorrow '(In order to) come home, he will come (walking /*tomorrow).' Quimperlé Breton D.L., Callac S.B.

The doubling phenomena is strictly restricted to [VINF-do] orders (vii). No doubling is ever found with the infinitive form following the inflected one. The relevant contrast between analytic constructions in do and with doubling thus seems to be information packaging.

Information packaging

Verb doubling triggers a saliency effect on information packaging, which fails to arise in analytic constructions in do. This effect is rather delicate to formalize, and even describe. Grammars are at best vague, at worst contradictory about it. Ernault (1890:470) proposes a gradation in emphasis: the doubling of rankout, 'must', would be a "more energetic synonym" of the do-AC, itself more emphatic than the synthetic strategy. This rare note is at odds with Le Gléau (1973:46), for whom focalized do-ACs with semi-auxiliaries like rankout are ungrammatical. The pragmatic development of (38) that Herve ar Bihan comments on for a sentence by his father points toward a verum focus effect, a focalization on the truth value of the sentence, suggesting that doubling may even induce different types of readings on the sentence.

( I leave for here open the question of the impact of doubling on information packaging. I just take note that verb-doubling can have an impact on information packaging and most probably has to, with possible readings beyond verum focus. The focus effect probably comes from doubling itself, and not from excorporation.

Breton indeed can use doubling for intensification, as it independently does in the domain of adjectives (tomm-tomm, /hot-hot/, 'very hot'). However, it can't be the entire story, because Breton reduplication does not always obtain this particular semantic effect. In (40), the infinitive verb 'to live' is reduplicated, and its second occurrence bears a diminutive marker. The interpretation of the construction is clearly not intensive. In (41), a nominal head or even an entire DP has been reduplicated over a deictic marker. The obtained reading is specific unknown or specific uncited [START_REF] Jouitteau | Doing the work of free choice determiners without 'any[END_REF]). More of the same morphology doesn't have to mean more of the same meaning.9 A much more extensive study, with carefully controlled questionnaires that would take variation into account would be necessary. For the sake of this paper, the important question is to see if doubling constructions are, as I propose, last-resort operations used to avoid Tensefirst word orders, or if they are just triggered by a particular semantico/pragmatic effect. In the latter case, the doubling constructions could not be considered as a subcase of analytic constructions. The two hypothesis make diverging predictions as to the distribution of verb-doubling: an expletive operation prototypical of analytic constructions will appear only as a last-resort in order to avoid Tense-first orders, whereas an operation driven by information packaging will appear in correlation with the salience reading. The distribution of verb doubling shows all prototypical last-resort properties that we already saw in the analytic constructions in do. Not only does verb doubling appear only in canonical V2 contexts (i), but any independent satisfaction of LEIT renders doubling ungrammatical. Doubling is banned with an embedded C head (42)a, a matrix negation C head (42)b, or a preverbal expletive (42)c. This is also the case for any A or A-bar preverbal XP.

( ' Miossec (1981: 7) Despite its impact on information packaging, verb-doubling thus shows the last-resort properties prototypical of analytic constructions in do. The last contrast that stands between do-ACs and doubling ACs is the question of productivity. I will show in the next section that doubling is fully idiosyncratic and cannot be reduced to a syntactic operation.

Idiosyncrasy of verb reiteration

This section is dedicated to showing that Breton verb doubling illustrated in (1)b is idiosyncratically restricted, and concerns a list of verbs that fail to form a class at the syntactic level. No syntactic reduction of the paradigm is possible. This will pave the way to proposing that doubling is triggered at the very late syntax/morphology interface and realized in a morphological post-syntactic module. I will proceed by exploring different attempts of syntactic reduction and point out where they fail to account for the data.

Variation in doubling verbs

We saw that for Le Roux (1957:416), the emergence of verb doubling dates back to the 17 th century. Kervella (1995: §274) proposes that all Middle Breton verbs could be inflected by taking their own root as an auxiliary. Ernault (1888:247) argues on the contrary that the doubling AC was found "only for a small number of verbs, in Modern and Middle Breton".

Ernault illustrates with some corpus data, and produces examples that are quite similar to those later produced by Hemon (2000:239 note 4) and Le Roux (1957:416).

Breton grammars vary with respect to the verbs they claim can double. Gouzout, 'to know' is the only doubling verb noted by Kervella (1995: §197), though he dedicates an entire section to conjugations with semi-auxiliaries ( §247-253). Gros (1984:94), an expert of the Treger dialect, has a very detailed chapter on emphasis by doubling but also cites only 'to know' as a doubling verb. However, as reported in Le [START_REF] Roux | Le Verbe breton (Morphologie, syntaxe)[END_REF], Gros had reported a doubling structure with mont 'to go ' in 1911, in Trédrez. Le Roux (1957:414), also a Treger Breton speaker, mentions gouzout 'to know', but also gallout 'can', as does [START_REF] Ernault | Etudes bretonnes. VI. La conjugaison personnelle et le verbe avoir[END_REF], which he has read. He further mentions that there are « some others » and cites the data collected by J. The distribution of doubling verbs resists any attempt at syntactic reduction to a homogeneous class of verbs.

Let us first examine with care the flexibility in ranking possibilities for auxiliaries because some ranking decisions are analysis dependent. The double occurrences of the verbs ober 'to do' can either resort to doubling or to a do-AC (10). The analysis of doubling cases of bezañ 'to be', could also oscillate between verb doubling and expletive insertion (43)a. Doubling of kaout 'have', partly depends on the analysis of 'to be'. The paradigm of kaout is visibly formed of a morphological compound including 'to be', to a more or less synthetic degree across dialectal variation (cf. [START_REF] Jouitteau | Deriving the Complementarity Effect: Relativized Minimality in Breton Agreement[END_REF], 2008, 2009 and references therein). Though doubling is not grammatical with the kaout form of the infinitive (45), some dialects would allow bez insertion equally with kaout 'have' and bezañ 'to be' (43). These cases thus could equally 'count' as verb doubling or expletive insertion. I take these ranking variables into account in the coming discussion.

( No morphological particularity emerges either, that would set doubling verbs apart from other verbs. At most, we can note that an infinitival ending such as -al, is never present on doubling verbs, but so few verbs do double that it is hardly conclusive. The case of verbs ending in -out like gouzout 'to know', must however be discussed. Gouzout 'to know' is by far the verb that doubles the most frequently in modern Breton. When one wonders about the link between gouzout 'to know' and semi-auxiliaries, one can notice it is a compound containing the verb 'to be' (in its older form -bout). No reduction of the data is however possible. In Treger Breton as in Léon, the independent form of 'to be' is not -bout, like it is in Breton Gwened and Breton Kerne: it evolved in bezañ (Hémon 2000: §139,14). In these dialects, the verb 'to know' is arguably not a compound of 'to be' anymore.

Similarly, no correlation emerges between doubling verbs and those before which the expletive bez' can be found. Gros (1984:110) notes that bez' is restricted in Breton Treger to the preverbal area of bezañ 'to be', gouzout 'to know' and kaoud 'to have'. The first two can double in this dialect, but kaout 'have' fails to. This hypothesis also would not hold for Standard Breton or Western varieties, where bez' can be used before any lexical verb. I conclude that the difference between doubling verbs and non-doubling verbs is purely idiosyncratic. Knowing the language requires knowing, for each verb, if it used in doubling constructions or not, pretty much in the same way gender is assigned to inanimate nouns. Dialects and speakers vary in the list of verbs they treat as doubling verbs.

'I can tell you that she DID read it!' litt. : '… that as for reading it, she did indeed read it.' > pragmatic implication: she showed extensive evidence for this action.

In all the above languages, doubling is fully productive inside the pragmatic and syntactic environment that triggers doubling. The outstanding character of Breton verb doubling is its idiosyncrasy. In Breton, in a doubling configuration, not all verbs can double.

Theoretical analyses for syntactic doubling

Due to some major turns in the theory, doubling has received several different formal analyses in the generativist paradigm during the last decades. The passage from trace theory of movement, which was dominant in the 80-90's, to copy theory, opened a boulevard of analysis for doubling effects in syntax.13 Under Chomsky's trace theory (1973), an item moved in syntax exists under one and only one exemplary, because movement creates new elements in the derivation: phonologically null pronominal traces. The operation of verb doubling in the syntactic component is difficult because each occurrence should then require its own arguments to pass the theta-criterion, contrary to typological evidence. In a trace theory T model, doubling can only be viewed as a post-syntactic (morpho(phono)logic) operation. Copy theory [START_REF] Chomsky | The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory[END_REF][START_REF] Chomsky | A minimalist program for linguistic theory[END_REF], reverses the perspective: every position in a movement chain is occupied by the same item (except their (un)interpretable features). At the syntactic level, presence of multiple copies is no exception, but is merely the symptom of movement, as sometimes revealed by pronunciation of multiple copies by the sensorimotor system. The sensorimotor system generally imposes pronunciation of the highest copy, and doubling can be obtained to the extent that one can predict where the sensorimotor interface will be in a situation to send two copies to spell-out. [START_REF] Gouget | La réduplication syntaxique et la structure du groupe verbal en mandarin, en anglais et en d'autres langues[END_REF] for example proposes that the complex movement of the verb copy in Mandarin Chinese is peculiar in that it always obtains two copies that count as the highest one in the chain. Depending on the respective ordering of movement and cyclic transfer of the derivation to the interface, reduplication or simple movement is obtained. For verb doubling in Nupe, [START_REF] Kandybowicz | The Grammar of Repetition, Nupe grammar at the syntax-phonology interface[END_REF] proposes that a tonal factitive morpheme calls for a realizational basis, with the result that the realization of multiple verb copies is associated with the factitive reading. Typological evidence for morphophonologically distinct occurrences can also easily be handled with: two copies in the same chain are already distinct at the syntactic level thanks to the encoding of the motivation for movement into (the interpretability of) feature specification. Finally, in multidominance theory, two occurrences of a same chain are one and the same syntactic element and can only be differentiated when sent to the interfaces. Pronunciation of a copy/occurrence can be taken care of by a morphological operation like Morphological Fusion (see [START_REF] Nunes | Linearization of Chains and Sideward Movement[END_REF]Kandybowicz 2006a, b). The paradigm of verb doubling in Breton has key importance in the debate. This paradigm has no equivalent in the doubling literature because of the lexical restriction imposed on it: only an arbitrary list of verbs can be doubled, irreducible to a homogeneous syntactic class, or to a syntactic operation. This means that whatever mechanism is called upon to account for verb doubling in gouzout a ouzon, /to know I know/, this mechanism must be set such as to apply to an arbitrary list of verbs. Idiosyncrasy, however, is a prototypical symptom of lexical or morphological operations, crucially not of syntactic operations.

A postsyntactic morphological level

This section investigates and discusses the question of the module of grammar where doubling operates: syntax or morpho(phono)logical interface.

Not in syntax

Doubling can be obtained inside the syntactic component (by means of copies or double occurrences) if and only if, inside the syntactic level, doubling verbs (A) can be distinguished from non doubling ones (B) (+/-auxiliaries /modals /semi-auxiliaries? particular derivation?).

If so, and for each derivation, the syntactic output can provide the interface with either verbal type A or B couples -leading to different spell-outs. Basque provides the relevant contrast with Breton. Basque verb doubling is restricted to a list of verbs strangely reminiscent of those of Breton: 'to know', 'to take' (56), 'to walk' 'to come', and 'to go' ( 60).

(60) Juen doie, ala etorri dator, ba? go.INF go.3SG or come.INF come.3SG then 'Well, is he leaving (right now) or coming?', Biscayan Basque, Zuazo (1998:207) Basque doubling verbs happen to also be the only verbs in the language that can show synthetic agreement, which means that doubling can be associated with a particular syntactic derivation leading to synthetic agreement. Verbs that can double are already distinguishable from non-doubling ones at the syntactic level. In Breton however, both doubling verbs and non-doubling ones appear in the same syntactic location and seem undistinguishable at the syntactic level. Another attempt to locate the doubling operation internally to the syntactic level would be to set a morphological filter after syntax. In this scenario, all verbs are doubling verbs at the syntactic level, but some postsyntactic morphological filter avoids it for most verbs and realizes the AC in 'do' instead. Considering that we already rejected the hypothesis that only certain roots would have an independent spell-out, I can't see what this filter could consist of. Another argument that ACs are not internal to the syntactic module is that its trigger, LEIT, resists encoding under feature checking systems. LEIT, under different EPP-related names, has been proposed to be cast under different types of uninterpretable features: the phonological [P-] in [START_REF] Holmberg | Scandinavian Stylistic Fronting: How any category can become an Expletive[END_REF] for Icelandic, the [δ] feature in Rezac (2004) or categorial [u CAT] in [START_REF] Jouitteau | La syntaxe comparée du Breton[END_REF][START_REF] Jouitteau | La syntaxe comparée du Breton[END_REF] for Breton, the empty φ sets mentioned by Grohmann, Drury and Castillo (2000), the [-Foc] in [START_REF] Holmberg | Expletives, Subjects and Topics in Finnish[END_REF] for Finnish, etc. The advantages of these feature-driven scenarios are that they accurately derive unselective locality (via Relativized Minimality), and blindness to the X/XP distinction. However, LEIT is an operation that does not exactly coincide with what we know about feature checking: (A) LEIT satisfaction does not ever seem to be possible at a distance. Instead, it is characterized by an ultralocal domain of impact, (B) LEIT effects are characterized by 'the far-sighted effect': in order to obtain unselective locality, feature checking accounts of LEIT need to postulate uninterpretable features that are present on the very head on which they are postulated. Feature-checking scenarios cannot avoid the stipulation that the uninterpretable feature is blind to the interpretable features of its own head (consisting of the inflected head itself or even the potential clitics that crosslinguistically fail to satisfy LEIT); (C) [START_REF] Lasnik | A note on the EPP[END_REF] states that EPP cannot be cast as a strong feature, and his argument holds for LEIT: provided that features can be checked by erasure of their satisfier inside an ellipsis (of VP or IP), VP ellipsis should allow for Tense-first orders in V2 languages, which is not the case. The merge of expletives is also a problem (D): Rezac (2004:481) notes that it would be "the (unique) feature whose Agree results in the Merge component of the Move operation, and in expletive base-generation". Finally, another argument that LEIT does not operate in syntax is its recurrent violations of the Head Movement Constraint (Stylistic Fronting in Icelandic, Long Head movement in Breton, excorporation in Breton ACs). If LEIT operates outside of the syntactic component, no such filter as the Head Movement Constraint or any syntactic ban on excorporation is predicted to apply.

Pre-Tense vs. post-Tense infinitives: not in the lexicon

There seems to be morphological evidence that preverbal infinitives should be set apart from post-Tense ones. In several dialects, their phonological spell-out may indeed differ. Ernault points out an asymmetry in Little Tréguier, where the verbal ending is optional in AC, but obligatory in post-Tense position. Indeed, all the infinitives that Favereau (1997: §347) notes to lack infinitive endings in Breton Treger and Gwened appear in a position preceding a 'do' auxiliary. Similarly, in the Low Kerne dialect, post-Tense infinitives bear the -o suffix (62), whereas the infinitive in AC shows up with -ek ( 63 One could try to push the idea that the above data suggest an asymmetry in Breton between verb roots (preverbal) and regular infinitives (prototypically post-Tense). However, in (63)b, the verb labourek is not part of an AC, but XP moved across an auxiliary in a preverbal focused position. The prototypically preverbal ending -ek appears. The asymmetry thus seems to lie between the preverbal and post-Tense positions, rather than between the roots and infinitives. This absence of root/infinitive asymmetry is important because it shows that the Breton verbdoubling idiosyncrasy does not originate in the lexicon. One could propose that verb heads are specified in the lexicon as having, or not having, independent spell-outs for their roots. Syntax thus derives an analytic construction composed of sets of abstract features of the sort [… verbal root+tense+AGR], before which the verbal root appears as a LEIT effect in linear order. This assumption would predict that only verbs that do have an independent spell-out for their root would be found with doubling, and others not. However, such a hypothesis would have to assume an intrinsic distinction between roots and infinitives, despite the fact they 'happen' to have the same spell-out in Breton, giving rise to a global picture in the language where all verbs do have a spell-out for their infinitives, but not all of them can use this same bundle of morphophonological features in order to spell out the independent root of the verb. I consider such a scenario unlikely, and I stand by the idea that all verbal roots are, uniformly, and by default, spelled-out as infinitives in Breton. In fact, if there is a syntactic location where the spell-out of the infinitive seems to matter less than anywhere, it is the preverbal area.

The key to the preverbal/postverbal asymmetry in the spell-out of verbs is most likely to be found in Breton accentuation rules, and in the fact that preverbal items always have a following vowel available for syllabification: the rannig (R).

Not in phonology

The level where doubling arises can be shown to be sensitive to the [+/-nominal] distinction.

In literary standard Breton and in the Leon dialect, the preverbal particle noted here 'R' in gloses, agrees in category with the +/-nominal preverbal element (Rezac 2004[START_REF] Jouitteau | La syntaxe comparée du Breton[END_REF][START_REF] Jouitteau | La syntaxe comparée du Breton[END_REF]). This particule is thus sensitive to the categorial identity of the fronted constituent, including LEIT fronted constituents. The causality chain of LEIT effects is schematized in (64). LEIT triggers last-resort strategies at the end of the derivation, when a tensed head fronts first to fuse with the Fin head and calls for any head or bigger constituent to be Merged or Moved. The +/-nominal category of this pre-tense element will decide for the particular spellout of the Fin head: a follows [+ nominal] elements, and e follows [-nominal] elements. It is not rare that the rannig a/e itself would not be spelled out, but its syntactic presence is discernable by the consonant mutation it triggers on the following tensed element right adjoined to it.

(64) [ FinP Fin V ….

X(P) sensitivity to [+/-D] category

Fin verb realized with realized as a / e potential consonantic mutation

In doubling cases (as in ACs in general), the rannig appears under its a form that signals a

[+nominal] preceding element, which is logical in a language where untensed verb structures show extensive nominal properties. The important point is that the LEIT last-resort operation is sensitive to the categorial identity of the element serving as an expletive.14

A Morphological operation: obligatory exponence in morphology

I assume a T model of grammar (65) and propose that LEIT is located in a post-syntactic morphological structure. As such, LEIT effects are predicted to be blind to phonological properties, but sensitive to the output of syntax (word order). The absence of impact of analytic structures on the interpretative component, as well as deviant syntactic behavior automatically follows. Sensitivity to categorial features is also easily accounted for: categorial features independently have to be visible in morphological structure. This proposal bears a surprising implication for our theory of Information Packaging. It implies that some discourse effects never flow into the semantic component. If I am right in locating verb doubling in a module of grammar that is independent from the interpretative component, there is a part of information structure manipulation that is separated from Interpretation proper. These effects should never impact vericonditionality, as is verified for verb-doubling.

The idea suggested here that LEIT effects could be crosslinguistically tied to morphology finds independent crosslinguistic support in some well-documented morphological paradigms that strongly recall the LEIT signature. I will briefly present the case of obligatory exponence in the Basque morphology, where a second position phenomenon is identified at the level of a morphologically complex word. Laka (1993) presents a case of obligatory exponence in the Basque verb morphological complex. The obligatory exponent location precedes the agreement complex, and is canonically realized by the absolutive marker, like g-in (66)a and b. The absolutive argument controls the preceding exponent as long as it is first or second person. In cases where the absolutive argument is third person, a Tense-Mood conditioned morphology fills in the gap as in (66)c. These prefixes, d (present), z/Ø (past), and l (irrealis), are last-resort defaults, meaning that they are strictly restricted to contexts lacking and absolutive controller for the prefix.

In certain tenses, however, no prefix is available, and the morphological complex shows ultralocal movement of the ergative marker into the prefix position as in (66)d, referred to as 'ergative displacement'. Finally, in these critical contexts where the prefix's morphology is exceptionally controlled by the ergative argument, some dialects show doubling of the ergative marker in two different locations into the complex as in (66)e.

(66) ? -TM The parallel with Breton LEIT effect is striking. Breton preverbal position is canonically filled in by some XP, in a manner prototypical of V2. LEIT last-resort dimension is evidenced when no such XP is fronted. Merge of the Basque Tense-Mood conditioned prefixes strongly recalls the Breton bez/bet expletive strategy, where the used expletive is prototypically verbal (it is realized as a morphological shortening of the verb 'to be', and contains a [+/-past] encoding). Ergative displacement mimics LEIT ultralocal movement, and ergative doubling seemingly recalls verb-doubling. The surprising, but, I argue, unavoidable conclusion from Breton, is that an edge-sensitive morphological process similar to the second position phenomena exemplified above in Basque, is active at the level of the sentence, and leads to a generalization on word order (linear V2). 15 The remaining section provides a crosslinguistic comparison. Breton is not alone in presenting a paradigm of verb-doubling that answers obligatory exponence. I present an identical pattern in a genetically unrelated language: Gungbe. The Gungbe paradigm provides an interesting contrast with Breton because obligatory exponence is not relative to the tensed element of the sentence. Comparison thus suggests that there is no crosslinguistic rule that would intrinsically avoid left-edge apparition of Tense morphology. The Gungbe obligatory exponence paradigm is also located in the left-edge of an IP internal aspectual structure, which suggests the left-edge position of the sentence is not intrinsically responsible for obligatory exponence effects.

LEIT-reduplication in Gungbe

Gungbe provides a case of an obligatorily exponence in the preverbal position, inside a nominalized small clause structure. This small clause is selected by and aspectual control verb (e.g., refuse, begin) and could be headed by a purpose marker (in purpose constructions) or a final low-tone (in the case of the progressive) noted 'NR'. In (67)b, I represent the derivation proposed by [START_REF] Aboh | Clause structure and verb series[END_REF] for these structures, with the internal argument of the purpose marker that fronts into its specifier. The position of obligatory exponence is at the left edge of this moved constituent. The element canonically in preverbal position is the internal argument (here in bold), whose preverbal movement is neither case-related (Aboh 2005:158), nor related to information packaging (Aboh p.c.). 16 (67)a. Àsíbá wɑ́ [A SPP lεśì ɖù ] gbé _ . Gungbe, Aboh (2009:14-15) Asiba come rice eat PRT 'Asiba came in order to eat rice.' 15 See also [START_REF] Foley | The Yimas language of New Guinea[END_REF] and [START_REF] Phillips | On the Nature of Polysynthetic Inflection[END_REF] for a similar ABS displacement paradigm showing morphological obligatory exponence in Yimas (Papua New Guinea). 16 In Aboh's terms, FP which embeds the AspP and VP is a predicate, and [spec AspP] functions as the subject of that predicate. He labels the preverbal position the 'subject position' [START_REF] Aboh | Object-shift, verb-movement and verb reduplication[END_REF], but the term is merely induced by his analysis that preverbal movement is EPP-triggered. [START_REF] Aboh | Clause structure and verb series[END_REF] clearly shows that no subject ever stops in AspP where it would fail to receive Case. The Tense marker, whenever realized, is the [+futur] morpheme ná. It distributes Direct Case and is located higher in the structure (Aboh 2005:ex 11

]]]]]]]]]
LEIT signature is a full battery of last-resort strategies, some of which syntactically bad behaved, with mutual exclusive distribution of heads and XPs. Indeed, when the verb is intransitive, or when the object is absent, being either a pronominalized clitic or A'-extracted, another element has to 'take its place' and front preverbally. This element can be a locative PP (68), a reduplicated adverb like dέdέ, 'slowly' (69), a goal argument of a double object constructions (70).

( A reduplication process of the verb is also a last-resort strategy (71). This means that like the verb excorporation process in Breton, sub-extraction of the verbal root is an available option that obeys the same trigger as a full preverbal XP does. Moreover, as in Breton, presence of a preverbal functional head, the prospective marker ná, satisfies LEIT as illustrated in (72). When the numeration provides such a satisfier, no fronting operation is required and the sentence is licit.

(71)a. [START_REF] Aboh | Object-shift, verb-movement and verb reduplication[END_REF] assumes that neither the reduplicated verb nor the prospective marker fill in the preverbal gap itself. He proposes instead that both heads license a null expletive via the Spec/head relation. The problem I could see against an expletive hypothesis is that a phonologically null placeholder should easily vanish under XP fronting. To the contrary, as we will see in the next section, ná in (72) blocks any further XP movement or reduplication process.

Last-resort

Both the XP object and the prospective ná being imposed by the numeration, they can both appear preverbally (73). In contrast, preverbal movement for LEIT satisfaction is a last-resort operation. As such, any independent satisfaction of LEIT renders it ungrammatical.

Hierarchical scale

The ultralocality of LEIT last-resort effects suggests a hierarchical scale as illustrated in (79) for LEIT satisfying strategies.

(79) Object fronting > reduplication > reduplicated adverb fronting / (except non reduplicated elements)

Object fronting is always chosen over reduplication. Speakers vary as to allowing for verb reduplication to take place with a postverbal object (Aboh 2005:fn12). An object also fronts over the adverb (80). We also find data showing that reduplication can take place over the fronting of some PPs (81) (to be compared with ( 68)).

( In Gungbe, it is likely that the reduplication option takes place before the fronting of some postverbal elements, hence creating unavailable postverbal targets. A sharp contrast between the Breton and Icelandic paradigms emerges: any closest postverbal element is an eligible target for preverbal last-resort movement in Icelandic or Breton. However, Gungbe has a class of elements that can show up postverbally, but still are not elected for LEIT fronting. For example, low non-reduplicated adverbs like bléún, 'quickly' can appear post-verbally but not front to satisfy LEIT. In view of this resistance to fronting, it is rather unclear what postverbal reduplicated adverbs have that make them eligible targets for LEIT fronting over verb reduplication. I also note, following Aboh, that VP and vP also never are eligible targets, and leave these mysteries for further investigations. For the sake of this article, it is sufficient that I remark that in (79), like in the Breton cases, obligatory exponence is met by mixed strategies that go from XP fronting to morphological doubling operations, characteristic of LEIT effects. The Gungbe syntactic environment for LEIT effects is also interesting because of its differences from the Breton context: first, the obligatorily filled position is not sentence initial. LEIT Gungbe effects arguably arise at the left edge of an aspectual verb structure. The obligatorily filled gap, like in Breton, can be preverbal, but this parallel is twisted: LEIT effects in Breton are relative to the head that bears both tense and subject agreement markers. In Gungbe, no V-to-I movement takes place and the verb lands lower, in an internal IP position (V-to-AsP).

Conclusion(s)

Breton analytic structures obey LEIT:

The choice between synthetic structures and analytic structures in Breton depends on the need for an expletive insertion trigger to be satisfied. This Late Expletive Insertion Trigger that leads to verb second orders is responsible for all sorts of last-resort strategies, one of them being excorporation of the verbal root and consecutive pronunciation of the lexical content of the verb in the preverbal area. The default spell-out of the excorporated verb is an infinitive, with the morphological properties attached to all verbs in the pre-tense area. The mysterious restriction of analytic structures to the relative […V-Aux…] order follows. The tensed auxiliary is either realized as a dummy 'do' auxiliary, or, for an idiosyncratic list of verbs, as the tensed reiteration of the excorporated verb itself (doubling).

Breton analytic structures result from a morphological operation. The very existence of doubling structures is one of the arguments that excorporation happens in a post-syntactic morphological component. The list of doubling verbs is an arbitrary set and does not form homogeneous syntactic classes: nothing distinguishes doubling verbs from nondoubling ones at the syntactic level. Non-doubling verbs resort uniformly to the AC in 'do'. It follows that no scenario operating doubling in syntax is possible for Breton. Theoretically, the hypothesis that doubling arises in a post-syntactic morphological component has the strong implication that doubling exists crosslinguistically, independently of either the copy theory of movement or multidominance.

The rule leading to V2 orders operates in a morphophonological module. On the one hand, we know of obligatory exponence cases in morphology (cf. Basque ergative displacement, Yimas morphological EPP), and on the other hand, we know of second position phenomena at the level of the sentence, for example V2 languages (Old Irish, Middle Welsh, Cornic, Breton, Medieval dialects of Northern Italian, Old French, Old Spanish, Rhaetoromance, Sorbian, Estonian, Kashmiri, Karitiana, Hebrew, Papago and almost all Germanic languages), but also clitic second languages (Warlpiri, Tagalog, most Slavic languages, etc.). The present analysis of the Breton analytic structures and Gungbe reduplication structures leads to the major conclusion that there exist mixed systems, in which obligatory exponence operates at a level where a subject or an object with a potentially long relative embedded structure 'counts' the same as the excorporated subcomponent of a head for word order. This of course opens interesting perspectives for a unified understanding of second position effects across languages. Among other things, the crosslinguistic violations of the Head Movement Constraint in these languages (Stylistic Fronting, Long Head Movement, verb fronting, etc.) would follow if word order indeed is finalized in a post-syntactic component.

Information Packaging:

Operating in a post-syntactic component as it does, LEIT last-resort strategies are invisible for the interpretative component of grammar. The data presented here does not contradict this fact in the sense that no LEIT operation ever impacts the truthconditionality conditions of the sentence. However, some discourse effects can still arise. The AC with 'do' is said in Breton Grammars, for varieties of the beginning of the XXst century, to have been used for a salience effect on the verb. In modern varieties, this is still the case for doubling structures. My proposal implies that these discourse effects are interpreted in a pragmatic component of interpretation, distinct from semantic interpretation proper.

  R go.1SG go 'I eat APPLES.' 'I am going INTO THE GARDEN.'

  [ FINP R [(V)do.T.AGR] [ vP S V PP] b. V [ FINP R [V.T.AGR] [ vP S V PP]

( 27 )

 27 Skrivañ (d'am breur) am eus graet (*d'am breur) write.INF to my brother R.1SG have done to my brother 'I have written to my brother.'

( 40 )

 40 Bevañ-bevaik a rae… live-live.DIM R did.3sg 'He was struggling along.' Standard, Denez (1993:17) (41) C'hoand am euz da gaoud ar marc'h-mañ (ar) marc'h. wish R.1sg have P have the horse-here (the) horse 'I want to have such and such a horse.'

(

  82) a. Àsíbá tò (*bléún) lεśì ɖù (bléún). Gungbe, Aboh (p.c) b. Àsíbá tò lεśì (*bléún) ná (*bléún) ɖù (bléún). 'Asiba is (about to) eat rice quickly.' The respective postverbal order of indirect object, non-reduplicated adverb and adverbial PPs is [IO-PP-ADV] or [IO-ADV-PP] (83). The assumption that ultralocal movement applies as a last-resort predicts that in (84), the indirect object and only the indirect object, being the closest target for fronting, can front. But it doesn't (84). (83) a. Mέtrù lɔ́ tò wémà lɔ́ ná zé [ xlán ví lέ ] [ tò flέn ] [ hàɖòkpólɔ ]. teacher DET PROG book DET PROSP take P child PL P there immediately b. Mέtrù lɔ́ tò wémà lɔ́ ná zé [xlán ví lέ ] [ hàɖòkpólɔ́ ] [ tò flέn ]. immediately P there 'The teacher was about to immediately send the book to the children right there.' (84) a. *Mέtrù lɔ́ tò xlán ví lέ zé ὲ _ tò flέn hàɖòkpólɔ. teacher DET PROG P child PL take 3SG P there immediately b. *Mέtrù lɔ́ tò tò flέn zé ὲ xlán ví lέ _ hàɖòkpólɔ. teacher DET PROG P there take 3SG P child PL immediately c. *Mέtrù lɔ́ tò hàɖòkpólɔ́ zé ὲ xlán ví lέ _ tò flέn . teacher DET PROG immediately take 3SG P child PL P there 'The teacher was sending it immediately to the children right there.'

  . Any other expletive strategy also logically blocks verb head fronting (17).

	(16) * Koll ne reas	ket ar martolod _ e gasketenn.
	lose NEG did.3SG NEG DET sailor	his cap
	'The sailor didn't lose his cap.'	Breton Treger, Stephens (1982:113)
	(17) * Bez koll a reas	ar martolod _ e gasketenn.
	EXPL lose R did.3SG DET sailor	his cap
	'The sailor did lose/lost his cap.'

  . No long-distance verb fronting is ever found (19).

	'Anna thinks that Paol said that Nina will paint the table.'
	In (1)', I propose that the site of extraction for the non-tensed verb head is the complex tensed
	head itself. A competing proposal would be to consider that the infinitve originates from the
	closest post-Tense position. If so, we should observe all types of intervention effects. Indeed,
	verb head fronting is for example over-represented in sentences with a pronominal subject.
	This is noted by Le Roux (1957:408) for Middle Breton and by Le Gléau (1973:45) for
	Modern Breton. The conclusion however is not very strong, if one considers a larger
	inventory of Modern Breton data. First, Le Gléau (1973) draws conclusions from a written
	corpus study whose speakers are not all natives. Second, Le Gléau, does not claim that
	[Infinitive-do-Subjet…] order is ungrammatical: verb head fronting with null pronouns is
	merely a statistical preference. Moreover, the occurrence of a given construction with a null
	subject should be declared 'preferred' only if it could be proved that null subjects would not
	be preferred anyway for discourse reasons independent of the construction. Finally, testing
	this prediction on the basis of the correlation with null/incorporated subjects is a rather
	delicate move, since the respective order of the infinitive head and the subject after tense is
	unknown: recall that the infinitive verb is never found after the tensed auxiliary in this
	construction (4).
	The excorporation scenario in (1)', contrasting with the hypothesis of an ultra-local movement
	from the closest post-Tense position, offers a simple solution for the absence of the ['AUX
	do'-INF] order in ACs (vii). ACs are never found in the [… AUX -V…] order because the
	infinitive head never occupies the post-tense position during the derivation: the verb head
	moves up to the Tense and Fin heads. Excorporation of the lexical verb head in the pre-tense
	position occurs as a last-resort for LEIT to be satisfied. The surface order [… AUX -V…],
	though licit in Breton, reveals another 'do' auxiliary that is not the dummy tense-Agr support,
	but a causative semi-auxiliary selecting a small clause as in (20).
	(20)a. Me a ray	sevel eun ti	b.	Sevel a rin	_ eun ti.
	1SG R do.FUT.3SG build a house		build R do.FUT.1SG a house.
	*'I will build a house.'	vs.	'I will build a house.'
	'I will have a house built.'		*' I will have a house built.'
	(19) * Livañ	[ FinP a soñj da Anna [ FinP e lare Paol [ FinP 'raio	Nina an daol.
	paint.INF		R think P Anna		R say Paul	R do.FUT.3SG Nina the table

Dimeziñ gant ma merc'h] ne

  ) [ FOC [ vP PRO i

		ri i	ket	t vP .
	marry	with my daughter NEG do.FUT.2SG NEG
	'You won't MARRY MY DAUGHTER.'

  Dont a zeuiore vraz ha re vihan… come.INF R come.FUT.3SG 3PL big and 3PL small 'The big ones and the small ones will come...' Breton Leon, Troude (1886:54) f. Mont ' ch i d' ar gêr! go.INF R go.2SG P DET house Low-Tréguier, collected by Gros 1911 in Trédrez 'Will you go home!' cited in LeRoux (1957:417) g. Met gouzout a ouzont kavout an dud en-dro goude-se (…) but know.INF R know.3PL find.INF DET people again after-that 'But they know how to find people after that...'

					Breton Kerne, Bijer (2007:138)
	h. Redek a redan	bemdez.
	run.INF R run.1SG every.day
	'I run every day.'			Quimperlé, [D.L 03/2009]
	b. Dleout	a zlean	ober ma gwele.
	must.INF R must.1SG do my bed
	'I have to make my bed.'		Breton Quimperlé, [D.L 03/2009]
	c. Gallout a c'hallfen lako ma avaloù	en	douar.
	can.INF R can	put	my apple/potato	P.DET soil
	'I can plant my potatoes.'		Breton Quimperlé, [D.L 03/2009]

The following examples illustrates verbs that can double in (28). They are: ober 'do

', bezañ 'be', rankout and dleout 'must', gallout 'can', dont 'come', mont 'go', gouzout 'know', kerzhout 'walk', redek 'run', and lenn 'read'. (28)

a. Rencout a rencan da vont. must.INF R must.1SG P go 'I have to go.' Breton Quimperlé, [D.L 03/2009] d. Gellout a c'hell goro ho bugale ar saout. can.INF R can .3SG milk your children DET cow 'Your children could milk the cow.'

Breton Treger, Schafer (1997)

e.

Verb doubling is exceptional in corpora, and not all verbs are found with the same frequency in spontaneous speech. Gouzout 'know' is by far the most commonly heard in Modern Breton, whereas redek 'run', or lenn 'read', are fairly rare.

  ) *gouzout ne gredan ket a ouzez ken. know NEG know.1SG NEG R know.2SG anymore Doubling does not allow intervening elements like those of clefts (31). 32) Va breudeur, ur wezenn-fiez, ha gallout a c'hell reiñ olivez, pe ur winieg fiez? POSS.1SG brothers DET tree-fig Q can R can give olives or DET vine fig 'My brothers, can a fig tree give olives, or a grapevine figs?'

				Testamant Nevez: lizher Jakez 3, Gwilh Ar C'hoad (1893) 6
	(33) Hogen goud' ouzon	ne 'teus	ket klasket laza...
	but	know R know.1SG NEG has.2SG NEG tried kill
	'But I know you didn't mean to kill...'	Koatilouri, Barzig
	(34) … rak gouzout e ouie n' eo ket mont a dont (…) nemetken eo a rafe e genitervez.
	because know R knew NEG is NEG go and come only	is R do.COND his cousin
	'… Because he knew that his cousin would not only go back and forth.'
					Breton Kerne, Avel gornôg, Bijer p.156
	Verb doubling concerns syntactic heads (v) and never targets accompanying arguments (35),
	except incorporated ones (36).
	(35) *[gouzout an doare da vont] a ouzez.
	know DET reason P go R know.2SG
	(36) [ hen	gouzout ] a ouzon.	/ [ E	lenn ] a lennan
	CL.3SG know	R know.1SG	CL.3SG read R read
	'I know it (well).'			'I do read it.'	Quimperlé, D.L.
	(31) *gouzout 'ni eo a ouzon.
	know N COP R know.1SG
	Doubling can be preceded only by elements after which verb-second orders are not found

anyway. I illustrate in (32) with a case a preceding complementizer ha, 'and', xxx in

(Bijer 2007:134)

, met/hogen, 'but', in Error! Reference source not found.,

(33)

(or Bijer 2007:136)

. Examples in embedded sentences boil down to cases of parataxis such as (34).

(

  You see that I know how to read.'In order to test focus effects in verb doubling ACs, I have presented two speakers, D.L and S.B., with the corpus example (39), which seemed to me a good candidate for a neutral reading. The doubling of the verb 'to know' is grammatical for both speakers. The discourse context ensures that all information in the sentence is new, and pragmatically disfavors a verum focus reading. Both speakers, however, noted an emphasis effect (without further comment on what it consisted of). Emphasis in (39) could bear on (i) the lexical content of the verb, (ii) the sentence as a whole, or (iii) the internal argument of the doubled verb 8 .

	38) Lenn a lennan!
	read R read.1SG
	'You see well that I am reading!'		Guy ar Bihan, collected by H. ar Bihan.
	Pragmatic development: '(39)a. Goude bezañ kimiadet diouzh an daou grennard ha danvez beleg anezho,
	after to.be separated P	DET 2 adolescent C material priest P.3PL
	e kavas d'ar c'harretour en doa gounezet e verenn.
	R found P DET carter	3SG had won	his lunch

'After he left the two adolescent priests-to-be, the carter found he had won his lunch.' b. Gouzout a ouie e oa e bourk ar Pont un ostaleri ma veze selvichet enni to.know R knew R was P bourg DET Pont DET hostel C was served P.3SGF sklipoù eus ar c'hentañ. Ha Lorañs mont e-barzh. tripe P the first & Lorañs enter in 'He knew there was in the town of Pont a hostel that served first class tripes. He went in.' Breton Kerne, Avel gornôg, Bijer p.165

  Distribution of doubling has to be considered in comparison with another Breton expletive strategy that also can bear on information packaging: the merge of expletive bez. In (43)a, the preverbal expletive bez is neutral in an 'out of the blue' sentence, and in (43)b, it can bear verum focus. Bez can be found in Western Brittany before all sorts of verbs, but its paradigm overlaps with verb doubling based on the 'be' stem.10 It is at least 60m long and 30 meter large.

	EXPL are.1PL welcomed in DET room big terrible
	'We are welcomed in a very big room.'
	b. Bez' he-deus	da vihanna, tri-ugent metr hed ha tregont metr lehed.
	EXPL R.3SGF has P least	3-20	meter long and 30	meter large
	'(Indeed)
	42) a. * Na	larez	ket din ma gouzout a oar…
	NEG.IMP tell.2SG NEG P.1SG if know R know.3SG
	b. (*n') gouzout (*n') ouzon	ket.	c. (*bez') gouzout (*bez') 'ouzon.
	NEG know	NEG know.1SG NEG	EXPL know EXPL R know.1SG
	(43) a. Bez' omp	digemeret en eur zal vraz spontuz.

  Gros with mont 'to go'. Eugène Chalm, from Cap-Sizun (Kerne diaclect), signals verb doubling with gouzout 'to know', gallout 'can' and rankout 'must'(Chalm 2008:45). This structure is absent from 38 hours of spontaneous speech recorded from Gwened Breton (Lorient,[START_REF] Cheveau | Approche phonologique, morphologique et syntaxique du breton du grand Lorient[END_REF]. I have established a questionnaire for two native speakers of Breton, D.L from Quimperlé, and S.B. from Callac. The list of verbs they can double is summarized in the table below. The rightmost column summarizes the double occurrences cases reported in the descriptive literature, found in a corpus, or reported to me as used by native speakers.

	SEMI-AUXILIARIES	'know'	gouzout	√	√	(28)
		'can'	gallout	√	√
		'must'	rankout	√	*	(28)
		'must'	dleout	√	* 11	(28)
		'look for'	klask,	*	*	-
	LEXICAL VERBS	'know'	gouzout	√	√	(28)
	with homophonous	'come'	dont	√	√
	semi-auxiliary	'go'	mont	√	*	(28)
		'look for'	klask,	*	*	-
	LEXICAL VERBS	'run'	redek	√	*	12
		'walk'	kerzhout	-	-	Guy ar Bihan
		'read'	lenn	-	-	(28)
		'laugh'	c'hoarzhiñ	*	*	-
		'walk'	bale	*	*	-
		'danse'	dañsal	*	*	-
		'cry'	leñvañ	*	*	-
		'cry'	oueleiñ	*	*	-
	(44)			D.L	S.B	reported in the
				Quimperlé	Callac	literature
	AUXILIARIES	'be'	bez(añ)	√	√
		'do'	ober	√	√	(10)
		'have'	kaout	*	*	(18)

  )a. (Saint Mayeux ; Ernault 1888:247).

	(61)a. gwel(-et) / zell(-ed) ë rañ	b.	red	e gwel*(-et) / zell*(-ed)
	see	look	R do.1SG		obligatory COP see / look
	'I see/ I am looking.'		'One must see/look.'
	(62) Plélanff, Goarec:	'to wash', kɑno	'to sell', gẅerho	'to shake': hoejò
	[Leroux 1924-1953ALBB point 60, maps 286, 295, 311 -diacritics not reported]
	(63)a. c'hoarzhek a ra		b.	labourek a zo	red	_ .
	laugh	R do.3SG			work	R COP.3SG obligatory
	'He laughs.'			'One must work.'

SG/PL √have ERG ½ -past

	e. Guk i	hura/haiek j	g i -en	-Ø /it j -u	-gu i -n
	we.ERG it/them.ABS 1'			-1'
	'We had it/them.'			In these tenses in some dialects….
					ABS = 3 > ERG ½ doubling
	a. Berak i	gu j	g j -a	-it j	-u
	He.ERG us.ABS	1'	-PL
	'He has us.'			ABS = ½ > ABS control
	b. Berak i	gu j	g j -in	-t j	-u	-en
	He.ERG us.ABS	1'	-PL
	'He had us.'			ABS = ½ > ABS control
	c. Guk i	hura/haiek j	d	-Ø /it j -u	-gu i
	we.ERG it/them.ABS				-1'
	'We have it/them.'			No ½ ABS > Tense/Mood-conditioned
					morphology
	d. Guk i	hura/haiek j	g i -en	-Ø /it j -u	-en
	we.ERG it/them.ABS 1'
	'We had it/them.'			In some tenses…..
					ABS = 3 > ERG ½ control ("displacement")

  ). b. [AspP wá [FP [F gbé t ASPP [A SPP lεśì [Asp ɖù [vP t Àsíbá [v EXT t ɖù [vP [VP t ɖù t lεśì

  Étέ wὲ Àsíbá wɑ́ [ t wh ɖùɖù ] gbé?

					Gungbe, Aboh (2009:14-15)
	what FOC Asiba come		eat.eat PRT
	'What did Asiba come to eat (it)?'
	b. Kòfí ná nɔ̀ tò	[	ɖùɖù-ì ] `.		Gungbe, Aboh (2005:158)
	Kofi FUT HAB PROG		eat.eat-3SG NR
	'Kofi will be habitually eating it.'
	(72) Kòfí ná nɔ̀ tò	[ ná	ɖù-ì	] `.	Gungbe, Aboh (2005:158)
	Kofi FUT HAB PROG	PROSP eat-3SG NR
	'Kofi will be habitually about to eat it.'
	Contrary to the generalization that I propose above,

See Jouitteau (2005:chap2) for a detailed analysis of the Breton left periphery.

Le Roux (1957:413) cites two cases in Middle Breton, but they can be analyzed as preverbal expletives before an impersonal form of 'to do'.

Auxiliations in 'do' appear only in the Gwened dialect that has kept an analytic variety of the verb 'have'.Ernault (1890:473) mentions an AC with the analytic form of the verb 'have' (x). This Gwened variety of the verb 'have' in Breton is composed of a proclitic oblique argument on the verb 'to be', bezañ (cf.[START_REF] Jouitteau | Deriving the Complementarity Effect: Relativized Minimality in Breton Agreement[END_REF], 2008, 2009). The 'infinitive' compound is presumably not the verb 'to be', but a small clause.(x) hur bout e ramb, [1PL.OBL be R do.1PL]; 'we have', hou poud a ra, [2PL.OBL be R do.3SG]; 'you have'.

See also[START_REF] Borsley | Long Head Movement in Breton[END_REF] for a study of the different 'do' auxiliaries.

This translation of the New Testament has been written by Gwilh Ar C'hoad in the nineteenth century, with subsequent corrections in Modern Breton by Lukaz Bernikod.

Thanks to Denis Pruel for drawing my attention on these structures.

Thanks to Alain Rouveret for pointing out this possibility.

See http://makino.linguist.jussieu.fr/ARBRES/index.php/Reduplication_simple for extensive evidence and crossdialectal examples of intensive reduplication.

The expletive bez' is used with all verbs in Standard Breton. Eastern dialects restrict its usage to cooccurrences with the inflected verb 'be', and thus to verb doubling (cf. see documentation on ARBRES, http://makino.linguist.jussieu.fr/ARBRES/index.php/Bezan_preverbal and references therein).

The speaker hesitates because she thinks she had heard it, but insists she would not use it herself.

I have found redek a redan, /to run I run/ for the first time in a written source, that my memory fails to trace back. I am even unsure if it was Modern or Middle Breton. This is what gave me the idea to test it with DL and SB in Quimperlé.

For a clear an detailed presentation of the analysis of doubling verbs/structures, seeGouget (2008:chap3).

Note that this argument is convincing, but could not hold in all dialects. All dialects do show the a variant of the rannig in doubling, but not all dialects follow the [+/-nominal] distinction for the rannig.

A typologically unique situation

Verb doubling is largely documented over a large set of languages (see [START_REF] Gouget | La réduplication syntaxique et la structure du groupe verbal en mandarin, en anglais et en d'autres langues[END_REF], Kandybowicz 2008 et references therein). Some languages show instances of verb-doubling with two identical occurrences, as in Nupe, Fongbe, Mandarin Chinese, Haitian (Glaude and Zribi-Hertz, this volume) or Gungbe (52). In all these languages, the two occurrences can appear phonologically identical. In Yoruba (53), a reduplication process has taken place and distinguishes the occurrence in focus position from the lower one. Not all elements are eligible targets for LEIT fronting. As is the case in Icelandic Stylistic Fronting paradigms or Breton, phonologically null elements seem invisible to this operation [START_REF] Holmberg | Scandinavian Stylistic Fronting: How any category can become an Expletive[END_REF][START_REF] Jouitteau | La syntaxe comparée du Breton[END_REF][START_REF] Jouitteau | La syntaxe comparée du Breton[END_REF]. Traces or intermediate copies also are unavailable targets. We can deduce likewise that A-bar traces of object extraction are invisible for LEIT, because they never block further LEIT effects. The A-trace of the subject also never satisfies LEIT by accident, on its way to SpecTP. [START_REF] Aboh | Clause structure and verb series[END_REF] proposes that EPP positions are 'frozen' in the sense of Rizzi and Shlonsky (2007). As such, "the extracted constituent cannot check the EPP feature under Asp on its way to the left periphery because Spec, AspP is a freezing position." If I am right about LEIT effects being at the very late Syntax/morphology interface, this just follows from the invisibility of traces/copies in this component. The subject itself is never LEIT attracted because it needs Case higher up in the sentence (Aboh 2009:13).