Fabiola Henri
email: fhenri@linguist.jussieu.fr

Anne Abeillé
email: abeille@linguist.jussieu.fr

Stefan Müller

Olivier Bonami

Robert Borsley

Danièle Godard

François Mouret

This paper † examines the syntactic behavior of the Mauritian copula in predicative and extracted sentences. As it is the case in many languages, the Mauritian copula ete is absent in certain constructions: It only appears in extraction contexts. Our aim is to show that the postulation of a null copula, which has been proposed in various analyses, is inadequate for the Mauritian data. The phenomenon, as it is argued, rather lends itself to a strictly construction-based analysis within the framework of HPSG and is based on the distribution of weak pronouns and TAM markers.

1 Introduction [START_REF] Schachter | Pronouns[END_REF][START_REF] Schachter | Auxiliary reduction: An argument for GPSG[END_REF] defines copulas as words that are used to indicate the relation between a subject and a nominal or adjectival predicate. In our analysis, we will extend Schachter's definition to prepositional phrases as well hence accounting for all types of non-verbal predicate. In this sense, it is a lexical verb as opposed to that of being a helping verb when used as an auxiliary. This opposition, which is found in languages like French, English and so on, is not available in Mauritian (henceforth MC) since in this language it is only a main verb appearing in specific contexts. In fact, the copula ete in MC fails to appear in declaratives with a predicative complement but is present in extraction contexts. The aim of this paper is to demonstrate that the analyses proposed to account for absent copulas in the many languages where the phenomenon is present namely Creoles-Haitian (Déprez 1997, Gadelii to appear), Mauritian [START_REF] Syea | Copula, wh-trace, and the ECP in Mauritian Creole[END_REF], German [START_REF] Müller | Phrasal or Lexical Constructions?[END_REF], African American Vernacular English [START_REF] Bender | Syntactic Variation and Linguistic Competence: The Case of AAVE Copula Absence[END_REF] to name but a few, is unmotivated for the data examined in Mauritian-a French-based Creole. These have indeed reached the conclusion that the specific behavior of the copula in these languages could only be accounted for if a null copula is postulated in contexts where it is absent and a corresponding full form where it appears. Syea 1997, within the framework of Government and Binding, for instance, base his analysis on the ECP and assumes that the copula is needed for the trace to be properly governed. The proposition, however, doesn't account for the specific behavior of weak and strong forms of personal pronouns, TAM markers as well as the negation marker. In a constraint-based framework like HPSG, Müller to appear. adopts the null copula analysis in order to preserve the topological fields in German when the copula is omitted in declaratives while [START_REF] Bender | Syntactic Variation and Linguistic Competence: The Case of AAVE Copula Absence[END_REF] cannot account for long distance dependencies without a phonologically null element in AAVE because in these constructions the copula is still missing. The paper shows that the arguments motivating these analyses do not account for the studied data given that the Mauritian copula do not behave like Haitian's or AAVE copula. Furthermore, Müller's account essentially adopts a lexicalist approach over a phrasal one because of the complexity of the former in accounting for the different linearization of a particular phenomena. Both types of analysis have advantages and disadvantages which we will discuss throughout the paper. The latter is organized as follows: Section 2 reviews the historical background pertaining to the emergence of the copula in Mauritian, section 3 presents the relevant data, section 4 reviews briefly the proposed analyses and their problems, section 5 presents an alternative analysis within HPSG and finally section 6 concludes the discussion.

(Historical) Background

In his Etude sur le Patois Creole Mauricien, Baissac 1880 states that "(...)Le créole en est resté à cette proposition embryonnaire. Le concept de l'exis -tence sans attribut est trop haute pour lui, il ne s'élève jamais jusqu'à ces abstractions. Le verbe substantif, essentiel, le verbe "être" n'existe pas en créole." P321 . Although it is true that the copula emerged in the late 19th century2 , the author strikingly analyzes it as a variant of the past tense marker ti. The confusion, no doubt, results from historical facts. A form ete/te can actually be found in old texts where it is clearly a tense marker3 :

(1) Moy napa ete batte ça blanc la.

(1779: Chaudenson 1981)

(2) Quequ'fois cabrit moi te manze. (Chrestien 1831)

In both sentences, ete/te is a helping verb and batte and manze are the main verbs. These ancient forms can indeed be substituted by the past tense marker whose contemporary form is ti. This tense marker, which can appear with verbs, can also stand alone in declaratives as will be seen later in this paper as opposed to ete, which is a lexical verb ( = auxiliary).

(3) Kot Zan ti ale? where John PST go 'Where did John go?'

(4) Kot zan (*ete) ale? [START_REF] Schachter | Pronouns[END_REF] and Déprez (2000) distinguishes between predicators and copulas where the former are used to mark predicate nominals when there is no overt subject. The idea in raising up this point is to see whether other elements such as se, from French c'est, can be analyzed as a copula as has been proposed for Haitian Creole (Déprez 2000) or as a proform, i.e. the subject of an expletive type of construction. Considering the following data, it can be argued that compared to HC where se is obligatorily present when the predicate is indefinite as in (7), MC never admits se as a copula (6b).

( In (6c), where it seems to behave like a copula, se is a presentational pronoun. Compare for instance (6b) to (6c) where the latter is clearly a dislocation as can be seen from the English translation. Moreover there is a difference between the two sentences: when se is present there is a pause marking dislocation in the prosody. We thus consider that se is a presentational pronoun. In the next section, we consider the data and propose alongside some preliminary analyses of the different constructions.

The data

Verbless copular sentences

MC has an absent copula in non-extracted declaratives whether the predicate is adjectival, prepositional or nominal, whether in the past, present or future and whether the predicate is negated or not as exemplified in (8)-( 10 The prediction is also true when the embedded clause or second conjunct is negated, or when TAM markers are present as illustrated in ( 14) and ( 15). ( 14) a. Mo krwar/panse Zan ti (*ete) (enn) profeser.

1SG believe/think John PST COP (a) teacher 'I believe/think that John was a teacher.' b. Mo krwar/panse Zan pa (*ete) dan lakour. 1SG NEG believe/think John NEG COP PREP garden 'I believe/think that John is not in the garden.' c. Mo krwar/panse Zan pa ti (*ete) malad.

1SG believe/think John NEG PST COP sick 'I believe/think that John was not sick.'

(15) Mo pe ale e Zan pa (*ete) kontan. 1SG PROG go and John NEG COP happy 'I'm leaving and John is not happy.' It seems then that in MC there is no element linking the predicate to its subject in declaratives clauses. A lexical form having the properties of a copula somehow surfaces in particular constructions as will be illustrated in the next section.

Distribution of the copula ete

As mentioned earlier, a lexical form ete appears in specific constructions, namely in extraction contexts: in direct ( 16) and indirect interrogatives (17), in topicalisations (18), in relatives clauses (19), clefts (20) and exclamatives4 (21) (% means that the data is not accepted by all speakers). ( 16 Given the data, we thus analyze ete as a head selecting for a gap predicative complement.

Proposed analyses

In HPSG, two main types of analysis have been proposed for verbless clauses: a construction-based approach (as in Sag &[START_REF] Sag | Syntactic Theory: A Formal Introduction[END_REF][START_REF] Ginzburg | Interrogative Investigations: The form, meaning and use of English Interrogatives[END_REF] and a lexicalist approach, based on a phonologically null copula form, as in [START_REF] Bender | Syntactic Variation and Linguistic Competence: The Case of AAVE Copula Absence[END_REF][START_REF] Sag | Syntactic Theory: A Formal Introduction[END_REF] , [START_REF] Borsley | An Approach to English Comparative Correlatives[END_REF] and [START_REF] Müller | Phrasal or Lexical Constructions?[END_REF]. We argue here in favor of the former.

In her analysis, Bender 2001 argues that the only way of accounting for the behavior of the copula in AAVE is to allow that the copula is phonologically null whenever it is deleted. The fact that the verb can be deleted in long distance dependencies poses a serious problem if we are to propose a constructionist approach.

(36) How old you think his baby ∅?

The proposed analysis suggests that the empty copula for AAVE be treated as one of the inflected forms of be. A lexical rule applies to the verb verb projecting a null form providing a way to account for sentences such as (36) above. In the case of MC as in (37a) below ete is obligatory and hence the proposed analysis cannot be applied to the data.

(37) a. Ki kouler to krwar so sak *(ete)? how color 2SG believe 3SG.POSS bag COP 'What color you believe his bag is.' b. Kot to panse so mama *(ete)? where 2SG think 3SG.POSS mother COP 'Where do you think his/her mother is. [START_REF] Borsley | An Approach to English Comparative Correlatives[END_REF], when looking at the comparative-correlative construction in English, suggests that the verb be have particular properties since it can be omitted in some CC constructions as in (38).

(38) the more intelligent the students (are), the better the marks (are).

In his analysis, he suggests that a verb be can be a phonologically null form only in head-filler phrases. That is, in these constructions where copula omission is possible if and only if its complement is fronted as in (36), the head can be phonologically null with a feature [NULL+]. The lexical description of the null form be ensures that its COMPS value is empty in order to avoid in-situ complements while the feature SLASH provides the value of the element to be fronted. The analysis provided by [START_REF] Borsley | An Approach to English Comparative Correlatives[END_REF] In the same kind of constraint-based grammar, Müller to appear. accounts for copula omission in German via a lexical rule as has been proposed for AAVE (Bender 2001 5 ). The argument relies on the fact that the clause type determination in German is changed if a constructionist approach is adopted. That is, although the copula doesn't have any semantic contribution to the sentence, there is a need to preserve the order domain because of sentence structure. He furthermore argues that empty elements is to be favored in German when it comes to ellipsis, like for instance ellipsis of NPs, given the fact that without those, the semantics cannot be recovered. A second argument in favor of phonologically null elements versus a construction-based approach concerns the production of multiple phrase-structure rules in the type hierarchy. That is favoring a lexical approach is certainly more economical in terms of rules than a constructionist approach. However, it can be argued that the same problem arises with a lexical-based account, in the sense that we multiply lexical entries. Moreover, in his account no lexical entry is provided6 for the empty copula and hence, we are not able to see how it could interact with the phrase structure rules for German.

Finally, Syea 1997 in the Government and Binding framework, proposes two forms of the copula for the MC data, a weak form (which is null) and a strong form (which is ete). Syea's Generalization says that "the copula has the weak form in the environment of a following overt constituent and the strong form in the environment of a following trace". As already mentioned in the introduction paragraph, his analysis is based on the ECP which says that traces must be properly governed, assuming that the null copula cannot be a proper governor. The proposal is that head-government requirement should apply at PF, while antecedent-government requirement should apply at LF, since the copula, being semantically void, does not exist at LF.

Against a null copula

Our main argument against a null copula analysis is based on the distribution of weak pronouns mo and to, the negation marker pa and TAM markers ti, pou and so forth. Weak forms of the 1st and 2nd personal pronouns (mo and to) can appear in verbless copular sentences but not in case of an extraction, unlike strong forms mwa and twa: If a null copula is involved in (40), and legitimates the weak form of the pronoun, then it should also be allowed in (41) since the null copula is compatible with an extracted locative with an NP subject as in ( 29). If we analyze weak pronouns as proclitics (looking for a phonological host to their right), then ( 41) is bad with an empty copula. The same behavior is witnessed with the negation marker and the TAM markers.

(40)
(43) Kot Zan ti *(ete)?

where John PST COP 'Where was John?'

(44) Kot Zan pa *(ete)?

where John NEG COP 'Where wasn't John?'

Since the null pronoun is allowed with these markers in declaratives it should be the case with the extracted locatives, which as seen above are ungrammatical.

If we analyze the negator as a modifier seeking a host and TAM markers as raising verbs, then the ungrammaticality of ( 43) and ( 44) can be explained by the fact that they are missing their complements. We thus say that they subcategorize for a canonical complement (which can be a finite VP or a predicative XP). Furthermore, as has been argued earlier the proposal made by [START_REF] Bender | Syntactic Variation and Linguistic Competence: The Case of AAVE Copula Absence[END_REF], [START_REF] Borsley | An Approach to English Comparative Correlatives[END_REF] and [START_REF] Müller | Phrasal or Lexical Constructions?[END_REF] does not apply to the studied data since the optionality of the copula in these languages is based on factors different from those available in MC. in the next section, we provide an alternative analysis in HPSG 7 inspired from [START_REF] Sag | Syntactic Theory: A Formal Introduction[END_REF].

A Construction-based HPSG Analysis

In Sag & Wasow 1999, a Zero Copula Rule is proposed whereby [PRED+] expressions (predicative expressions) can combine with a nominative subject to project a fully saturated phrase structure. In other words [PRED+] expressions are able to project finite clauses even if they are missing a verb. This is possible given that the copula is semantically empty. We first provide the necessary lexical entries for TAM markers and the copula and the relevant mechanisms allowing the parsing of the extracted contexts where the copula ete is present and copulaless ones where it is missing.

Lexical entries for ete, ti and pa

We analyze the copula as a verb which is constrained to take a predicative complement of the type gap. A TAM marker like ti, on the other hand, is constrained to take a finite VP or predicative complement of the type canonical. Finally, the negator pa modifies a predicative or verbal head in sentential negation.

(45) ete,      ARG-ST 1 ,     gap PRED + SUBJ 1          (46) ti,      ARG-ST 1 ,     canon PRED + or verb SUBJ 1          (47) pa,          adverb MOD PRED + or verb CONT | NUCLEUS 1 STORE neg-quant-rel ARG 1         
When the locative (or manner and so forth) complements are analyzed as [PRED +], they can be extracted and the copula thus surfaces. This is illustrated in (48) below. 7 See also [START_REF] Pollard | Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar[END_REF] ( 48)

           HEAD 3 CONT question SOA 2 WH {} STORE {} SLASH {}              LOC 5 STORE 6 WH 6   kot           HEAD 3 SUBJ CONT | SOA 2 STORE 6 WH {} SLASH 5           1 NP Zan                        HEAD 3 SUBJ 1 ARG-ST 1 ,       gap-ss SUBJ 1 PRED+ LOCAL 5       CONT 2 STORE 6 SLASH 5                        ete

Our analysis of verbless clauses

Following [START_REF] Sag | Syntactic Theory: A Formal Introduction[END_REF], we handle verbless copular clauses with a specific construction, with a non verbal head, which is a subtype of head-subject phrases, assuming that the Head Feature Principle is a default constraint and that our verbless copular-construction rule here overrides the default constraint as suggested by Ginzburg & Sag 2000 8 . (49)

verbless-cop-cx head-subj-phrase &              SYNSEM        HEAD verb VFORM fin CONT message SOA | 2        HEAD-DTR HEAD non-verbal CONT|NUCL 2             
This construction inherits from the head-subject phrase, which ensures that the subject is appropriate for the head. MC, unlike French, does not generally allow subject inversion. We thus have a precedence rule that forces the subject to precede the (non-verbal) head, accounting thus for the facts in declaratives.

Phrase i i i i i i i i i i i i U U U U U U U U U U U U
CLAUSALITY dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd i i i i i i i i i i i i

HEADEDNESS i i i i i i i i i i i i clause non-
i i i i i i i i i i i core-cl U U U U U U U U U U U U hd-comp-ph hd-subj-ph Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z hd-fill-ph hd-only decl-cl U U U U U U U U U U U U inter-cl \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ vless-cop-cx
bb bbb bbb bb bbb bb bbb bbb bbb bbb bb bbb b decl-vless-cop-cx-cl inter-vless-cop-cx-cl ex: Zan malad ex: Kot Zan?

In addition, our constraint only applies to verbal or predicative head daughters. By requiring that verbless constructions or predicative phrases project a VFORM fin , (48) guarantees that these can function as finite clauses in that they can, for instance, be embedded and coordinated. Notice also that our construction has a CONTENT of type message meaning that it can account for more specific types like proposition for a non-extracted declarative and question for verbless interrogatives (29, 30), with both a PRED+ as HEAD feature, as illustrated in the type-hierarchy.

(

)           CAT     HEAD verb VFORM fin SUBJ     CONT prop SOA 2           1 NP Zan         CAT      HEAD nom PRED+ SUBJ 1      CONT | SOA 2         enn profeser (54)        CAT     HEAD verb VFORM fin SUBJ     CONT | SOA 2        1 NP Zan            CAT      HEAD verb VFORM fin SUBJ 1      CONT prop SOA 2                           SS | CAT             HEAD verb VFORM fin SUBJ 1 ARG-ST 1 ,   PRED+ SUBJ 1               CONT | NUCLEUS 2                ti         SS | CAT      HEAD adj PRED+ SUBJ 1      CONT | NUCLEUS 2         malad 53
We analyze locative and manner wh-predicates as ambiguous in this respect, in the sense that they are underspecified for the PRED feature. If they are [PRED -], they can be analyzed as heads and can precede the subject, and this is how examples in( 29) and ( 30) above without the copula can be analyzed. That kot is not extracted in (29) (i.e. the example without ete) is shown by the fact that we don't have a long distance dependency without ete as illustrated in (37a) and below. The same applies to manner adverbials. c. Komye to krwar lasenn la *(ete)? How-much 2SG believe necklace DEF COP 'How much do you believe the necklace is?' However, as has been argued in [START_REF] Müller | Phrasal or Lexical Constructions?[END_REF], a phrasal approach is problematic given that for languages that have free constituent order like German, a large number of constructions are needed to cover all the patterns that can be found for a given phenomena. Although, these results being interesting and absolutely convincing, we need not forget that this stipulation is valid for German and that we are presupposing the existence of a null form if and only if a full form exists in the same slot. For example, in German the copula can be omitted in declaratives. The same applies to the AAVE copula. In the case of MC, the copula is optional only with adverbials (locative, manner and so forth). In declaratives, the copula is not allowed at all (3.1) unless with extraction. Hence, it makes no sense to postulate a null form in a slot where a full form is not allowed. Moreover, Mauritian being a rather strict SVO, will not face the problems encountered by German with a construction-based analysis. Albeit, allowing a phonological null form is still conceivable. Our lexical entries for TAM markers, negation and subject pronouns will have to be modified to allow a canonical complement with feature NULL+9 as one of the HEAD value; although our lexical entry for the negator, for instance, would be much more complicated. The lexical entry of the phonologically null element would be as such:

(56) ∅,           VFORM fin NULL+ ARG-ST 1 ,     canon PRED + SUBJ 1              

Conclusion

We have, in this paper, argued against a null copula for Mauritian verbless copular clauses, and in favor of a construction-based analysis. The peculiar distribution of the lexical copula ete and the TAM markers in copular clauses also provide some support for a lexicalist theory of extraction, as advocated by [START_REF] Bouma | Satisfying Constraints on Extraction and Adjunction[END_REF]. A more precise analysis of the semantics of the construction, as well as an extension to comparative clauses, which can also appear with or without the copula, still need to be provided.

  (50) HEAD-SUBJ-PHR NON-HD-DTR precedes PRED + ∨ VFORM fin Recall that in the types definitions of core clauses we include declarative clauses and interrogatives clauses, among others. The former have a CONTENT value of type message while the latter, i.e., declarative clauses and interrogative clauses, which are its subtypes, have a CONTENT of type proposition and question respectively. decl-clause clause & CONT proposition c. inter-clause clause & CONT question 8 The idea was first suggested by Copestake & Lascarides (1999) (52)

(

  55) a. Kot to panse zan *(ete)? where 2SG think John COP 'Where do you think John is?' b. Ki manier to panse zan *(ete)? what manner 2SG think John COP 'How do you think John is?'

  It is thus predicate extraction that triggers the lexical realization of the copula. In interrogatives with an in-situ wh-word (23), or with a wh-subject, the copula is impossible (24) even if the subject is extracted. It is also impossible if only a complement of the predicate is extracted (26). The same applies in relative clauses where the subject is relativized (27) and in exclamatives with no extraction (28).

	(17) mo pa kone ki tifi la *(ete) (25) kisannla to panse ki (*ete) malad? (34) Ki Zan *(ete) dan sa lekol la?
		1SG NEG know what girl DEF COP who 2SG think that COP sick what John COP PREP DEM school DEF
		'I don't know what this girl is.' 'Who do you think is sick?' 'What is John in this school?'
	(18) en voler zan *(ete) (26) kont kisannla Zan (*ete) ankoler? (35) Kot Zan (ete) zordi?
		A thief John COP against who John COP angry where John COP today
		A thief John is. Lit. 'Against whom John is angry? 'Where is John today?'
	(19) Sa madam ar ki li *(ete) la (27) Sa madam ki (*ete) malad...
		DEM woman with REL 3SG COP the woman REL COP sick
		'The woman with whom he is.' The woman who is sick...
	(20) pares ki (28) % Ala Zan (*ete) zoli li *(ete) lazy COMP 3SG COP DEIC John (COP) beautiful DEIC la!
		'It is lazy that he is.' 'How beautiful John is!'
	Finally, when a locative or manner predicate is extracted, the lexical copula (21) % ala enn bon dokter li *(ete) la! appears to be optional in interrogatives:
	(29) Kot Zan (ete)?
		where John COP
		'Where is John?'
	(30) Ki manier madam la (ete)? (22) kisannla to panse tifi la *(ete)? who how way woman DEF COP 2SG think girl DEF COP 'Who do you think this girl is?' 'How is the woman?'
	(31) Komye liv la (ete)?
		how book DEF COP
		'How much is the book?'
	(32) Dan lakour, Zan *(ete)
		PREP garden, John COP
	(23) a. Zan (*ete) kote? 'In the garden, John is.'
		John COP where
	'John is where?' The data can be summarized in the table below.
		b. Tifi la (*ete) ki manier? impossible ete	optional ete	obligatory ete
		girl DEF COP how way Declaratives no extraction	-	topicalisation: loc.pred
	(33)	'The girl is how?' Interrogatives wh-subj/in-situ wh-loc/manner.. Relatives subj.rel. -	wh-pred. pred.rel
	) Ki tifi la *(ete)? what girl DEF COP (24) kisannla (*ete) malad? who Exclamatives no extraction COP sick 'What is the girl?' 'Who is sick?' Notice that ete is not necessarily in final position. It can be followed by various loc.rel -wh-pred
	PPs or adverbial modifiers as seen from the following examples.

DEIC a good doctor 3SG COP DEIC 'What a good doctor he is!' That the predicate is extracted is shown by the fact that we can have a long distance dependency as in (

22

).

  does not account for the facts in MC. If a null element can only be accounted for in Head-filler phrases, declaratives without extraction are excluded. And in (34) above, if the complement is fronted, the copula is still obligatory.

	(39) Dan sa lekol la, ki Zan *(ete)?
	PREP DEM school DEF what Zan COP
	In this school, what is John?

(...) Creole has remained at the level of this embryonic proposition. The concept of existence without attribute is way to high for him, he never rises to these abstractions. The substantive verb, which is essential, the verb 'to be' doesn't exist in Creole.)

See Baker & Syea (1991) for more details

The data are taken from[START_REF] Baker | On the copula in Mauritian Creole: Past and Present[END_REF]. See also[START_REF] Corne | A re-evaluation of the predicate in Ile-de-France Creole[END_REF][START_REF] Corne | The Predicate in Isle de France Creole[END_REF]

[START_REF] Syea | Copula, wh-trace, and the ECP in Mauritian Creole[END_REF] discusses such data, but does not include exclamatives.

See also[START_REF] Ferguson | Absence of Copula and the Notion of Simplicity[END_REF] for a different analysis.

Actually, he send us back in a footnote to Bender's analysis[START_REF] Bender | Syntactic Variation and Linguistic Competence: The Case of AAVE Copula Absence[END_REF].

The idea is from[START_REF] Borsley | An Approach to English Comparative Correlatives[END_REF]


As is the case with some Creoles and African languages (Bantu, Gur among others) Mauritian has an alternation between two verb forms 1 : a short and a long form (henceforth SF and LF) † , as is the case in (1a) where the verb has a long form without complement and in (1b) where the verb has a short form with a complement.

(1) a. Mo ti manze (*manz).

1SG PST eat.LF (*SF) 'I ate.' b. Mo ti manz (*manze) kari. 1SG PST eat.SF (*LF) curry 'I ate curry.' Analyses in terms of government and case assignment [START_REF] Syea | The short and long form of verbs in Mauritian Creole: Functionalism versus formalism[END_REF]; [START_REF] Hertz | Gouvernement et Syntagme Verbal: A propos de la troncation verbale en Créole Mauricien[END_REF]) or predicate raising (functional/ecological analysis) [START_REF] Seuren | Verb Syncopation and Predicate Raising In Mauritian Creole[END_REF]) have been proposed to account for the phenomenon, comparing it with auxiliary reduction not available in English when followed by a trace. The explanation as it is then accounts for vowel truncation as well as the absence of the copula in declarative clauses. However, as already suggested by Hertz and LiPook-Tan (1987), there are cases where the short form appears and where the verb does not seem to assign case, in which case an independent mechanism should be used so that case assignment is applied independently from government. The analysis advocated by [START_REF] Seuren | Verb Syncopation and Predicate Raising In Mauritian Creole[END_REF] also happens to be inadequate as intensively argued by [START_REF] Syea | The short and long form of verbs in Mauritian Creole: Functionalism versus formalism[END_REF]. Basically, he formulates a principle of "maximizing semantic transparency" which regulates the output structures of predicate raising thus blocking the application of verbal truncation 2 .

We propose an alternative account, precisely a constraint-based account of verb form alternation in Mauritian which accounts for the lack of LF with complements but we also consider discourse factors which enable LF to appear with a complement in case of Verum Focus [START_REF] Höhle | Ueber verum-fokus im Deutschen[END_REF]). As far as syntactic constraints are concerned, verbal alternation is but another example of verb sensitivity to argument realization (cf. [START_REF] Bouma | Satisfying constraints on extraction and adjunction[END_REF] for other examples) and provides an argument in favor of a lexical analysis of extraction phenomena. 1 We prefer to say that there is alternation instead of truncation [START_REF] Syea | The short and long form of verbs in Mauritian Creole: Functionalism versus formalism[END_REF]; [START_REF] Hertz | Gouvernement et Syntagme Verbal: A propos de la troncation verbale en Créole Mauricien[END_REF]) or syncopation [START_REF] Seuren | Verb Syncopation and Predicate Raising In Mauritian Creole[END_REF]).

† We wish to thank Jean-Marie Marandin, Danièle Godard, Olivier Bonami, and Frédéric Laurens for their comments and feedback on this paper. All remaining mistakes are of course our own. We also wish to thank Muhsina Allesaib and Chin Lan Leung for their judgments on the Mauritian data and Jeanne Fortilus on the Haitian data.

2 For a critical analysis of [START_REF] Seuren | Verb Syncopation and Predicate Raising In Mauritian Creole[END_REF]'s work see [START_REF] Syea | The short and long form of verbs in Mauritian Creole: Functionalism versus formalism[END_REF]. Note also that Verbal Truncation has been thought of as being a semantic phenomenon by Papen & Corne Papen (1978); [START_REF] Corne | The Predicate in Isle de France Creole[END_REF] Baker (1972) observes that 70% of the verbal lexicon is subject to this alternation and that those verbs are all vowel final e or i. We admit four verb classes with respect to their morphology and the context in which they appear as is illustrated in (3).

(3) We consider that we have different lexical entries for Long and Short Forms which have different syntactic constraints. These concern some i final verbs (only two of them) and e final verbs 3 which are phononologically determined (section 2.1). The third class concerns verbs that have the same form in both environments, i.e the same form would appear where a SF or a LF is expected. And finally we consider the copula as a special class having no short counterpart and, as [START_REF] Henri | The syntax of copular constructions in Mauritian[END_REF] demonstrate, appear in extraction contexts (See section 4.2).

Morphophonological Rules

The citation form being always the LF, Corne 1982 (pp 50-52) proposes the following phonological rules. The first rule stipulates that a syllable-final r lengthens when a vowel precedes it. The second says that the final vowel is deleted if the verb belonging to the appropriate class is followed by specified items (here X). The problem with this rule is that a verb like kone 'to know', which is a stative, is also subject to truncation. The third rule concerns homorganic stop-nasal assimilation while the fourth has to do with denasalization. Finally the last rule affects those verbs which have a consonant cluster like reste, paste and so on. However verbs like koste, aste, poste, promne, among others, do not allow truncation4 .

(4) a. Note that the rules are applicable to new verbs as well provided they fit into the given rules: a verb like fakse 'to fax'5 does not undergo alternation but one like telesarze 'to download' does. The same goes for mail 'to mail or chat 'to chat' since, unlike French, they didn't pattern on the verbs of the first group but retained their English forms.

We are not dealing with a phonological phenomenon here, but a truly morphological alternation6 . Only certain verbs are concerned (not all verbs with e or i final are shortened.) As will be seen in the following section, shortening applies only under syntactic (and eventually pragmatic) conditions and not under phonological constraints. In other words, neither the phonological form of the complement nor adjacency is a determining factor for vowel shortening in Mauritian.

(5) a. Li manze (*manz) toultan 3SG eat.LF (*SF) always 'He always eats.' b. Li manz (*manze) toultan kari poul 3SG eat.SF (*LF) always curry chicken 'He always eats chicken curry.'

The data: Syntactic Constraints

The data in this section shows that SFs and LFs of Mauritian verbs are clearly syntactically driven and encode argument realization sensitivity on the verb. Hence in (6a)-(6c), the verb remains invariable whether the subject is singular or plural, masculine or feminine, or whatever TMA marker precedes it, but has a short form because it is followed by an NP (6a), a bare noun (6b), and an AP (6c). The object needs not be adjacent to the verb, as is demonstrated in (5b). With a verb like dat a temporal PP is obligatorily needed as complement hence triggering the SF (7a). (7b) shows an adverbial type of complement and the verb still has the SF because the AdvP is analyzed as a truly selected dependent of the verb:

Short Forms

Ditransitives

Ditransitives are like other verbs and thus have a SF if one of their complements or both are present as in ( 12). ( 12

Long Forms

The LF appears when the verb has no complements as illustrated in (1a). It are also available if PPs and adverbials follow the verb because they are modifiers.

(15) requires LF since the adverbial phrase depi yer is an adjunct.

(15) Nou/Zan (ti/pe) marse (*mars) depi yer. 2PL/John walk (*SF) since yesterday 'We/John walk(s)/was/is walking since yesterday.' Prepositional Phrases can either be considered as truly selected dependents of the verbs, thus requiring the SF or as adjuncts thus trigering the LF. Compare for instance (16a vs 16b) and (17a vs 17b) where the PP complements either trigger a LF or a SF and a clear semantic difference is apparent. ( 16 (19b) show that the LF is again needed if the verb is followed by clauses. Nonetheless, a distinction needs to be made between the first example (18) and the other ones (19a-19b). LF is expected in (18) since it is followed by an adjunct clause but not in (19a-19b). It has been actually observed crosslinguistically that sentential complements are less integrated than phrasal ones. This is the case for instance in German where they are extraposed and in incorporating languages where they are not incorporated, etc. ( 18 Notice also that linear order is important in case of two complements. In (20a-20b), the verb demande has two complements. In the first case, the verb is LF because the first complement is a clause while in (20b), the verb is SF because the first complement is not a clause. Hence, it seems that linear order and the type of complement are decisive when it comes to selection of the verb form.

Extraction

Extraction of the complement calls for the LFs : extraction of a NP in (21a), of an adverb in (21b) and of a PP in (21c).

Passives

Let us note that LFs/SFs alternation is not available in the passive voice (23a)-(23b). ( 23 We thus consider that we have another lexical entry for passive forms8 .

To sum up this section, we have seen that SFs appear when the verb has a canonical (non-clausal) complement and LFs appear when the verb is sentencefinal or if it is followed by clausal complements or adjuncts. In the following section, we will see that there are cases where LFs are possible with non-clausal complements in declaratives, that is, where the SF is generally expected as previously demonstrated.

4 Discourse Constraints: Verum Focus Interestingly, LFs may appear with a canonical complement in the context of specific dialogical moves. In (24b) for instance, we have an example of "proposition denial" and the reverse is also available (25b) [START_REF] Geurts | The Mechanisms of Denial[END_REF]).

(24) a. SPEAKER A: Mo pe al kwi kari poul parski Zan kontan manz kari poul.

(I'm going to cook chicken curry because John likes to eat chicken curry.) [START_REF] Godard | Reinforcing Negation: The case of Italian[END_REF] call an "instance of deferment" (26b) and in incredulity questions (26d). However, these constructions are not necessarily associated with utterances because they can be embedded under verbs of perception, speech and opinion. In their analysis of verb forms in Mauritian, [START_REF] Hertz | Gouvernement et Syntagme Verbal: A propos de la troncation verbale en Créole Mauricien[END_REF] note that LFs can appear with complements (26d) and analyze this as contrastive focus. One argument against contrastive focus is the fact that the LF is not available as in (28a) and in (28b) on the second verb when a contrast or alternative is available.

(28) a. Li pa ti MANZE kari la, li ti (*DEVORE) devor kari la!.

3SG We also argue against verb focus since the LF is not possible in cases of narrow focus in an answer to a question as in (29b).

(29) a. Ki to'nn fer ar poul la? (What did you do with the chicken?) b. Mo'nn MANZ (*MANZE) li. 1SG'PERF eat.SF LF li 'I ate chicken.

We believe instead that the phenomenon here is Verum focus, that is to say LFs with complements emphasize the truth or falseness of the proposition expressed by the sentence. Verum focus is used to highlight aspects of the polarity of the proposition expressed by the clause [START_REF] Höhle | Ueber verum-fokus im Deutschen[END_REF]). Indeed, the contexts we have seen are based on polarity reversal (often illustrated by non in both (25b)-( 24b)). Verum focus as defined by [START_REF] Höhle | Ueber verum-fokus im Deutschen[END_REF] does not require the proposition it asserts to have been explicitly evoked in the previous discourse (30b)).

(30) a. SPEAKER A: Dokter dir fime pa bon pou lasante. (Doctors say that smoking is bad for health.)

b. SPEAKER B: Lakoz samem mo'nn ARETE fime. because this 1SG'PERF stop.LF smoke.LF 'This is why I STOPPED smoking.

LFs with non-clausal complements are possible only with declaratives which convey assertions, incredulity questions and so on, but are excluded with interrogatives, exclamatives and imperatives. If the phenomenon is Verum focus, this is expected. A final argument involves embedding. As said earlier, declaratives with LFs can be embedded under verbs of saying (dir-'to tell') or propositional attitudes (krwar-'to believe') but not under mandative (le-'want'), decidative predicates (deside-'to decide') or factive predicates (kone-'to know'). ( 32 Based on [START_REF] Ginzburg | Interrogative Investigations: The form, meaning and use of English Interrogatives[END_REF]'s semantic ontology, clauses with LFs having complements should be of content type proposition and not outcome or fact. This is again expected with Verum Focus9 .

The copula

In [START_REF] Henri | The syntax of copular constructions in Mauritian[END_REF], we argue that the copula ete is peculiar and has no null counterpart (whether as an empty element as has usually been suggested [START_REF] Baker | On the copula in Mauritian Creole: Past and Present[END_REF]; [START_REF] Syea | Copula, wh-trace, and the ECP in Mauritian Creole[END_REF] or as a phonologically empty element [START_REF] Bender | Syntactic Variation and Linguistic Competence: The Case of AAVE Copula Absence[END_REF]). Recall that the copula in MC appears in extraction contexts. Based on the distribution of weak pronouns, TMA markers and the negator, we argue against a null copula in declaratives. [START_REF] Seuren | Verb Syncopation and Predicate Raising In Mauritian Creole[END_REF] proposes that ete should be considered as the long form and the short form as an empty element. A strong argument supporting our idea that the copula doesn't undergo alternation concerns Verum Focus. If ete was a LF, we would expect it in Verum focus contexts (33b).

(33) a. SPEAKER A: Zan pa'nn vinn lekol zordi. Li malad. (John didn't come to school today. He's sick.)

b. SPEAKER B: *Zan ETE malad? John COP sick 'John IS sick?

We thus admit another "verbal class" corresponding to the copula which has only one form with specific constraints. (cf. Table (3)). We summarize our findings as follows:

(34)

Environment

SF LF V with canonical phrasal CPLTS yes no (NPs,APs,ADVPS,VPs,PPs) V with no CPLTS no yes V with adjuncts no yes V with clausal CPLTS no yes Extracted CPLTS no yes Verum Focus no yes

Hence MC verb form alternation is subject to both syntactic and discourse constraints (see section 6 for a discussion on other languages).

A constraint-Based account within HPSG

The analysis we propose is developed in the framework of HPSG (Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar [START_REF] Pollard | Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar[END_REF]; [START_REF] Sag | Syntactic Theory: A Formal Introduction[END_REF]; [START_REF] Ginzburg | Interrogative Investigations: The form, meaning and use of English Interrogatives[END_REF])). Within a constraint-based framework like HPSG, (head) features are defined in terms of type-hierarchies. We redefine the attribute VFORM, which is a HEAD value, with two values long and short to account for the types of verb available in MC. Non-alternating verbs, that is those that have the same form in the different environments we described, have an underspecified VFORM value. Notice also that we keep the feature AUX as a value of verbal. This is because we want to account for sentences where the complementizer pou is present. We define two lexical constraints to account for the occurrence of LFs and SFs. We put a lexical constraint on the verb: SFs need obligatorily to be followed by at least one non-clausal complement (35). We further define a lexical constraint on the occurrence of LF verbs (36).

(35) verb

HEAD | VFORM short ⇒ COMPS 2 non-clause ⊕ list (36)   verb VAL COMPS list(clause)   ⇒ VFORM long
Notice that we leave the subject unspecified meaning that pro-drop is possible in both cases. In (35), the rule says that SFs are available iff the first element on the COMPS list is of type phrasal, while rule (36) says that if the element on the COMPS list is empty or clausal type, then we get a LF.

(37) a.

Formalizing Verum Focus

We follow [START_REF] Webelhuth | Complex Topic-comment structures in HPSG[END_REF] in representing focused elements in a special subpart of a structured CONTENT. Recall that Verum Focus is a focus on polarity which is expressed as a boolean feature at the SOA level.

(

)     SOA    partioned-soa NUCLEUS rel FOC list(rel)        38
We admit that in MC we have three types of LF verbs-normal ones, passives and focused verbs. To account for the occurrence of LFs in declaratives, we propose a constraint which says that a clause which is of type proposition and has a partitioned SOA which contains a focus on the (positive or negative) polarity of the clause.

(39)                clause CAT HEAD verb CONT         proposition SOA      POLARITY 2 +/- FOC polarity-rel ARG 2                             ⇒   HEAD verb VFORM long  
To conclude our paper, we provide some comparative data from other languages which display the same type of alternation, particularly French and other French-based Creoles (Louisianese and Haitian) and some (possible) substrates (Hausa and Tswana).

Diachronic Explanation and Comparison with other Languages

Verbal alternation between SFs and LFs is found in other languages and we look at these related to MC.

French

Two types of verbal alternation can be found in French. First, in standard written French, the past participle agrees with with the direct object when it is not canonically realized.

( We have a sort of LF /ekrit/ and a SF /ekri/ with respect to how the complement is realized. A canonical object triggers a SF while a non-canonical object triggers the LF. In the 17th-18th century, there were cases (observed by Vaugelas) where the SF was possible if the verb had another complement 10 :

(41) La lettre que Pierre a écrit pour vous def letter that Peter has written for you 'The letter that Peter has written for you.'

Second, as argued by [START_REF] Veenstra | The survival of inflectional morphology in French-related Creoles[END_REF], spoken French simplified verbal morphology could be analyzed in terms of SFs and LFs. According to them, SFs/LFs alternation is a L2 phenomenon in Mauritian: /Z(@)/ty/õ/il mãnZ/, /vu mãnZe/ (present); /Z(@)/ty/õ/il a mãnZe/ (past). Their hypothesis is that second language speakers must have reanalyzed and grammaticalized this paradigm in Mauritian Creole and this should also be expected in other French-Based Creoles. We will consider here Haitian and Louisianese [START_REF] Degraff | Ken Hale: A Life in Language, Chapter 2 : Morphology in Creole Genesis: Linguistics and Ideology[END_REF]; [START_REF] Neumann | Le créole de Beaux Bridge, Louisiane: Etudes Morphosyntaxique, textes, Vocabulaire[END_REF]). Other possible explanations come from the substrate: the SFs/LFs alternation could 10 Past participle agreement was more alive in the 18th century and was also heard on final vowel participles.

• J'ai lu la lettre. (/ly/)

• La lettre que j'ai lue. (/ly:/) be residuals of African languages. We look at Hausa and Tswana data [START_REF] Crysmann | Yearbook of Morphology 2004, Chapter An Inflectional Approach to Hausa Final Vowel Shortening[END_REF]; Creissels and Robert (1998); [START_REF] Veenstra | Verb Allomorphy in French-related Creoles and the Syntax-Phonology Interface[END_REF]) in section 6.3.

Other French-based Creoles : Haitian and Louisianese

In Haitian, the syntactic constraints seem to be quite similar to MC in (42a-42b) but apparently the SFs/LFs selection is also subject to dialectal variation. As [START_REF] Degraff | Ken Hale: A Life in Language, Chapter 2 : Morphology in Creole Genesis: Linguistics and Ideology[END_REF] An interesting point here again seems to be the occurrence of LFs in declaratives with canonical complements. According to our investigations the variation [START_REF] Degraff | Ken Hale: A Life in Language, Chapter 2 : Morphology in Creole Genesis: Linguistics and Ideology[END_REF] was suggesting is strongly correlated to what he himself called emphasis or some peculiar prosodic prominence. Basically, LFs in declaratives seem to be another case of Verum Focus in Haitian marked on the verb, where the epistemic implicature is that Uncle Bouki watched the movie (43).

(43)

Substratic Influences

Disjunctive versus Conjunctive Verb Forms are the terms that have usually been used to define the alternation between long forms of verbs for some African languages (Tswana, Zulu for instance). Basically Disjunctive Forms are LFs and Conjunctive Forms are SFs. In Tswana, in the present positive tense, for example, the conjunctive/disjunctive distinction can be distinguished easily by a specific marker 12 . The conjunctive thus appears when the verb is followed by a complement while the disjunctive forms appears when it doesn't take any complement.

(46) a. di-kgomo di fula kwa noke-ng. CL10-cow SM10 graze LOC river-LOC 'The cows graze/are grazing at the river.' b. di-kgomo di a-fula CL10-cow SM10 DISJ-graze 'The cows graze/are grazing.' [START_REF] Creissels | Morphologie Verbale et organisation discursive de l'énoncé : le cas du Tswana et du Wolof[END_REF] also argue that there are discourse constraints which apply when it comes to selection of disjunctive over conjunctive forms. For instance, focused postverbal complements trigger the disjoint form with a focus on the verb and is coreferent with the subject (47).

(47) Ba a-bina le bone. SM3PL DISJ-dance CONJ 3PL 'They too dance/are dancing.'

The case of Hausa [START_REF] Crysmann | Yearbook of Morphology 2004, Chapter An Inflectional Approach to Hausa Final Vowel Shortening[END_REF]) is more similar to MC since SFs appear with canonical non-clausal complements and LFs with extraction and, like MC, the alternation does not concern all verb classes. This is illustrated in (48a) where the verb has a canonical complement and (48b) where the verb has no complement. However, in (48b), the verb would still be LF if it had a pronominal complement and this is where MC and Hausa differ. Hence pronominal affixation in Hausa triggers the LF in Hausa.

In this paper, we have argued that MC has two verb forms which are constrained by the type of complement they take. Short Forms occur if the verb has a canonical phrasal complement while Long Forms occur when the verb has no complements or adjuncts or clausal complements. For these constructions, we have proposed two lexical constraints to account for the syntactic occurrence of SFs and LFs. An interesting fact concerned the selection of LFs also available (with clausal complements) in the context of Verum Focus. In the last section we showed that the phenomenon could be a convergence of L2 acquisition of the superstrate (French) which actually can be found in other French-based Creoles and of the same phenomenon available in substrates, namely Hausa, Tswana or Zulu and certainly other African languages (which we didn't describe here). A more detailed description and analysis still needs to be done on the prosody and discourse constraints of the language.

  (2) a. Pol pou vinn (*vini) kot mwa. Paul IRR come.SF (*LF) PREP 3SG.acc 'Paul will come at my place.' b. Pol pou vini (*vinn). Paul IRR come.LF (*SF) 'Paul will come.'

  (7) a. Liv la dat (*date) depi sink an. book DEF date.SF (*LF) since five year 'Lit. The book dates from five years ago.' b. Zan koz (*koze) bien. John speak.SF (*LF) well 'John speaks well.' (Generally) Similarly, VP complements (8a)-(8c) behave like any phrasal complements previously mentioned, thus allowing the SF to surface, even those marked by the marker pou (8c) 7 . (8) a. Zan pe konn (*kone) dans (*danse) sega. John PROG know.SF (LF) dance (LF) sega 'Lit. John is knowing how to dance the sega.' b. Zan ti vinn (*vini) manze (*manz). John PST come.SF (*LF) eat (*SF) 'Lit. John came to eat.' c. Zan pans (*panse) [pou pas (*pase) so HSC VP ]. John think (*LF) AUX pass.SF (*LF) 3SG.POSS HSC 'Lit. John thinks of passing his HSC.' Contrary to other languages,in particular Haitian and Hausa, which both have a verb form alternation, a pronominal complement also triggers the SF. (9) Mo'nn trouv (*trouve) li. 1SG'PERF see.SF (*LF) 3SG 'I have seen him/her.' Postverbal subjects with unaccusative verbs also trigger SFs, which is expected if we analyze them as complements. This concerns a sub-class of intransitive verbs which have the possibility of having a (non-agentive) inverted subject. For instance inversion is possible with arive 'to arrive', reste 'To stay/remain' but not with koze 'to speak/talk'. (10) a. Inn ariv (*arive) enn aksidan. PERF arive.SF (*LF) IND accident Lit. '(There) has happened an accident.' b. Enn aksidan inn arive (*ariv). IND accident PERF arrive.LF (*SF) 'An accident has happened.' (11) a. Enn profeser inn koze (*koz) A teacher perf speak.LF (*sf) 'A teacher has spoken.' b. *Inn koze enn profeser. c. *Inn koz enn profeser.

  (20) a. Mari inn demande (*SF) [kiler la] [ar tou dimounn]. Mary PERF ask.LF (*SF) what-time DEF with all people Lit. 'Mari asked what time it was to everyone.' b. Mari inn demann (*LF) [ar tou dimounn] [kiler la]. Mary PERF ask.SF (*LF) with all people what-time DEF 'Mari asked everyone what time it was.'

  (21) a. Tibaba ki mo mama ti veye (*vey) toule zour. DP.baby COMP 1SG.POSS mother PST look-after (*SF) every day 'It's little babies that my mother looked after every day.' b. Kimanyer Zan koze (*koz)? How John talk.LF (*SF) 'How does John talk?' c. Kot Zan pe marse (*mars)? where John PROG walk.LF ( *SF) 'Where is John walking?' Unlike extractions, left or right dislocated complements call for SFs since a pronoun is needed as illustrated . (22) a. Kari la, Zan ti manz (*manze) li. curry def John PST eat.SF (*LF) 3SG 'The curry, John ate it.' b. Zan ti manz (*manze) li, kari la. John PST eat.SF (*LF) 3SG curry DEF 'John ate it, the chicken.'This provides another argument in favor of a lexical-based analysis of extraction[START_REF] Abeillé | Romance in HPSG, Chapter French Bounded Dependencies[END_REF];[START_REF] Miller | French Clitic Movement without Clitics or Movement[END_REF];[START_REF] Crysmann | Yearbook of Morphology 2004, Chapter An Inflectional Approach to Hausa Final Vowel Shortening[END_REF];[START_REF] Bouma | Satisfying constraints on extraction and adjunction[END_REF]).

(

  31) a. *Kisannla ki'nn MANZE roti? (Who ATE the roti?) b. *MANZE kari poul la! (EAT the chicken curry!) c. *Ala li MANZE roti sa boug la! (How he EATS roti this man!)

Figure 1 :

 1 Figure 1: Type Hierarchy redefined

  ) Zan pa manze (*manz) [parski li malad]. 1SG NEG know (*SF) why 3SG NEG like 1SG.ACC/where Mary COP 'I don't know why he doesn't like me/where Mary is.'

	John NEG eat	(*SF) because 3SG sick
	'John doesn't eat because he's sick.'

(19) a. Zan panse (*pans) [(ki) banann la pa bon]. John think (*SF) COMP banana DEF NEG good 'John thinks (that) the banana is not good.' b. Mo pa kone (*konn) [kifer li pa kontan mwa/kot Mari ete].

  John doesn't EAT chicken curry.' (25) a. SPEAKER A: Mo bizin al kwi enn lot zafer parski Zan pa manz kari poul.

	b. SPEAKER B: Be non. Zan pa	MANZE kari	poul.
	But	no. John NEG eat.LF curry chicken
	'No,

(I need to cook something else because John doesn't eat chicken curry.) b. SPEAKER B: Be non. Zan MANZE kari poul. But no. John eat.LF curry chicken 'No, John EATS chicken curry.' LFs are also possible in what

  NEG PST eat.LF curry DEF, 3SG PST (*devour.LF) SF curry DEF 'He didn't EAT the curry, he devoured it.' b. Zan pa ti DONN Mari liv la, li ti PRET (*prete) li. John NEG PST give Mary book DEF, 3SG PST lend.SF (*LF) 3SG.ACC 'John didn't give Mary the book, he lent it to her.'

  ) a. Mo ti krwar Mari pa MANZE kari poul! 1SG PST think Mary NEG eat.LF curry chicken 'I thought Mary didn't EAT chicken curry.'

	b. To pa ti dir mwa	(ki) to pa MANZE kari poul!!!??
	2SG NEG PST tell 1SG.ACC that 2SG NEG eat	curry chicken
	'Didn't you tell me that you don't EAT chicken curry!?
	c. *Mo kone ki Zan MANZE kari poul.
	1SG know that John eat.LF curry chicken
	'I know that John EATS chicken curry.

d. *Mo'nn deside (ki) li MANZE kari poul.

1SG'PERF decide that 3SG eat.LF curry chicken *'I've decided that he/she EATS chicken curry.'

  suggests, there are variations where the long form is available with a canonical complement. However compared to MC, pronominal objects prevent verbal truncation (42c).

	(42) a. Konbyen dan Tonton Bouki genyen (*gen)?
	how-many tooth uncle Bouki has.LF (*SF)
	'How many teeth does Uncle Bouki has?
	b. Tonton Bouki gen (*genyen) 32 dan l.
	Uncle Bouki has.SF (?LF)	32 teeth 3SG
	'Uncle Bouki has (all of) his 32 teeth.
	c. Tonton Bouki te gade (*gad) li.
	Uncle Bouki PST look.LF (*SF) 3SG.ACC
	'Lit. Uncle Bouki watched it.

  Tonton Bouki te GADE (*gad) yon fim. Uncle Bouki PST look.LF (*SF) IND film 'Lit. Uncle Bouki watched a movie.As for Louisianese, the difference is more outstanding. LFs/SFs alternation is used to mark tense and aspect. SFs are used in the present or habitual, imperative, after presentatives (44a)-(44b) 11 while LFs are used in the past or progressive (45b).

	(45) a. Le klos ape sone (*son) aster.
	the bell PROG ring.LF SF	now
	'The bell is ringing now.'
	b. Yer	le klos sone (*son) a witer.
	yesterday the bell ring.LF SF	at eight-hour
	'Yesterday the bell rang at eight.'
	Hence Louisianese departs from the constraints applying to the alternation
	SFs/LFs in Mauritian.
	(44) a. Zordi le klos son	(*sone) a onzer.
	today the bell ring.SF (*LF) at eleven-hour
	'Today the bell rings at eleven.'
	b. Manj, manj, (*manje) ça va dèt frò
	eat.SF eat.SF (*LF)	it IRR get cold
	'Eat, eat, it's going to get cold.'

He also notes a very interesting fact that some verbs which do not usually undergo truncation do so when they are reduplicated because they are strictly intransitive. Examples of these are ronf-ronfle 'to snore-snore' or tranb-tranble 'to shiver-shiver' for instance, which we leave aside for the purpose of this paper. See Henri (to appear) on Verbal Reduplication.

This is expected since all verbs having phonemic sequence /-kse/ (bokse 'to box', takse 'to tax', pakse (civil pact of solidarity) and so forth. This suggests that the last rule provided by[START_REF] Corne | The Predicate in Isle de France Creole[END_REF] is insufficient or not constrained enough.

See Crysmann (2005) for a similar argument in cases of Final Vowel Shortening in Hausa.

This marker is to be distinguished from the irrealis pou. It has the same properties of infinitival 'to' in English and can be analyzed an an auxiliary verb which takes an 'non-finite' phrase as complement.

For a descriptive analysis of passives in Mauritian see[START_REF] Veronique | Typologie du predicat et formes du passif en Mauricien[END_REF].

For a preliminary study of the prosody of such constructions see[START_REF] Henri | Information Structure Coding in Mauritian: Verum Focus expressed by Long Forms of Verbs[END_REF].

http://learnlouisianacreole.wordpress.com/category/12f-imperatives/

(48) a. Na: ka:mà ki:fi. 1S.COMPL.ABS catch.V.GR1.C fish 'I caught fish.' (SF) b. Na: ka:mà: (shi). 1S.COMPL.ABS catch.V.GR1.A/B (him) 'I caught it/(him). (LF) [START_REF] Crysmann | Yearbook of Morphology 2004, Chapter An Inflectional Approach to Hausa Final Vowel Shortening[END_REF] says that Final Vowel Shortening (FVS) is a morphosyntactic property of Hausa and is sensitive to argument realization (49a) and extraction (49b)). He argues that in cases of ditransitives, it is the strict argument realization pattern of the language which trigger the LF (49a).

(49) a. Na: ka:mà: wà Musa ki:fi. 1S.COMPL.ABS catch.V.GR1.D=A for Musa fish 'I caught fish for Musa.' (LF) b. ki:fin dà na ka:mà: fish.def comp 1S.COMPL.ABS catch.V.GR1.A 'The fish I caught.' (LF)

The author also notes that previous analyses of the factors triggering FVS wrongly mention adjacency as a determining factor (50a).

(50) a. Ya: shuùka kuma audùga:. (Hausa) he.CMPL.ABS planted.V.GR1.C also wheat 'He also planted wheat.' b. Li manz (*manze) toultan bann kosonnri. (Mauritian) 3SG eat.SF (*LF) always PLU rubbish 'He/She always eat rubbish.' Hence as in Mauritian, an adverb intervening between the verb and its phrasal complement doesn't affect selection of the SF. To sum up, short forms in all the languages described above, except Louisianese, are definitely syntactically constrained and we represent these constraints in the