Germanic Languages and Linguistic Universals [1 ed.] 9789027287687, 9789027210685

Citation preview

Germanic Languages and Linguistic Universals

The Development of the Anglo-Saxon Language and Linguistic Universals (DASLU)

Volume 1 Germanic Languages and Linguistic Universals Edited by John Ole Askedal, Ian Roberts, Tomonori Matsushita and Hiroshi Hasegawa

Germanic Languages and Linguistic Universals

Edited by

John Ole Askedal University of Oslo

Ian Roberts University of Cambridge

Tomonori Matsushita Senshu University

Hiroshi Hasegawa Senshu University

John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam / Philadelphia

8

TM

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Germanic languages and linguistic universals / edited by John Ole Askedal, Ian Roberts, Tomonori Matsushita, and Hiroshi Hasegawa.        p. cm. (The Development of the Anglo-Saxon Language and Linguistic Universals, issn 1877-3451 ; v. 1) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1.  Germanic languages--Grammar. 2.  Universals (Linguistics) 3.  English language-Grammar. 4.  English language--Old English, ca. 450-1100.  I. Askedal, John Ole, 1942PD99.G47   2009 430'.045--dc22 isbn 978 90 272 1068 5 (Hb; alk. paper)

2008054507

© 2009 – Senshu University No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P.O. Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The Netherlands John Benjamins North America · P.O. Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa

Table of Contents PREFACE John Ole ASKEDAL, Ian ROBERTS, Tomonori MATSUSHITA and Hiroshi HASEGAWA ...... 1

1. Old English and Germanic Languages Some General Evolutionary and Typological Characteristics of the Germanic Languages John Ole ASKEDAL ...................................................................................................... 7 Characteristics of Germanic Languages Tadao SHIMOMIYA..................................................................................................... 57 Old English Pronouns for Possession Yasuaki FUJIWARA..................................................................................................... 69

2. Generative Grammar Reflexive Binding as Agreement and its Locality Conditions within the Phase System Hiroshi HASEGAWA ................................................................................................... 85 Movement in the Passive Nominal: A Morphological Analysis Junji HAMAMATSU .................................................................................................. 107 On Tritransitive Verbs Ryohei MITA.............................................................................................................. 121

3. Pragmatics and Corpus Linguistics On the Cognitive Dependence Phenomena Observed in English Expressions Shuichi TAKEDA ....................................................................................................... 145 On Pronoun Referents in English Hiromi AZUMA ......................................................................................................... 163 Relative and Interrogative who/whom in Contemporary Professional American English Yoko IYEIRI and Michiko YAGUCHI ........................................................................ 177 New Functions of FrameSQL for Multilingual FrameNets Hiroaki SATO ............................................................................................................ 193 Index of Names................................................................................................................... 205 Index of Subjects ................................................................................................................ 208 Editors & Contributors........................................................................................................ 213

PREFACE John Ole ASKEDAL, Ian ROBERTS, Tomonori MATSUSHITA and Hiroshi HASEGAWA The Senshu Open Research Project ‘The Development of the Anglo-Saxon Language and Linguistic Universals’ was selected as one of the promising unique projects in Japan by the Ministry of Education, Sports, Culture, Science and Technology in 2005 and has been supported by Senshu University in conjunction with the Ministry. The main focuses of the Project lie in “How are the Germanic languages related?”, “How is the process of language acquisition?”, “What does corpus linguistics offer to language analysis?”, and “How can language change be captured in linguistic theories?” The Senshu Open Research Project has organised International Conferences since the academic year 2005 with symposia devoted to ‘Linguistic Universals’, ‘The Universality of Language’, and ‘Introduction to Sociolinguistics’. The following scholars have been invited: J. C. Wells (Phonetics, University College London, emer.); Ad Neeleman (Generative Grammar, University College London); Michael Ashby (Phonetics, University College London); Marcel den Dikken (Generative Grammar, CUNY); Lydia White (L2 English Acquisiton, University of McGill); Peter Svenonius (Generative Grammar, University of Tromsø); Thomas Breuel (Letter Recognition, University of Kaiserslautern) and Manfred Markus (English Dialectology, University Innsbruck) in addition to the scholars who joined as honorary editorial members of the Project: John Ole Askedal (Germanic Languages, University of Oslo) and Ian Roberts (Diachronic Syntax, Downing College, Cambridge University). The Anglo-Saxon language, well known as Old English, is one of the languages constituting the Germanic language family and still characterized by a number of the basic properties of Proto-Germanic. The main old and modern members of the Germanic language family are (i) Icelandic, Faroese, Norwegian, Swedish, and Danish, which form the group of North Germanic languages, (ii) Gothic, an East Germanic language now extinct, and finally (iii) the West Germanic languages English, German, Dutch, and Frisian.

2

John Ole ASKEDAL, Ian ROBERTS, Tomonori MATSUSHITA and Hiroshi HASEGAWA

These languages have developed through diverse linguistic changes and, in consequence, exhibit characteristic differences with regard to phonology, morphology, and syntax. However, they still show a number of salient structural similarities, suggesting a unity underlying the diversity that may be captured within the ‘principles and parameters’ framework of Generative Grammar proposed by Noam Chomsky and further developed by Ian Roberts and Mark Baker. The project is also concerned with phonetics, corpus linguistics, and pragmatics. The present volume contains ten articles dealing with Germanic languages, Old English, Theoretical linguistics, Semantics, and Corpus linguistics. In his contribution to this volume, Askedal describes general evolutionary and typological characteristics of the Germanic languages and discusses various topics such as verb position and case marking, linear directionality in verb chains, the position of the finite verb with a view to their geographical distribution within the Germanic area. Shimomiya also discusses characteristics of Germanic languages from a phonological, morphological, syntactic and lexical point of view, arguing that English is the most “entgermanisierte” (the least Germanic) language and that Icelandic, free from foreign influence, has remained closest to Germanic structural origins. Fujiwara is in his paper “Old English pronouns for possession” concerned with the behaviour of possessives and genitives in Beowulf and Genesis A. He concludes that in these two outstanding Old English poems, the possessive and the genitive have a common distribution in metric patterns and make the same contribution to alliteration. Hasegawa offers an analysis of reflexive binding in terms of agreement within the framework of the minimalist program, which has empirical and conceptual advantages over movement analysis. He argues for phase-based treatment of locality conditions on reflexive binding. Hamamatsu argues that the objecthood perceived in the passive nominal is real and hence syntactic movement is involved in its derivation. He examines how nouns are derived through morphology and proposes an analysis whereby a suffix licenses a complement in the passive nominal. Mita discusses analyses of English tritransitive verbs after examining analyses of double object constructions and proposes that the structure of tritransitive sentenses is right-branching and is derived from left to right in an incremental fashion, supporting the Incrementality Hypothesis advanced by Philips (2003).

PREFACE

3

Takeda argues in his paper “On the Cognitive Dependence Phenomena Observed in English Expressions” that the dependence relations among sentence constituents are not limited to syntactic relationships but extend to a kind of semantic relationships which he refers to as ‘cognitive dependence phenomena’. He discusses three types of such cognitive dependence phenomena: the cognitive relation between visual perception and awareness, the use of idiomatic expressions, and the force of the attractor–attractee relation. Azuma in her paper “On Pronoun Referents in English” is concerned with criteria for assessing the accessibility of the referents for personal and demonstrative pronouns. She discusses this problem in terms of formal criteria such as the form of the pronoun and the form of the antecedent, on the one hand, and discourse criteria such as unity, distance, competition, and saliency, on the other. In their article “Relative and Interrogative Who/Whom in Contemporary Professional English”, Iyeiri and Yaguchi argue that whom is best preserved immediately after prepositions, while who is almost regular in the case of preposition stranding. They note that in all these circumstances the decline of interrogative whom is more advanced than the decline of relative whom. Sato claims that FrameSQL, a web-based application proposed by Sato (2003), possesses new functions when compared with previous applications. He illustrates the application of the FrameSQL to the lexical data of English, Spanish, Japanese, and German. The papers from these various branches deal with fundamental issues in the fields of Germanic languages and linguistic universals. They share the common goal of contributing to the enhancement of our understanding of these areas. The publication of this book was supported by “Open Research Center” Project for Private Universities: matching fund subsidy from MEXT (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology), 2005-2009. REFERENCES Askedal, John Ole. 1995. “Geographical and Typological Description of Verbal Constructions in the Modern Germanic Languages”. Drei Studien zum Germanischen in alter und neuer Zeit [NOWELE Supplement Vol. 13]. John Ole Askedal u. Harald Bjorvand (eds). Odense: Odense University Press, 95–146. Baker, Mark. 1996. The Polysynthesis Parameter [Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax]. New York: Oxford University Press. 2001. The Atoms of Language: The Mind’s Hidden Rules of

4

John Ole ASKEDAL, Ian ROBERTS, Tomonori MATSUSHITA and Hiroshi HASEGAWA

Grammar. New York: Basic Books. Chomsky, Noam. 1982. Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding [Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 6]. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. 1986. Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origins and Use. New York: Praeger. Philips, Colin. 2003. “Linear Order and Constituency”. Linguistic Inquiry 34. 37-90. Roberts, Ian. 2007. Diachronic Syntax [Oxford Textbooks in Linguistics]. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sato, H. 2003. “FrameSQL: A Software Tool for FrameNet”. ASIALEX ’03 Tokyo Proceedings, 251-258, Asian Association of Lexicography, Tokyo, Japan.

1. Old English and Germanic Languages

Some General Evolutionary and Typological Characteristics of the Germanic Languages John Ole ASKEDAL 0. INTRODUCTION The aim of this paper is to provide a comparative, typologically and diachronically oriented overview of certain salient structural features of modern Germanic languages. Some of the phenomena I discuss invite problematization in terms of grammaticalization and/or contact-linguistic theory. The languages dealt with are the Germanic standard languages English, German, Dutch, West Frisian, Danish, Swedish, Norwegian with both standard varieties Riksmål/Bokmål and Nynorsk, Faroese and Icelandic.1 From a partly historical partly geographical perspective these languages are assigned to a North and a West Germanic group, both of which are subdivided into a non-insular and an insular sub-group. Cf. (1):2 (1)

1

2

• North Germanic (Scandinavian): – Insular Scandinavian: Icelandic, Faroese – Non-Insular (Mainland, Continental) Scandinavian: Norwegian with the two standard varieties Riksmål/Bokmål and Nynorsk, Swedish, Danish • West Germanic: – Non-Insular (Continental) Germanic: German, Dutch, West Frisian – Insular West Germanic: English.

The following abbreviations are used: Eng. = English, Ger. = German, Du. = Dutch, WFr. = West Frisian, Da. = Danish, Swed. = Swedish, Norw. = Norwegian, RM/BM = Riksmål/Bokmål, NN = Nynorsk, Far. = Faroese, Icel. = Icelandic, and Germ. = Germanic. – For reasons of space, I shall have to omit Luxembourgish and the vast range of dialects as well as the Germanic diaspora consisting of Yiddish, Pennsylvania German and Afrikaans. Synchronically, in particular in view of present-day mutual intelligibility relationships, the division into Insular and Mainland Scandinavian is more adequate than the traditional historical bipartition into West Scandinavian, comprising Icelandic, Faroese and Norwegian, and East Scandinavian, consisting of Swedish and Danish (cf. Harbert 2007: 19).

8

John Ole ASKEDAL

Concerning contact relationships, Braunmüller (2000) proposes the following: Through different kinds of language contact, the West Germanic languages have become more or less Latinized or Romanized. For this reason we are in the case of these languages today dealing with European rather than specifically Germanic languages. (Braunmüller 2000: 271; my translation, J.O.A.)

Braunmüller (2000: 286, 292) refers to the following to support this position: (2)

Latin and Romance features of Germanic languages (according to Braunmüller 2000) 1. A complex tense and mood system of a Latin/Indo-European kind 2. Penultima stress in loan words 3. Complex prenominal adjectival and participial modifiers 4. Various ‘embraciation’ structures (“Klammerkonstruktionen”) 5. Finite verb in final position in subordinate clauses in German

(2.1) cannot be upheld in the way it is stated here. The ancient Germanic mood opposition between indicative and subjunctive (or optative) represents a lesser degree of morphological differentiation than the Indo-European and Latin system and has only survived in Icelandic and German (cf. Harbert 2007: 272–274, 278–284). With regard to the tense system, the innovations of Germanic have resulted in periphrastic constructions (Harbert 2007: 292 f.), whereas in Romance synthetic verb morphology has been retained to a greater degree. (2.2) concerns the more general fact that lexical borrowing has led to a number of new and widespread accentuation patterns in most Germanic languages (Harbert 2007: 81–84) but no wholesale transformation of Germanic accentuation. The positional phenomena in (2.3–2.5) belong in the typological context of modifier–head vs. head–modifier linearization. The predominantly German and comparatively late left-branching complex prenominal adjectival and participal modifiers (2.3) cannot possibly be the result of Romance, French influence; but Latin may have been a contributing factor (Weber 1971: 75 f., 141–148, 220 f.; Andersen 2007: 215–233, 236). However, from a system-internal point of view, the left-directionality represented by such complex prenominal modifiers can be seen as a parallel to the basic left-directionality in German verb chains (cf. Weber 1971: 147, Lehmann 1971; and see section 1.2). Concerning the “embraciation” constructions particularly characteristic

General Evolutionary and Typological Characteristics

9

of modern German (2.4), one would like to know what specific Latin parallels there are. The assumption in (2.5) refers to a traditional but overly simplified view of what was a very complex process in the history of German word order (cf. Scaglione 1981: 109–117); later and final position of the finite verb in subordinate clauses were by no means dependent on Latin influence for their occurrence but their frequency of use may have been reinforced by it (cf. Andersen 2007: 74–88, Prell & Andersen 2004: 165–169, 177 f.). Braunmüller proposes a similar relationship between Mainland Scandinavian and ‘West Germanic’: Since Hanseatic times, Mainland Scandinavian has assumed so many West Germanic genetic and typological characteristics that the West Germanic languages have moulded the character of the modern Germanic languages in their entirety. (Braunmüller 2000: 271; my translation, J.O.A.)

Logically, Braunmüller’s theses might be taken to imply that Mainland Scandinavian has become more or less Latinized or Romanized. However, Braunmüller does not specify which languages he has in mind when using the terms ‘West Germanic’ and ‘Romanization’. He also discusses a large number of properties of modern Germanic languages from phonology and intonation, morphology and syntax (ibid.: 281–290), which do not in general seem to support the West-Germanization, Latinization or Romanization theses referred to above. 1. TOWARDS A TYPOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION OF MODERN GERMANIC LANGUAGES 1.1 Verb position and case marking In his “Universal 41”, Greenberg (1966: 96) posits a general implicational relationship between the (unmarked) position of the finite verb on the one hand and presence of morphological case marking on the other: “If in a language the verb follows both the nominal subject and nominal object as the dominant order, the language almost always has a case system”. The values “+/– preverbal object” (or OV vs. VO) of the verb position parameter and the values “+/– case marking” of the case marking parameter yield the four combinations in (3), of which only Type II is unexpected according to Universal 41:

10

John Ole ASKEDAL (3)

Universal verb order–case correlations (according to Greenberg’s Universal 41) Type I: + preverbal O, + case marking *Type II: + preverbal O, – case marking Type III: – preverbal O, – case marking Type IV: – preverbal O, + case marking

Classification according to (3) yields different results for old and modern Germanic languages. Old Germanic languages and dialects have four or five morphological cases and, disregarding for the moment the main–subordinate clause distinction, both pre- and postverbal objects. Type IV was common in the entire Germanic area well into the Middle Ages. Type I may have been more frequent in Proto-Germanic. Early Germanic appears to have vacillated between Types IV and I (cf. for instance Harbert 2007: 353 f., 360). With regard to modern Germanic, leaving out of consideration the main–subordinate distinction and the word-class difference between pronouns and full NPs leads to typologically misleading results. All modern Germanic languages have V-2 in main clauses. In subordinate clauses, however, German, Dutch and Frisian have verb-final structures lacking in the other languages. (There are also good syntactic reasons for considering verb-finality to be ‘basic’ in this group of languages, cf. Harbert 2007: 350–352.) All the languages have at least a subject–oblique opposition in personal pronouns, but only Icelandic, Faroese and German have in principle four morphological cases in pronominal as well as non-pronominal NPs (cf. Harbert 2007: 105, 175–178), in (4) ordered in accordance with common conceptions of markedness relationships (cf. e.g. Zifonun et al. 1997: 1327 f.):3 (4)

The Germanic case hierarchy nominative > accusative

>

dative

>

genitive

According to a typological classification based on case marking in personal pronouns and the position of the finite verb in main clauses, all modern Germanic languages would belong to Type IV, i.e., be typologically on a par with Old Norse and Modern Icelandic. When, however, the linearization parameter is specified as “+/–Verb-Final in subordinate clauses” (for short: +/–V-Final) and “–NP case” is taken to mean ‘no case opposition apart from genitive marking in non-pronominal NPs’, the two parameters 3

> = comparatively unmarked. In Faroese, the genitive is of marginal importance only (cf. Thráinsson et al. 2004: 433 f.).

General Evolutionary and Typological Characteristics

11

provide a more appropriate tool for describing typological variation in modern Germanic (cf. Harbert 2007: 353 f.). The criteria “+/–Verb-final” 4 and “+/–NP case” give rise to the typological classification of the modern Germanic languages in (5). The corresponding areal distribution is given in (6):5 (5)

Verb order–case marking correlations in Modern Germanic Type I, Mod. Germ., Ger.: +V-Final, Type II, Mod. Germ., Du., WFr.: +V-Final, Type III, Mod. Germ., Eng., Dan., Norw., Swed.: –V-Final, Type IV, Mod. Germ., Icel., Far.: –V-Final,

(6)

+NP case –NP case –NP case +NP case

The geographical distribution of verb order–case marking correlations in Modern Germanic N IV. Icel., Far.: –V-Final +NP case III. Norw., Dan., Swed., Eng.: –V-Final –NP case E

W II. WFr., Du.: +V-Final –NP case I. Ger.: +V-Final +NP case S

A number of researchers consider Mainland Scandinavian case neutralization to have been influenced or even caused by contact with Middle Low German but this conclusion is not necessitated by the structural facts (Askedal 2005). In modern Mainland Scandinavian, verb-final order is only found as a marginal relic in poetry. The frequent claims to the effect that German syntax, in particular verb 4 5

The feature value “+Verb-Final” has to be further specified. Cf. section 1.2. All following “maps” of the same kind as (6) are based on the classification in (5).

12

John Ole ASKEDAL

order, has been “Latinized” and that present-day Type IV has been influenced or even caused by Latin influence are not supported by recent investigations (cf. e.g. Prell & Andersen 2004, Andersen 2007). Equally spurious is the contention that the West Germanic languages have been “Romanized”; together the three West Germanic languages represent the three different Types I, II and III. No Romance language is +V-Final. Notable differences exist between modern Germanic and Romance with regard to case marking. The only Romance language with case marking of non-pronominal NPs is Rumanian, displaying a nominative/accusative–dative/ genitive opposition in nouns, adjectives and possessive pronouns and a nominative–accusative–dative oppposition in personal pronouns (Harris & Vincent, eds. 1988: 398–400). The Rumanian system is isolated within Romance and has no parallels in Germanic. Like the Germanic –NP case languages, French, Italian and Spanish have case oppositions in personal pronouns but in contrast to their Germanic equivalents, French and Italian have dative forms in addition to accusative forms.6 The Germanic case neutralization represented by Type II and Type III languages presumably form part of a European morphosyntactical restructuring drift towards ‘positional syntax’ (cf. e.g. Kiparsky 1997, Harbert 2007: 108, 118) that in addition to Romance also encompasses the Celtic languages (cf. Ball & Fife, eds. 1993: 114 f., 122, 172, 182 f., 311 f., 315–319, 364, 369–372). 1.2 Linear directionality of verb forms in verb chains “Verb chains” are defined in terms of internal dependency and morphological government relationships (cf. Bech 1955: 25–30). The term ‘verb complex’ is related to clause topology and refers to what is called the ‘clause-final verb field’ by Bech (1955: 60–67). In the examples (7)–(8) the italicized verb forms make up a verb chain but only the sequences V3 V2 and V1 V3 V2 in (8) are verb complexes:7 (7) (8)

Eng. He had1 never had2 to fight3 for his life before. a. Ger. Er hatte1 nie zuvor für sein Leben kämpfen3 müssen2. he had never before for his life fight-INFINITIVE must-SUBSTITUTE INFINITIVE ‘= (7)’ b. Ger. weil er nie zuvor für sein Leben hatte1 kämpfen3 müssen2. … because he never before for his life had fight-INFINITIVE mustSUBSTITUTE INFINITIVE

“… because he had never had to fight for his life before”. 6 7

The only Germanic parallel to these Romance pronominal datives appears to be the Dutch dative plural hun (cf. Haeseryn et al. 1997: 247 f.). In the following, all examples in other languages than English are translated into English.

General Evolutionary and Typological Characteristics

13

In the remainder of this section, I shall be concerned with verb chains and verb complexes in subordinate clauses. In –V-Final English and Mainland Scandinavian, verb chains are right-branching. Cf. e.g. (9)–(10):8 (9) Eng. because he is1 not going2 to be3 here today. (10) Norw. fordi han ikke skal1 være2 her i dag. because he not shall be here today ‘= (9)’

Insular Scandinavian behaves in basically the same fashion but leftbranching, or mixed right- and left-branching, order are also occasionally found. Cf. e.g. (11):9 (11) a. Icel. Þeir spurðu, hver kominn2 væri1. they asked who come were-SUBJUNCTIVE “They asked who had come”. b. Far. ein kona, ið nevnd3 hevur1 verið2 Kellingin a wife who called has been witch-THE “a woman who was called the Witch”

It has been proposed that the non-finite verb form in such cases serves as a topological placeholder in subject position (Maling 1990: 75–78, Barnes 2001: 150–153). +V-Final languages show chain-internal linearization differences (cf. Harbert 2007, 354–358). West Frisian is the language with the highest degree of left-branching (Tiersma 1985: 137–139). Cf. (12):10 (12) WFr. wêrom’t ik de hiele dei sitten4 bliuwe3 moatten2 ha1. why’that I the whole day sitting-GERUND remain-INFINITIVE must-PARTICIPLE (SUPINE) have “why I have had to remain sitting there all day long”.

8

9 10

Dependency relationships in verb chains are indicated by upper indices, whereby the maximally governing verb in a chain is given the index “1”, the next lower element in the dependency hierarchy the index “2”, and so forth. – When no essential difference exists between the individual Mainland Scandinavian languages, Norwegian examples are chosen. In like manner, Norwegian Riksmål/Bokmål examples are given in cases where no syntactic difference exists between this variety and Norwegian Nynorsk. In the following, the Scandinavian definiteness suffix as well as clitic variants of the German definite article are glossed as “-THE”. On the terminology for non-finite verb forms cf. section 1.4.

14

John Ole ASKEDAL

However, te-gerunds are regularly placed at the end of the clause-final verb complex, forming partly left- partly right-branching chains (Hoekstra 1997: 16 f.). Cf. (13) (from Tiersma 1985: 139): (13) WFr. dat se sitten2 hat1 te that she sat-PARTICIPLE (SUPINE) had to “that she had been sitting there knitting”.

breidzjen3. knitting-GERUND

In modern standard German, left-branching is no doubt the basic order. Cf. (14): (14) a. Ger. weil er heute nicht kommen2 soll1. because he today not come shall “because he won’t come today”. b. Ger. weil er gestern Abend angekommen3 sein2 soll1. because he yesterday evening arrived-PARTICIPLE (SUPINE) be-INFINITIVE shall “because he is supposed to have arrived yesterday”.

Under specific conditions one or more verb forms can be brought to the front of a verb complex consisting of three or more verb forms (Bech 1955: 62–64). In such cases the fronted verb form or forms constitute a right-branching sector within the verb complex. Cf. (15): (15) a. Ger. warum ich den ganzen Tag dort habe1 | sitzen4 bleiben3 müssen2. why I the whole day there have sit-INFINITIVE remain-INFINITIVE must-SUBSTITUTE INFINITIVE ‘= (12)’ b. Ger. warum ich den ganzen Tag dort würde1 haben2 | sitzen5 bleiben4 müssen3. why I the whole day there would have-INFINITIVE sit-INFINITIVE remainINFINITIVE must-SUBSTITUTE INFINITIVE “why I would have had to remain sitting there all day long”.

South German dialects (and Austrian literary language) allow for verb complexes with a lexical verb preceding a right-branching sequence of auxiliaries (Kefer & Lejeune 1974: 328). Cf. (16): (16) Ger. Austrian, Bavarian. der erste, mit dem ich sprechen3 hatte1 können2. the first with whom I talk-INFINITIVE had can-SUBSTITUTE INFINITIVE “the first I had been able to talk with”.

General Evolutionary and Typological Characteristics

15

In standard Dutch, right-branching is optional in verb complexes consisting of a finite and a non-finite verb form (17a) (cf. Arfs 2007). Chains consisting of three or more verb forms either show a combination of rightand left-branching (17b) or consistent right-branching (17c) (cf. van de Velde 1972: 107–114, Haeseryn et al. 1997: 1057–1076): (17) a. Du. omdat hij heden niet zal1 komen2 / komen2 zal1. because he today not shall come / come shall ‘= (14a)’ b. Du. omdat hij gisteravond zou1 zijn2 gekomen3 / gekomen3 zou1 zijn2 / zou1 gekomen3 zijn2 / *gekomen3 zijn2 zou1. because he yesterday-evening should be-INFINITIVE come-PARTICIPLE (SUPINE) / come-PARTICIPLE (SUPINE) should be-INFINITIVE / should comePARTICIPLE (SUPINE) be-INFINITIVE ‘= (14b)’ c. Du. waarom ik de hele dag daar had1 moeten2 blijven3 zitten4. why I the whole day there had must-SUBSTITUTE INFINITIVE remainINFINITIVE sit-INFINITIVE ‘= (15a)’

Consistent left-branching is optional in cases like (18a–b) (from Haeseryn et al. 1997: 1070): (18) a. Du. Het mag een wonder heten dat we voor de overstroming gespaard3 gebleven2 zijn1 / gespaard3 zijn1 gebleven2 / zijn1 gebleven2 gespaard3. it may a wonder be that we for the flooding saved-PARTICIPLE (SUPINE) remained-PARTICIPLE (SUPINE) are / saved-PARTICIPLE (SUPINE) are remained-PARTICIPLE (SUPINE) / are remained-PARTICIPLE (SUPINE) saved-PARTICIPLE (SUPINE) “It’s a miracle that we have been spared the flooding”. b. Du. De commandant deelde mee dat zijn troepen een andere sector toegewezen3 gekregen2 hadden1 / toegewezen3 hadden1 gekregen2 / hadden1 gekregen2 toegewezen3. the commander informed that his troops another sector assigned-PARTICIPLE (SUPINE) received-PARTICIPLE (SUPINE) had / assigned-PARTICIPLE (SUPINE) had received-PARTICIPLE (SUPINE) / had received-PARTICIPLE (SUPINE) assigned-PARTICIPLE (SUPINE) “The commanding officer gave the information that his troops had been assigned a different sector”.

The reason for this variation is presumably the origin of the Dutch ‘remain’-passive (18a) in predicative constructions, and of the Dutch ‘receive’-passive in (18b) in co-predicative constructions. The first of the linearization options given – V3 V2 V1 – corresponds to the linearization of

16

John Ole ASKEDAL

predicatives and co-predicatives, whereas the two other orders – V3 V1 V2 und V1 V2 V3 – follow the rules for verb forms in verb complexes. As in connection with other grammaticalization processes, more grammaticalized options here co-exist with an option representing the syntactic point of departure of the grammaticalization process. The modern Continental Germanic languages constitute an (in)consistency cline with regard to directionality of linearization within verb complexes, whose areal distribution is given in (19):11 (19) Linearization of sequences of finite and non-finite verbs in subordinate clauses N IV. Icel., Far.: V1 V2 Vn (V3 V1 V2) III. Norw., Swed., Dan., Eng.: V1 V2 V3

W

IIa. WFr.: V3 V2 V1 V2 V1 V3 *V1 V3 V2 *V1 V2 V3

E IIb. Du.: V1 V2 V3 V1 V3 V2 (V3 V2 V1) I. Ger.: V3 V2 V1 V1 V3 V2 *V1 V2 V3 S

Dutch occupies an intermediate position between West Frisian and German on the one hand, and the –V-Final languages on the other. Despite the linearization peculiarity in (11), Insular and Mainland Scandinavian no doubt belong together. In view of (5)–(6), it seems natural that the –NP case 11

For expository reasons, the illustration of options is limited to chains consisting of three verb forms.

General Evolutionary and Typological Characteristics

17

language Dutch should have more right-branching and the +NP case language German more left-branching. The comparatively stricter left-branching behaviour of West Frisian appears rather unexpected. Modern Romance languages have consistently right-branching verb chains. Hence any linearization influence on the Type II – or for that matter, Type III and Type IV – languages is excluded. But it is perhaps no coincidence that Dutch, being the closest northwestern neighbour of French, has more right-branching within its overall verb-final structure than the other two +Verb-Final languages. 1.3 The positions of the finite verb Modern German is often without further ado classified as a V-2 language on account of the position of the finite verb in declarative main clauses. 12 However, a classification along these lines fails to take into consideration pragmatic markedness relationships between the main clause types, i.e. the fact that subordinate clauses, in contrast to main clauses, do not in general carry independent illocutionary force. In all Germanic languages, declaratives have V-2 as the obligatory or basic order, which can be viewed as topological marking of the category ‘assertion’. Cf. e.g. (20): (20) WFr. Hy kin hjoed net komme. he can today not come “He cannot come today”.

Constituent or WH-questions have V-2 order, too. Cf. e.g. (21): (21) Ger. Wer kann heute nicht kommen? who can today not come “Who cannot come today?”

On the other hand, yes–no questions have V-1 order. Cf. e.g. (22): (22) Far. Kann hann ikki koma í dag? can he not come today “Can’t he come today?”

We may assume the markedness hierarchy in (23): 12

The Germanic V-2 position has engendered a large amount of theoretical discussion. Cf. for instance Kiparsky (1995) and Harbert (2007: 398–415).

18

John Ole ASKEDAL (23) Clause markedness hierarchy subordinate clause > declarative main clause (V-2) > WH-question main clause (V-2) > yes–no-question main clause (V-1)

Further main-clause verb orders occur in Icelandic and English. Icelandic (and marginally Faroese) have assertive V-1 main clauses with so-called “narrative inversion” (cf. Sigurðsson 1990; example (24) is from Einarsson 1976: 173): (24) Icel. Leið nú til sumarmála, fór húsfreyja þá að ógleðjast. went now to midsummer, went house-mistress then to become-unhappyREFLEXIVE

“Midsummer approached and then the housewife became unhappy”.

English is the only Germanic language in which topicalization does not force the subject into the position after the finite verb and V-3 constructions are therefore possible (Hawkins 1986: 181–186). Cf. (25):13 (25) Eng. Today he will not be able to come.

Of the –Verb-Final languages, Icelandic and English have the same basic verb order in main and subordinate clauses.14 Mainland Scandinavian has V-3 (the complementizer is not counted) in subordinate clauses, in contrast to V-2 main clauses. Faroese subordinate clauses show alternation of V-2 and V-3 and hence occupies an intermediate position between Icelandic and Mainland Scandinavian. Cf. (26): (26) a. Norw. fordi han ikke skal komme i dag. because he not shall come today “because he won’t come today”. b. Icel. af því að hann skal1 ekki koma2 í dag. because he shall not come today

13

14

Further English V-3 constructions are the result of linearization rules for certain adverbials (cf. Quirk et al. 1992: 491–496). Cf. (i): (i) He finally arrived today. Furthermore, the combination of both the distribution patterns in (24) and (i) may lead to V-4 structures. Cf. (ii): (ii) Today, he finally arrived. Icelandic appears to have V-3 as a marginal option in subordinate clauses (cf. Thráinsson 1986: 175 f.).

General Evolutionary and Typological Characteristics

19

c. Far. tí at hann ikki skal1 koma2 / skal1 ikki koma2 í dag. because that he not shall come / shall not come today ‘= (26a–b)’

The areal distribution of the positions of the finite verb is given in (27):15 (27) The position of the finite verb in main and subordinate clauses N IVa. Icel.: SubCl: V-2 MCl: V-2, V-1

IIIa. Norw., Swed., Dan.: SubCl: V-3 MCl: V-2

IVb. Far.: SubCl: V-2, V-3 MCl: V-2 (V-1) E

W IIIb. Eng.: SubCl: V-2, V-3 MCl: V-2, V-3

II. WFr., Du.: SubCl: V-Final MCl: V-2 I. Ger.: SubCl: V-Final MCl: V-2 S

With the exception of geographically peripheral English and Icelandic (and, optionally, Faroese), Germanic languages make a topological distinction between main and subordinate clauses. The main clause orders V-1 and V-2 have a functional motivation as topological markers of the main illocutionary categories ‘assertion’ and ‘(yes–no) question’. Subordinate clauses are as a rule neutral with regard to illocutionary function. In modern Germanic, functional verb order variation is thus a structural feature of main clauses; in subordinate clauses verb order variation is basically non-functional, i.e. structural and typological. The relationship between V-1 and V-2 is quite different in Romance: In Romance PRO-Drop languages with optional subject pronoun (cf. Posner 1996: 51), assertive V-1 main clauses are common and there are several different strategies for the formation of yes–no questions. Romance languages do not in general distinguish main and subordinate clauses in 15

SubCl = subordinate clauses, MCl = main clauses.

20

John Ole ASKEDAL

terms of verb position in the way the majority of the Germanic languages do. Furthermore, topicalization in Romance often takes the shape of preposing in front of a subject–object sequence, resulting in V-3 constructions of a kind that in Germanic are only found in English. The relationship between English and French V-3 is a moot point but English V-3 has in any case to be seen in the context of the development of a stricter subject–finite verb order than in the other Germanic languages. The fact that a general topological difference between main and subordinate clauses is lacking in Icelandic (but cf. n. 14) indicates that this distinction is an innovation in Mainland Scandinavian. Borrowing of a German “later position” (“Späterstellung”)16 of the finite verb in subordinate clauses from Middle Low German has been suggested as an explanation (Faarlund 2004b: 99–101) but this does not in itself clarify the structural conditions in the receiving language(s) that made the borrowing possible. Optional subordinate V-3 in Faroese has no doubt to be seen in the context of Danish influence. 1.4 Non-finite verb forms The various Germanic languages have different inventories of non-finite verb forms. Non-finite verbs occur in auxiliary constructions and as complements of full lexical verbs. Adjunct function is on the whole marginal. Non-finite verbs are in most cases part of verb chains consisting of two or more verb forms. Within the traditional domain of “participles”, a syntactic, functional distinction has to be made between ‘participle’ in a narrow sense and ‘supine’ forms (cf. Harbert 2007: 345–347). ‘Participles’ follow the inflection rules for adjectives and are in this sense ‘adjectival’; ‘supines’ constitute or are part of verb chains (Bech 1955: 12–16). Cf. (28a) and (28b) respectively: (28) a. Participle: Ger. der gelobte Schüler – ein gelobter Schüler the praised pupil – a praised pupil “the / a pupil being praised” b. Supine: Ger. Sie haben den Schüler gelobt. – Der Schüler wird gelobt. they have the pupil praised – the pupil becomes praised “They praised the pupil”. – “The pupil is being praised”.

16

The position of the finite verb in subordinate clauses in Middle High German is also characterized as “later[-than-second] position” (“Späterstellung”; cf. Prell 2001: 74 f., Paul 2007: 452 f.).

General Evolutionary and Typological Characteristics

21

Supine morphology varies among the modern Germanic languages. In West Germanic, there is an invariant (“participial”) ending with no further morphological material attached or incorporated. In Scandinavian, the supine can, historically, be identified with the neuter singular form of the participle. Only Swedish has, in strong verbs, established a supine form that differs from the neuter singular of the participle (Teleman et al. 1999, Vol. 2: 551). Cf. (29): (29) a. Swed. Grenen var bruten. branch-SUBJECT-MASC-SG-THE was broken-PARTICIPLE-SG-MASC “The branch was broken”. b. Swed. Löftet var brutet. promise-SUBJECT-SG-NEUT-THE was broken-PARTICIPLE-SG-NEUT “The promise was broken”. c. Swed. Dom hade brutit grenen / löftet. they had broken-SUPINE-ACTIVE branch-THE / promise-THE “They had broken the branch/the promise”. d. Swed. Grenen / Löftet hade brutits. branch-THE / promise-THE had broken-SUPINE-PASSIVE “The branch/the promise had been broken”.

In this section, I shall concentrate on the supine forms, to which, following Bech (1955: 12), I also count infinitives and English and West Frisian so-called ‘gerunds’ (cf. below). In contrast to the rest of Germanic, West Germanic used to distinguish ‘uninflected’ and ‘inflected’ infinitives (Dal 1966: 100, Harbert 2007: 333 f.). Reflexes of this opposition only survive in Frisian, where a ‘bare’ infinitive, a ‘bare’ ‘gerund’ (Ø-gerund) and a ‘gerund’ with the preposed particle te (te-gerund) are distinguished.17 There is also an expanded om (…) te-gerund with the preposed prepositional particle om, yielding a total of five supine forms in modern West Frisian (Tiersma 1985: 74–77, 126–130). Cf. (30): (30) a. WFr. Ik sil meane. I shall mow-INFINITIVE “I am going to mow”.

17

Functionally, the so-called ‘gerunds are on a par with and might just as well be called infinitives (cf. Hoekstra 1997: 1 f., 84; Harbert 2007: 334). The older ‘gerund’-terminology is retained here for purposes of indexing and comparison with other languages. The Ø-gerund has also absorbed certain instances of the ancient present participle.

22

John Ole ASKEDAL b. WFr. Ik hear har in ferske sjongen. I hear her a song singing-GERUND “I heard her sing(ing) a song”. c. WFr. Ik bliuw stean. I remained standing-GERUND “I remained standing”. d. WFr. Doarst do oer de sleat te springen? dare you over the ditch to jump-TE-GERUND “Do you have the courage to jump across the ditch?” e. WFr. Hy besocht om de stjerren te sjen. he tried for the stars to seeing-TE-GERUND “He tried to see the stars”. f. WFr. Hja helle my oer om op de FNP te stimmen. she fetched me over for on the FNP to voting-OM-TE-GERUND “She persuaded me to vote for the Frisian Nationalist Party”. g. WFr. Hy hat meand. he has mowed-SUPINE “He has mowed”.

The West Frisian om (…) te-gerund is a fully grammaticalized form required by several governing predicates. English has a Ø-infinitive, an infinitive with preposed to (‘to-infinitive’ or ‘particle-infinitive’) and a so-called ‘past’ (or ‘passive’) participle. Cf. (31): (31) a. Eng. You should work harder. b. Eng. She persuaded him to vote for the Scottish Nationalists. c. Eng. He had left without further notice.

In addition, a complex for ... to-complementizer similar to Frisian om (...) te and deriving in like manner from an adverbial infinitive of purpose, may be assumed (at least in American English, cf. Quirk et al. 1992: 1193 f., Harbert 2007: 418). Cf. (32): (32) a. Eng. They waited for him to finish. b. Eng. For him to do that would certainly be highly illegal.

In English, the old Germanic present participle has been replaced by an ing-form that probably derives from a verbal noun. This ing-form is of great importance as part of the strongly grammaticalized English progressive (33a) and in grammatical contexts where other Germanic languages either have a

General Evolutionary and Typological Characteristics

23

Ø- (33b) or a particle-infinitive (33c) (Quirk et al. 1992: 1185 f., 1189–1195, 1206 f.):18 (33) a. Eng. He was working hard all the time. b. Eng. She heard him crying. c. Eng. He enjoys fishing for salmon.

The correspondence between the ing-form (often called ‘gerund’; cf. Harbert 2007: 342–344) in (33b–c) and the West Frisian Ø-gerund in (30c–e) is interesting because the two forms have partly different morphological origins. German possesses what may be called the modern Germanic morphological core inventory of non-finite verb forms, consisting of a Ø-infinitive (34a), a zu- (particle-) infinitive (34b–c) and the so-called ‘perfect’ (or ‘past’ or ‘passive’) participle (34d). The so-called ‘present participle’ cannot be part of verb chains in German. Cf. (34):19 (34) a. Ger. weil er sehr schnell arbeiten kann. because he very fast work can “because he can work very fast”. b. Ger. weil er sehr schnell zu arbeiten versucht. because he very fast to work tries “because he tries to work very fast”. c. Ger. weil er sehr schnell zu arbeiten scheint. because he very fast to work seems “because he seems to work very fast”. d. Ger. weil er sehr schnell gearbeitet hat. because he very fast worked has “because he has worked very fast”.

In colloquial language, Dutch has in addition an expanded om (…) te-infinitive (35d) that parallels the Frisian formation in (30e–f) but is not grammatically required in the same way as its Frisian counterpart (van den Toorn 1981: 119, Haeseryn et al. 1997: 1110–1112, Harbert 2007: 418). Cf. (35): 18

19

Celtic provenance has been suggested for the progressive ing-periphrasis, cf. Dal (1952: 107–16), Wagner (1959: 118 f., 197, 238 f.), Visser (1973: 1988–1993), Brinton (1988: 267 f., n. 17); on modern Irish cf. Thieroff (1994: 17–20). The three supine forms differ with regard to extraposability or ‘incoherent construction’. On lexical conditioning of and restrictions on extraposability of zu-infinitives see Bech (1955: 72–80, 84–222), Askedal (1989).

24

John Ole ASKEDAL (35) a. Du. Hij kan’t niet helpen. he can’t not help “He can’t help it”. b. Du. Wil je eens proberen dit slot open te krijgen? will you just try this lock open to get “Would you please try to open this lock?” c. Du. Ik heb vannacht slecht geslapen. I have last-night badly slept “I slept badly last night”. d. Du. Jan was nu vast besloten (om) te blijven eten. Jan was now firmly decided (for) to stay-INFINITIVE eat-INFINITIVE “John had decided to stay for the meal”.

The Scandinavian inventories contain no parallels to the Frisian and Dutch om (…) te-formations but instead a systematically marginal use of the present participle (36d). Cf. e.g. the Icelandic examples in (36): (36) a. Icel. Ég má hugsa til þess. I must remember to that-GENITIVE-SG-NEUT “I have to remember that”. b. Icel. Skipstjórinn þorði varla að festa blund. captain-THE dared hardly to fasten sleep “The captain hardly dared to go to sleep”. c. Icel. Hann hefur komið. “He has come”. d. Icel. Hann kom labbandi. he came strolling “He came strolling along”.

Faroese, Danish, Norwegian and Swedish show the same morphological contrasts. Being –V-Final languages, the Scandinavian languages lack extraposability restrictions of the German kind (cf. Askedal 1984). There are, however, certain differences with regard to the use of the infinitive particle (marker). In particular, Swedish makes more use of the Ø-infinitive than Danish and Norwegian (Hulthén 1944: 246–255, Harbert 2007: 337). Cf. e.g. (37): (37) a. Swed. De hade slutat diskutera marschen. they had stopped discuss march-THE “They had stopped discussing the march”.

General Evolutionary and Typological Characteristics b. Norw. De hadde sluttet å diskutere they had stopped to discuss

25

marsjen. march-THE ‘= (37a)’

The areal distribution of the various inventories of non-finite forms is given in (38):20 (38) Germanic inventories of non-finite verb forms N IV. Icel., Far.: Ø-inf., p-inf., part., (pres. part.) IIIa. Norw., Dan.: Ø-inf., p-inf., part., (pres. part.)

W

IIIb. Swed.: Ø-inf., p-inf., part., supine, (pres. part.)

IIa. WFr.: Ø-inf. Ø-ger., p-ger., om – p-ger., part.

E

IIIc. Eng.: Ø-inf., p-inf., for – p-inf., ing-ger., part. IIb. Du.: Ø-inf., p-inf. (om – p-inf.), part. I. Ger.: Ø-inf., p-inf., part. S

Romance languages do not in general have generalized infinitive particles of the Germanic kind. In addition to a “bare”, particle-less infinitive, Romance languages have infinitives with a preposed desemanticized preposition, the choice of which is dependent on the infinitive-governing 20

Ø/p-inf. = infinitive without/with preposed infinitive particle (marker), Ø/p-ger. = so-called ‘gerund’ without/with preposed particle (marker), part. = past/perfect/passive participle (used as supine), pres. part. = present participle.

26

John Ole ASKEDAL

verb.21 On the other hand, Romance languages make frequent use of a separate category of gerunds and similar formations that have, despite the terminology, no equally frequent Germanic counterparts. There can hardly be any doubt that the various Germanic inventories of non-finite verb forms are due to indigenous developments. 1.5 The syntactic status of the infinitive particle The infinitive particle is a grammaticalized preposition, originally governing a verbal noun that was reanalyzed as a non-finite verb form with verb valency properties. In the course of the grammaticalization process, the preposition loses its noun-governing properties and changes into an infinitive particle (marker) with – to a varying extent – complementizer or verb prefix (morpheme) properties (cf. Harbert 2007: 338–340, 417–419). In the +V-Final languages, the infinitive particle has morpheme properties (cf. e.g. Bech 1955: 16–19 on German). Insertion of a word or phrase between the particle and the verb stem is not possible and in coordinative structures omission of later-than-first occurrences of the particle is not permitted.22 Cf. e.g. (39): (39) a. Ger. Er wünscht nicht zu arbeiten / *zu nicht arbeiten. he wishes not to work / to not work “He doesn’t want to work”. b. Ger. Er wünscht möglichst viele Bücher zu kaufen und *(zu) lesen. he wants possibly-SUPERLATIVE many books to buy and (to) read “He wants to buy and read as many books as possible”.

Danish has the non-insertion restriction but allows for omission of second and later occurrences of the infinitive particle in coordination. Cf. (40): (40) a. Dan. De havde besluttet ikke at udlevere ham. they had decided not to surrender him “They had decided not to hand him over”.

21

22

In French à or de, in Italian a or di (Harris & Vincent, eds. 1988: 306 f.), and in Spanish a or de (but also en, por, con with a similar function; cf. Harris & Vincent, eds. 1988: 117 f.). But see also the discussion of the so-called “sentential” infinitives of West and, in particular, North Frisian in Hoekstra (1997: 87–101, 112–125). These are, however, special and partly different phenomena in need of closer inspection.

General Evolutionary and Typological Characteristics

27

b. Dan. Han ønskede ikke at købe eller læse flere bøger. read more books he wanted not to buy or “He didn’t want to buy or read more books”.

Faroese and Icelandic behave like Danish. The Swedish infinitive particle has more complementizer-like properties insofar as a wide range of adverbials are permitted between the particle and the infinitive (Hulthén 1948: 169–171). Cf. (41): (41) a. Swed. Dom hade beslutat att inte utlämna honom. they had decided to not surrender him ‘= (40a)’ b. Swed. Vi fingo inte ens tillåtelse att en gång om dagen gå omkring på gården. we received not even permission to once a day go around on yard-THE “We were not even allowed to take a stroll in the yard once a day”. läsa dylika böcker. c. Swed. Hon liker inte att köpa och read such books she likes not to buy and “She doesn’t like to buy and read that kind of books”.

Norwegian assumes an intermediate position between Danish and Swedish. Insertion of the negation word ikke ‘not’ is optional and omission of second and later occurrences of the infinitive particle in coordinative constructions is possible. Cf. (42): (42) a. Norw. Det var leit ikke å kunne treffe henne / å ikke kunne treffe henne. it was unfortunate not to can-INFINITIVE meet her / to not can-INFINITIVE meet her “It was a pity not to be able to meet her”. lese slike bøker. b. Norw. Hun liker ikke å kjøpe og read such books ‘= (41c)’ she likes not to buy and

It appears that the present state of Norwegian ist the result of a fairly recent development from morpheme to complementizer properties that has taken place since the early 20th century (Faarlund 2007: in particular 76). Identity with Danish has yielded to greater similarity with Swedish. Present-day English usage seems to correspond to Swedish (Quirk et al. 1992: 496–498), even though insertion of an element between the particle and the infinitive (so-called ‘split infinitive’) is still subject to stylistic verdicts. Cf. (43):

28

John Ole ASKEDAL (43) a. Eng. We are expected to continuously improve the quality of our products. b. Eng. His hardest decision was to not allow the children to go to summer camp. (Quirk et al. 1992, 497) go as he pleases. c. Eng. He wants to come and

The areal relationships are shown in (44):23 (44) The syntactic status of the infinitive particle N IV. Icel., Far.: +p–Ø – p Adv V

IIIa. Norw., Swed.: +p–Ø + p Adv V

IIIb. Dan.: +p–Ø – p Adv V E

W IIIa. Eng.: +p–Ø + p Adv V

II. WFr., Du.: –p–Ø – p Adv V I. Ger.: –p–Ø – p Adv V S

Concerning Romance, French allows for insertion of negation words and proclitic pronouns between the prepositional particle and the infinitive. Cf. (45): (45) a. French. Il commençait à me raconter l’histoire du jeune de Marseille. he began to me tell the’story of-the young-SG from Marseille “He began to tell me a story about the young boy from Marseille”. b. French. Ce que je vous demande, c’est de ne pas me trahir. that which I you ask, that’is to not not me betray “What I ask of you is not to betray me”.

23

p – Ø = deletion of second and later occurrences of the particle (marker) in a sequence of conjoined infinitives, p Adv V = insertion of an adverbial element beween the infinitive particle (marker) and the verb form.

General Evolutionary and Typological Characteristics

29

In French coordinative structures the prepositional particle is repeated. None of the Germanic infinitive particle systems have an exact equivalent in French. There seems to be no reason to assume Romance, more specifically French, influence. 1.6 ge-prefixation of the past participle (supine) Dutch and German have added the prefix ge- to the so-called past participle (supine), giving in effect rise to circumfixal participle (supine) morphology (cf. Bech 1955: 18 f.). Dutch goes still further in this regard than does German insofar as even verbs ending in -eren have ge- (Haeseryn et al. 1997: 68 f.).24 Cf. (46): (46) a. Ger. gearbeitet b. Du. gewerkt ‘worked’

– –

Ø-komponiert gecomponeerd ‘composed’

– –

Ø-entdeckt Ø-ontdekt ‘discovered’

No Romance language has comparable circumfixal patterns. 1.7 ‘Substitute infinitive’ (“Ersatzinfinitiv”) Another German and Dutch peculiarity is the socalled ‘substitute infinitive’ (“Ersatzinfinitiv”, “Partizipersatz”; cf. also Harbert 2007: 355–358).25 Cf. (47): (47) a. Ger. Er hat nicht arbeiten wollen / *gewollt. he has not work-INFINITIVE will-SUBSTITUTE INFINITIVE / willedPARTICIPLE (SUPINE) “He hasn’t wanted to work”. b. Du. Hij heeft niet willen werken / *gewild werken. he has not will-SUBSTITUTE INFINITIVE work-INFINITIVE / willedPARTICIPLE (SUPINE) work-INFINITIVE ‘= (47a)’

In German, the preference hierarchy in (48) obtains (Berger et al. 1985: 360):

24

25

Old English has corresponding ge-prefixation of past participles (Campbell 1964: 299) but in Middle English ge- is reduced phonologically to y- and then lost (Brinton & Arnovick 2006: 281, 285). Cf. also Harbert (2007: 345–347). For some similar but not identical substitution phenomena in West Frisian see Hoekstra (1997: 17).

30

John Ole ASKEDAL (48) Preference hierarchy of German verbs occurring in the ‘substitute infinitive’ Obligatory: dürfen ‘be allowed, permitted to’, können ‘can’, mögen ‘may’, müssen ‘must’, sollen ‘shall’, wollen ‘will’, brauchen ‘need’ ∨

Predominant: heißen ‘order’, lassen ‘let, permit, make’, sehen ‘see’ ∨

Optional: fühlen ‘feel’, hören ‘hear’, helfen ‘help’ ∨

Obsolete: lehren ‘teach’, lernen ‘learn’, machen ‘make’.

Dutch has a larger number of verbs occurring in the substitute infinitive (cf. Ponten 1973: 75 et passim). Cf. (49): (49) Dutch verbs occurring in the ‘substitute infinitive’ kunnen ‘can’, mogen ‘may’, moeten ‘must’, willen ‘will’, durven ‘have the courage to’; laten ‘let, permit, make’, zien ‘see’, horen ‘hear’, voelen ‘feel’, helpen ‘help’; leren ‘teach, learn’, doen ‘do’, gaan ‘go’, komen ‘come’, blijven ‘remain’, liggen ‘lie’, staan ‘stand’, lopen ‘run’, zitten ‘sit’, hangen ‘hang’, heten ‘order’, (be)horen ‘be appropriate’, beginnen ‘begin’, dienen ‘serve’.

No Romance language has anything like the German and Dutch substitute infinitive. 1.8 Periphrastic perfect constructions Periphrastic perfect constructions derive from Old Germanic subject (50a) or object (co-predicative) constructions (50b) with an inflected, agreeing participle (cf. Grønvik 1986: 16–19, 30–34; Harbert 2007: 293 f., 303 f.). Cf. (50a) (from Faarlund 2004a: 132 and 130): (50) a. Old Norse. nú er hér kominn Egill now is here come-PARTICIPLE-NOMINATIVE-SG-MASC Egill-SUBJECTNOMINATIVE-SG-MASC “Egill has now arrived”. b. Old Norse. Óláfr Nóregs konungr hafði þangat senda menn Olaf Norway’s king had thither sent-PARTICIPLE-ACCUSATIVE-PL-MASC men-DIRECT OBJECT-ACCUSATIVE-PL-MASC “King Olaf of Norway had sent some men there”.

The ‘be’- and the ‘have’-constructions differ with regard to the original voice character of the participle. The ‘be’-construction has an active participle of a perfective intransitive verb and hence no voice reanalysis of

General Evolutionary and Typological Characteristics

31

the participle is necessary in the formation of a perfect tense. The ‘have’-perfect, on the other hand, presupposes voice reanalysis as an active participle of the originally passive participle of a transitive verb. Further aspects of the grammaticalization process are loss of agreement in the participle, i.e. transition to a non-agreeing supine, and, concomitantly, grammaticalization of ‘have’ as a perfect auxiliary. The originally passive participle of the ‘have’ construction has become an active supine in all of Germanic. On the other hand, the Germanic languages differ concerning the development of the corresponding ‘be’ construction with regard to (ia) retention of an agreeing participle or (ib) transition to supine; and (iia) retention of ‘be’ or (iib) generalization of ‘have’. When the morphological supine–participle opposition and the lexical ‘be’–‘have’ opposition are considered in conjunction, the main stages or types of perfect system in (51) can be envisaged: (51) 1. 2. 3. 4.

‘be’ + participle + + – –

‘be’ + supine – – + –

‘have’ + participle + – – –

‘have’ + supine – + + +

Type 1 is represented by earlier stages of Old Norse and Old High German but has not survived into any modern Germanic language. Type 2 is represented by Norwegian Nynorsk and Faroese. These languages have retained participial construction with the auxiliary ‘be’ but have reanalyzed the agreeing participle of the co-predicative ‘have’ construction as a non-agreeing supine.26 Cf. e.g. (52): (52) a. Far. Døtur hansara vóru komnar. daughters-SUBJECT-NOMINATIVE-PL-FEM his were come-PARTICIPLENOMINATIVE-PL-FEM “His daughters had arrived”. b. Far. Áin rennur har, sum hon altíð hevur runnið. river-NOMINATIVE-SG-FEM-THE flows here like she has always flowedSUPINE

“The river is flowing here where it has always been flowing”. c. Far. Henni hevði so longst eftir einum barni. her-DATIVE had so longed-SUPINE-REFLEXIVE after a child-DATIVE-SG-NEUT “She had wanted a child so very much”. 26

Concerning Icelandic ‘be’-constructions with an agreeing participle cf. section 1.13 below.

32

John Ole ASKEDAL

(52a) illustrates the perfective, transformative use of intransitive motion verbs. In the non-perfective, durative use of such verbs ‘have’ is found (52b).27 Type 3 is characteristic of the Continental Germanic +V-final languages Frisian, Dutch and German as well as Danish. Cf. (53): (53) a. Du. Hij is naar Zuid-Amerika gereisd. he is to South-America traveled-SUPINE “He has gone to South America”. b. Du. Hij heeft veel gereisd. he has much traveled-SUPINE “He has been traveling a lot”. c. Du. Hij heeft’m het boek gegeven. he has’him the book given-SUPINE “He has given him the book”.

In German there is a tendency to generalize ‘be’ in both the perfective and the durative use of motion verbs (Berger et al. 1985: 322). ‘Be’ is already obligatory in connection with the most common motion verbs (gehen, laufen, fahren, reisen; ibid.: 323). Cf. (54): (54) a. Ger. Wir haben / sind heute den ganzen Tag we have / are today the whole day “We have been swimming all day”. b. Ger. Er ist im Zimmer hin und her back and forth he is in-THE room “He has been running around in the room”.

geschwommen. swum gelaufen. run

Such examples show a kind lexical conditioning of the auxiliary which is reminiscent of the state of affairs in French. Three languages – English, Swedish and even Icelandic – have generalized ‘have’, thereby progressing from a ‘split’ (cf. Aranovich, ed. 2007) to a homogeneous perfect auxiliary system. Cf. (55): (55) a. Swed. Dom hade inte “They had not b. Swed. Han har köpt “He has bought 27

gått hem än. gone home yet”. boken. the book”.

On the ‘have’–‘be’-alternation and the semantic parameters underlying it cf. Harbert (2007: 304–307).

General Evolutionary and Typological Characteristics

33

With a limited number of verbs, Icelandic has both ‘have’ and ‘be’: (56) a. Icel. Hann har komið heim. “He has come (came) home”. b. Icel. Hann er kominn heim. he-SUBJECT-NOMINATIVE-SG-MASC is come-PARTICIPLE-NOMINATIVESG-MASC home “He has come home (and is still there)”.

The ‘be’-construction in (56b) appears to carry an implication of a persistent state of affairs that is not forced by (56a) (cf. Harbert 2007: 294). As (56b) no doubt represents the structural origin of the perfect construction, the relationship between (56b) and (56a) can be considered an instance of markedness reversal: (56a) is the generalized aspectually neutral construction available to all verbs, whereas the structurally original construction in (56b) is restricted to a small number of verbs and aspectually marked. Norwegian Riksmål/Bokmål has two basic options: first, ‘have’–’be’ alternation like Danish and Continental Germanic and, second, generalization of ‘have’ as in Swedish, thus occupying an intermediate position between Danish and Swedish. Cf. (57): (57) a. Norw. Han har/er kommet hjem. he has/is come-SUPINE home “He has come home”. b. Norw. De hadde gått hele dagen. the had gone all day-THE “They had been walking all day”. c. Norw. Han har kjøpt boken. ‘= (55b)’

The geographical distribution of the various types of perfect construction is indicated in (58):

34

John Ole ASKEDAL (58) Supine and participle constructions and ‘have’/‘be’-distribution in the periphrastic perfect N IVa. Icel., Type 4: supine, ‘have’ (participle, ‘be’)

IIIa. Swed., Type 4: supine, ‘have’

IVb. Far., Type 2: supine, ‘have’ participle, ‘be’

IIIa. Norw. NN, Type 2: supine, ‘have’ participle, ‘be’

W

IIIb. Norw. BM, Dan., Type 3: supine, ‘have’, ‘be’ IIIb. Eng., Type 4: supine, ‘have’

E

II. WFr., Du., Type 3: supine, ‘have’, ‘be’ I. Ger., Type 3: supine, ‘have’, ‘be’ S

The grammaticalization processes leading to periphrastic perfect constructions have the same structural basis in Germanic and in Romance. Parallel developments can be observed in both language families. In the historical ‘have’-perfect, Spanish as well as French and Italian basically have supine construction; agreeing participles are used in French and Italian under special, in particular topological, conditions (Posner 1996: 257–261). French and Italian have retained ‘be’-perfect with agreeing participle; in Spanish the ‘have’ perfect with supine has been generalized, as in English and Swedish. It is conceivable that the basic reanalysis pattern for the ‘have’-perfect has entered Germanic by way of Romance (cf. Grønvik 1986: 64–66) but the areal distribution of the subsequent Germanic developments indicates that there are no good reasons for assuming later Romance, French influence on individual Germanic languages.28 The fact that the Danish and Norwegian area of Mainland Scandinavian partakes of the development of supine constructions typical of neighbouring Continental Germanic and English need not be attributed to Romanization. Neither, in fact, is assuming 28

With the possible, but by no means necessary exception of the German use of ‘be’ in (54b).

General Evolutionary and Typological Characteristics

35

West-Germanization necessary because, as in Romance, the development of the participle into supine is a natural generalizing stage in the grammaticalization of the perfect. 1.9 Periphrastic passive constructions As in the ‘be’-perfect, the historical origin of the periphrastic passive is a predicative construction with agreeing participle (Harbert 2007: 317 f.), the important difference being that the participle is the passive participle of a transitive verb. Cf. e.g. (59) (from Faarlund 2004a: 212): (59) Old Norse. fjórir hleifar brauðs eru honum fœrðir hvern dag four loaves-SUBJECT-NOMINATIVE-PL-MASC bread-GENITIVE-SG-NEUT are him-DATIVE taken-PARTICIPLE-NOMINATIVE-PL-MASC every day “Four loaves of bread are given him every day”.

Passive constructions with the auxiliary ‘be’ and an agreeing participle have been retained in North-Western Germanic but the area comprising such constructions is larger than in the case of the corresponding perfect construction of intransitive verbs, comprising in addition to Faroese and Norwegian Nynorsk also Swedish and Icelandic. Cf. (60): (60)

a. Icel. Vegirnir voru gerðir fyrir hestvagna. roads-SUBJECT-NOMINATIVE-PL-MASC-THE were made-PARTICIPLENOMINATIVE-PL-MASC for horse-carriages “The roads were built for horse carriages”. b. Norw. Nynorsk. Dei vart drepne i ulykka. they-SUBJECT-PL were killed-PARTICIPLE-PL in accident-THE “They were killed in the accident”. c. Far. Teir vóru sviknir av øllum. they-SUBJECT-NOMINATIVE-PL-MASC were betrayed-PARTICIPLENOMINATIVE-PL-MASC by all “They were betrayed by all”. d. Swed. Av sagans personer är båda kungasönerna ganska fritt behandlade. of saga-GENITIVE-THE persons are both king-sons-SUBJECT-PL-THE quite freely treated-PARTICIPLE-PL “Of the persons in the saga, the sons of the king are described quite freely”.

Transition to non-agreeing supine has taken place in English and the Continental Germanic +V-Final languages as well as in neighbouring Danish and Norwegian Riksmål/Bokmål, which is strongly influenced by and in fact

36

John Ole ASKEDAL

partly derives from Danish. Cf. (61): (61) a. Ger. Die Fehler wurden sofort entdeckt. the errors were at-once discovered “The errors were discovered immediately”. b. Du. Het huis wordt gebouwd. the house is built “The house is being built”. c. WFr. Wy waarden sjoen. “We were seen”. d. Eng. They were killed in the accident. e. Dan. De blev dræbt i ulykken. ‘= (61d)’ f. Norw. RM/BM. De ble drept i ulykken. ‘= (61e)’

The geographical distribution is indicated in (62): (62) Supine and participle forms in the periphrastic passive N IV. Icel., Far.: part. IIIa. Norw. NN, Swed.: part. W

IIIb. Norw. RM/BM, Dan., Eng.: supine

E

II. WFr., Du.: supine I. Ger.: supine S

The Romance periphrastic passive has remained a construction with agreeing participle, in contrast to the development of non-agreeing supine constructions in the larger part of the Germanic larea. Romanization of Germanic is out of the question; a part of North Germanic simply retains the participle construction in the same manner as the Romance languages in general do. The supine constructions of English and Continental Germanic are a natural product of the long-term grammaticalization process in question.

General Evolutionary and Typological Characteristics

37

It is possible to see the Danish and Norwegian Riksmål/Bokmål supine constructions in connection with corresponding structures in Continental Germanic but because of the morphosyntactic naturalness of the change from agreeing participle to non-agreeing supine, considering language contact to have been decisive is hardly necessary. 1.10 Excursus: gender and number agreement in predicative constructions vs. retention or loss of agreement in periphrastic perfect and passive constructions Agreement in the participle of periphrastic perfect and passive constructions follows the pattern of the predicative constructions from which they derive. The correspondence between participles and adjectival predicatives still obtains in Icelandic, Faroese, Norwegian Nynorsk and Swedish. Cf. e.g. (63): (63) Icel. Þeir eru they-SUBJECT-PL-MASC are “They are good”.

góðir. good-ADJECTIVE-MASC-PL

This correspondence might lead one to expect a connection between loss of agreement in participles and loss of agreement in adjectives (cf. Harbert 2007: 303, 345–347). Such a connection is found in English as well as in the three continental +V-Final languages. Cf. e.g. (64): (64) Ger. Sie sind gut. ‘= (63)’

Danish and Norwegian Riksmål/Bokmål differ in retaining adjective agreement while having supines in the periphrastic perfect and passive. Cf. (65): (65) De er gode. ‘= (64)’

No Germanic language has discarded adjective agreement while retaining participle agreement. The Romance languages have in general both adjective and participle agreement. There is no basis for assuming Romanization of Germanic in this grammatical domain. 1.11 Suffixal (reflexive) passive In the continental +V-Final languages and English, passive morphology is analytic and consists of auxiliaries in combination with specific non-finite verb forms. The Scandinavian languages in addition have synthetic passive

38

John Ole ASKEDAL

morphology in the shape of a s(t)-suffix deriving historically from an enclitic reflexive pronoun (Harbert 2007: 327). The individual languages differ with regard to the extent to which the s(t)-suffix can occur in the various verb forms infinitive, present, preterit and past participle (supine), forming a systematic hierarchy of options declining from East to West.29 Cf. (66): 30 (66) a. Swed. Dörren måste öppnas / öppnas / öppnades / har öppnats långsamt. door-THE must open-INFINITIVE-PASSIVE / open-PRESENT-PASSIVE / opened-PRETERIT-PASSIVE / has opened-SUPINE-PASSIVE slowly “The door must be opened / is opened / was opened / has been opened slowly”. b. Dan. Døren skal åbnes / åbnes / åbnedes langsomt. door-THE shall open-INFINITIVE-PASSIVE / open-PRESENT-PASSIVE / opened-PRETERIT-PASSIVE slowly ‘cf. (66a)’ c. Dan. Pengene blev stjålet / *stjales. money-THE was stolen / stole-PRETERIT-PASSIVE “The money was stolen”. d. Norw. RM/BM. Døren skal åpnes / åpnes langsomt. door-THE shall open-INFINITIVE-PASSIVE / open-PRESENTPASSIVE slowly ‘cf. (66b)’ e. Norw. NN. Døra skal opnast langsamt. door-THE shall open-INFINITIVE-PASSIVE slowly ‘cf. (66d)’ f. Far. Her skal eitt hús byggjast. here shall a house build-INFINITIVE-PASSIVE “Here a house will be built”.

Formally corresponding Icelandic st-formations are commonly considered to constitute a ‘middle’ category that has not, despite occasional passive-like interpretations, developed a generalized passive-indicating function (cf. Kress 1982: 151, Anderson 1990: 245 f., Harbert 2007: 255 f., 323–325). (67) provides an overview of the basic traits of passive use of the North Germanic s(t)-suffix:

29

30

On the individual languages cf. Teleman et al. (1999, Vol. 4: 361), Hulthén (1944: 187–194), Hansen (1967:46 f.), Faarlund et al. (1997: 513 f.), Lockwood (1977: 135) and Thráinsson et al. (2004: 70–72, 277–280). In Norwegian, occasional preterit-forms occur but are rare outside of certain lexicalizations; hørtes ‘was audible’, syntes ‘was visible’ are quite normal, whereas forms like toks ‘was taken’, bruktes ‘was used’ and nåddes ‘was reached’ are distinctly marked. Faroese present tense forms by and large seem to represent lexicalizations but the matter probably needs closer investigation.

General Evolutionary and Typological Characteristics (67) Swed. Dan. Norw. RM/BM Norw. NN Far. Icel.

infinitive + + + + + –

present + + + – – –

preterit + +/– – – – –

39

supine + – – – – –

The geographical distribution of present-day Germanic synthetic and analytic passive morphology is given in (68): 31 (68) Analytic (periphrastic) and synthetic passives N IVa. Icel.: a-passive

W

IVb. Far.: a-passive s-passive

IIIa. Norw., Swed., Dan.: a-passive s-passive

IIIb. Eng.: a-passive

E

II. WFr., Du.: a-passive I. Ger.: a-passive S

The fact that the passive-forming capacity of the –s(t)-suffixes decreases from East to West may indicate a connection between the passive use of the Scandinavian reflexive formation and the corresponding Baltic and Slavic passive-forming use of enclitic reflexive pronouns (cf. Dahl & Koptevskaja-Tamm 1992: 17–24). Reflexive passives are also a prominent feature of Romance languages (Posner 1996: 180 f.); but in Romance the reflexive pronoun has not been further grammaticalized through transition to an agglutinative or fusional morpheme. The morphological differences and the geographical distribution within Germanic preclude any assumption of Romanization.

31

a-passive = analytic (periphrastic) passive; s-passive = synthetic passive.

40

John Ole ASKEDAL

1.12 Future auxiliaries The Germanic languages show several different grammaticalization paths for future auxiliaries (cf. Harbert 2007: 297–301).32 Desemanticized modals are most common but not all the modals in question occur in all the languages. ‘Shall’ is most widespread. Cf. (69): (69) a. Icel. Ég skal ekki fara. “I shall not go”. b. Far. Eg skal minnast til, at gera hetta. I shall remember-REFLEXIVE to, to do this “I shall remember to do that”. c. Swed. Du ska(ll) få et vykort från mig. you shall get a post-card from me “You’ll receive a post card from me”. d. Dan. Han skal rejse på torsdag. he shall go on Thursday “He’ll be leaving on Thursday”. e. Norw. Jeg skal gjøre det i morgen. I shall do it tomorrow “I’ll do it tomorrow”. f. WFr. Ik sil hjoed meane. I shall today mow “I am going to mow today”. g. Du. Ik zal direct schrijven. I shall immediately write “I’ll write immediately”. h. Eng. We shall no doubt live to see stranger things.

‘Will’ appears to be somewhat less common (cf. Heine & Kuteva 2002: 310 f.). Cf. (70): (70) a. Norw. Artikkelen vil bli trykt i tidsskriftets neste nummer. article-THE will be printed in journal-THE-GENITIVE next number “The article will be printed in the next number of the journal”. b. Dan. Hvad mon det nye år vil bringe? what perhaps the new year will bring “I wonder what the new year will bring”. c. Eng. The sun will be up at 6.30. 32

On the individual languages cf. for instance Kress (1982: 165), Lockwood (1977: 149), Næs (1972: 274–276), Venås (1990: 93 f.), Diderichsen (1962: 136 f.), Teleman et al. (1999, Vol. 4: 243–249), Quirk et al. (1992: 213–215), Tiersma (1985: 75), Haeseryn et al. (1997: 70, 125 f.).

General Evolutionary and Typological Characteristics

41

In addition, the English inventory of future auxiliaries comprises the contracted ’ll, where the lexical opposition between shall and will is neutralized. Cf. (71): (71) Eng. I’ll be there.

Icelandic and Faroese also use a modal meaning ‘may’.33 Cf. (72): (72) a. Icel. Ég mun sennilega vita það I may probably know that “I’ll probably know that by tomorrow”. b. Far. Teir munnu fara at koma aftur they may go to come back “They’ll probably be back soon”.

á morgun. tomorrow skjótt. soon

In connection with modals, one general concern is whether desemanticization has progressed sufficiently far to warrant grammaticalization. Concerning Icelandic and Faroese, the common assumption is that future-oriented modals as a rule retain their basic modal meaning and should therefore not be considered fully grammaticalized future auxiliaries. Less than complete grammaticalization has also been adduced as a reason why Middle High German future-indicating ‘shall’ and ‘will’ were ousted by werden ‘become’. Assuming a high degree of grammaticalization is probably most natural in those languages where one future-indicating modal predominates or reigns supreme (presumably Swedish, Dutch, Frisian). The second common source of putative future auxiliaries is deictic motion verbs, i.e. ‘come’ (“venitive”), ‘go’ (“andative”) (cf. Heine & Kuteva 2002: 75–78, 161–163; Harbert 2007: 299 f.), including the English use of go in the progressive. Cf. (73)–(74): (73) a. Norw. Vi kommer snart til å reise til Danmark igjen. we come soon to to travel to Denmark again “We’ll be going to Denmark again soon”. b. Swed. Det kommer att bli en katastrof. it comes to become a catastrophe “That’s going to be a catastrophe”. c. Dan. Det kommer til at gøre meget ondt. it comes to to do much pain “That’s going to hurt a lot”. 33

Thieroff (1994: 13 f.) assumes munu ‘may’ to be more or less equivalent with German werden. Cf. also Barnes (2001: 181).

42

John Ole ASKEDAL (74) a. Du. Jan en Marie gaan in juli trouwen. Jan and Marie go in July marry “John and Mary are going to marry in July”. b. Eng. He is going to leave for Nepal next Sunday.

In German, the semantically bleached modals ‘shall’ and ‘will’ were replaced since early New High German by the aspectually desemanticized copula werden ‘become, turn into’, which represents a far less common grammaticalization path for future auxiliaries than modals (Paul 2007: 294–296). Cf. (75): (75) Ger. Er wird morgen den Rasen mähen. he becomes tomorrow the lawn mow “He is going to mow the lawn tomorrow”.

Because of its unique status within Germanic, it has been surmised that German werden + infinitive might be a borrowing from Slavic, possibly Old Czech (Leiss 1985: in particular 259–265, but cf. Diewald & Habermann 2005). The geographical relationships illustrated in (76) at least do not contradict this assumption. (76) Future auxiliaries N IV. Icel., Far.: (‘may’)

IIIa. Swed.: ‘shall’, ‘come’ IIIb. Norw., Dan.: ‘shall’, ‘will’, ‘come’ IIa. WFr.: ‘shall’

W IIIc. Eng.: ‘shall’, ‘will’, ‘(be) go(ing to)’

E

IIb. Du.: ‘shall’, ‘go’ I. Ger.: ‘become’ S

General Evolutionary and Typological Characteristics

43

The desemanticization of future-oriented modals has taken place over such a large area of neighbouring Germanic languages that contact-linguistic influence seems likely. On the other hand, the development of modals into future markers is such a universally common grammaticalization path (cf. Heine & Kuteva 2002: 116 f., 218) that contact influence is actually not needed to explain its occurrence in a language possessing modals. The occurrence of ‘come’ in Mainland Scandinavian seems to represent a fairly obvious local contact relationship within Germanic. In contrast to Germanic, certain West Romance languages also possess a synthetic future, which in part of the area now seems to be yielding to its analytic counterpart (Posner 1996: 177–179). A possible candidate for Romance, i.e. French, contact influence is gaan ‘go’ as future auxiliary in Dutch (but not in Frisian), whereas English be going to does not lend itself to a contact-linguistic explanation because of its non-Romance structural makeup. Obviously, there are no reasons for assuming any kind of West-Germanization in the Scandinavian area. 1.13 Aspectual constructions The best known example of a grammaticalized aspectual construction in any modern Germanic language is the English progressive, which contrasts with the simple habitual or generic present of a very large number of lexical verbs and is in this sense obligatory (Quirk et al. 1992: 198–213, Harbert 2007: 315 f.). Cf. e.g. (77): (77) a. Eng. She is enjoying herself tremendously. b. Eng. She always enjoys herself at parties.

The other aspectual constructions of modern Germanic are in general optional means of semantic specification or differentiation. Icelandic has three contrasting constructions with vera ‘be’, vera búinn ‘be ready’ and and fara ‘go’ + particle-infinitive, expressing stative, resultative and inchoative meaning respectively (Kress 1982: 154–162).34 Cf. (78): (78) a. Icel. Ég er að spyrja. I am to ask “I am asking right now”. b. Icel. Ég er búinn að gleyma. I am finished to forget “I have just forgotten it”. 34

On the question of a Celtic origin of this family of constructions, cf. Harbert (2007: 295, n. 5).

44

John Ole ASKEDAL c. Icel. Ég fer að hlæja. I go to laugh “I am about to laugh”.

Further aspectual constructions in Icelandic are vera ‘be’ with an agreeing past participle in (56b) as a special, aspectually marked variety of the periphrastic perfect and the lexically restricted aspectual construction with vera ‘be’ and the present participle in (79) (Kress 1982: 162): (79) Icel. Hann er sofandi / organdi. “He is sleeping / screaming”.

Faroese possesses only the equivalent of the Icelandic ‘fara’-construction in (78) (cf. Thráinsson et al. 2004: 315 f.). Cf. (80): (80) Far. Tað fer at skýma. it goes to darken “It’s about to get dark”.

Characteristic Mainland Scandinavian and Faroese aspect expressions are the so-called “pseudo-coordinations” consisting of two finite verbs, the first of which is a stative position or a motion verb (cf. Hesse 2007). Cf. (81): (81) a. Norw. Han går / står / ligger og leser en bok. he goes / stands / lies and reads a book “He is walking/standing/lying there reading a book”. b. Norw. Han driver og forbereder seg til eksamen. he is-busy and prepares himself to exam “He is busy preparing for his exam”. c. Far. Vit sótu og prataðu. we sat and talked “We were sitting there talking”.

The Scandinavian constructions in (81) have lexically corresponding but structurally differing counterparts in West Frisian and Dutch. The corresponding Frisian construction has the te-gerund (Tiersma 1985: 127)35 and the Dutch one a te-infinitive (Haeseryn et al. 1997: 973 f.). Cf. (82):

35

North Frisian is reputed to possess structural counterparts of the Scandinavian pseudocoordinations (cf. Harbert 2007: 296).

General Evolutionary and Typological Characteristics

45

(82) a. WFr. Sibe leit in boek te lêzen. Sibe lies a book to reading-te-GERUND “Sibe is lying there reading a book”. b. WFr. Rindert rint in ferske te sjongen. Rindert runs a song to singing-te-GERUND “Rindert is running around singing a song”. c. Du. Hij zit een boek te lezen. he sits a book to read-INFINITIVE “He is sitting there reading a book”.

Dutch also possesses constructions with the preposition aan and a nominalized infinitive with verbal valency (Haeseryn et al. 1997: 1048, Van Pottelberge 2005). Cf. (83): (83) a. Du. Paul is aan het schaken. Paul is at the chess-playing “Paul is playing chess”. b. Du. Greetje is ‘r haar aan het wassen. Greetje is ’her hair at the washing “Greetje is washing her hair”.

Corresponding constructions exist in German (Van Pottelberge 2005). Cf. (84): (84) a. Ger. Ich bin am Arbeiten/arbeiten. I am at-THE working “I am working”. b. Ger. Jupp ist am Radfahren. Jupp is at-THE bicycle-riding “Jupp is bicycling”. c. Ger. Ich bin’s mir am überlegen. I am’it me-DATIVE-REFLEXIVE at-THE thinking-carefully “I am thinking about it”. d. Ger. Maria ist Flaschen am Sortieren/sortieren. Maria is bottles at-THE sorting “Maria is sorting bottles”.

The German examples in (84) constitute a grammaticalization cline. (84a) with a nominalized infinitive without complements or adjuncts and (84b) with incorporated object belong to the standard language. (84c) illustrates a non-standard dialect where the – partly reverbalized – infinitive

46

John Ole ASKEDAL

governs a (neutral) pronoun but cannot take a full NP as its object and (84d) another still more progressive dialect where the fully denominalized infinitive can take both pronominal and non-pronominal objects. The geographical distribution of the aspectual constructions discussed here is given in (85): (85) Germanic aspectual constructions N IVa. Icel.: vera ‘be’, vera búinn ‘be ready’, fara ‘go’ + p-inf., resultative ‘be’-perf., ‘be’ + pres. part. IVb. Far.: ‘pseudo-coordinations’ with position/motion verb, fara ‘go’ + p-inf.

IIIa. Swed., Norw., Dan.: ‘pseudo-coordinations’ with position/motion verb IIa. WFr.: position/motion verb with p-ger.

W IIIb. Eng.: ‘progressive form’ with ing-ger.

E

IIb. Du.: position/motion verb with p-inf., preposition with incorporated def. article + (de)nominalized Ø-inf. I. Ger.: preposition with incorporated def. article + nominalized Ø-inf. S

There is an obvious areal connection between Dutch aan het + infinitive and German am + infinitive. These constructions differ with respect to the degree of grammaticalization in the languages and dialects involved, with standard German as the most conservative variety with the, comparatively speaking, lowest degree of grammaticalization. The West Frisian and Dutch constructions in (82)–(83) on the one hand, and the Mainland Scandinavian

General Evolutionary and Typological Characteristics

47

and Faroese equivalents in (81) on the other, have the same semantic, lexical basis but differ with regard to morphosyntactic structure. An areal connection seems likely but its precise direction is far less obvious. In any case, the partial correspondence between these West Frisian and Dutch constructions and similar Scandinavian cases fails to qualify as evidence for West-Germanization of Scandinavian. There are no really obvious parallels between the Germanic aspectual constructions discussed here and Romance aspectual constructions. The English progressive on the one hand and Spanish estar and Italian stare or andare plus gerund on the other are superficially similar, but not sufficiently so to warrant assuming contact influence on the part of the latter languages on English. On the contrary, several scholars have proposed a connection between the English progressive and similar Celtic constructions. To my knowledge, there are no convincing traces of Romanization in the domain of Germanic aspectual constructions. 2. TYPOLOGICAL INTERRELATIONS 2.1 Typological interrelations among Germanic languages In addition to the typologically constitutive clause-final verb complex, the Continental Germanic +V-Final languages have the following features in common: (86) Properties of Continental Germanic V-Final languages 1. To a varying extent left-directionality in verb chains 2. Non-agreeing supine forms as non-finite components in verb chains 3. Both ‘have’ and ‘be’ as perfect auxiliaries 4. Analytic passive morphology (passive auxiliaries) 5. Infinitive particle with prefixal morpheme properties

The verb chains of the +NP case language German show more left-branching than those of the –NP case language Dutch. From a geographical as well as a typological perspective, it seems natural that the linearization rules for verb forms of case-neutralizing Dutch should be more similar to those of neighbouring case-neutralizing English and French. In view of this, it seems rather paradoxical that case-neutralizing Frisian should be more strictly left-branching than German. Past participles (supines) with circumfixal morphology (cf. Bech 1955) and substitute infinitives are only found in German and Dutch, not in West Frisian, despite the geographical proximity. The –V-Final languages are in relevant respects on the whole less uniform. Cf. (87):

48

John Ole ASKEDAL (87) Properties of Germanic –V-Final languages 1. Right-directionality in verb chains 2. Only supine forms (English, Danish, Norwegian Riksmål/Bokmål) or both supine forms and agreeing participles (Norwegian Nynorsk, Swedish, Icelandic, Faroese) in verb chains 3. Only ‘have’ (English, Swedish, Icelandic) or both ‘have’ and ‘be’ (Danish, Norwegian) as perfect auxiliaries 4. Only analytic (English) or both analytic and synthetic (Mainland Scandinavian, Faroese) passive morphology36 5. Infinitive particle with partly complementizer partly prefix properties

The juxtaposition of (86) and (87) provides no reason for assuming anything like Romanization of Germanic or West-Germanization of Scandinavian. On the contrary, all modern Germanic languages are characterized by non-Romance typological diversity on all levels, in particular on the syntactic level. What we can observe is a rather dramatic Germanic-internal diversification process that lasts but a few hundred years and cannot be adequately explained as structural effects of Latin or Romance contact influence. 37 This relatively recent diversification of Germanic contrasts with the comparative unity of Proto-Germanic, to the extent it can be reconstructed (cf. e.g. van Coetsem & Kufner (eds) 1972, Nielsen 1989: 83, 89–92), and the long-lasting typological uniformity of Germanic well into the Middle Ages. 2.2 Typological interrelations between Germanic and non-Germanic languages The +NP case language German has Baltic and Slavic as its neighbours to the East and can be viewed as the western-most representative of a huge Eurasian case-language area. All other non-Insular Germanic languages show a loss of case marking that is also characteristic of all modern West Romance languages. The Continental Germanic group of languages are, together with Basque, the only European +Verb-Final languages. All other European languages are V-2 or V-1 (Celtic in general, individual Romance languages in specific structures). Marking pragmatic-illocutionary functions through verb order is a Germanic specialty (and rare even from a universal perspective). Continental Germanic left-branching in verb chains is unique in 36 37

As noted earlier, the communis opinio is that Icelandic basically has a ‘middle’ category (that shows mere beginnings of a passive function proper). The diversification of Germanic is similar to the development of uniform Latin into the various Romance languages. Cf. e.g. Posner (1996).

General Evolutionary and Typological Characteristics

49

a European context; right-branching is dominant, as is to be expected in connection with dominance of V-2 (and V-1). V-3 in English might suggest a French contact connection but the historical evidence is ambiguous. European languages display a variety of participle, supine and infinitive (Mayerthaler et al. 1993–95) formations. English follows Romance in making more extensive use of participles (in particular the ing-form) as free clausal adjuncts. Romance and above all Slavic and Baltic languages have a larger inventory and more extensive use of participial forms than any Germanic language. There exist certain similarities between non-Continental Germanic and French with regard to complementizer properties of infinitive particles but in contrast to French and other Romance languages no Germanic language has more than one grammaticalized infinitive particle. There is as basic parallelism between Germanic and Romance in the case of the development of the periphrastic perfect insofar as individual languages in both language groups show either retention of participle constructions or transition to supine (cf. Posner 1996: 257–261). The assumption of an areal connection is, however, contradicted by the geographical distribution patterns to be observed within Germanic and Romance. A similar argument can be made in the case of Germanic and Romance analytic passive constructions, which have obvious parallels in Slavic and Baltic. A better case for contact-linguistic influence can be made in connection with the Scandinavian and Balto-Slavic reflexive passive. The variation in the domain of future auxiliaries shows different grammaticalization paths and stages. The grammaticalization of modals encompasses the whole of the Germanic area (when older stages of German are also taken into consideration) and has no obvious Romance parallels. Contact influence is probably a factor in the case of Dutch gaan ‘go’ in relation to French aller ‘go’, and in the case of ‘come’ in Mainland Scandinavian. The relationship between German werden ‘become’ and its structural and semantic near-equivalents in Slavic is still a matter of debate. Similar affiliations can be observed in connection with the grammaticalization of aspectuality. The Mainland Scandinavian and Faroese pseudo-coordinations obviously belong together; whether the lexically similar, but structurally different constructions with the infinitive in Dutch and the so-called gerund in Frisian are somehow related with the Scandinavian pseudo-coordinations appears less certain. The propensity to grammaticalize aspectuality seems to be particularly strong in the two geographically peripheral languages English and Icelandic, but this fact can hardly be ascribed to direct contact between the two languages. As noted earlier, Celtic influence may have been a factor in

50

John Ole ASKEDAL

connection with the English progressive. Whether Celtic may have had some influence on Icelandic aspectual expressions must remain a matter of speculation. Apart from these latter somewhat uncertain cases, there appear to be no reasons for assuming external formative influence on Germanic aspectuality constructions. Ge-prefixation and substitute infinitive in German and Dutch are constructional isolates within Germanic and have no non-Germanic parallels. Braunmüller’s contention that “Latin is the godfather of Germanic” is in every respect wide off the mark. The empirical evidence for widespread and lasting Latin structural influence outside the lexicon is on the whole scant.38 With regard to German, Vennemann (2000) provides a different and in my view more interesting perspective: With regard to syntax, German can be considered the result of a rather smooth, continuous development of Ancient Germanic. However, in the lexical domain, including accentuation, the Italic (Latin, Romance) influence should not be underestimated. (Vennemann 2000: 263; my translation, J.O.A.)

In Vennemann’s view, it is indeed possible to consider German “the prototypical [modern] Germanic and European–Indo-Germanic language” (Vennemann 2000: 263; my translation, J.O.A.). A “rather smooth, continuous development” of Germanic can be taken to mean a development where external influence and contact-induced changes have exerted no radical typologically disturbing influence, in particular in the domains to which Greenberg’s Universal 41 and my Germanic-related adaptation of it refer. It would in fact seem that modern standard German is even better in keeping with the case-marking and linearization tendencies described therein than it was a eight or nine hundred years ago (cf. Lehmann 1971).39 It is of course possible that the Latin linguistic and cultural legacy has supported this “smooth” development of German, in particular the retention of NP case marking and the consolidation of verb-finality, but in view of the typological variation of existing Germanic language structures, there seems to be no good reason to exaggerate the import of Latin influence on Germanic language structures. The findings of sections 1 and 2 support the uncontroversial view that Germanic and Romance have differentiation and divergence histories of their 38 39

On lexical borowing cf. Harbert (2007: 22–25). This does not apply to all varieties of German in equal measure. As is well known, a large number of German dialects have undergone significant morphological simplification, showing less distinctive case marking (cf. Roelcke 1997: 132–134). Verb linearization is also often more right-branching in German dialects (cf. section 1.2 above).

General Evolutionary and Typological Characteristics

51

own. Both with regard to North Germanic and Germanic at large, we are more often than not dealing with changes that represent natural scenarios of change and universally observable grammaticalization paths. There is no doubt that some of the “maps” we have presented show areal convergence. But geographical relationships cannot be the whole story. A realistic view is probably one that allows natural scenarios of linguistic change and permits geography and a shared cultural environment to serve as subsidiary factors contributing to systematic convergence. REFERENCES Andersen, Ingrid K. 2007. Die spätmittelhochdeutsche Prosasyntax und ihr Verhältnis zum Latein [Acta Humaniora 288]. Oslo: Faculty of Humanities, University of Oslo. Anderson, Stephen R. 1990. “The Grammar of Icelandic Verbs in -st”. Maling & Zaenen (eds). 1990. 235–273. Aranovich, Raúl (ed.). 2007. Split Auxiliary Systems: A cross-linguistic perspective [Typological Studies in Language 69]. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Arfs, Mona. 2007. Rood of groen? De interne woordvolgorde in tweeledige werkwoordelijke eindgroepen met een voltooid deelwoord en een hulpwerkwoord in bijzinnen in het hedendaags Nederlands [Göteborger germanistische Forschungen 49]. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis. Askedal, John O. 1984. “On Extraposition in German and Norwegian. Towards a Contrastive Analysis”. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 7. 83–113. 1989. “Über den Infinitiv ohne bzw. mit ‘zu’ im heutigen Deutsch. Klassenbildung regierender Lexeme und Hauptzüge der Distribution (1), (2)”. Deutsch als Fremdsprache 26. 2–7, 103–106. 2005. “Typological reflections on the loss of morphological case in Middle Low German and in the Mainland Scandinavian languages”. Fortescue, Jensen, Mogensen & Schøsler (eds). 2005. 1–19. Ball, Martin J. (ed.) with James Fife. 1993. The Celtic Languages. London: Routledge. Barnes, Michael [P.] 2001. Faroese Language Studies [Studia Nordica 5]. Oslo: Novus. Battye, Adrian & Ian Roberts (eds). 1995. Clause Structure and Language Change. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bech, Gunnar. 1955. Studien über das deutsche verbum infinitum. Bd. 1. Kopenhagen: Munksgaard. Berger, Dieter, Günther Drosdowski et al. (eds). 1985. Duden. Richtiges und gutes Deutsch: Wörterbuch der sprachlichen Zweifelsfälle [Der Große

52

John Ole ASKEDAL

Duden Band 9]. 3., neu bearbeitete und erweiterte Auflage. Mannheim, Wien and Zürich: Dudenverlag, 1985. Braunmüller, Kurt. 2000. “Was ist Germanisch heute?” Sprachwissenschaft 25. 271–295. Brinton, Laurel J. 1988. The Development of English Aspectual Systems: Aspectualizers and post-verbal particles [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 49]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. & Leslie K. Arnovick. 2006. The English Language: A linguistic history. Don Mills, Ontario: Oxford University Press. Campbell, A. 1964. Old English Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Dahl, Östen & Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm. 1992. Language typology around the Baltic Sea: A problem inventory. Stockholm: University of Stockholm, Institute of Linguistics. Dal, Ingerid. 1952. “Zur Entstehung des englischen Participium praesentis auf -ing”. Norsk Tidsskrift for Sprogvidenskap 16. 5–116. 1966. Kurze deutsche Syntax auf historischer Grundlage. 3. Aufl. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. Diderichsen, Paul. 1962. Elementær Dansk Grammatik. 3. Udgave. København: Gyldendal. Diewald, Gabriele & Mechthild Habermann. 2005. “Die Entwicklung von werden + Infinitiv als Futurgrammem. Ein Beispiel für das Zusammenwirken von Grammatikalisierung, Sprachkontakt und soziokulturellen Faktoren”. Leuschner et al. (eds). 2005, 229–250. Einarsson, Stefán. 1976. Icelandic: Grammar – Texts – Glossary. 7th Edition. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press. Elmevik, Lennart (ed.). 2004. Språkhistoria och flerspråkighet: Föredragen vid ett internationellt symposium i Uppsala 17–19 januari 2003 [Acta Academiae Regiae Gustavi Adolphi LXXXVII]. Uppsala: Kungl. Gustav Adolfs Akademien för svensk språkkultur. Faarlund, Jan T. 2004a. The Syntax of Old Norse: With a survey of the inflectional morphology and a complete bibliography. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. 2004b. “Diakron syntaks og språkkontakt”. Elmevik (ed.). 2004. 93–102. 2007. “Parameterization and change in non-finite complementation”. Diachronica 24. 57–80. , Svein Lie & Kjell I. Vannebo. 1997. Norsk referansegrammatikk. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Fortescue, Michael, Eva Skafte Jensen, Jens Erik Mogensen & Lene Schøsler (eds). 2005. Historical Linguistics 2003: Selected Papers from the 16th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Copenhagen,

General Evolutionary and Typological Characteristics

53

11–15 August 2003 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory. Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science 257]. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Greenberg, Joseph H. 1966. “Some Universals of Grammar with Particular Reference to the Order of Meaningful Elements”. Greenberg (ed.). 1966. 73–113. (ed.). 1966. Universals of Language. 2nd Edition. Cambridge, MA and London: M.I.T. Press. Grønvik, Ottar. 1986. Über den Ursprung und die Entwicklung der aktiven Perfekt- und Plusquamperfektkonstruktionen des Hochdeutschen und ihre Eigenart innerhalb des germanischen Sprachraums. Oslo: Solum. Haeseryn, W., K. Romijn, G. Geerts, J. de Rooij & M. C. van den Toorn. 1997. Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst. Vol. 1–2. Groningen: Martijnus Nijhoff; Deurne: Wolters Plantyn. Harbert, Wayne. 2007. The Germanic Languages [Cambridge Language Surveys]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Harris, Martin & Nigel Vincent (eds). 1988. The Romance Languages. London: Routledge. Haider, Hubert & Martin Prinzhorn (eds). 1986. Verb Second Phenomena in Germanic Languages. Dordrecht, Holland and Riverton, USA: Foris. Hansen, Aage. 1967. Moderne Dansk 1–3. København: Grafisk Forlag. Hawkins, John A. 1986. A Comparative Typology of English and German: Unifying the Contrasts. London and Sydney: Croom Helm. Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva. 2002. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hesse, Andrea. 2007. Zur Grammatikalisierung der Pseudokoordination im Norwegischen und in den anderen skandinavischen Sprachen. Diss., Philosophische Fakultät der Ernst-Moritz-Arndt-Universität Greifswald. Hoekstra, Jarich. 1997. The Syntax of Infinitives in Frisian. Ljouwert/ Leeuwarden: Fryske Akademy. Hulthén, Lage. 1944–48. Studier i jämförande nunordisk syntax. Vol. I–II. Göteborg: [I] Elanders Boktryckeri; [II] Wettergren & Kerber. Kefer, Michel & Joseph Lejeune. 1974. “Satzglieder innerhalb eines Verbalkomplexes”. Deutsche Sprache 2. 322–334. Kiparsky, Paul. 1995. “Indo-European Origins of Germanic Syntax”. Battye & Roberts (eds). 1995. 140–169. 1997. “The rise of positional licensing”. Van Kemenade & Vincent (eds). 1997. 460–494. Kress, Bruno. 1982. Isländische Grammatik. Leipzig: Enzyklopädie. Lehmann, Winfred P. 1971. “On the rise of SOV patterns in New High German”. Schweisthal (ed.). 1971. 19–24.

54

John Ole ASKEDAL

Leiss, Elisabeth. 1985. “Zur Entstehung des neuhochdeutschen analytischen Futurs”. Sprachwissenschaft 10. 250–273. Leuschner, Torsten, Tanja Mortelmans & Sarah De Groodt (eds). 2005. Grammatikalisierung im Deutschen. [Linguistik – Impulse und Tendenzen 9]. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 169–191. Lockwood, W. B. 1977. An Introduction to Modern Faroese. 3rd Edition. Tórshavn: Skúlabókagrunnur Føroya. Maling, Joan. 1990. “Inversion in Embedded Clauses in Modern Icelandic”. Maling & Zaenen (eds.). 1990. 71–91. & Annie Zaenen (eds). 1990. Modern Icelandic Syntax. [Syntax and Semantics 24]. San Diego: Academic Press. Mayerthaler, Willi, Günther Fliedl & Christian Winkler. 1993–95. Infinitiv-Prominenz in europäischen Sprachen. Teil I: Die Romania (samt Baskisch); Teil II: Der Alpen-Adria-Raum als Schnittstelle von Germanisch, Romanisch und Slawisch. [Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik 390, 397]. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. Nielsen, Hans Frede. 1989. The Germanic Languages: Origins and Dialectal Interrelations. Tuscaloosa and London: The University of Alabama Press. Nybøle, R. Steinar, Frode Lundemo & Heinz-Peter Prell (eds). 2004. Papir unde black – bläk och papper. Kontakte im deutsch-skandinavischen Sprachraum: Kurt Erich Schöndorf zum 70. Geburtstag [Osloer Beiträge zur Germanistik 35]. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Næs, Olav. 1972. Norsk grammatikk: Elementære strukturer og syntaks. 3. utgave. Oslo: Fabritius. Paul, Hermann. 2007. Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik. 25. Aufl. Neu bearbeitet von Thomas Klein, Hans-Joachim Solms und Klaus-Peter Wegera. Mit einer Syntax von Ingeborg Schröbler, neubearbeitet und erweitert von Heinz-Peter Prell. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. Ponten, J. P. 1973. “Der Ersatz- oder Scheininfinitiv. Ein Problem aus der deutschen und niederländischen Syntax”. Wirkendes Wort 23. 73–85. Posner, Rebecca. 1996. The Romance Languages [Cambridge Language Surveys]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Prell, Heinz-Peter. 2001. Der mittelhochdeutsche Elementarsatz: Eine syntaktische Untersuchung an Prosatexten des 11. bis 14. Jahrhunderts [Acta Humaniora 112]. Oslo: Faculty of Arts, University of Oslo. & Ingrid K. Andersen. 2004. “Der lateinische Einfluss auf die Syntax der mittelhochdeutschen Bibelsprache”. Nybøle, Lundemo & Prell (eds). 2004. 165–180. Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik. 1992. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. Tenth Impression.

General Evolutionary and Typological Characteristics

55

London and New York: Longman. Roelcke, Thorsten. 1997. Sprachtypologie des Deutschen [Sammlung Göschen 2812]. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter. Scaglione, Aldo. 1981. The Theory of German Word Order from the Renaissance to the Present. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Schweisthal, Klaus Günther (ed.). 1971. Grammatik, Kybernetik, Kommunikation: Festschrift für Alfred Hoppe. Bonn: Dümmler. Sigurðsson, Halldór Á. 1990. “V1 Declaratives and Verb Raising in Icelandic”. Maling & Zaenen (eds). 1990. 41–69. Teleman, Ulf, Staffan Hellberg, Erik Andersson et al. 1999. Svenska Akademiens grammatik. Vol. 1–4. Stockholm: Norstedts. Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 1986. “V1, V2, V3 in Icelandic”. Verb Second Phenomena in Germanic Languages. Haider & Prinzhorn (eds). 1986. 169–194. Hjalmar P. Petersen, Jógvan í Lon Jacobsen & Zakarias Svabo Hansen. 2004. Faroese: An overview and reference grammar. Tórshavn: Føroya Fróðskaparfelag. Thieroff, Rolf. 1994. “Inherent Verb Categories and Categorizations in European Languages”. Thieroff & Ballweg (eds). 1994. 3–45. Thieroff, Rolf & Joachim Ballweg (eds). 1994. Tense Systems in European Languages [Linguistische Arbeiten 308]. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. Tiersma, Pieter M. 1985. Frisian Reference Grammar. Dordrecht, Holland and Cinnaminson, USA: Foris. van den Toorn, M. C. 1981. Nederlandse Grammatica. Groningen: WoltersNoordhoff. van de Velde, Marc. 1972. “Zur Wortstellung im niederländischen und deutschen Satz”. Linguistische Studien I [Sprache der Gegenwart 19]. Hans Eggers (ed.). 1972. 76–125. van Coetsem, Frans & Herbert L. Kufner (eds). 1972. Toward a Grammar of Proto-Germanic. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. van Kemenade, Ans & Nigel Vincent (eds). 1997. Parameters of Morphosyntactic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Van Pottelberge, Jeroen. 2005. “Ist jedes grammatische Verfahren Ergebnis eines Grammatikalisierungsprozesses? Fragen zur Entwicklung des am-Progressivs”. Leuschner et al. (eds). 2005. 169–191. Vennemann, Theo. 2000. “Zur Entstehung des Germanischen”. Sprachwissenschaft 25. 234–269. Venås, Kjell. 1990. Norsk grammatikk: Nynorsk. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Visser, F. Th. 1973. An Historical Syntax of the English Language. Part Three, Second Half. Leiden: Brill. Wagner, Heinrich. 1959. Das Verbum in den Sprachen der Britischen Inseln:

56

John Ole ASKEDAL

Ein Beitrag zur geographischen Typologie des Verbums. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. Weber, Heinrich. 1971. Das erweiterte Adjektiv- und Partizipialattribut im Deutschen [Linguistische Reihe 4]. München: Max Hueber. Zifonun, Gisela, Ludger Hoffmann, Bruno Strecker et al. 1997. Grammatik der deutschen Sprache. Vol. 2 [Schriften des Instituts für deutsche Sprache 7.2]. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.

Characteristics of Germanic Languages Tadao SHIMOMIYA 0. INTRODUCTION The character of Germanic languages is described in this paper from a (1) phonological, (2) morphological, (3) syntactic and (4) lexical point of view. The description is largely synchronic (and contrastive), partly diachronic. We will consider examples of unity and diversity in these languages. English is the most “entgermanisierte” (the least Germanic) language, like French, which is the most “entromanisierte” (the least typically Romance) language. On the other hand, Icelandic, free from foreign influence, has remained the purest of all Germanic languages. The names of the seven liberal arts (grammar, mathematics, music, etc.) are expressed in Icelandic by means of native elements (málfræði, stærðfræði, tónfræði, i.e. “language-art”, “size-art”, “tone-art”), and encyclopedia is al-fræði-bók “all-lore-book” (Japanese expresses it “hundred-subject-dictionary”, Chinese “hundred-subject-all-book”). 1. PHONOLOGY We will begin by examining six of H. Krahe’s eleven “wichtigste Merkmale des Germanischen” and see how these features have come down to modern Germanic languages (diachrony), yielding 18 structural features of these languages (synchrony). H. Krahe’s features are given in German, followed by my comments and additions (in parentheses).1 1.

1

Die Festlegung des idg. freien Wortakzentes auf die erste Silbe. This has changed in different ways. For instance, the Latin loanword natura has retained the original stress in G. Natur, Du. natuur, Da. natur, while E. nature and Icel. náttúra have moved the stress on to the first syllable according to the Germanic rule. Moreover, modern Icelandic has developed preaspiration internally ['nauhtu:ra]. Notice the long a [ei] in English and the diphthong

The following abbreviations are used for languages discussed in the article: Da. = Danish, Du. = Dutch, E. = English, G. = German, Goth. = Gothic, Gr. = Greek, Icel. = Icelandic, NHG = New High German, No. = Norwegian, OE = Old English,, OHG = Old High German, ON = Old Norse, Sw. = Swedish.

58

Tadao SHIMOMIYA

2.

3.

4.

5. 6.

[au] in Icelandic contrasting with short a [a] in the other languages. Die germanische Lautverschiebung (e.g., pater – father, trēs – three, cornū – horn). Loanwords are exceptions to phonetic laws. Greek kyriakón dôma ‘Lord’s house’ and church, Kirche, kerk, kirke, kirkja do not follow the rule. The ch [ç] of G. Kirche is a secondary development due to the High German consonant shift. Scottish E. kirk retains the unpalatalized k, while standard (south) English has changed the initial and the final consonant to palatalized sounds (church). Frisian has palatalized the initial consonant (tsjerke). Some languages are sensitive to palatalization, while others are indifferent. As to sound value, Icel. b, d, g have become p, t, k. Modern Icel. bera [pe:ra] ‘to carry’ and pera [phe:ra] ‘pear’ are distinguished by [ － aspiration] and [ ＋ aspiration], and not by plus/minus aspiration. Initial p, t, k with aspiration are common with English, German, Danish, etc., but not in Dutch. Die sonantischen Liquiden und Nasale r, l, m, n＞ur, ul, um, un. The negative prefix n- has become u-, o- in Nordic languages, cf. ON úvinr ‘un-friend, enemy’, Swedish ovän. Loss of n has also occurred in Sanskrit á-jñāta-, Gr. á-gnōtos ‘unknown’. Kurzes a, o＞kurzes a; langes ā, ō＞langes ō. Long vowels have developed in different ways: IE māter＞OE mōþor, ON móðir, OHG muoter, NHG Mutter, or Goth. hūs, in gud-hūs ‘temple’, ON hús, NHG Haus, E house, Du. huis. Note the phonetic spelling in German and the non-phonetic spelling in English. Auslautsgesetze (e.g. *dagaz)＞. Goth dags, ON dagr has developed a “Sproßvokal” in modern Icel. dagur, otherwise this ending is largely lost. Ablauterscheinungen. Ablaut has remained fairly well in the tense formation of strong verbs, but it has been much restricted in nominal formation. Cases like OHG biotan ‘to offer, to bid’ and its nomen agentis boto ‘messenger’, NHG bieten, Bote, OE cuman ‘to come’ and its nomen agentis cuma ‘one who comes, guest’ are very few now. Instead -er from the Latin -arius has spread throughout Europe. Ablaut, which overlaps phonology and morphology, belongs to morphonology (N. S. Trubetzkoy 1939).

2. MORPHOLOGY 1. Synkretismus. Four or five cases in old Germanic have been reduced to four, three, two or one. The ‘common case’, a term coined by Henry Sweet, does not necessarily derive from the old

Characteristics of Germanic Languages

2.

3.

4.

5.

59

nominative. Da. hvem elsker dig? ‘who loves you?’ and hvem elsker du? ‘whom do you love?’ do not distinguish the agent and the patient of the interrogative pronoun. Hvem ‘who, whom’ is etymologically the dative. Old nominative hvo ‘who’ is preserved in proverbs like Hvo som tager ved arv, tager ved gæld ‘he who takes an inheritance takes also a debt’. Compare the Latin accusative which became the basis of nouns in Romance languages like montem, instead of mons, in Italian and Spanish monte, French mont. n-Deklination beim Substantiv. While still numerous in German, there are only a few in modern English plurals like oxen and kine. The plural ending r prevails in Nordic languages. Example : flowers, Blumen, bloemen, blomster, blommor, but modern Icelandic blóm (neuter, zero morpheme for the plural). Dutch distinguishes vaders ‘fathers’ and vaderen ‘forefathers’. Starke und schwache Deklination beim Adjektiv. This opposition is well preserved in modern German, still alive in Nordic languages, restricted and lost when used predicatively in Dutch, completely lost in English. Verlust von Formenkategorien in Tempora und Modi. Morphologically impoverished, the Greek three-tense system present – aorist – perfect is reduced to the Germanic present–past tense opposition, which is then enriched by periphrastic tenses with an auxiliary verb. Cf. OE rīnede ‘it rained, it has rained, it had rained, it was raining’. Schwaches Präteritum. All secondary verbs, i.e., denominative verbs, new and borrowed verbs. This type is also extended to verbs like E. help – helped replacing older strong forms, cf. G. helfen – half – geholfen. Compare also the seemingly weak forms, historically supines, of Danish (also Norwegian) past participles like give-givet, gå-gået (No. gått), where E. give – given, go – gone still retain the strong forms.

3. SYNTAX Germanic innovations include European syntax. Germanic languages are as a whole innovation-receptive (‘neuerungsfreudig’ to use the term of Gyula Décsy (1973)), in contrast to Slavic which is situated ‘im Hinterhof Europas’. They have gone through divergent as well as convergent developments. Innovations taking place not only in Germanic but also in other languages of Europe can be termed superconvergent (European drift, sprachbundbezogen, cf. N. E. Collinge 1986; Charlemagne-Sprachbund of

60

Tadao SHIMOMIYA

Johan van der Auwera 1996), e.g.: development of articles, periphrastic tenses, grammaticalization of the verbs “be” and “have”, “habeo”-construction (I have a father, a mother, two brothers, three children, a headache, fever, a cold, etc., instead of the Latin type mihi est liber, bei mir ist ein Buch, Russian u menja kniga, Finnish minulla on kirja), simplification of morphology, diffusion of cultural words and technical terms, largely of Greek and Latin origin. Classical Latin cantābō was replaced by spoken Latin cantare habeo (‘I have to sing’), which later developed into Italian canterò (‘I’ll sing’), Spanish cantaré, French je chanterai. This is an example of yesterday’s syntax being today’s morphology. Inversely, case-endings as in Rōmae, Athēnīs were replaced by prepositions, cf. in Rome, in Athens. Word order is an important point in Germanic syntax. Suffice it to give a couple of typical examples. Note the position of the verb in E. I cannot come today, G. ich kann heute nicht kommen, Du. ik kan vandaag niet komen, No. jeg kan ikke komme i dag and in E. when he comes tomorrow, G. wenn er morgen kommt, Du. als hij morgen komt, No. når han kommer i morgen. A couple of minor points will be discussed here. 1.

2.

3.

Genitive -s is avoided in Dutch: Vaders boek, moeders verjaarsdag is found beside het boek van vader, de verjaarsdag van moeder, the latter being preferred in colloquial speech. Pieter z’n boek (Peter his book, Peter’s book), moeder d’r kamer (mother her room, mother’s room). No. fars venn (father’s friend) is in colloquial speech vennen til far (the friend to father), min lærers hus (the teacher’s house) is in spoken language huset til min lærer. Genitive -s is retained in adverbial use in Du. ‘s morgen (cf. G. am Morgen), ’s zomers (cf. G. im Sommer), ‘s winters (cf. G. im Winter), but Du. in de lente ‘in spring’, in de herfst ‘in autumn’. Article/non-article: Du. De intercity rijdt het snelst (E. runs fastest, G. fährt am schnellsten). “He writes in Dutch” is in Dutch hij schrijft in het Nederlands in Danish han skriver på nederlandsk; “I am a student” is in German ich bin Student, in Dutch ik ben student, and in Danish jeg er student, but “I am a Japenese student” G. ich bin ein japanischer Student, Du. ik ben een Japanse student, No. jeg er en japansk student. When two things are compared, the superlative form is used instead of the comparative in Dutch and Danish: Du. hij is de grootste van de twee broeders, Da. han er den ældste af de to brødre vs. G. der jüngste der beiden Brüder (KHM 60). This is a Dutch-Danish isogloss. Cf. also No. den beste av de to bøkene ‘the

Characteristics of Germanic Languages

4.

5. 6.

7.

8.

61

better of the two books’. For differences in prepositions, a couple of examples: E. he comes in two hours, G. er kommt in zwei Stunden, Du. hij komt over twee uur, Da. han kommer om to timer. The Dutch prepositions na ‘after’ and naar ‘to, for’ are etymologically the same word. Cf. Du. ik ga naar huis (G. ich gehe nach Hause), Du. ik kom na de middag (G. ich komme am Nachmittag, nach dem Mittag). The preposition te (etymologically to, G. zu) means the place where, naar the place where to (“Richtung”): Ik ben te Amsterdam ‘I am in Amsterdam’, ik ga naar Rotterdam ‘I go to…’, ik kom te Amsterdam ‘I come to…’, ik breng het kind te (or naar) Amsterdam ‘I bring the child to…’, hij is met vacantie gegaan (G. er ist in die Urlaub gegangen), met Kerstmis (G. zu Weihnachten). “Professor of linguistics”, “the price of the book” are in Danish professor i sprogvidenskab, prisen på bogen. G. Er arbeitet acht Stunden lang/ han arbeider i otte timer vs. Du. hij werkt acht uur with the singular in Dutch (but plural in urenlang ‘for several hours’). Diminutive. Dutch is much fonder of diminutives than German: Het theeuurtje (G. die Teestunde), voor mijn huisje ligt een tuintje (G. vor meinem kleinen Haus liegt ein kleiner Garten), het zonnetje schijnt (G. die kleine, i.e. die liebe Sonne scheint), geen sterretje staat aan de hemel (G. kein Sternchen steht im Himmel), hij drinkt elke dag twee glaasjes (G. er trinkt jeden Tag zwei kleine Glas), een wandelingetje (G. ein kleiner Spaziergang); dank je voor het telefoontje ‘thank you for the call’. Smallness is doubled in een klein dorpje (G. ein kleines Dorf). G. Märchen and Mädchen are much more frequent than the words without -chen, like Du. sprookje and meisje. G. Hänsel und Gretel (KHM 15) has as its Dutch translation Hans en Grietje and is in Norwegian Hans og Grete (ignoring diminutives of both names). Infinitive of future in Dutch: hij beloofde te zullen komen (G. er versprach zu kommen) has no counterpart in English or German. Cf. also Latin spērō eum ventūrum esse ‘I hope that he will come’. There is a perfect infinitive of verba dicendi in Dutch: zij zegt het geld verloren te hebben (cf. G. sie sagt, sie habe das Geld verloren), cf. Lat. dīcit sē pecūniam oblītam esse. The auxiliary verb of “begin:” Du. hij ist begonnen te werken ‘he has begun to work’ (G. er hat angefangen zu arbeiten). Danish also has “be”: han er begyndt at arbejde.

62

Tadao SHIMOMIYA

9.

Du. Dokter in de geneeskunde corresponds to G. Dr. der Medizin.

4. DISTRIBUTION OF 18 STRUCTURAL FEATURES Plus and minus features in parentheses mean that they are less striking. The terms in 4., 5. and 6. are those of B. Pottier (1968). Numbers 1–10 and 12–15 are already published in Shimomiya (1990). No.17 and 18 are added following König & Auwera (1994). 1.

2. 3.

4.

5. 6.

7. 8. 9.

Accent on first syllable: Icel.＋; No.Sw.Da.(＋); E.(＋); Du.(＋); G.(＋). Modern English moved French or middle English accent na’ture, pos’sible to Germanic initial accent ’nature, ’possible. The accent shift resulted in different sounds for the accented vowel in ’nature and ’natural. I-umlaut, as in E. man – men (diachronically regressive assimilation, synchronically introflection): Icel.(＋); No.Sw.Da.(＋); E. (＋); G.＋ U-umlaut, as in Icel. barn – börn ‘children’ : Icel.＋; No.Sw.Da.−; E.−; Du.−; G.−. This umlaut (velarization) is very productive in modern Icelandic: langur ‘long’ m.nom.sg. but löngum dat.sg., löng f.nom.sg.; kalla ‘I call’, köllum ‘we call’, kallaði ‘I called’, kölluðum ‘we called’. Preflection, as in G. gekommen: Icel.−; No.Sw.Da.−; Du.(＋); G.( ＋ ). Dutch has extended the participle prefix (Gothic perfectivizing ga-, Streitberg 1889) to French loanwords as in ik heb gestudeerd (G. ich habe studiert). Introflection, as in E. sing – sang – sung: Icel.＋; No.Sw.Da.＋; E. ＋; Du.＋; G.＋. This is typical morphology in Indo-European, and also in Arabic. Sufflection, as in E. books, booked, booking: Icel.＋; No.Sw.Da. ＋; E.＋; Du.＋; G.＋ Sufflection (grammatical morphemes suffixed to the base form) is the most usual device in most languages (including Uralic and Esperanto). Number of grammatical genders: Icel. 3; No. Riksmål, Sw. and Da. 2 (Nynorsk retains the feminine, and Bokmål is partly reviving it); E. 0; Du. 2; G. 3 Number of cases: Icel. 4; No.Sw.Da. 2; E. 1; Du. 2; G. 4. (Pronouns in most languages have 2 cases, though Icelandic hann ‘he, him’ is nominative and accusative.) Suffixed article (Sw. boken ‘the book’): Icel.＋; No.Sw.Da.＋; E.−; Du.−; G.−. Suffixed definite article is found also in Albanian, Bulgarian, Rumanian, which are Balkanic, and in Russian dialects,

Characteristics of Germanic Languages

10. 11.

12. 13. 14.

15.

63

Armenian, and Basque. Icelandic has literary hinn góði maður ‘the good man’ vs. colloquial góði maðurinn. Polite pronoun you: Icel.(＋); No.Sw.Da.(＋); E.−; Du.＋; G.＋. Norwegian, Swedish and Danish grammars give the polite one, used very little, compared with German or French. Personal/impersonal construction (E. I like it, G. es gefällt mir): Icel. impersonal, e.g. mér líkar það; No. personal jeg liker det; Sw.Da. personal, Sw. jag tyckar om det, Da. jeg kan lide det; E. personal; Du. personal ik hou van het, bevalt me; G. impersonal. In this connection, the type it rains, it snows has the same construction in every language, while Icelandic has hann (or það) rignir. Homer has Zeùs hūei (Zeus causes it rain), also OE He (God) hregnaþ. Falk & Torp (1900: 4) attributes the personal subject to poetic fantasy (“digterisk fantasi”) and gives West and North Norwegian han regner, snjoar, myrknar ‘it rains, it snows, it gets dark’, Icel. hann rignir í allan dag ‘it rains all day’. As is well known, E. it likes me changed to I like it during early modern English period. If you please was if it please you (subjunctive, without -s). G. mir ist kalt, Du. ik heb ‘t koud (cf. French j’ai froid), Da. jeg fryser ‘es friert mich’, E. I am cold. Relative pronoun of interrogative origin (E. who, which): Icel.−; No.Sw.Da.(＋); E.＋; Du.(＋); G.(＋). Nordic languages prefer sem, som＜*sem- ‘one’, Gr. homós. Omission of objective relative pronoun: Icel.−; No.Sw.Da.＋; E.＋; Du.−; G.−. ‘One-and-twenty’ type: Icel.−; No.−; Sw.−; Da＋; E.−; Du.＋; G.＋. Norwegian shifted from the Danish order to the Swedish one in 1951. Swedish shifted much earlier due to French influence. Danish has retained the old order and vigesimal system, half-three times twenty for 50 (halvtreds or halvtredsindstyve), three times twenty for 60 (tres or tresindstyve) etc. The vigesimal system (Danish, French, Celtic languages) is the remnant of the Beaker Folk (“Glockenbecherleute”) who invaded old Europe before 1900 BC according to Julius Pokorny (1938). In English, nyne and twenty in a compaignye (Chaucer), the sixe and thrittithe yer (Robert of Gloucester) was the usual type (Mustanoja 1960: 305). Later in the modern period we find examples in Daniel Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe (1719) like six and twenty years, four and twentieth year, the seven and twentieth year of my captivity, and maybe much later too. Number of personal endings: Icel. five ; No.Sw.Da. one; E. two;

64

Tadao SHIMOMIYA

Du. .three; G. four to five. In Hans Christian Andersen’s fairy tales (1835–70), one finds jeg er, vi ere ‘I am, we are’, and in Swedish jag är, vi äro as late as 1955 (Ozaki 1955). Today there is only one personal form in Norwegian, Swedish and Danish. 16. Auxiliary for ‘I have been’: Icel.“be” (ég hef verið); No.Sw.Da. “have” (e.g. Da. jeg har været); E.“have”; Du.“be” (ik ben geweest); G.“be” (ich bin gewesen). Also in Romance languages the verb varies (French il a été, Italian è stato). 17. Auxiliary for passive construction: Icel. vera; No.Sw.Da. bli-, være- and s-passive; E. be; Du. worden; G. werden. Medio-passive is still current in modern Nordic languages. Examples from Danish: Jeg forstår dansk, men jeg taler det dårligt. Jeg forstås ikke. Jeg bliver ikke forstået ‘I understand Danish, but I speak it badly. They do not understand me. I am not understood’. Cf. also Icel. ég fæddist or ég er fæddur í Tokyo ‘I was born in Tokyo’. and G. Goethe wurde 1749 geboren und starb 1832. 18. Reflexive: Icel. sig/sér; No. seg, Da.Sw. sig,; E. self; Du. zich; G. sich. Indo-European and Germanic *se has disappeared in English, cf. overwork oneself, oversleep oneself, archaic English he laid him ‘er legte sich’, he hied him ‘er beeilte sich’. Dutch zich is much less used than German sich and is a later development: naderen (G. sich nähern), veranderen (G. sich ändern), trouwen (G. sich verheiraten), gaan liggen (G. sich legen), gaan zitten (G. sich setzen). 5. VOCABULARY Roughly 30 % of the vocabulary of Germanic, including words like sea, ship, is said to be of non-Indo-European origin. The reason for this is explained by the “Substrattheorie” according to which the Proto-Germanic people was non-Indo-European and spoke a non-Indo-European language which was later “Indo-Europeanized” through close contact with Indo-European peoples (cf. G. Bonfante’s article ‘Languages of the world’ in Collier’s Encyclopedia, New York, 1956). The Germanic vocabulary was later enriched by Latin and Greek words. A whole series of cultural words (rose, wine) spread all over Europe. We will see unity and diversity in a couple of examples. 1.

Names of the days of week: Mostly planetary and deity names (after Latin denomination), but Icelandic Tuesday is ‘third day’ (þriðjudagur), Thursday ‘fifth day’ (fimmtudagur), like Portuguese terça-feira, quinta-feira, and Friday is ‘fasting day’ (föstudagur).

Characteristics of Germanic Languages

2. 3.

4. 5.

6.

7.

65

Saturday in all Nordic languages is ‘washing day, day of washing body and clothes’ (laugardagur, lördag). “Good” is general Germanic (“gemeingermanisch”), but “bad” is mostly individual (“einzelsprachlich”). The same is true of Romance languages. “Man” and woman”: OE werhādes mann ‘manhood’s man’ and wīfhādes mann ‘womanhood’s mann’ (Aelfrics Grammatik und Glossar, ed. Julius Zupitza, reprint Berlin/Zürich/Dublin 1966, p. 297) have mann in common, where it means ‘homo, Mensch’. Likewise Old Norse karlmaðr and kvennmaðr (modern Icelandic kvenmaður, with one n). G. Mann und Frau, Du. man en vrouw, Sw. mann och kvinna etc. have different words. G. Mann etc. means ‘man’ and ‘husband’. The word for “black” was general Germanic including OE sweart. All Germanic languages have preserved it (schwarz, sort) except English. The semantic field of “go” is different. In English it covers G. fahren (go by train, mit dem Zug fahren), Danish gå covers E. walk (den lille kan gå ‘the baby can walk’), Dutch rijden covers German fahren (met de trein rijden ‘mit dem Zug fahren’). Swedish ta (‘take’) covers ‘go’ (han tar till Berlin ‘he goes to Berlin’), also Danish han tager til Rom ‘he goes to Rome’. Dictionary vs. Wörterbuch, and write vs. schreiben. Two opposite examples are given here, one where English is the most ‘entgermanisiert’, and the other where it is the most conservative. The Greeks and Romans did not know the notion of a dictionary, only a glossary for difficult words in a certain text. Dictionarium and lexicon are late creations. The word Wörterbuch did not exist in the seventeenth century. Its first use was in the Niederdeutsches woordenboek of 1719 (Jacob Grimm in his “Vorwort zu Brüder Grimms Wörterbuch”, 1852, p. ix–x). The word is later used for Swedish (ordbok), Danish (ordbog), Icelandic (orðabók), from Swedish to loantranslated as Finnish (sanakirja, cf. sana ‘Wort’ and kirja ‘Buch’) and Hungarian (szótár, cf. szó ‘Wort’ and tár ‘Sammlung’). Russian slovár’ ‘dictionary’ is a derivative of slóvo ‘word’. English is the only Germanic language that uses a Romance word. On the other hand, English is the only language which preserves the old Germanic word write (cf. German reißen, originally ‘scratch’), while all the other languages use the Latin loan schreiben, even Icelandic skrifa, and Frisian skriuwe. Modern Icelandic occupies a specific place among Germanic and

66

Tadao SHIMOMIYA

European languages in that it loantranslates modern cultural and technical terms by means of native elements. The seven liberal arts grammatica, logica, rhetorica, mathematica, geometrica, musica, astronomica are expressed in modern Icelandic in the following way: málfræði (language-art), rökfræði (argument-art), ræðufræði (speech-art), stærðfræði (quantity-art ＜ stærð ‘size, quantity’＜ stór ‘big, large’), flatarmálfræði (1area-science), sönglist (song-art), stjörnufræði (star-science). Some additional terms are líffræði (life-science, i.e. ‘biology’, menningarsaga ‘cultural history’, vistfræði (being-science, i.e. ‘ecology’), menntaskóli (culture-school, i.e. ‘gymnasium’), bókmenntir (book-education, i.e. ‘literature’), heimspeki (world-wisdom, i.e. ‘philosophy’), útvarp (out-cast, i.e. ‘radio’), sími (cord, i.e. ‘telephone’), sjónvarp (sight-cast, i.e. ‘television’), guðfræði (god-lore, i.e. ‘theology’; cf. German Götterlehre), háskóli (high-school, i.e. ‘university’; cf. German Hochschule). For the names of seven liberal arts, Dutch has four words of consisting of native elements: spraakkunst (language-art, i.e. ‘grammar’), wiskunde (‘mathematics’, cf. wis ‘sure’), meetkunde (measure-art, i.e. ‘geometry’) and sterrenkunde (star-science, i.e. ‘astronomy’). 6. FIVE AREAS OF GERMANIA As shown in the figure on the next page, England, in the central part of Germania, has gone farthest from the Germanic stage, and Iceland, in the periphery, has kept most of the oldest Germanic features grammatically and lexically. This is well in conformity with the “marginal theory” of Matteo Bàrtoli (1925) that archaic features are preserved in marginal areas. Language develops divergently (A. Schleicher, 1861) and convergently (J. Schmidt, 1872). The Norman conquest of 1066 brought about English-French rapprochement. Danish offered a number of important every-day words to English during the Viking age (800–1050). Latin and Greek exercised a great influence throughout Germania (except Iceland) in the age of humanism (15th to 16th century). The influx of American English words into British English, German and Nordic languages after 1945 is another historical fact.

Characteristics of Germanic Languages

67

Icelandic and German are the most conservative

Iceland Scandinavia Nederland

England

English in the center hit hardest by innovations

Germany French, Latin and Greek influence Five areas of Germania

REFERENCES Bonfante, G. 1970. La dottrina neolinguistica. Torino: G.Giappichelli. 1976. I dialetti indoeuropei (reprint, Paideia, first edition 1931, Napoli), and his numerous articles in Collier’s Encyclopedia (20 vols. New York, 1956) as linguistics editor for the encyclopedia. Collinge, N.E. 1986. “The New Historicism and its Battles”. Folia Linguistica Historica, 7.3-19. (Presidential Address to the Societas Linguistica Europaea at Toledo 1985.) Décsy, Gy. 1973. Die linguistische Struktur Europas. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. de Vries, J. 1962. Altnordisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Leiden: E.J.Brill. Falk, H. & A. Torp 1900. Dansk-norskens syntax. Kristiania: Aschehoug. KHM = Kinder- und Hausmärchen der Brüder Grimm. 1982. Stuttgart: Philipp Recl. König, E. & J. van der Auwera (eds). 1994. The Germanic Languages. London: Routledge. Krahe, H. 1969. Germanische Sprachwissenschaft, Bd.I. Sammlung Göschen, 7. Aufl. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Mustanoja, T. 1960. A Middle English Syntax. Part I. Helsinki: Societe Neophilologique. Ozaki, Y. 1955. Swedish in four weeks. Tokyo: Daigakushorin. Pottier, B. 1968. “La typologie”. A.Martinet (ed). Le langage, Encyclopédie

68

Tadao SHIMOMIYA

de la Pléiade, Paris, 300-322. Schleicher, A. 1861. Compendium der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen. Weimar: Hermann Böhlau. Schmidt, J. 1872. Die Verwandtschaftsverhältnisse der indogermanischen Sprachen. Weimar: Hermann Böhlau. Shimomiya, T. 1990. “Toward a Characterization of Germanic”. Studia in honorem A.Tovar et L.Michelena. Salamanca, 269–271. 2005. “Grimms Deutsches Wörterbuch und Pauls Deutsches Wörterbuch”. Deutsche Lexikographie in Geschichte und Gegenwart, hrsg. K.Iijima, Studienreihe der Japanischen Gesellschaft für Germanistik 038, p.16–31. 2006. “Das Deutsche im Kreise der europäischen Sprachen”. Lingua Posnaniensis, 48.111–120. Streitberg, W. 1889. “Perfective und imperfective Aktionsart im Germanischen”. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 15. 70-177. Trubetzkoy, N. S. 1939. “Grundzüge der Phonologie”. Travaux du Cercle linguistique de Prague 7 Van der Auwera, J. 1996. “Charlemagne-Sprachbund”. (Paper read at the meeting of Societas Linguistica Europaea, Klagenfurt, 5.9.1996.)

Old English Pronouns for Possession Yasuaki FUJIWARA 0. INTRODUCTION In Old English the concept of possession can be indicated not only by possessive pronouns but also by the genitive of personal pronouns. Although the details of inflection of these pronouns in Old English are furnished by Mitchell (1985) and others, previous descriptions are not enough for our full understanding of linguistic properties of those pronouns. Hence, we will investigate the two types of pronouns and clarify their syntactic and metrical characteristics. 1. MORPHOLOGICAL DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN THE POSSESSIVE AND THE GENITIVE Old English possessive pronouns (hereafter, the possessive) given in (1a) is characterized by the inflectional system in which the possessive declines in its own right in agreement with the gender, number and case of its head in the same way as the strong declension of adjectives. For example, when the possessive like mīn ending in a consonant modifies a male noun, the same suffixes are attached to it as when an adjective like gōd ‘good’ modifies a male noun, as shown in (1b). However, it must be noted that the possessive of the third person sīn, though ending in a consonant but being a pronominal genitive (cf. (1c)), does not decline for gender and number. Next, when the possessive ends with a vowel like ūre and modifies a male noun, for example, it declines in the same way as the adjective like grēne ‘green’ modifying, for instance, a male noun, as shown in (1b) (Cassidy & Ringler (1971: 36), Wright & Wright (1925: §464)). On the other hand, the genitive of the third person (hereafter, the genitive) given in (1c) does not decline, just as sīn used to indicate possession (Moore & Knott (1955: §344), Quirk & Wrenn (1957: §64)). Parenthetically, a certain variation can be observed in the use of the pronouns in (1a) and (1c) in some dialects or periods of Old English. For instance, sīn is preferred to his or hire in poems (Wright & Wright (1925: §464)). (1)

a.

mīn ‘my’, þīn ‘your’, sīn ‘his, her, its, their’, ūre, ūser ‘our’, ēower, īower ‘your’, uncer ‘of us two’, incer ‘of you two’

70

Yasuaki FUJIWARA b.

c. sg

pl

nom gen dat acc nom gen dat acc

mīn mīnes mīnum mīnne mīne mīnra mīnum mīne

ūre ūres ūrum ūrne ūre ūrra ūrum ūre

his ‘his, its’ hi(e)re, hyre ‘her’ hi(e)ra, heora, hyra ‘their’

Here, a question arises as to whether the difference between the two types of pronouns in (1a) and (1c) is simply inflectional or involved in other aspects of the language such as syntax and metrics. As for the syntax of Old English, our interest centers on the order of the genitive or the possessive to its head, for, according to Fries (1940: 199-208), the word order of “head + the possessive” began to decrease, i.e. 47.6% about 900 A.D., 30.9% about 1000 A.D., and 22.6% about 1100 A.D., and finally ceased to exist before the end of the thirteenth century. Besides, this investigation will be greatly concerned with the syntactic relationship between the two types of pronouns and their involvement in alliteration. However, although Fries does not mention the change of the word order of the uninflected genitive and its head, we are also interested in the characteristic features of the genitive for modification. 2. METRICAL AND SYNTACTIC INVESTIGATION OF OLD ENGLISH PRONOUNS FOR POSSESSION 2.1 The Framework for Metrical Analysis of Old English Poems In the following investigation of Old English pronouns examples will be taken from the two representative poems of the period, i.e. Beowulf and Genesis A, which apparently provide abundant lexical and syntactic material for our present investigation. For the texts of Beowulf and Genesis A, we use, respectively, Klaeber (1950) and Krapp (1931). Beowulf is believed to have been orally composed in the early eighth century and preserved in a single copy made around 1000 A.D. Genesis A is allegedly written earlier than Beowulf, at approximately the end of the seventh or the beginning of the eighth century. As for the basic framework for the analysis of Old English poems, we will resort to the established principle reproduced below (Fujiwara (1999: 28)): (2) a.

The Principles of Alliterative Hierarchy In each alliterative half-line composed of more than one word, the selection of

Old English Pronouns for Possession

71

a word for alliteration is automatically determined solely in accordance with the relative hierarchical ordering of lexical categories, regardless of the meaning or grammatical function of words. b. Priority of alliteration in each half-line is given in the following order: i. nouns, adjectives, derived adverbs ii. inherited adverbs iii. verbs (be-verbs and modal auxiliaries are excluded) iv. function words including some inherited inherent adverbs, be-verbs, and modal auxiliaries. A word in a higher rank, irrespective of its position in the half-line, participates in alliteration in precedence over others of lower rank. c. When words of the same category constitute a half-line, alliterative priority is given to the word in the leftmost position of the half-line. d. Inherited adverbs are divided into three subcategories. Verbs are strictly separated into two classes: predominant, nonfinite forms and inferior, finite forms.

It should be noted here that in the first half-lines (hereafter, a-verses) with double alliteration, i.e., in those including two alliterating words, the above rules are not always strictly observed, especially in the determination of the second alliterating word. However, considering that stronger constraints are naturally imposed upon this type of half-line when selecting an additional word for alliteration, it is possible to claim that this is not due to a defect in our systematization but to the limitations of the principles followed by the poets. On the other hand, in the second half-lines (hereafter, b-verses), too, there may occur cases in which the above rules are not strictly observed on account of stronger constraints imposed on b-verses for the realization of alliteration. Hence, these two types of cases are called, respectively, “poetic licenses in a-verses with double alliteration” and “poetic licenses in b-verses”. However, in a-verses with single alliteration, including one alliterating word, our principles are rigidly maintained. Indeed, since this is easily attested not only for a single poem but also for many other Old English verses, our principles seem to have been valid among Anglo-Saxon poets. Considering the fact that these principles are directly related to the discrimination of adjectives from function words including pronouns, they seem to serve as an adequate standard for an analytic model, especially for the questions we are going to address.

72

Yasuaki FUJIWARA

2.2 Syntactic and Metrical Characteristics of the Possessive in Beowulf 2.2.1 The Possessive in A-verses There are in a-verses eleven instances of the possessive occurring immediately before its head, as shown in (3a). Hereafter, this type of modification of the possessive will be called “premodification” (Crystal (2008: 383)). Examples like (3b), too, in which adjectives or nouns may stand between the possessive and its head, fall under the category of premodification. On the other hand, there occur in a-verses nine instances such as (3c, d) in which the possessive stands immediately after its head. Hence, this type of modification of the possessive will be called “postmodification” on the analogy of premodification (Crystal (2008: 377)). It must be understood here that both premodification and postmodification are unmarked positions for the Old English possessive in relation to its head. An obvious and fully predictable fact is that in all twenty instances the possessive is not allowed to take part in alliteration at all. Hence, we claim that the Principles of Alliterative Hierarchy of (2) are rigidly maintained in Beowulf. We can also argue that a nomenclature “possessive adjectives” which is alternatively used for the more common “possessive pronouns” by scholars like Campbell (1959: §705) is inadequate at least as far as alliterative evidence is concerned, for an adjective is specially privileged to alliterate by (2b) together with a noun in the same a-verse. It is admitted here the possessive and the genitive are indicated in italics and their heads in underlines in the examples cited below. (3)

a. b. c. d.

Wæs mīn fæder folcum gecy¯ þed, “My father was famed among the people” (262) mīn yldra mæ¯g unlifigende, “my elder brother (was) lifeless” (468) alder þīnum, gif hē ūs geunnan wile, “to your lord, if he will grant us” (346) dryhten sīnne drīorigne fand “(he) found his chieftain bloody” (2789)

2.2.2 The Possessive in B-verses Next, turning to b-verses, we find ten instances of the possessive, i.e. nine for premodification and one for postmodification, in which the possessive regularly deviates from its normal position across the boundary of half-lines, as shown in (4a, b). A remarkable fact about these instances is that in all such instances the genitive is not allowed to alliterate. Hence, we can argue that there exists a very strong relationship between deviation from the

Old English Pronouns for Possession

73

normal position of the possessive and alliteration. However, it must be pointed out here that even in unmarked positions the possessive commonly alliterates in b-verses, i.e. sixteen out of the total thirty-nine instances of the possessive for premodification take part in alliteration. Realization of alliteration in so many instances of the possessive in b-verses is duly ascribed to “the poetic license for b-verses” prescribed in 3.1. Hence, we will have to take several factors into consideration in investigating the relationship between the positions and alliteration of the possessive. When the possessive occurs after its head, as shown in (4d), it shows even more interesting characteristics. For example, in thirty instances of b-verses in which the possessive occurs immediately after its head, it is not the possessive but its head that regularly contributes to alliteration. On the other hand, in all six instances in b-verses where the possessive alliterates like (4e) the possessive modifies its head across the boundary of half-lines. Half-lines, whether a-verses or b-verses, are the smallest metrical units, but the instances of enjambment like (4e) indicate that a close syntactic relationship is maintained even across the boundary of half-lines. (4)

a.

b.

c. d. e.

mearcað mōrhopu; nō ðū ymb mīnes ne þearft leng sorgian. līces feorme “stain the moor-hollow; you need not care for the food of my body any longer” (450-1) eorlīc ellen, oþðe endedæg on þisse meoduhealle mīnne gebīdan! “earl-like bravery, or endure my last day in the mead-hall” (637-8) þēoden mæ¯rne ymb þīnne sīð, “the famous prince about your journey”, (353) þæ¯r mē wið lāðum līcsyrce mīn “then my coat of mail (helped) me against foes” (550) þīnre scolde gif ic æt þearfe “if I should (be deprived of my life) in your need” (1477)

2.2.3 The Possessive in A-verses with Double Alliteration Next, we will investigate the instances of a-verses like (5) in which it is obscure whether or not the possessive contributes to double alliteration together with its head. Although double alliteration is allegedly an optimal metrical type (Fujiwara (1990: 172-83)), pronouns, which are far down the Alliterative Hierarchy, as indicated in (2b), are less likely to be granted the license for double alliteration. Hence, the six instances for premodification like (5a, b) and the two for postmodification of (5c, d) may well be excluded

74

Yasuaki FUJIWARA

from double alliteration as possible cases of accidental coincidence of their initial consonants with those of their heads. As for a single unusual instance of a-verse of (5d) where the possessive ðīn modifies its preceding head blæ ¯d across two lines, we will regard it, too, as accidental. (5)

a. b. c. d.

“Meaht ðū, mīn wine, mēce gecnāwan, “Can you, my friend, recognize the sword” (2047) in sele þām hēan sīnne geseldan “his comrade in the high hall” (1984) syllan wolde, nō ðy¯ æ¯r suna sīnum “nevertheless he would not give to his son” (2160) . . . Blæ¯d is āræ¯red . . . . . . ðīn ofer þēoda gehwylce. Eal þū hit geþyldum healdest, “Your renown is raised ...over all people. You keep it all steadily” (1703b-5)

2.3 Syntactic and Metrical Characteristics of the Genitive in Beowulf 2.3.1 The Genitive in A-verses The genitive used for indicating possession is generally considered the same in function as the possessive. However, there is a crucial difference of frequency in a-verses even between the two types of modification of the genitive. For example, the total of thirty-one instances of the genitive for premodification like (6a, b) is in sharp contrast to only one instance of the genitive for postmodification of (6c). Interestingly, irrespective of the difference under consideration, all these thirty-two instances share the default of alliteration; especially in the two instances of (6d, e) the genitive does not alliterate in spite of the deviation from its head across the boundary of half-lines. Besides, these examples contrast sharply with those of the possessive in b-verses, for alliteration of the possessive often realizes itself there as suggested in 3.2.2. (6)

a. b. c. d. e.

þēah ðe hē his brōðor bearn ābredwade. “though he killed his brother’s child” (2619) sweoloðe befæstan, hire selfre sunu “her own son to commit to the flame” (1115) wætere gelafede winedryhten his “washed his friendly lord with water” (2722) þæt ic his æ¯rest ðē ēst gesægde; “that I should first say to you its transmission” (2157) þēah ðe ōðer his ealdre gebohte, “though one of them paid for it with his life” (2481)

Old English Pronouns for Possession

75

2.3.2 The Genitive in B-verses Next, we can draw from b-verses several interesting facts about the genitive. First, there occur sixty-two instances of the genitive, which is exactly twice as many as in a-verses, and as many as sixty-one of which are used for premodification, as shown in (7a–c), while only one of (7d) for postmodification. Second, none of the instances of the genitive contribute to alliteration in b-verses, not only in unmarked but also marked positions. Third, the genitive does not alliterate even when it deviates far from its head, as shown in (7e). (7)

a. b. c.

d. e.

sweordbealo slīðen æt his selfes hām, “the cruel death by the sword in his own home” (1147) frēolicu folccwēn tō hire frēan sittan. “the noble folk-queen (went) to sit by her lord” (641) wīston ond ne wēndon, þæt hīe heora winedrihten “(they) knew and did not expect that they (should see) their friendly ruler” (1604) þrecwudu þrymlic. Wæs þēaw hyra, “the mighty spear. (It) was their custom” (1246) swancor ond sadolbeorht; hyre syððan wæs . . . br[ē]ost geweorðod. “slender and saddle-bright; her breast was then ... adorned” (2175b-6)

2.4 Summary of the Investigations of the Two Types of Pronouns in Beowulf From the preceding investigations of the possessive and the genitive concerning the frequency in half-lines, the possibility of alliteration and their positions in verses, several interesting facts can be brought to light. First, a marked difference of frequency is found between the two types of modification, specifically the total of ninety-two instances of premodification in contrast to only two of postmodification. Second, in a-verses none of the total twenty-seven instances of the possessive in a-verses are relevant to alliteration, while in b-verses as many as thirty two out of the total seventy nine contribute to alliteration. Third, ninety-four instances of the genitive are irrelevant to alliteration irrespective of the difference of the verse-type and the type of modification. We schematize the results of the preceding investigations of the possessive and the genitive in Beowulf in (8). Scores in parentheses indicate the numbers of verses in which alliteration is realized.

76

Yasuaki FUJIWARA (8)

possessive

genitive

unmarked deviated total unmarked deviated total

premodification a-verse b-verse 17(0) 39(16) 0(0) 9( 9) 17(0) 48(25) 31(0) 61( 0) 0(0) 0( 0) 31(0) 61( 0)

postmodification a-verse b-verse 10(0) 30(6) 1(0) 1(1) 11(0) 31(7) 1(0) 0(0) 0(0) 1(0) 1(0) 1(0)

2.5 Syntactic and Metrical Characteristics of the Possessive in Genesis A As Beowulf is the longest of all Old English poems, the generalizations made above about the function of the possessive in the poem carry full significance, per se. However, in order to enhance its significance, we will have to resort to a traditional, effective means of comparison with other poems. Thus, we will take up Genesis A, which is copious enough for making a valid generalization about the function of the possessive and the genitive along the same principles as in Beowulf. 2.5.1 The Possessive in A-verses The total of sixty-seven instances of the possessive occurs in unmarked positions of a-verses with single alliteration, only fifteen of which are used for premodification where the possessive stands immediately before its head, as shown in (9a), while as many as fifty two are used for postmodification where the possessive occurs just before its head, as in (9b). A remarkable feature of those sixty-seven instances is that none of them contribute to alliteration. However, it must be noted that once the possessive is deviated from its head across the half-lines, it is qualified to alliterate; three of the five instances for premodification and all seven instances for postmodification take part in alliteration in positions deviated from their heads, as shown in (9c, d). Thus, it is apparent that the only motivation behind alliteration of the possessive in a-verses is the deviation from its head across half-lines. (9)

a. b. c.

þīnum frumbearne, þæt feorhdaga “to your first-born son, so that (a great many of) days of life” (2360) and blētsunge, blisse mīnre “my grace and blessing” (2333) wesan ūsser hēr aldordēma, “be our ruler here” (2483)

Old English Pronouns for Possession d.

77

. . . ic hine wergðo on mīne sette and mōdhete, “... I set on him my curse and hate” (1755b-6)

2.5.2 The Possessive in B-verses Next, there occur in unmarked positions of b-verses with single alliteration nineteen instances of the possessive for premodification. Contrary to our expectation, only six out of nineteen instances of premodification contribute to alliteration, as shown in (10a). Besides, none of the thirty-two instances of postmodification are allowed to alliterate, as shown in (10b). However, when the possessive is deviated from its head across the half-lines, six out of fifteen instances for premodification alliterate, as in (10c), and so do eleven out of fifteen for postmodification, as in (10d). Thus, it is apparent that alliteration of the possessive in b-verses is closely connected with its function of premodification in unmarked positions as well as with the deviation from its head across the half-lines. (10) a. b. c.

d.

mægeð tō gemæccum mīnra fēonda; “the women of my enemies as mates” (1259) fægre tō Lōthe: “Ic eom fædera þīn “gently to Lot: “I am your uncle” ” (1900) siððan þū ūsic under, Abraham, þīne on þas ēðelturf æ¯hta læ¯ddest, “since you, Abraham, brought your possessions into our country, among us” (2677-8) Næ¯fre gē mid blōde bēodgereordu unārlīce ēowre þicgeað, “Never eat your table-foods with blood dishonorably” (1518-9)

2.5.3 The Possessive in A-verses with Double Alliteration Next, in a-verses with double alliteration we find an interesting fact that all instances of the possessive, whether for premodification or postmodification, regularly fail to alliterate, as shown in (11a, b). As for the two instances of postmodification of (11c, d) we need to comment on the interpretation of their metrical status. Although their initial consonants are identical with those of their heads, we regard this as accidental, for both for premodification and postmodification the possessive does not contribute to alliteration in any of the sixty-seven instances in a-verses.

78

Yasuaki FUJIWARA (11) a. b. c. d.

on þīnne wlite wlītan wlance monige, “many proud ones gaze on your beauty” (1825) frægn hine dægrīme frōd: dæ¯drōf drihtne sīnum, “strong in deeds, wise in number of days, asked him, his Lord” (2174) sīdan rīces mid sunum sīnum “with his sons a wide kingdom” (1599) . . . lārum swilce, þēoden, þīnum, and þē þanc wege, “Lord, ... in such a manner according to your teachings, and give you thanks” (2348-9)

2.5.4 The Genitive in A-verses Our next concern is the behavior of the genitive in Genesis A. There occur in a-verses with single alliteration a total of thirty-four instances in which the genitive stands immediately before its head, but none of them alliterate, as shown in (12a). Besides, it is very interesting to note that even when the genitive is deviated from its head across the half-lines as in five instances like (12b) and the one in (12c), the genitive does not alliterate at all. In the three examples of postmodification, too, the genitive does not alliterate whether it immediately follows its head as (12d) or deviates from its head as (12e). (12) a.

b. c. d. e.

æ¯r his swyltdæge suna and dohtra; “(he begot a great many) of sons and daughters before his day of death” (1221) þæt wīf hire wordum selfa “this woman (told me first) in her own words that” (2649) Ōðer his tō eorðan elnes tilode, “One gave his strength toward the earth” (972) līðend brōhte mid lācum hire, “with her gifts, the traveler brought” (1472) under burhlocan bry¯d mid bearnum in Sæ¯gor his. Þā sunne ūp, “(he brought) his wife together with his children to the city-enclosure of Segor. When the sun (rose) up” (2539-40)

2.5.5 The Genitive in B-verses First, we find in b-verses an interesting feature of the genitive, i.e., in as many as fifty-eight instances of premodification, not even a single instance of the genitive is involved in alliteration, as shown in (13a). As for the three instances of the genitive for premodification whose initial consonant is

Old English Pronouns for Possession

79

identical with that of its head, as shown in (13b), we regard them as irrelevant to alliteration, for they are limited to b-verses where double alliteration is not allowed. Next, turning to the instances of the genitive for postmodification, we find three of them occurring immediately after its head, as shown in (13c), and another three deviated from its head across the boundary of the half-lines, as shown in (13d). However, remarkably, in none of the latter three instances is the genitive relevant to alliteration, in spite of the deviation from its head across the half-lines. (13) a. b. c. d.

bilwit fæder, hwæt his bearn dyde; “merciful Father, what his son did” (856) oðþæt se hālga his hlāforde “until the holy (one) for his lord” (2750) wæ¯glīðende, swilce wīf heora, “sea-farers, likewise their wives” (1432) weras mid wīfum. On þām wīcum his fæder Abrahames feorh gesealde, “men with wives. In those dwellings Abraham’s father gave up his life” (1738-9)

2.5.6 The Genitive in A-verses with Double Alliteration Next, there are twelve instances of a-verses with double alliteration in which the genitive is used for premodification, as shown in (14a, b). As for the three instances of the genitive whose initial consonant is the same as that of its head, as shown in (14c, d, e), we may safely regard them as accidental, for not only in a-verses with single alliteration but also in b-verses where the poetic license is likely to apply even a single instance of the genitive is permitted to alliterate. (14) a. b. c. d. e.

his selfes sele. Sinces brytta, “his own house. The distributor of treasure” (1857) Næ¯fre mon earla mægeð heora māgum. “the maidens to their families. Of all (men), no one ever” (2092) āhreded wurde, þæt his hyldemæg “so that his near kinsman might be rescued” (2032) swā se hālga bebēad, hire hlāfordum, “to her masters, as the holy (angel) bade” (2297) Hæleðum sægde mid his hīwum. “with his household. (He) said to the men” (2623)

80

Yasuaki FUJIWARA

2.5.7 Summary of the Investigation of the Possessive and the Genitive in Genesis A The results of the preceding analysis of all instances of the possessive and the genitive in Genesis A with respect to their positions and contribution to alliteration in the two types of verses are summarized below: (15)

unmarked possessive

genitive

single double single

deviated total unmarked single double deviated single double total

premodification a-verse b-verse 15(0) 19( 6) 3(0) ― 5(3) 15( 6) 23(3) 34(12) 34(0) 58( 0) 11(0) ― 5(0) 0( 0) 1(0) ― 51(0) 58( 0)

postmodification a-verse b-verse 52(0) 32( 0) 10(0) ― 7(7) 15(11) 69(9) 47(11) 2(0) 3( 0) 0(0) ― 1(0) 3( 0) 0(0) ― 3(0) 6( 0)

3. CONCLUDING REMARKS 3.1 Characteristic Features of the Two Types of Pronouns for Possession Beowulf and Genesis A are characterized by several marked differences in the use of the possessive. First, in Beowulf, the possessive occurs in b-verses nearly three times as often as in a-verses both for premodification and postmodification. This peculiarity in Beowulf may partly reflect the poet’s inclination for alliteration of the possessive in b-verses permitted by poetic license, which is however dispensed with in Genesis A except for six occurrences of premodification in b-verses. In other words, the differences under consideration may be due to stylistic ones between the two poets. Second, the difference of frequency of the possessive for postmodification in a-verses between the two poems may point to a syntactic phase of the long-lasting process towards the disappearance of postmodification, as suggested by Fries (1940: 199-208). This can be confirmed by the decrease of the frequency of postmodification in a-verses, i.e. 75.00% in Genesis A to 35.71% in Beowulf. Third, although Bauer (1963: 326-32) claims that sīn is maintained in poems primarily as a metrical requisite and sometimes for other unspecified requirements, too, even a single instance of sīn is not attested as an alliterating word in the two poems where the possessive itself is frequently used for alliteration, especially in b-verses. If sīn is really felt by the poets to be indispensable for rhythm, if not for alliteration, sīn must have been

Old English Pronouns for Possession

81

employed in verses as a dominant metrical candidate and overshadowed the genitive with initial h-. However, the result of our investigations summarized in (8) and (15) provides strong counterevidence to Bauer’s claim. 3.2 The Relationship between the Possessive and Alliteration Beowulf and Genesis A share the default of single alliteration with respect to the use of the possessive in unmarked positions to its head in a-verses. We can argue that this is mainly due to the poets’ attempt at observing the principle of (2) in a-verses without being affected by their stylistic preferences. We can also point out the remarkable fact that there exists in the two poems, especially in b-verses of Beowulf and in both a- and b-verses of Genesis A, a very close relationship between the deviation of the possessive from its head and its contribution to alliteration. Specifically, when the possessive is deviated from its head across the boundary of half-lines, it is likely to alliterate in nearly the same way as prepositions that often take part in alliteration when they occur after their objects by conversion (Fujiwara (1990: 262-3)). Thus, our investigation is successful in demonstrating that the lexical categories like the possessive and prepositions, which are usually unstressed and hence far down the alliterative hierarchy of (2), can be metrically prominent when they are subject to manipulations of deviation or conversion. 3.3 Characteristic Features of the Genitive As for the characteristic features of the genitive, we must first point out that it is dominantly used for premodification in both types of verses. Our explanation for this dominant feature is that since the genitive is no longer declined for gender, number and case of its head, the syntactic relationship between the genitive and its head may be obscured in verses if the given order is not maintained. Next, the fact that the genitive fails to alliterate in any positions of verses may be explained by assuming that its rank is further down the alliterative hierarchy than that of the possessive. Especially, the genitive can be regarded as identical in its alliterative status to conjunctions such as and ‘and’, gif ‘if’, ac ‘but’, oððe ‘or’ and also to adverbs like ne ‘not’, þā ‘then’. This fact suggests the necessity of a more detailed subclassification of part of the principle of (2), especially (2biv). 3.4 Conclusion Lastly, we will conclude as a result of the preceding investigation that as far as the two representative Old English poems (Beowulf and Genesis A)

82

Yasuaki FUJIWARA

are concerned, the possessive and the genitive share the function of indicating possession, while they differ greatly in the positions they occupy in verses and also in the contribution to alliteration, which is partly due to the difference of the poets’ style, and partly to the tendency towards the disappearance of the possessive for postmodification. REFERENCES Bauer, Gero. 1963. “Über Vorkommen und Gebrauch von ae. Sīn”. Anglia 81. 323-34. Campbell, Alistair. 1959. Old English Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Cassidy, Frederic G. & Richard N. Ringler. 1971. Bright’s Old English Grammar and Reader. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Crystal, David. 2008. A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. Oxford: Blackwell. Fries, Charles Carpenter. 1940. “On the Development of the Structural Use of Word-Order in Modern English”. Language 16. 199-208. Fujiwara, Yasuaki. 1990. Koeishi Inritsu Kenkyu (Studies in Old English Metrics). Hiroshima: Keisuisha. Fujiwara, Yasuaki. 1999. “On Identifying Old English Adverbs”. English Historical Linguistics and Philology in Japan. ed. by Jacek Fisiak and Akio Oizumi, 21-41. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Klaeber, Frederick Friedrich. ed. 1950. Beowulf and the Fight at Finnsburg. Boston: Heath. Krapp, George Philip. ed. 1931. The Anglo-Saxon Poetic Records, 1. New York: Columbia University Press. Mitchell, Bruce. 1985. Old English Syntax. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Moore, Samuel & Thomas A. Knott. 1955. The Elements of Old English. Ann Arbor: George Wahr. Quirk, Randolf & C. L. Wrenn. 1957. An Old English Grammar. London: Methuen. Wright, Joseph & Elizabeth Mary Wright. 1925. Old English Grammar. London: Oxford University Press.

2. Generative Grammar

Reflexive Binding as Agreement and its Locality Conditions within the Phase System Hiroshi HASEGAWA 0. INTRODUCTION Since the advent of the theory of generative grammar, binding of reflexives (anaphors) has been one of the central issues in linguistic theory. The generative theory of grammar in the ‘80s was called “GB theory”, where “B” stood for “binding”. With the recent developments of the minimalist program, however, the theoretical status of binding is now being questioned, and “reinterpretation” of binding theory might be necessary (see Chomsky 2000: 113-114). This paper is an attempt to incorporate binding of reflexives into the recent framework of the minimalist program. 1. PREVIOUS ANALYSES 1.1 Chomsky (1986; 1993) Chomsky (1986; 1993) argued that LF movement of a reflexive element is involved in binding of reflexives. (1)

a. b.

John criticized himself. John selfi-INFL criticize ti

In (1a), for example, the reflexive (him-)self is moved to the INFL position at LF, as shown in (1b). Under this movement analysis, the locality requirement of reflexive binding can be reduced to the locality requirement on movement. (2)

a. b.

Johni thinks that Billj criticized himselfi*/j Johni INFL think that Billj INFL criticize himselfi*/j X

In (2a) the reflexive must be bound by the embedded subject (Bill), not by the subject of the higher clause (John). This follows from the locality

86

Hiroshi HASEGAWA

requirement on movement of the reflexive element, which ensures that it moves to a closer landing site, namely the lower INFL, not to the higher one, as indicated in (2b)1 1.2 Hasegawa (2000) 1.2.1 Overview Hasegawa (2000) attempts to incorporate this movement analysis of reflexives into the minimalist framework. Under minimalist assumptions, movement leaves behind a “copy” of the moved element in the original position. In other words, the moved element is both in the moved position and in the original position. In addition to this “copy theory” of movement, Hasegawa (2000) makes the following assumptions: (i)

A reflexive like himself can be analyzed into the pronoun part (him) and self.2 (ii) The pronoun part (him) functions as an argument, and must be interpreted as a “bound variable” in the sense of Reinhart (1983) (and thus must have a c-commanding binder). (iii) The self part functions as a “mobile index”, which moves to the closest INFL at LF (thereby designating the binder of the reflexive), constrained by locality conditions on movement.3 The self part not being an argument, the resulting “chain” is not a true chain and does not conform to LF conditions on chains (such as the ECP). Once these assumptions are adopted, the movement analysis of reflexives can be incorporated into the minimalist framework, and some empirical facts that could not be explained under Chomsky’s analysis are accounted for quite naturally. 1

2

3

For a different type of “movement analysis” of reflexives, see Zwart (2002). Chris Tancredi (personal communication) points out the possibility of a semantic account, where self is taken to reflexivize the predicate on which the movement was targeted. We will not pursue this possibility further here, due to limitations of time and space. For another account of reflexives based on “reflexivization” of predicates, see Reinhart and Reuland (1993). For analyses of this sort, see Helke (1970) and Safir (2004) among others. We might extend our analysis to zibun-zisin in Japanese, which can also be analyzed into two parts and requires a local binder. As pointed out by an anonymous reviewer for Hasegawa (2005b), we would need a different account for zibun, which cannot be analyzed as such and allows long-distance binding. We will henceforth ignore the possibility of binding by objects. In order to incorporate this possibility, we will have to take into full consideration the role of the light verb (v) in reflexive binding, a complication that we will avoid due to limitations of time and space.

Reflexive Binding as Agreement and its Locality Conditions within the Phase System

87

For instance, consider the following sentence. (3)

[Which picture of himselfi] does Johni INFL think (which picture of himself) Bill likes (which picture of himself)?

In order for John to be the “local” binder (closest c-commanding DP/NP) of the reflexive, the reflexive within the “intermediate copy” of the moved wh-phrase must play a crucial role. If we adopt the movement analysis of reflexives, movement of the reflexive element must originate from within this intermediate copy as shown above. However, in contrast to the highest copy (which would function as an operator) and the original copy (which would function as an argument), this intermediate copy of the wh-phrase, as a whole, does not seem to play any role at LF, apart from being the origin of the reflexive movement. It should follow from the principle of Full Interpretation (FI) that the intermediate copy gets deleted at LF, but deleting the intermediate copy of the wh-phrase would illicitly delete the tail position of the reflexive movement chain. Hasegawa (2000) argued that the copy theory of movement offered a solution to this problem. The movement of self from within the intermediate copy of the wh-phrase turns other instances of self into a copy (within a copy), for under the copy theory of movement, all these instances of self are part of multiple copies of a single wh-phrase. (3’) a.

[Which picture of him(self)] does John INFL think (which picture of him(self)) Bill likes (which picture of him(self))?

b.

[Which picture of him(self)] does John self-INFL think (which picture of him(self)) Bill likes (which picture of him(self))?

LF deletion applies as shown in (3’b), where the deleted doubly struck-out. Even though the intermediate copy of the deleted, respecting FI, binding can be established through between self moved to INFL and self within the original wh-phrase.

elements are wh-phrase is the relation copy of the

1.2.2 Idiomatic Interpretation of take (a) picture of Chomsky (1993) claimed that idiomatic interpretation of take (a) picture of (as “photograph”) is impossible when the reflexive is bound by John in (4a).

88

Hiroshi HASEGAWA (4)

a. b. c.

Johni wonders [which picture of himselfi/j] Billj took (which picture of himself). John self-wonders [which picture of tself] Bill took (which picture of himself) John self-wonders [which picture of him(-self)] Bill took (which picture of him(-self))

Chomsky argues that this follows from the (pre-)LF representation in (4b), where the underlined sequence take (a) picture of is torn apart, due to the LF deletion of which picture of himself in the original position. According to Chomsky, LF deletion of picture of tself in the moved position is impossible, for the deletion of tself would break the chain (self, tself). As pointed out in Hasegawa (2000), for most speakers (see Lasnik and Hendrick (2003), for instance), the idiomatic interpretation of take (a) picture of is possible in (4a) even when the binder is John. Under Hasegawa’s assumptions given in (i) - (iii), this follows quite naturally. If the preference principle of “Minimize operator restriction” (see Chomsky (1993)) is respected, picture of him(-self ) in the moved position should be deleted at LF, as shown in (4c). This deletion does not pose a problem under Hasegawa’s analysis, where the copy theory of movement is adopted. When self within the moved wh-phrase is turned into a copy as a result of its movement to INFL, self within the original copy of the wh-phrase is automatically turned into a copy (within a copy), because under the copy theory of movement, these two self ’s are two instances of a single element contained in two copies of a single wh-phrase (which picture of himself ). Binding is established by means of the relation between the moved self in the INFL position and the copy of self within the original copy of the wh-phrase. Since self is not an argument, the moved self and its copy in the original position do not have to satisfy representational locality conditions on chains at LF. Thus in (4c) the underlined sequence take (a) picture of is left intact, thereby allowing the idiomatic interpretation.4 1.2.3 Paradoxical Example in Epstein et al. (1998) Epstein et al. (1998) point out that the following sentence is problematic for Chomsky (1993). 4

We might claim that for speakers like Chomsky (who reject idiomatic interpretation of take (a) picture of when the binder is John), a preference principle for something like “Shortest link” overrides “Minimize operator restriction” at LF, and forces LF deletion as indicated in (4b). As pointed out to me by Chris Tancredi, however, it is not totally clear in the first place why forming a constituent at LF should be related to availability of idiomatic interpretation.

Reflexive Binding as Agreement and its Locality Conditions within the Phase System (5)

89

Mary (INFL) wondered [which claim that pictures of herself disturbed Bill] he made (which claim that pictures of herself disturbed Bill).

If we follow Chomsky’s (1993) line of argument, the original copy of the wh-phrase (which claim that pictures of herself disturbed Bill) must be deleted, because applying LF deletion to the moved wh-phrase would result in breaking the chain (self, tself) created by the LF movement of (her)self to the INFL position. LF deletion of the original copy would yield pre-LF representation like (5’). (5’) Mary self-INFL wondered which claim that pictures of tself disturbed Bill he made (which claim that pictures of herself disturbed Bill).

The problem with this representation, where Bill is not c-commanded by he, is that it cannot account for the fact that Bill and he cannot be coreferential, which suggests violation of Condition C of the Binding theory.5 This fact can be explained quite naturally according to Hasegawa’s (2000) analysis. (5”) Mary self-INFL wondered [which claim that pictures of her(self) disturbed Bill] he made (which claim that pictures of her(self) disturbed Bill).

When self within the higher wh-phrase is moved to INFL leaving behind a copy, self in the lower copy of the wh-phrase is also turned automatically into a copy (within a copy), for the two copies of the wh-phrase are instances of a single element. Conforming to the preference principle of “Minimize operator restriction”, the operator restriction (claim that pictures of herself disturbed Bill) of the higher wh-phrase is deleted at LF. Since self is not an argument and its movement does not create a true chain, the remaining copy of self within the lower wh-phrase will not have to obey locality conditions on chains. (Self within the lower wh-phrase and self moved to the INFL position might act as “indices” of some sort to establish a binding relation at LF: see footnote 8.) In (5”), Bill is c-commanded by he, and it is correctly predicted that he and Bill cannot be coreferential.

5

According to Chris Tancredi (personal communication), Bill and he can be coreferential if he is focused. See also Schlenker (2005) for an argument that there is no Condition C.

90

Hiroshi HASEGAWA

2. THE ROLE OF AGREEMENT WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE MINIMALIST PROGRAM 2.1 Conceptual Shift in the Theory of Movement The theory of movement has gone through some stages of conceptual change during the development of the minimalist program. In Chomsky (1995), it was argued that the essence of the theory of movement can be reduced to “attraction” of features. For instance, the T(ense) head of a TP has a certain feature F, which “attracts” some feature F’ of some (head of a) DP/NP within its domain, in the configuration given below: (6)

TP Spec

T’ T [F]

vP DP

(D) [F’]

In order to satisfy the PF requirement that the features of a lexical item cannot be “scattered” in different positions, attraction of a feature F’ contained in a phrase induces the attraction of the entire phrase (“Pied-piping”). Therefore, the entire DP/NP is attracted to the Spec of TP (subject) position by (the feature F of) the head T. In Chomsky (2000) and subsequent works, this basic concept of “feature attraction” is replaced by the mechanism of “agreement”. Some features of a head (T), instead of “attracting” some features (or a larger phrase containing those features), “match” with some features of a phrase (DP/NP) within the domain of the head (T). “Agreement” takes place, the head T acting as a “probe” and the DP/NP as a “goal”. Movement of a phrase (DP/NP) is induced by the EPP feature of the head T, which is separate from the essential process of agreement. 2.2 Multiple Agree In Chomsky (2000), agreement takes place between a probe and a single goal, as shown below:

Reflexive Binding as Agreement and its Locality Conditions within the Phase System (7)

α

91

> β

AGREE (α, β), where α is a probe and β is a matching goal, ‘>’ represents c-command, and uninterpretable features of α and β are checked and deleted.

Hiraiwa (2001) argues that a probe can agree with multiple goals in certain cases. (8)

MULTIPLE AGREE as a single simultaneous operation α > β > γ AGREE (α, β, γ), where α is a probe and both β and γ are matching goals for α.

In such cases, MULTIPLE AGREE is not restricted by the Defective Intervention Constraint (DIC), given below: (9)

The Defective Intervention Constraint (DIC; cf. Chomsky (2000)) α > β > γ * *AGREE (α, γ), where α is a probe and both β and γ are matching goals for α, but β is inactive due to prior application of AGREE with another probe.

3. THE PROPOSAL 3.1 Reflexive Binding as “Multiple Agreement” We will now consider how the above mechanisms can be applied to reflexive binding. Let us consider the derivation of sentence (1a), reproduced below as (10): (10) John criticized himself.

We will assume here that a reflexive DP, in addition to the uninterpretable Case feature, has another uninterpretable feature Ref (which might be taken to stand for either “Reflexive” or “Referentially-dependent”). This formal feature Ref enables the reflexive to act as the goal of the agreement with T (which multiply agrees with the binder of the reflexive, namely the subject), even after the agreement of the reflexive with v (or P) as its object. At the vP level, the head v agrees with the object DP himself, v acting as a probe and himself as a goal. The uninterpretable features of v (φ’) and himself (Case) are checked and deleted, as shown in (11):

92

Hiroshi HASEGAWA (11)

vP DP John

v’ v φ’

VP V

criticize .

DP himself φ / Case / Ref

Note that in (11) the reflexive himself is still “active” due to the uninterpretable Ref feature remaining even after agreement with v; v can delete only one of the uninterpretable features of himself, namely the Case feature. At the TP level, the head T “multiply agrees” with two goals, namely John and himself (the latter being still active due to the remaining uninterpretable feature Ref, as noted above).6 We are claiming here that the head T in this structure has uninterpretable φ’ features with the property of inducing “multiple agreement” (indicated as [+multi]; see Hiraiwa (2001)), and only the head T with this property can license reflexives.7 Note also that agreement between T and himself is not blocked by the Phase Impenetrability Condition (PIC; see (17)), even though himself is contained within vP.8 The uninterpretable features of the probe T (φ’) and those of the two goals John (Case) and himself (Ref) are checked and deleted. John, which is closer to the probe T, is moved to the Spec of TP position in order to check and delete the EPP feature of the head T, as shown in (12):

6

7 8

A similar proposal is independently made in Chomsky (2005), where he suggests the possibility of analyzing reflexive binding in terms of Hiraiwa’s mechanism of Multiple Agree. Hasegawa (2005b), one of a series of the author’s works which elaborate on this possibility (See also Hasegawa (2004; 2005a)), is cited in Chomsky (2007). See also Reuland (2005) for an analysis of anaphor binding in terms of Agree. This is somewhat akin to the case where the head C with a Q feature agrees with multiple wh-elements, only one of which is moved to the Spec of CP position. See Chomsky (2001a: 14). (i) [ZP Z … [HP α [H YP]]] (= (12) in Chomsky (2001a); HP and ZP strong) To cite Chomsky (2001a), “[T]he PIC now introduces an important distinction between Σ = ZP and Σ within ZP, for example, Σ = TP. The probe T can access an element of the domain YP of HP; the PIC imposes no restrictions on this”.

Reflexive Binding as Agreement and its Locality Conditions within the Phase System (12)

93

TP Spec

T’ T φ’ /EPP [+multi]

vP DP John φ / Case

v’ v φ’

VP V

(criticize)

DP himself φ / Case / Ref

Our claim is that this “multiple agreement” between the probe T and the two goals (John and the reflexive himself ) induces the binding relation between these two goals.9 In order for such (multiple) agreement to be possible, the reflexive must be sufficiently close to the probe T, hence to its binder. Thus, the locality requirement on reflexive binding is reduced to the locality requirement on agreement. Now let us consider the derivation of (2a), reproduced below as (13):10 (13) Johni T1 (ti) thinks that Billj T2 (tj) criticized himselfi*/j 9

10

As pointed out to me by Chris Tancredi, mere agreement relations do not establish binding relations, for agreement relations ensure only (φ) feature identity while referential identity must be established in binding relations. We need some additional mechanism for referential identification. We might claim that the deleted Ref feature on the reflexive and [+multi] φ feature on T function as “indices” of some sort for binding interpretation at LF, even though the features themselves are “uninterpretable”. At the LF interface, the element with the (deleted) Ref feature and the element in the Spec position of the head with the (deleted) [+multi] φ features are interpreted as the bindee and the binder respectively. This is reminiscent of the role of the deleted Case features at the PF interface. Elements with deleted Case features are given certain phonetic interpretation at PF: for instance, a 3rd person singular masculine pronoun with a Case feature deleted by the light verb (v) is phonetically realized as him at the PF interface. We might also claim that self part is actually a phonetic realization of the deleted uninterpretable feature Ref at the PF interface. If so, the deleted Ref feature has some function both at the PF and LF interface. We will henceforth use indices purely for expository purposes, and we will disregard agreement between the reflexive and its Case assigner/checker (v in (13)) to avoid further complications.

94

Hiroshi HASEGAWA

The well-formed derivation, where himself is bound by Bill, is unproblematic. T2 should have the property [+multi] in this case, and T2 multiply agrees with Bill and himself, after which Bill is moved to the Spec of T2 position. The problem is how binding of himself by John is blocked. In order for such binding to be potentially possible, the uninterpretable features of T1 would have to have the property [+multi].

(13’) Johni φ1

T1 [+multi] φ’

(ti) thinks that Billj (T2) criticized himselfi*/j]] φ2 φ3 X

There is no problem with T1 agreeing with John. Can T1 agree with himself ? Note that the DP Bill intervenes between the probe T1 and the goal himself, and the features (φ2) of Bill match the features (φ’) of the probe T1.11 Such agreement is prohibited by the Defective Intervention Constraint in (9) above, where the intervening β (= Bill) blocks agreement between the probe α (= T1) and the goal γ(= himself).12 11

Note that DIC in (9) applies regardless of the value of the features of the intervening β. (i) *Johni φ1

12

T (ti) thinks that we criticized himselfi φ’ φ2 φ3 [+multi] X According to Chomsky (2000: 122-124), matching is “feature identity”, and we should understand “feature identity” to be identity of the choice of feature, not of value. In (i) above, the features of the main clause T (φ’) match the features of the subject John (φ1), of we (φ2) and of himself (φ3), regardless of their value. The DP we will count as the intervening goal β for the agreement between the probe T and the reflexive in the formulation of DIC in (9). We might also rule out (13) by PIC (see (17)). To cite Chomsky (2001a: 13): (i) Ph1 is interpreted/evaluated at the next relevant phase Ph2. (= (9) in Chomsky (2001a)) (ii) Johni

T1 (ti) thinks [CP that Billj (T2) [vP criticized himselfi*/j]] (=(13’)) φ’ [+multi] Ｘ At the embedded CP phase (that Bill…), the lower vP phase (criticized…) is interpreted/ evaluated and becomes inaccessible to further syntactic operations (as indicated by the horizontal cross-out). T1 above the CP phase will no longer be able to agree with the reflexive within the (lower) vP. Compare (ii) with (12), where the vP phase containing the reflexive is not interpreted/evaluated until the derivation reaches the CP phase above the T(P) (See footnote 7).

Reflexive Binding as Agreement and its Locality Conditions within the Phase System

95

3.2 Multiple Agreement in Potentially Problematic Examples According to our proposals, (14) (= (3) above) would be derived as shown in (14’) – (14”): (14) [Which picture of himselfi] does Johni T (ti) think (which picture of himself) Bill likes (which picture of himself)? (14’)

T [vP John [which picture of himself] think [CP (which… himself) φ/ Ref φ’ [+multi] Bill likes (which picture of himself)]] φ/ Ref

In (14’) where the main clause T is merged, it multiply agrees with both the subject John and the reflexive within the wh-phrase moved to the edge of the (main) vP.13 Since all the copies of the reflexive are instances of a single element contained within copies of a single wh-phrase, the uninterpretable Ref feature of the reflexive within the original copy of the wh-phrase is also deleted automatically. (14”) [Which picture of himself] does John T (which… himself) think φ φ’ (which… himself) Bill likes (which picture of him(self))? φ/ Ref

At LF the intermediate copy of the wh-phrase is deleted entirely as shown in (14”), but binding can be established through the agreement relation between John, T, and himself within the original copy of the wh-phrase remaining at LF.14 Agreement in sentence (4a), reproduced below as (15a), would take 13

14

If the “closest” DP should be moved to the Spec of TP (subject) position, the intermediate copy of the wh-phrase moved to the edge of vP might have to be “tucked in” below the (subject) John (see Richards (2002)). We will leave the technical details for this possibility open here. As pointed out by an anonymous reviewer of Hasegawa (2005b), Hasegawa (1983) gives the following example, where the reflexive, in contrast to (14), cannot be bound by John: (i) [How fond of himselfi*/j] does Johni think (how fond of himself) Billj is (how fond of himself)? One possible solution was suggested in Huang (1993), where a predicate-internal subject was assumed within the moved wh-phrase as the binder of the reflexive. There are remaining problems, however, as pointed out in Hasegawa et al. (2000).

96

Hiroshi HASEGAWA

place as indicated in (15b). (15) a.

Johni wonders [which picture of himselfi/j] Billj took (which picture of himself ).

b.

John T (t) wonders which picture of himself Bill took (which φ/ Ref φ φ’ [+multi] picture of himself ) φ/ Ref

The main clause T has uninterpretable features (φ’) with the property [+multi], and agrees with both the subject John and the reflexive (himself) within the moved wh-phrase, whereby the uninterpretable Ref feature of the reflexive is checked and deleted. Since the moved wh-phrase (which picture of himself ) and its copy in the original position are instances of a single element, the uninterpretable feature Ref of the reflexive within the original copy is automatically checked and deleted. Binding is established through the agreement relation between John, T, and the reflexive himself (which remains within the original copy of the wh-phrase at LF). The sequence picture of himself in the moved wh-phrase is deleted at LF, respecting the principle of “Minimize operator restriction”. Since the underlined sequence took picture of in the original position is left intact, it is correctly predicted that its idiomatic interpretation (as “photograph”) is possible. Now let us consider agreement in sentence (16a) (= (5) above), indicated in (16b): (16) a.

b.

Mary wondered [which claim that pictures of herself disturbed Bill] he made (which claim that pictures of herself disturbed Bill).

Mary T (t) wondered [which claim that pictures of herself disturbed φ/ Ref φ φ’ [+multi] Bill] he made (which claim that pictures of herself disturbed Bill). φ/ Ref

The main clause T has uninterpretable features with the property [+multi], and agrees with both the subject (Mary) and the reflexive within the moved wh-phrase. Since the moved wh-phrase and its original copy are instances of a single element, the Ref feature of the reflexive within the

Reflexive Binding as Agreement and its Locality Conditions within the Phase System

97

original copy is automatically checked and deleted. The sequence claim that pictures of herself disturbed Bill in the moved wh-phrase is deleted at LF, respecting the principle of “Minimize operator restriction”. Binding is established through the agreement relation between Mary, T, and the reflexive herself (which remains within the original copy of the wh-phrase at LF). The pronoun he c-commands Bill in the above representation, and it is correctly predicted that he cannot be coreferential with Bill, which would constitute a Condition C violation.15 4. REFLEXIVE AGREEMENT AND PHASE 4.1 Phase Impenetrability Condition Chomsky (2001a: 14) proposes the following locality condition on agreement/movement, making use of the notion “phase”: (17) The Phase Impenetrability Condition (PIC) The domain of H (=YP) is not accessible to operations at ZP; only H and its edge (=α) are accessible to such operations. [ZP Z … [HP α [H YP]]] (where HP and ZP are strong phases)

Now consider the sentence in (18a), where the reflexive himself can be bound by the main clause subject John:16 (18) a. b.

Johni wonders [which picture of himselfi ]j Bill took tj. T [vP Johni (v) wonders [CP [which picture of himselfi ]j C Bill took tj]] φ φ/Ref φ’ [+multi]

According to our analysis, the main T with a [+multi] φ’ feature would have to agree with (the φ feature on) himself (activated by the uninterpretable Ref feature) as well as with the subject John, as indicated in (18b). This might appear to be problematic, because a strong phase, namely vP, 15

16

Note that in (16) Bill is contained in a complement clause, which, according to Lebeaux (1988; 1991), must be present in the original position. In (i), in contrast, Bill is contained in a relative clause: (i) Which picture [that Johni saw] did hei like best t? Lebeaux argues that adjunct clauses of this kind can be introduced post-cyclically (that is, after wh movement), which explains the possibility of coreference (or, the absence of Condition C effects). Note that we are using traces (ti/j) purely for expository ease, even though our claim is that “traces” are actually “copies” of the moved elements. We will not go into the problem of determining which copy is actually pronounced at the PF interface.

98

Hiroshi HASEGAWA

intervenes between T and the reflexive, even though the reflexive is contained within the edge of the CP phase. Under PIC in (17), YP, the domain of H, becomes inaccessible to further operations at the next higher phase, namely at ZP level, because YP undergoes Spell-out at this level. That means that the edge of the HP phase, namely α, can be considered to be still accessible to further operations until the derivation reaches the next higher phase above ZP. In (18), the lower TP (= Bill took tj), the domain of C, undergoes Spell-out and becomes inaccessible to further operations at the next higher phase, namely at the vP level, as shown in (18’a) (where the horizontal cross-out indicates the elements just spelled-out, and the check cross-out indicates the elements already spelled-out at the lower phase): (18’) a.

[vP Johni (v) wonders [CP [which picture of himselfi ]j C [TP Bill took tj]]] Spell-out

b.

c.

T [vP Johni (v) wonders [CP [which picture of himselfi ]j C [TP Bill took tj]]] φ φ/Ref φ’ [+multi]

[CP (C) Johni T [vP ti (v) [VP wonders [CP [which picture of himselfi ]j C [TP Bill took tj]]]]] Spell-out

When the derivation reaches the next higher phase, namely the root CP, the elements of the domain of (the main clause) v, namely (the main large) VP, undergoes Spell-out, as shown in (18’c).17 Only at this point do the elements of the edge of the lower CP, namely which picture of himself, undergo Spell-out. In other words, at the point of the derivation where the main clause T is introduced and searches for matching goals, the wh-phrase including the reflexive is still accessible to agreement induced by (the uninterpretable φ’ feature on) T, as indicated in (18’b), because the edge of 17

Note that at the root level, not only the main (large) VP but ultimately the entire sentence must be spelled out. Note also that we are not trying to argue for the actual existence of the root C(P) (See Culicover (1991) for a different view). The point here is that the elements of the edge of the lower CP do not become inaccessible to operations due to Spell-out until the derivation reaches the root level.

Reflexive Binding as Agreement and its Locality Conditions within the Phase System

99

the lower CP has not undergone Spell-out at this point. 4.2 Reflexives in Topicalized Embedded Subjects Now let us consider the sentence in (19): (19) Johni thinks that a picture of himselfi is on sale.

Since John can be the binder of himself in (19), the main clause T must multiply agree with both John and the reflexive under our analysis. But is it possible for the main clause T to agree with the reflexive within the embedded subject? (19’) T [vP Johni (v) thinks [CP that [TP? a picture of himselfi is on sale]]] φ φ/Ref φ’ [+multi] ？

We argued that in (18), the main clause T can agree with the reflexive because it is contained within the edge of the embedded CP phase and is not spelled out until the derivation reaches the root level. In (19’), however, the reflexive appears to be contained within the embedded TP (which is the domain of the embedded C), and to be inaccessible to further operations applying from above the (main clause) vP phase, (namely, an agreement operation induced by the main clause T,) because the embedded TP would already be spelled out at this point. A possible solution to this problem is to assume that the subject phrase a picture of himself is topicalized and is moved string-vacuously to the edge of the embedded phase. We might assume that the topicalized subject is moved to the specifier position of TopP, which is situated directly below the CP level.18 We might claim that CP and TopP, which are both functional categories at the left periphery of the same clause (cf. Rizzi (1997)), jointly 18

We do not claim here that string-vacuous subject Topicalization applies obligatorily in embedded clauses of this sort. As long as embedded Topicalization of this sort is optionally applicable, the possibility of reflexive agreement/binding in (19) can be explained. See also Culicover (1991), where the topicalized element is moved to the specifier position of PolP. We do not commit to any specific analysis of this sort, and simply claim that a topicalized element is moved to the specifier position of some functional category, which is situated below the CP (complementizer) level. The sentence in (i) below, where the topicalized element is positioned directly below the complementizer (that) position, supports this view. (i) John said that Mary, Bill likes (t).

100

Hiroshi HASEGAWA

constitute a single phase. Therefore, both the CP Specifier position and TopP Specifier position count as the edge of a phase, and are accessible to further operations even after the embedded TP is spelled out: (19”)

T [vP Johni (v) thinks [CP that [TopP [a picture of himselfi]j (Top) φ φ/Ref φ’ [+multi] [TP tj is on sale]]]] Spell-out

Thus the main clause T with the [+multi] feature can agree not only with John but also with the reflexive, for the reflexive is contained within the edge of the lower CP/TopP phase, which is not spelled out until the derivation reaches the next higher phase, namely the root CP.19 4.3 The Status of DP/NP as a Phase In (18) and (19) we ignored the issue of whether nominal categories count as a phase. The syntactic status of DP/NP would be at issue here. To cite Chomsky (2001a: 14): (20) … the general typology should include among phases nominal categories,…

If DPs were always to count as (strong) phases, the possibility of binding in (21a) would be unexplained, because the DP phase would block agreement between T and the reflexive: (21) a. b.

19

Johni T [vP (ti) saw [DP a picture of himselfi]]. *Johni T [vP (ti) saw [DP Bill’sj picture of himselfi]].

In contrast to the possibility of reflexive binding/agreement in (19), movement is impossible in (i) below. (i) *Whoi does John think that a picture of ti is on sale? We might have to claim that there are some conditions on movement in addition to conditions on agreement, and (i) above is ruled out by some condition on movement. Since movement is induced by agreement, conditions on agreement must be satisfied in order for a movement to be possible, but movement might be restricted by some additional constraints specific to movement. More specifically, (i) above might be ruled out by a general ban on extraction out of a phrase in the specifier (or non-complement) position of a functional category (which might be related to the so-called CED effects). See also footnote 21.

Reflexive Binding as Agreement and its Locality Conditions within the Phase System

101

We might claim that there are strong and weak DP phases, parallel to the fact that there are strong and weak vP phases, where only strong vP phases block agreement. We might claim that indefinite DPs (headed by an indefinite article a(n), such as the DP in (21a)) are weak DP phases, while DPs with a possessive/subject phrase (such as the DP in (21b)) are strong phases. Just as the presence of a weak vP phase does not block agreement, the presence of a weak DP phase does not block agreement in (21a).20 Note also that wh agreement/movement over a weak DP phase is allowed in (22a), in contrast to (22b), where the strong DP phase blocks agreement/movement. (22) a. b.

Whoi did you [vP t’i see [DP a picture of ti]]? *Whoi did you [vP t’i see [DP Bill’s picture of ti]]?

Thus the (im)possibility of reflexive agreement/binding in (21) is explained parallel to the (im)possibility of wh agreement/movement in (22).21 5. CONCLUDING REMARKS: CONCEPTUAL ADVANTAGE OF AGREEMENT OVER MOVEMENT Extending the movement analysis of reflexives in Hasegawa (2000), we have shown that we can successfully explain various cases of reflexive binding as instances of agreement, by adopting the mechanism of MULTIPLE AGREE in Hiraiwa (2001). The agreement analysis of reflexive binding has theoretical/conceptual 20

21

Note that DIC in (9) does not apply in (21a). Even though the bracketed DP in (21a) has already undergone agreement with the light verb (v) when T agrees with the reflexive himself, the bracketed DP does not count as an instance of β in (9) because it does not c-command the reflexive but contains it. As pointed out by an anonymous reviewer of Hasegawa (2005b), there is also a contrast of the following sort in the possibility of reflexive binding/agreement and movement: (i) a. Theyi heard [the stories about themselvesi]. b. ?*Whoi did they hear [the stories about ti]? Again, the lower acceptability of (ib) above might be due to some additional factor specific to movement; for some reason the DP Spec position might be unavailable as an “escape hatch” for movement when the head is the definite article the (in contrast to the cases where the head is the indefinite article a). As pointed out also by an anonymous reviewer of Hasegawa (2005b), clearly there are cases where picture noun reflexives are used “logophorically” and cannot be constrained by syntactic conditions on agreement: (ii) John was outraged. A picture of himself was on the front page. We do not intend to claim, however, that all picture noun reflexives are “logophoric”. We would like to point out that in some cases a picture noun reflexive might ambiguously be either “logophoric” or syntactically bound, and that careful examination is needed to sort out exactly the two types of reflexives.

102

Hiroshi HASEGAWA

advantages over the movement analysis in Hasegawa (2000), which poses the following problems. (i)

The theoretical status of covert (LF) movement is being questioned within the recent development of the minimalist program, even though there is some argument for covert movement (see Pesetsky (2000), for instance). (ii) If self movement in Hasegawa (2000) is head movement, it should be constrained by the locality requirement on head movement, namely the Head Movement Constraint. This raises the question of what counts as a intervening head; various types of heads intervene between the reflexive and its landing site (INFL/T). (iii) Chomsky (2001b) questions the theoretical status of head movement as an operation within narrow syntax, and suggests reconsideration of relevant phenomena in terms of some processes in the phonological component. The above problems are overcome by our analysis of reflexive binding based on (multiple) agreement presented in this paper. Reflexive binding is essentially reduced to the basic syntactic operation of (MULTIPLE) AGREE, and the problems concerning the nature and status of covert (LF) head movement are circumvented. We have also argued that reflexive agreement is constrained by the PIC, based on various binding facts. We examined some data which might be counterevidence to our analysis, and argued that they are actually constrained by the PIC on close examination. Further research is needed to fully account for the exact nature of various properties of reflexive binding in terms of (multiple) agreement constrained by the PIC, and to argue for empirical advantages of the agreement analysis over the movement analysis and other analyses of reflexive binding. We will also leave for future research how binding of elements other than reflexives (anaphors) should be incorporated into (or should be excluded from) the current theoretical framework of the minimalist program. Note: This paper is an extended and revised version of Hasegawa (2000; 2004; 2005a; 2005b). This research was supported in part by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (A) 15202011 from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, and also in part by a grant from the Open Research Center Project entitled “The Anglo-Saxon Language and Linguistic Universals” held at the Center for Research on language and Culture, Senshu

Reflexive Binding as Agreement and its Locality Conditions within the Phase System

103

University, selected and subsidized by the Japanese Ministry of Education. I am extremely grateful to Noriko Imanishi, Chris Tancredi and an anonymous reviewer of Hasegawa (2005b) for valuable criticisms and suggestions for improvement. The usual disclaimers apply. REFERENCES Chomsky, N. 1986. Knowledge of Language. New York: Praeger. 1993. “A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory”, The View from Building 20, ed. by K. Hale and S. J. Keyser, 1-52. Cambridge: MIT Press. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge: MIT Press. 2000. “Minimalist Inquiries: the Framework”, Step by Step, ed. by R. Martin et al., 89-155. Cambridge: MIT Press. 2001a. “Derivation by Phase”, Ken Hale: A Life in Language, ed. by M. Kenstowicz, 1-52. Cambridge: MIT Press. 2001b. Beyond Explanatory Adequacy (MIT occasional papers in linguistics 20). Cambridge: MIT Press. 2005. “On Phases”, ms. (Later published in R. Freidin et al. eds. (2008).) 2007. “Approaching UG from Below”, Interfaces + Recursion = Language?: Chomsky’s Minimalism and the View from Syntax-Semantics, ed. by U. Sauerland and H.-M. Gärtner, 1-30. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Culicover, P. W. 1991. “Topicalization, Inversion, and Complementizers in English”, Going Romance, and Beyond: Fifth Symposium on Comparative Grammar (OTS Working Papers), ed. by D. Delfitto et al., 2-43. University of Utrecht. Epstein, S. D., E. Groat, R. Kawashima, and H. Kitahara. 1998. A Derivational Approach to Syntactic Relations. Oxford: Oxford Unversity Press. Freidin, R., D. Michaels, C. P. Otero, and M. L. Zubizarreta, eds. 2008. Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud. Cambridge: MIT Press. Hasegawa, H. 2000. “A Note on Traces/copies and LF Movement of Reflexives”, UCI Working Papers in Linguistics 6, 1-16. University of California, Irvine. 2004. “Binding of Reflexives as an Agreement Phenomenon”, Integrative Studies on Essential Properties of Human Language by Theoretical Linguistics, Functional Linguistics, and Cognitive Neuroscience (Academic year 2003 report of a research project supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (A) 15202011), 43-55, Tokyo Metropolitan University. 2005a. “Reflexive Agreement and Phase”, Integrative Studies on

104

Hiroshi HASEGAWA

Essential Properties of Human Language by Theoretical Linguistics, Functional Linguistics, and Cognitive Neuroscience (Academic year 2004 report), 30-36, Tokyo Metropolitan University. 2005b. “Reflexive Binding as Agreement and its Interactions with the Phase System”, The World of Linguistic Research: A Festschrift for Kinsuke Hasegawa on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday, ed. by N. Imanishi et al., 53-69. Tokyo: Kaitakusha. Hasegawa, K. 1983. “Bunpo no Wakugumi – Togo Riron no Shomondai (Framework of Grammar – Problems in Syntactic Theory)”, Gengo (Langauge) 12: Nos.5-10. Hasegawa, K. et al. 2000. Bun I (Sentence I). Tokyo: Kenkyusha. Helke, M. 1970. The Grammar of English Reflexives, PhD. diss., MIT. New York: Garland, 1979. Hiraiwa, K. 2001. “Multiple Agree and the Defective Intervention Constraint in Japanese”, HUMIT 2000 (MIT working papers in linguistics 40), 67-80. Huang, C.-T. J. 1993. “Reconstruction and the Structure of VP: Some Theoretical Consequences”, Linguistic Inquiry 24, 103-138. Lasnik, H. and R. Hendrick 2003. “Steps toward a Minimal Theory of Anaphora”, Minimalist Syntax, ed. by R. Hendrick, 124-151. Malden: Blackwell,. Lebeaux, D. 1988. Language Acquisition and the From of the Grammar, PhD diss., University of Massachusetts, Amherst. 1991. “Relative Clauses, Licensing, and the Nature of Derivation”, Perspectives on Phrase Structure: Heads and Licensing (Syntax and Semantics 25), ed. by S. D. Rothstein, 209-239. San Diego: Academic Press. Pesetsky, D. 2000. Phrasal Movement and its Kin. Cambridge: MIT Press. Reinhart, T. 1983. Anaphora and semantic interpretation. London: Croom Helm. and E. Reuland. 1993. “Reflexivity”, Linguistic Inquiry 24, 657-720. Reuland, E. 2005. “Agreeing to Bind”, Organizing Grammar: Linguistic Studies in Honor of Henk van Riemsdijk, ed. by H. Broekhuis et al., 505-513. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Richards, N. 2002. Movement in Language: Interactions and Architectures. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rizzi, L. 1997. “The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery”, Elements of Grammar, ed. by L. Haegeman, 281-337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Safir, K. 2004. The Syntax of Anaphora. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Schlenker, P. 2005. “Minimize Restrictors! (Notes on Definite Descriptions, Condition C and Epithets)”, Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 2004,

Reflexive Binding as Agreement and its Locality Conditions within the Phase System

105

385-416. Zwart, J-W. 2002. “Issues Relating to a Derivational Theory of Binding”, Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program, ed. by S. D. Epstein and T. D. Seely, 269-304. Malden: Blackwell.

106

Hiroshi HASEGAWA

Movement in the Passive Nominal: A Morphological Analysis* Junji HAMAMATSU 0. INTRODUCTION Passive nominals refer to noun phrases such as (1), in which the prenominal genitive DP is conceived as the object of the noun: (1)

the patient’s examination (by the doctor)

The putative objecthood of the prenominal DP prompted a number of researchers, including Chomsky (1972, 1981, 1986), Anderson (1977, 1979) and Kayne (1984), among many others, to argue that movement is involved in their derivation. The example in (1) would have the derivation such as that in (2): (2)

the patienti’s examination ti (by the doctor)

Thus, the objecthood of the patient, which gives rise to the similarity between (2) and its sentential counterpart in (3), can be expressed in a formal fashion by employing syntactic movement: (3)

The patienti was examined ti (by the doctor)

The fundamental idea that underlies their line of argument is described by Giorgi & Longobardi (1991: 2) in the framework of Government and Binding theory: It is possible to identify, within NPs, definite θ- (and non- θ-) positions at various levels of hierarchical attachment: whenever an element of the N frame appears in a position arguably different from the one where it should be projected at D-structure, its displacement must, then, be governed by the general conditions holding on antecedent-trace relationships created by ‘Move α’... *

I have enormously benefitted from discussions with Ad Neeleman. This research was supported by Senshu Research Grant (2007-2008: The Structure of Noun Phrases) and a grant from Centre for Language and Culture at Senshu University.

108

Junji HAMAMATSU

In this essay, I shall shed a new light on passive nominals from a morphological perspective, demonstrating that morphology plays a vital role in their derivation. In accordance with the premise that suffixes originating from Romance languages license nouns’ complements in English (Smith 1972, Grimshaw 2004), I will argue that a prenominal Theme in the passive nominal is also licensed by a Romance suffix in the object position in the NP and then moved to the prenominal position. The present study is thus intended to show that the objecthood perceived in the passive nominal is real and hence syntactic movement is involved in its derivation. This paper is organised as follows: in Section 1, some arguments against positing movement in the passive nominal will be examined and it will be argued that passive nominals are complex event nominals, which carry argument structure. In Section 2, it will be shown that Romance suffixes, which form complex event nominals, are also involved in the derivation of passive nominals. Section 3 concludes the discussion. 1. THE PASSIVE NOMINAL AS A COMPLEX EVENT NOMINAL Although the passive nominal has been deemed as one of the manifestations of the purported parallelism between the noun phrase and the sentence, some researchers have rejected the movement analysis, purporting that the intuitive objecthood in fact does not come from syntactic movement. They include Williams (1982), Zubizaretta (1987) and Grimshaw (1990), among others. Grimshaw’s work constitutes one of the most comprehensive criticisms of the movement analysis of passive nominals. She argues that passive nominals lack argument structure, which prevents them from taking complements. She bases her argument on some contrasts between argument-taking nouns and non-argument-taking nouns. The two types of nominals are exemplified by (4a) and (4b), respectively: (4)

a. b.

The examination of the patient took a long time The exam was sent out to the school

In (4a), examination refers to an event. In (4b), by contrast, exam refers to a concrete object. In Grimshaw’s terms, examination is a complex event nominal, whilst exam is a result nominal. In addition, there is another kind of nominal that she calls a simple event nominal, which represents event but syntactically behaves like a result nominal. This includes nouns such as trip and race. She argues that of the three varieties of nominals, only complex event nominals carry argument structure, which gives rise to a number of syntactic

Movement in the Passive Nominal

109

differences from other types of nominals. The first one concerns the presence of a complement; the contrast between (5a) and (5b) indicates that a complex event nominal is obliged to take a complement, whereas a result nominal cannot have one: (5)

a. b.

The doctor’s examination *(of the patient) took a long time. *The exam of the student was on the table

Next, complex event nominals can co-occur with modifiers like frequent and constant, whereas result nominals cannot. This is exemplified by (6a) and (6b): (6)

a. b.

the frequent examination of the patient *the frequent exam

Third, nominals differ in their ability to license aspectual modifiers such as for an hour and in an hour. Complex event nominals are compatible with the same aspectual modifiers that occur with their original verbs. Result nominals, by contrast, cannot co-occur with them. This is shown by the triplet in (7): (7)

a. b. c.

the examination of the patient for an hour *the exam for an hour The doctor examined the patient for an hour

Lastly, complex event nominals do not allow pluralisation, whereas result nominals do. This is exemplified by the contrast between (8a) and (8b): (8)

a. b.

*Examinations of the patient took a long time The exams were on the table

In view of the above tests, Grimshaw claims, passive nominals should not be complex event nominals. Observe the examples in (9): (9)

a. b. c.

*the politician’s frequent/constant nomination *the building’s construction in three weeks the politician’s nominations (ibid.: 83)

The examples in (9a/b) show that passive nominals are not compatible

110

Junji HAMAMATSU

with modifiers that typically occur with complex event nominals. Also, the example in (9c) indicates that they resist pluralisation. This might seem to indicate that passive nominals are not complex event nominals and therefore carry no argument structure. If this is correct, derivation of a passive nominal cannot involve movement of an object DP, because there would be no syntactic object in the first place. Instead, the putative Theme should be base-generated in the prenominal position. Williams (1982) also argues against movement in the passive nominal by attributing the apparent objecthood of the prenominal genitive DP to the broad range of meaning that possessives can represent. In John’s car, for example, the semantic role of John is not confined to a possessor, namely, the owner of the car; the car may be the one that John drives, the one that John is fond of, or the one that John talked about. No wonder the interpretation of the prenominal DP as Theme in the passive nominal originates from the freedom in meaning that possessives can express, rather than movement of the DP. It seems to be true that some of what have been called passive nominals in the literature are nominals that carry no argument structure. As Grimshaw (ibid.) points out, solution may be a case in point. Consider the pair in (10): (10) a. b.

[t]his problem’s solution [t]he solution to/*of this problem (Grimshaw ibid.: 82)

In (10a) this problem is conceived as a Theme. However, it cannot take an of-complement, as indicated by (10b).1 The putative Theme in (10a), she argues, therefore cannot originate from the object position. However, it is one thing to claim that some passive nominals are result nominals; it is quite another to deny the possibility altogether of any passive nominal making a complex event nominal. Indeed, as Alexiadou (2001) also argues, there are some pieces of evidence that passive nominals can be complex event nominals and therefore carry argument structure. First, Snyder (1998) persuasively demonstrates that passive nominals have a reading typical of a complex event nominal. Consider the pair in (11): (11) a. b.

1

The department’s election of John occurred last year The departmental election(s) occurred last year. (Ibid.: 127)

However, a substantial number of native speakers seem to allow solution to occur with an of-complement, as well as with a preposed Theme.

Movement in the Passive Nominal

111

The derived nominal in (11a) has a reading quite different from that in (11b). In (11a) election refers to the event in which John was elected. By contrast, election in (11b) refers to the entire process of casting and counting votes. The example in (11a) contains a complex event nominal, since it is accompanied by a complement. The one in (11b) should not be a complex event nominal, because it has no complement and can be pluralised. Examine now the occurrence of a passive nominal in (12): (12) John’s election to the Senate occurred last year (ibid.: 131)

The derived noun in (12) undergoes the same interpretation as that in (11a). This indicates that passive nominals are complex event nominals. Also, Doron & Rappaport (1991) point out that not all the prenominal DPs that appear in passive nominals receive free thematic interpretation. Consider the pair in (13): (13) a. b.

John’s analysis the drug’s distribution (Doron & Rappaport ibid.: 89)

In (13a), John can be taken as either an Agent or a Theme. It therefore should be conceived as a possessive modifier and the apparent Theme reading may well be construed as just one of the many interpretations that are typical of possessive modifiers. Indeed, analysis has a result reading in (13a), which is compatible with modifiers. The prenominal DP in (13b), by contrast, is not thematically free: it is unambiguously interpreted as a Theme. It is thus likely to be an internal argument of distribution. Further, the noun denotes an event, which seems to license an argument structure. This is precisely what happens in complex event nominals. The presumption that the passive nominal instantiates a complex event nominal, Doron & Rapapport contend, is further confirmed by the contrast between (14a) and (14b): (14) a. b.

the city’s development *the city’s developments (as plural of (14a))2 (ibid.: 89)

In (14a) development refers to an event and the city is construed as a 2

This example becomes acceptable if it refers to a concrete object such as a housing complex.

112

Junji HAMAMATSU

Theme. When the noun is pluralised, it loses its event reading, as shown by (14b). Remember that this is exactly what happens with the pluralisation of a complex event nominal. Examine the contrast between (15a) and (15b): (15) a. b.

The development of the city occurred last year *Both developments of the cities occurred last year

The similarity between (14b) and (15b) indicates that passive nominals do constitute complex event nominals. It therefore seems reasonable to conjecture that these are instances of passive nominals constituting complex event nominals. Moreover, Snyder points out that the incompatibility of passive nominals with frequent and constant seems to be somewhat exaggerated in Grimshaw’s work. Let us compare the complex event nominal in (16a) with its passive analogue in (16b), and with the simple event nominal in (16c): (16) a. b. c.

[t]he department’s frequent election of John surprised the dean John’s frequent election surprised the dean *The frequent hurricane in Miami distressed the residents (ibid.: 129-131)

It is true that the passive nominal in (16b) is degraded, compared with its active counterpart in (16a). At the same time, however, the contrast between (16a) and (16b) is not as strong as that between (16a) and (16c), which is completely ungrammatical.3 He also argues that the inability of passive nominals to occur with aspectual modifiers should be ascribed to aspectual differences that exist between passive nominals and their active counterparts. He points out that active and passive nominals differ in whether they can function as the subject of the verb continue: (17) a. b.

If the barbarians’ destruction of the city continues for another week, little will remain ?? If the city’s destruction (by the barbarians) continues for another week, little will remain (ibid.: 131)

He contends that the degraded acceptability of (17b) can be explained 3

Pesetsky & Torrego (2004) also cast doubt on using the co-occurrence of frequent and constant with a nominal as a test for eventhood.

Movement in the Passive Nominal

113

by assuming that passive nominals “denote the culmination, rather than the development, of the associated accomplishment”. This explains the contrast between (18a) and (18b): (18) a. b.

(?) John’s destruction of the forest for two months occurred last summer *? The forest’s destruction for two months occurred last summer (ibid.: 135)

If this line of reasoning is correct, the degraded acceptability of (18b) should not have anything to do with the argument of the nominal. Rather, the observed incompatibility with some kinds of aspectual modifiers should be ascribed to the aspectual property of passive nominals. To sum up, the above considerations conspire to suggest that passive nominals can form complex event nominals bearing argument structure. Obviously, Grimshaw (1990) goes too far in claiming that passive nominals “never have argument structure” (ibid.: 80). Instead of wiping out the possibility of movement, her work simply reveals that another type of “passive” nominal should be recognised in which putative objects are base generated in the prenominal position, in addition to those in which movement of an original object takes place.4 In what follows, we will concentrate on the type of passive nominals that carry argument structure and thus involve movement in their derivation. In the next section, the morphology of passive nominals will be examined, which will lend a strong support for the premise that the passive nominal is argument-taking and has its complement moved to the left edge of the noun phrase. 2. THE MORPHOLOGY OF NOUNS It is well known that a nominal suffix plays an important role in the inheritance of a verb’s argument structure by a noun (Roeper 1987, Randall 1988). This means that formation of a complex event nominal depends on the presence of a nominal suffix, given that this type of nominal is characterised by the presence of argument structure. The contrast between (5a) and (5b), which are reproduced below as (19a) and (19b) respectively,

4

Presumably, this should include instances such as John’s picture, in which non-derived nouns are involved.

114

Junji HAMAMATSU

supports this:5 (19) a. b.

The doctor’s examination *(of the patient) took a long time *The exam of the student was on the table

Roeper claims that the argument structure of the original verb percolates into N, which enables the noun to carry the verb’s argument structure. The internal structure of examination, for instance, would be drawn as (20): (20)

N [Agent, Theme] V

N

examin

ation

[Agent, Theme]

His theory predicts that absence of a suffix hampers inheritance of argument structure. This is born out by the ungrammaticality of the examples in (21): (21) a. b. c.

*the dog’s bite of the child *John’s kick of the boy *Mary’s buy of the car

The lack of morphology thus leads to the failure of nominalisation. However, this does not mean that any suffix can help V’s argument structure get to N. As Smith (1972) points out, we find suffixes originating from Romance languages such as French and Latin are involved in most instances of English complex event nominalisation. They are exemplified by (22a-e):

5

It is not necessarily the case, though, that any noun containing a Romance suffix constitutes a complex event nominal. A difference in meaning between (i) and (ii) illustrates the point: (i) The house was a simple construction (ii) The construction of the new building has already begun In (i), construction refers to a concrete object. By contrast, the noun in (ii) means an event or a process. Put differently, the example in (i) involves a result nominal, whereas the one in (ii) involves a complex event nominal. Despite the presence of the same suffix, therefore, the two occurrences of construction must be distinguished.

Movement in the Passive Nominal (22) a. b. c. d. e.

115

the doctor’s examination of the patient the man’s payment of the debt Labour’s proposal of the plan Darwin’s discovery of the theory Henry’s acceptance of the offer

English has only a few Germanic nominal suffixes, which do not seem to be productive except -th. To the best of my knowledge, none of them seems to inherit V’s argument structure. This is shown by the examples in (23):6 (23) a. b. c.

*the thief’s stealth of the car *John’s gift of the book to his son *John’s belief of the story (Abney 1987: 118)

Grimshaw (2004), following an observation made by Smith, suggests that English contains two groups of subvocabularies: Germanic and Romance. She further claims that only those nouns derived from Romance verbs can carry argument structure. If the ability to have argument structure boils down to nominal suffixes, it is Romance suffixes that allow inheritance of verbs’ argument structure, making possible the derivation of complex event nominals. If this line of argument is on the right track, only nouns headed by Romance suffixes can take complements. Adopting the nP structure put forward by Carstens (2000) and Radford (2000), I propose that a Romance N is in turn selected by a little noun, which licenses an external argument in the same manner as its verbal counterpart ν.7 This is illustrated in (24), where NR represents a Romance suffix:

6

7

If each of the examples is taken to involve a result nominal, it may become acceptable. John’s knowledge of the matter seems to be an instance of a full-fledged argument-taking nominal, although know is a Germanic verb. In all likelihood, however, knowledge is a result nominal, rather than a complex event nominal. The noun thus has no argument structure and what seem to be the noun’s arguments are in fact modifiers. The light noun n is taken here as a nominal counterpart of a light verb v and also as an extended projection of N in the sense of Grimshaw (2005). I do not adopt the recently popular view that derived nominals involve VP. For arguments against VP in the noun phrase, see Siloni (1997), Grimshaw (2004) and Ackema & Neeleman (2004).

116

Junji HAMAMATSU (24)

nP DP

n’ NRP

n

KP

NR V

NR of the patient

examin -ation

NR nominalises V in the lexicon, forming a derived noun. In syntax, NR merges with a DP complement. The maximal projection of NR is selected by n, which in turn takes an external argument in its specifier. The light noun n Case-checks the KP in N’s complement position.8 The external argument in [Spec, nP], on the other hand, later moves to [Spec, DP], attracted by the EPP feature in D. The light noun thus plays a pivotal role in licensing arguments of a complex event nominal. This way of derivation explains the argument-taking property of complex event nominals. Interestingly, the division between Romance and Germanic is mirrored in passivisation. Observe that all the nominals in (22) have their passive analogues: (25) a. b. c. d. e.

the patient’s examination by the doctor the debt’s payment by the man the plan’s proposal by Labour the theory’s discovery by Darwin the offer’s acceptance by Henry

By contrast, none of the nominals in (23) allows passivisation: (26) a. b. c.

*the car’s stealth by the thief *the book’s gift to his son by John *the story’s belief by John

This contrast shows that the set of suffixes that make up complex event 8

I follow Déchaine (1993) and Neeleman (1997) in that of is categorised as a functional preposition, which is represented here as K. Another important assumption is that genitive Case is structural, rather than inherent. I refer to de Wit (1997) and Alexiadou (2001) for support of this idea.

Movement in the Passive Nominal

117

nominals can form passive nominals.9 Also, none of the derived nouns in (25) has different semantics from their ‘active’ counterparts in (22): this indicates that the examples in (25) also involve complex event nominals, rather than result nominals. This signals that movement of complements depends on their licensing prior to their movement to the left edge of the DP. All the occurrences in (25) are possible because the Theme DPs move to the DP-initial position only after they are licensed in N’s complement position, as are the of-complements in (22). The contrast between Romance and Germanic suffixes does not end here. As we observed in (21), absence of a suffix blocks inheritance of argument structure from V to N. However, as Roeper (1987, 1993) points out, there are a number of counterexamples to this, which are exemplified by (27a-c): (27) a. b. c.

the government’s release of the offender the committee’s review of the plan the company’s purchase of Rover10

He simply looks upon examples of this kind as exceptional (1993: 201). In fact, the contrast between (21a-c) and (27a-c) will no longer be a mystery if we pay attention to the fact that all the nouns in (6) have Germanic roots, whereas those in (27) are all of Romance origin. I propose that each of the nouns in (27) carries a Romance suffix that is phonetically null. The morphological structure of the derived noun in (27a) will be drawn as (28): (28)

9

10

NR V

NR

release

φR

There are some deterrents that hamper movement to the prenominal position. One of them is known as the Affectedness Constraint proposed by Anderson (1979), which states that an object can be preposed only if it is affected by the action denoted by the noun. Although the same suffix is involved, there is difference in acceptability between (i) and (ii): (i) the city’s invasion by the army (ii) the matter’s discussion by the committee The degraded acceptability of (ii) may well be attributed to an extra-syntactic factor such as affectedness. Note that substituting the prenominal DP with a possessive pronoun improves the acceptability: (iii) its discussion by the committee This example, together with its contrast with (21c), was provided to me by Ad Neeleman (personal communication).

118

Junji HAMAMATSU

Provided that NR is selected by n, which in turn licenses external and internal arguments, the null suffix in (28) enables the derived noun to take a complement. By contrast, none of the nouns in (21) is entitled to have a suffix in their morphological structure, because they are Germanic nouns. So long as inheritance of argument structure depends on a Romance suffix NR, inheritance of argument structure cannot take place in (21a-c). This prevents the nouns from taking complements. Strikingly, the contrast between the nouns in (21) and those in (27) is attested in their passive analogues as well. Observe the difference between (29a-c) and (30a-c): (29) a. b. c.

the offender’s release by the government the plan’s review by the committee Rover’s purchase by the company

(30) a. b. c.

*the child’s bite by the dog *the boy’s kick by John *the book’s buy by Mary

The instances in (29) all contain NR, whereas those in (30) do not. Therefore, only the former can form complex event nominals bearing argument structure. It follows then that each of the prenominal Themes in (29) is licensed as the noun’s complement and later undergoes movement. By contrast, none of the prenominal DPs in (30) can be licensed as N’s complements before movement from the object position, given that a Romance suffix cannot attach to any of the nouns in (30). This accounts for the impossibility of passivisation. Crucially, all this presupposes that the prenominal Themes originate from the object position. It is unclear how the difference between (29) and (30) could be accounted for without assuming syntactic movement. All in all, English has Germanic and Romance subvocabularies in its lexicon and only a Romance suffix enables a noun to inherit the argument structure of its original verb. The Romance suffix NR therefore plays an important role in the derivation of a complex event nominal. Crucially, it is NR that allows the formation of a passive nominal, whether it is phonetically visible or not. This in turn requires that the construction should involve a complement moved to the DP-initial position.

Movement in the Passive Nominal

119

3. CONCLUSION In this paper, I focused on the existence of movement in the passive nominal. I have demonstrated that there is a case for assuming that passive nominals are complex event nominals bearing argument structure, which licenses N’s complement. Adopting the hypothesis that formation of a complex event nominal depends on a Romance suffix, I have made it clear that the same process is a part of the derivation of the passive nominal. Thus, the present study has hopefully offered a solid ground for positing movement in the passive nominal, contributing to the establishment of the purported parallelism between the noun phrase and the sentence. REFERENCES Abney, S. 1987. The English Noun Phrase in Its Sentential Aspect, Doctoral dissertation: MIT. Cambridge, Massachusetts. Ackema, P. & A. Neeleman. 2004. Beyond Morphology: Interface Conditions on Word Formation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Alexiadou, A. 2001. Functional Structure in Nominals: Nominalization and Ergativity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Anderson, M. 1977. “NP Preposing in Noun Phrases”. NELS 8. 12-21. 1979. Noun Phrase Structure. Doctoral dissertation: University of Connecticut. Carstens, V. 2000. “Concord in Minimalist Theory”. Linguistic Inquiry 31. 319-355. Chomsky, N. 1972. “Remarks on Nominalization”. Studies on Semantics in Generative Grammar. 11-61. The Hague: Mouton,. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. 1986. Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use. New York: Praeger. Déchaine, R. 1993. Predicates Across Categories. Doctoral dissertation: University of Massachusetts. Amherst. di Sciullo, A. & E. Williams. 1987. On the Definitions of Word. Cambridge: MIT Press. Doron, E & H. M. Rappaport. 1991. “Affectedness and Externalization”. NELS 21. 81-94. Giorgi, A. & G. Longobardi. 1991. The Syntax of Noun Phrases: Configuration, Parameters and Empty Categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Grimshaw, J. 1990. Argument Structure. Cambridge: MIT Press. 2004. “Why Can’t a Noun be More Like a Verb?” Paper presented at Colloque International sur Les Noms Déverbaux: Université de Lille 3.

120

Junji HAMAMATSU

2005. Words and Structure. Stanford: CLSI Publications. Kayne, R. S. 1984. Connectedness and Binary Branching. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. Kilby, D. 1984. Descriptive Syntax and the English Verb. London: Croom Helm. Neeleman, A. 1997. “PP Complements”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15. 89-137. Pesetsky, D. & E. Torrego 2004. “Tense, Case, and the Nature of Syntactic Categories”. The Syntax of Time. ed. by Jacqueline Guéron & Jacqueline Lecarme,. 495-538. Cambridge: MIT Press. Radford, A. 2000. “NP shells”. Essex Research Reports in Linguistics 33. 2-20. Randall, J. 1988. “Inheritance”. Syntax and Semantics 21: Thematic Relations. ed. by Wendy Wilkins. 129-146. New York: Academic Press. Roeper, T. 1987. “Implicit Arguments and the Head-Complement Relation”. Linguistic Inquiry 18. 267-310. 1993. “Explicit Syntax in the Lexicon: The Representation of Nominalizations”. Semantics and the Lexicon. ed. by James Pustejovsky. 185-220. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Siloni, T. 1997. Noun Phrases and Nominalizations. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Smith, C. 1972. “On Causative Verbs and Derived Nominals in English”. Linguistic Inquiry 3. 136-138. Snyder, W. 1998. “On the Aspectual Properties of English Derived Nominals”. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 25: The Interpretive Tract. ed. by Uli Sauerland & Orin Percus. 125-139. Williams, E. 1982. “The NP Cycle”. Linguistic Inquiry 13. 277-95. de Wit, P. 1997. Genitive Case and Genitive Constructions. Utrecht: LEd and UiL OTS. Zubizarreta, M. L. 1987. Levels of Representation in the Lexicon and in the Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.

On Tritransitive Verbs1 Ryohei MITA 0. INTRODUCTION This article concerns tritransitive verbs. A tritransitive verb takes four arguments, one of which is a prepositional phrase as in “I’ll trade you this bicycle for your binoculars” (Huddleston & Pullum 2002: 219) or a that-clause as in (1):2 (1)

a. I bet you a pound that he has forgotten. b. I give you ten to one odds that he has forgotten. c. I dare you a double dare that you can’t speak English. d. I beg you a favor that you give me a kiss. (Amano 1998: 160)

In this way, a sentence with a tritransitive verb includes a subject, two objects, and a that-clause (or a prepositional phrase). In this article, I will hereafter refer to it as a tritransitive sentence.3 Little attention has been paid to analyses of tritransitive sentences, although a large number of analyses of double object constructions (hereafter DOCs) have been made over the past several decades, e.g., Larson (1988), Amano (1998), and Phillips (2003). Therefore, this study intends to open the way for a new analysis of phrase structures. The aim of this article is to examine and analyze a variety of tritransitive sentences, comparing them with DOCs, because tritransitive sentences are similar to double-object sentences except for a difference of the number of arguments. Furthermore, I will make the syntactic structure of tritransitive sentences clear on the basis of data from them. In the field of generative syntax, various approaches for the derivation of sentences have been proposed. For example, Government-Binding Theory 1 2 3

This article is a slightly modified version of the one with the same title published in Universals and Variation in Language 2 (2007), 221-238. Our informants state that they have heard “I beg a favor of you”, but not “I beg you a favor” in (1d). Particularly, I will focus on tritransitive sentences with that-clauses. If necessary, however, I will also employ the term containing a prepositional phrase. For recent studies of the tritransitive verb which has a prepositional phrase as its argument, see, e.g., Kittilä (2007), who analyzes tritransitives from the viewpoint of semantic roles of its argument.

122

Ryohei MITA

in Chomsky (1981), the Principles and Parameters Approach in Chomsky (1986a, 1986b) and Chomsky & Lasnik (1993), and the Minimalist Program (hereafter MP) in Chomsky (1993, 1995a, 1995b). This article, in principle, adopts MP, i.e., the idea of eliminating D-structure and S-structure and of Case-checking. This article first reviews previous research in Section 1. In this section, some possible structures for tritransitive sentences are discussed and then a number of examples are given and compared with double object constructions (DOCs) as a prelude to the fuller comparative analysis of tritransitive and double object constructions in Section 2, including informants’ judgments. As a consequence of this comparative anlysis, arguments are given for a more relevant structural description of tritransitive sentences in Section 3. Finally, a conclusion is provided in Section 4. 1. RESEARCH REVIEW 1.1 Previous studies of tritransitive sentences As has been mentioned, little research has been done on tritransitive sentences previously. Of these, Amano (1998:159) presents four examples of it in (2), which he calls “triple-object” sentences: (2)

a. b. c. d.

I bet you a pound that he has forgotten. I give you ten to one odds that he has forgotten. I dare you a double dare that you can’t speak English. I beg you a favor that you give me a kiss.

Amano (1998: 159) suggests that the VP structure of a tritransitive sentence be four-branching on the basis of his argument that DOCs have a ternary-branching structure in its VP, as in (3): (3)

VP Spec

V′ V

NP

NP

CP

With regard to Case-marking, Amano (1998: 460) mentions that Case is not assigned to that-clauses. Therefore, the rest of the objects probably receive structural Case although he does not state this concretely. 1.2 Previous studies of double object constructions Tritransitive verbs are scarce, at least in English, and much reference

On Tritransitive Verbs

123

will be made to ditransitives. Therefore, it is appropriate at the outset to review some DOCs, because this article will compare tritransitive sentences with DOC sentences. The first important research I will examine is Larson’s (1988) analysis. He argues that the indirect object asymmetrically c-commands the direct object. Moreover, the syntactic structure which has binary-branching is derived from what is called the dative construction. The argument is based on Barss & Lasnik’s (1986: 347-350) observation that there is an asymmetrical c-command relation between the two objects in DOCs, as in (4)-(9) (where the co-index marker i means that word with it are co-referential; only (5b) is modified in relation to the original by the addition of co-index markers and an asterisk): (4)

a. b.

I showed John/him himself (in the mirror). *I showed himself John (in the mirror).

According to Barss & Lasnik, the ungrammaticality of (4b) is caused by violation of condition A of Chomsky’s (1981) binding theory. That is, the reflexive himself in (4b) is bound by the antecedent John in its governing category. Barss & Lasnik, then, argue that when a pronoun functions as a variable of the quantificational NP, it must c-command the pronoun. (5)

a. b.

I showed every friendi of mine hisi photograph. *I showed itsi trainer every lioni.

For the sentences in (5), only the sentence in (5a) is grammatical because in (5a), but not in (5b), the pronoun is bound by the quantificational NP. (6)

a. b.

Which workeri did you deny hisi paycheck? *Which paychecki did you deny itsi owner?

(6) shows that a moved wh-phrase can c-command a coreferential pronominal if the former is the indirect object and the latter is the direct object, but not vice versa. (7)

a. b.

Who did you give which book? *Which book did you give who?

The phenomenon of (7) is known as ‘superiority’ in Chomsky (1973:101). That is, if two objects are both wh-phrases, the indirect object can wh-move,

124

Ryohei MITA

but the direct object can not. (8)

a. b.

I gave each man the other’s watch. *I gave the other’s trainer each lion.

The pair of sentences in (8) is a case of a reciprocal reading in the form of ‘each . . . the other’. According to Barss & Lasnik (1986), each is interpreted reciprocally only if the each-phrase c-commands the other-phrase. (9)

a. b.

I gave no one anything. *I gave anyone nothing.

The examples in (9) are concerned with negative polarity items (hereafter NPIs). Because NPIs like any must be c-commanded by one negative element like not, it is considered that the indirect object no one c-commands the direct object anything in (9a), but not in (9b). In order to explain these properties, Larson (1988) proposes that the VP structure of DOCs has two VP layers, and the indirect and the direct object are in the specifier position of the lower VP and in the adjunct position of V′ of the lower VP, respectively. The approach is termed VP-shell or Larsonian VP-shell analysis. Under this approach, (10a) has the VP structure (10b) where a detailed derivation is omitted: (10) a. b.

John sent Mary a letter. (Larson 1988: 335) VP Spec V′

V′ V send

VP V′

NPi Mary

V′

NP

V

NPi

t

e

a letter (ibid.: 353)

On the other hand, Jackendoff (1990) and Napoli (1992) argue for the traditional ternary-branching analysis of DOCs, in which a verb and two objects have a sister-relationship. In particular, Jackendoff explicitly argues

On Tritransitive Verbs

125

against Larson (1988); whereas Larson emphasizes the hierarchy, Jackendoff emphasizes just the linearity. (Larson (1990) replies to the problems raised by Jackendoff (1990).) Although the VP structure of DOCs in the framework of MP inherits Larson’s (1988) analysis, Amano (1998:86) partly evaluates the VP-shell analysis in the history of the study of DOCs and the prepositional dative construction, but presumes it to be in essence a negative analysis. One reason that he does so is that Larson makes a point of just the hierarchy. In contrast, Amano takes account of both the linearity and the hierarchy, and adopts the ternary-branching analysis. He then proposes the ‘Pure Case-marking Domain Hypothesis’ (1998:196), employing ‘the Case Resistance Principle’ proposed by Stowell (1981). The extraposition of the that-clause is explained by each of these two proposals. It is worthwhile to examine his analysis of that-clause carefully in this study because, as shown in (2), all four tritransitive sentences include that-clauses. Another analysis is proposed by Phillips (2003), who basically adopts Larson’s binary analysis. He (2003: 37) argues that “syntactic structures are assembled incrementally, from left to right, in the same order that sentences are produced and comprehended”. According to him, it can be understood and predicted that not all constituency tests such as coordination, VP-fronting and VP-ellipsis produce the same result, as we will see in Section 3.3, by adopting this assumption, which he calls the “Incrementality Hypothesis” (ibid.). The main point of his hypothesis is that while the derivation proceeds, the earlier constituent is destroyed and a new constituent is formed. This is approximately shown in (11): (11) a.

X A

b. B

→

X A

Y B

C

(Phillips 2003: 45)

This is a general format of creation and destruction of a constituent. By proceeding with this type of derivation from one stage in (11a) to the next stage in (11b), a constituent X consisting of A and B is destroyed, and a new constituent Y composed of B and C is formed. Phillips argues that the grammaticality of, for example, coordination sentences in (12) can be explained by this hypothesis:

126

Ryohei MITA (12) a. b.

[Wallace [will [give Gromit]]] Wallace will give Gromit and (will) send Preston a shining new collar for walking about town.

(13) a. b.

[Wallace [will [give [Gromit crackers]]]] Wallace will give Gromit crackers and Preston dog food before breakfast.

(14) a. [Wallace [will [give [Gromit [crackers before]]]]] b. Wallace will give Gromit crackers before and biscuits after breakfast. (ibid.:48)

Each string of (a) in (12)-(14) shows a coordination-implemented stage in the incremental construction of the sentence Wallace will give Gromit crackers before breakfast. Two strings of the verb and the direct object will give Gromit and (will) send Preston in (12b), those of the indirect and the direct object Gromit crackers and Preston dog food in (13b), and even those of the direct object and a preposition crackers before and biscuits after in (14b) are coordinated. All of these are grammatical because those strings are constituents at the stage shown in each (a) sentence. In this way, the Incrementality Hypothesis provides a unified explanation of a variety of types of coordination. Besides these, a number of analyses are presented, for instance, small clause analyses in, e.g., Kayne (1984) and Hoekstra (1988), where two objects form a small clause. These analyses do not seem to be appropriate for the structure of tritransitive sentences because a small clause cannot be formed in the final stage of the derivation under the Incrementality Hypothesis. In addition, empty preposition analyses are given in, e.g., Emonds (1985, 1987), Czepluch (1982), Kayne (1984) and Iwakura (1987). They argue that the indirect object is always accompanied by an empty preposition in DOCs, while in the dative construction, a preposition overtly appears before the indirect object. However, they are also inadequate to describe tritransitive sentences in terms of economy. With regard to Case-assignment or Case-checking, Larson (1988) argues that the indirect object NPi is assigned the structural Case by the raised verb Vk and the direct object NP is assigned the inherent Case by V′ consisting of V and NPi, [V′ tk ei], which is reanalyzed as V in the structure of (15) (which is a square brackets-representation version of (10b) for the convenience of space): (15) [VP SpecV′ [V′ Vk [VP NPi [V′[V′ tk ei] NP]]]]

On Tritransitive Verbs

127

In this analysis, what is problematic is inherent Case. Languages like German and Old English allow the dative or accusative NP to be a subject. In (16), two examples of German are shown: (16) a.

Mir ist übel. me(DAT) is sick “I am sick”. b. Mich hungert. me(ACC) hungers “I am hungry”. (Smith 1994: 680)

These data probably mean that German has inherent Case because the dative or accusative form, not the nominative, appears in the subject position. In present-day English, however, there is no overt evidence that they arise in the position. Nevertheless, the reason why Larson (1988) and other researchers argue for the presence of inherent Case probably comes from the Single-Case Condition. This means “a verb that Case-marks two objects must assign one Case structurally and the other lexically” (Czepluch 1982:16).4 In contrast to the inherent Case analysis, some linguists, e.g., Woolford (1993) and Amano (1998), argue that both the two objects are assigned structural Case. Amano argues that V governing two objects assigns them structural Case under a ternary-branching structure. Therefore, the VP structure of (17a) is the following (17b): (17) a.

I gave John a book.

b.

VP Spec

V′ V

gave (Amano 1998:159)

NP

NP

John a book

Moreover, under the discussions of wh-movement in DOCs, Amano points

4

This type of suggestion is made by Chomsky (1981) and Baker (1988) as well.

128

Ryohei MITA

out that wh-movement of the indirect object is unacceptable,5 and explains it by the ‘Principle of Non-crossing Case Relations’: (18) Principle of Non-crossing Case Relations No Case relation can cross in S-structure. (ibid.:454, my translation) (19) Case Relation There is a Case relation between them if a Case-assigner assigns Case to an NP. (ibid.:453, my translation)

Amano claims that there is a Case relation also between the wh-phrase and its trace, because “Case-inheritance” in Chomsky (1981), i.e., the idea that a moved wh-phrase inherits Case from its trace, is one of the Case relations. By this principle, he explains the ungrammaticality of the sentence in (20b): (20) a. b.

John gave Mary a book. *Who did you give t

the book?

c. What did you give John? (ibid.:454-455)

Amano argues that it is ungrammatical because the paths of who and Case assignment from give to the book cross there. 2. AN ANALYSIS OF TRITRANSITIVE SENTENCES In this section, first, three speculations on the VP structure of tritransitive sentences are made, and then some examples of it are shown and compared with sentences superficially similar to them, i.e., of DOCs. 2.1 Structure of tritransitive sentences The structures in (21a-c) may be presumed to be that of tritransitive

5

Judgements are divergent on wh-movement of the indirect object. For example, Barss & Lasnik (1986:348) judge it to be possible, although they mention that it is “less than fully grammatical” (ibid., fn. 3): (i) a. Who did you give a book? b. Which book did you give John? (Barss & Lasnik 1986:348)

On Tritransitive Verbs

sentences:6,

129

7

(21) a.

VP Spec

V′ V

b.

NP

NP

CP

vP Spec

v′ v

VP NP

V′ V

VP NP

V′ V

c.

CP

vP Spec

v′ v

VP VP

NP

CP V′

V

NP

(21a) which has four-branching structure is based on the argument of Amano (1998). (21b) is described in terms of binary branching and has three 6

7

From now on, I will employ the term NP not DP, when referring to noun phrases in the traditional sense, without any theoretical implication. See Abney (1987) and Fukui (1986) for DP analyses. In (21a), the vP analysis is not adopted because a flat VP structure itself means a refusal of hierarchical structure of VP.

130

Ryohei MITA

VP layers (accurately, one vP and two VPs in the framework of MP), and the lowest V takes a CP as its complement. The two NPs are merged with the two intermediate V′s, respectively. (21c) also has binary-branching structure. Here, however, a CP adjoins to the lower VP. This means that (21c) has two arguments (NPs) and an adjunct (CP). Let us examine which structure is appropriate to describe tritransitive sentences below. 2.2 Grammaticality of tritransitive sentences The purpose of this subsection is to examine grammaticality of a wide variety of tritransitive sentences, which are judged by our informants in terms of the two factors hierarchy and constituency. 2.2.1 Hierarchy. In this subsection, a relationship among three objects (two NPs and a that-clause) in a tritransitive sentence is explored by comparing it with numerous examples, i.e., that-omission, extraction from adjuncts and arguments, do so substitution, backward pronominalization, distribution of NPIs and negatives, and that of quantificational phrase and its pronoun. As a result, it is shown that the structure of sentences of DOCs basically applies to that of tritransitive sentences because of similarities between the two types of sentences. First, it is well-known that the complementizer that is frequently omitted when, for example, it introduces an object clause of a verb, as shown in (22): (22) a. b.

I think (that) he’s awake. (Nakajima 1996: 144) I told Robin (that) it was going to rain. (ibid.: 154)

(22) makes clear that the complementizer that is omissible, regardless of whether the that-clause is adjacent to a verb or not, so long as it introduces a complement clause.8 Now, consider the corresponding example of the tritransitive sentence in (23):9 (23) He bet me a beer (that) he would win.

8

9

However, the complementizer of the that-clause can not be omitted when an adverbial intervenes between a verb and that-clause: (i) I said very loudly *(that) it was raining. (Nakajima 1996:145) Examples in terms of the verb bet will be mainly employed in this article as a tritransitive verb because it is typical.

On Tritransitive Verbs

131

The omission of that is a possible choice in this case as well as in the case of (22). That is, (23) suggests that that-clauses in tritransitive sentences have the same kind of an argument-hood property as those in simple transitive sentences. The second examples are concerned about extraction from adjuncts and arguments. As shown in (24)-(25), neither the subject nor the object can be extracted from adjunct clauses, and only the object can be extracted from argument clauses. However, the extraction of the subject from an argument clause is possible if the complementizer that is omitted from an argument, as in (25c) (where that indicates the omission of the complementizer that): (24) a. b. (25) a. b. c.

*Who did they cry when the boss fired t ? *Who did they cry when t fired him? Who did they say that the boss fired t ? *Who did they say that t fired him? Who did they say that t fired him?

The extraction from that-clause in tritransitive sentences is dealt with as follows: (26) a. b. c.

*Which race did John bet me a beer that Bill would win t ? *Who did John bet me a beer that t would win the race? Who did John bet me a beer that t would win the race?

In (26), the subject or the object of the that-clause is extracted from the clause. Neither the subject nor the object can move out of the clause with an overt complementizer that, as in (26a, b).10 (26c) has a clause without a complementizer that, and an extraction of the subject of the clause is possible. What is not expected is the unacceptability of (26a), because the that-clause is taken to be a complement. We conjecture that the unacceptability comes from difficulty of parsing rather than from some grammatical restriction. It is clear that (26a) has an inner structure more complicated than that of (25a). Consider typical cases of complement extraction, such as in (27), which, however, have a less complicated structure:

10

According to our informant, (26a) is acceptable if it has a special intonation, e.g., a pause before the that-clause.

132

Ryohei MITA (27) a. Which race did John bet me a beer on t ? b. Who did John give the book to t ? ((b) from Haraguchi & Nakamura 1992:364)

In addition, do so substitution can be exploited in order to examine whether each of three objects in a tritransitive sentence is an argument or an adjunct. Do so is always substituted for a VP including arguments of the verb, as follows: (28) a. b. c. d.

John will put the book on the table, and Paul will do so as well. John will buy the book on Tuesday, and Paul will do so on Thursday. John will buy the book on Tuesday, and Paul will do so as well. *John will buy the book on Tuesday, and Paul will do so a dictionary on Thursday. ((a-c) from ibid.:154)

Do so substitution applies to a sequence of put the book on the table in (28a), to that of buy the book in (28b), to that of buy the book on Tuesday in (28c), and to only the verb buy in (28d). Only the sentence (28d), where no argument is included in do so, is ungrammatical. A case of do so substitution in tritransitive sentences is shown below: (29) a. b. c. d.

John bet me five dollars that Bill would win, and Mary did so as well. *John bet me five dollars that Bill would win, and Mary did so that Susan would win as well. *John bet me five dollars that Bill would win, and Mary did so ten dollars that Susan would win as well. *John bet me five dollars that Bill would win, and Mary did so you ten dollars that Susan would win as well.

Only the sentence (29a) is grammatical, where did so corresponds to the whole VP bet me five dollars that Bill would win. The rest of sentences in (29) are all ungrammatical. Next, let us see examples of a phenomenon of backward pronominalization. A pronoun usually follows its coreferential noun. However, there is a case, as is pointed out by Amano (1998:129) (attributing the observation to Solan (1983)), where the pronoun may precede it, as in (30) (where italicized elements him and the candidate are coreferential): (30) a. b.

They booed him before the candidate finished his speech. *They told him that the candidate would not finish the speech.

On Tritransitive Verbs

133

Here, a pronoun him and an NP the candidate are coreferential. In (30a), the former can precede the latter, i.e., backward pronominalization applies, whereas in (30b) him can not refer to the candidate. To sum up, backward pronominalization is possible when an NP as antecedent of a pronoun is in adjunct clause, while it is impossible when an NP is in clausal argument. The (im)possibility of this phenomenon in connection with a that-clause as part of a tritransitive sentence is as follows: (31) a. b.

They bet him five dollars before the candidate made a speech. *They bet him five dollars that the candidate would finish the speech within ten minutes.

(31) shows that backward pronominalization is impossible in tritransitive sentences. Also from the parallelism between (30) and (31), the possibility will be explored later that a that-clause is an argument of tritransitive verbs. As Barss & Lasnik (1986) point out, the distribution of NPIs and negative elements like not shows asymmetry between them: (32) a. I gave no one anything. b. *I gave anyone nothing. (Barss & Lasnik 1986:350)

From these data, Barss & Lasnik argue that the negatives as the indirect object must c-command NPIs as the direct object. Their distribution in tritransitive sentences is represented as follows: (33) a. b. c. d.

I bet no one anything that I would win. *I bet anyone nothing that I would win. I bet her nothing that John would win over anyone. I bet no one a beer that John would win over anyone.

In (33), only the second sentence (33b) is ungrammatical. This case shows the same behavior as the case of DOCs in (32). A quantificational phrase (hereafter QP) and its bound pronoun also show asymmetrical behavior in DOCs. That is, the pronoun his can refer to the QP every worker in (34a), but the pronoun its and the QP every worker can not be coreferential in (34b): (34) a. I gave every workeri hisi paycheck. b. *I gave itsi owner every paychecki. (Larson 1988:336)

134

Ryohei MITA

The behavior of a QP and its pronoun in tritransitive sentences is shown in (35): (35) a. b. c. d.

I bet every workeri hisi paycheck that my office would never fail. *I bet itsi owner every paychecki that my office would never fail. I bet every workeri a beer that hisi paycheck would be large. *I bet itsi owner a beer that every paychecki would be large.

It turns out from (35a, b) that a QP and its bound pronoun in tritransitive sentences behave in the same way as they do in DOCs. In addition, the behavior of the first object and an element within a that-clause is exactly the same, as in (35c, d). 2.2.2 Constituency In this subsection, the constituency of the plural objects in DOCs and tritransitive sentences is explored by means of a constituency test, that is, coordination. As a result, a constituency problem arises (which is discussed in Section 4.2). To begin with, coordination is frequently employed in order to examine constituency in a phrase structure. Generally, two or more syntactic categories can be coordinated if they are syntactically (and semantically) of the same category. (Some linguists argue that coordination of different categories is possible, e.g., Munn (1993).) The double objects in DOCs behave as follows in the coordinate structure (where the bracketing is mine): (36) a. b.

Wallace will give Gromit [crackers before breakfast] and [toast after lunch]. Wallace will give [Gromit crackers before breakfast] and [Preston dog food before dinner]. c. Wallace will give [Gromit crackers] and [Preston dog food] before breakfast. (Phillips 2003:48-49)

In (36a), two strings of the direct object and the prepositional phrase are coordinated: crackers before breakfast and toast after lunch. In (36b), the indirect object, the direct object and the prepositional phrase form a conjunct which is combined with the other by the conjunct and: Gromit crackers before breakfast and Preston dog food before dinner. In (36c), two combinations of the indirect and the direct object are coordinated between the verb and the preposition: Gromit crackers and Preston dog food. According to Phillips (2003), all of these are grammatical. In tritransitive sentences, three objects can be coordinated as in (37):

On Tritransitive Verbs (37) a. b. c. d.

135

John bet me five dollars [that Bill would win the race] and [that Mary would lose it]. John bet me [five dollars that Bill would win the race] and [ten dollars that Mary would lose it]. John bet [me five dollars that Bill would win the race] and [you ten dollars that Mary would lose it]. John bet [me five dollars] and [you ten dollars] that Bill would win the race.

What is coordinated is only the that-clause in (37a), the second object and the that-clause in (37b), three objects in (37c), and finally two objects without a that-clause in (37d). These are all grammatical, which is the same result as in (36). Here, a problem arises related to constituency. That is, it cannot be true that, for example, the bracketed elements in (37c) and (37d) overlap if each of them forms a constituent. This problem is resolved in Section 3.2.11 3. DISCUSSION In this section, a more adequate VP structure for tritransitive sentences is proposed on the basis of the data examined in the previous section. The proposed structure is supported by all the facts considered so far. The discussion here is, corresponding to Section 2.2, divided into two factors: hierarchy and constituency. 3.1 Hierarchy Here, the hierarchical relationship among the objects of tritransitive sentences is clarified from the facts discussed in Section 2.2.1. First, let us examine the problem of whether a that-clause is an argument or an adjunct. Generally, the complementizer that can be omitted in a clause that is the complement of a verb, as in (22). The same is true of one in the tritransitive sentence in (23), which is reproduced here as (38): 11

Another important and well-exploited constituency test is VP-fronting. Unfortunately, however, our informants judge that the following examples, containing DOCs, are all ungrammatical: (i) a. I promised to give children candy in libraries, and I gave children candy in libraries on weekends. b. . . ., and [give children candy] he did in libraries on weekends. c. *. . ., and [give the children] he did candy in libraries on weekends. ((b, c) from Phillips 2003:73) while Phillips (2003) judges that only sentence (c) is not grammatical. Therefore, although VP-fronting in tritransitive sentences must be examined, it remains to be tested in future.

136

Ryohei MITA (38) He bet me a beer (that) he would win.

From the above fact, it is presumed that that-clauses in tritransitive sentences are arguments of the verb. Then, what about the test in terms of extraction from that-clause? As shown in (24)-(25), the difference in the availability of this kind of extraction is that between an argument and an adjunct. In a tritransitive sentence including a complement clause with no that, as in (26c), the subject can be extracted from the complement clause: (39) Who did John bet me a beer that t would win the race?

This parallels the case of the argument clause in (25c). In addition, the result of do so substitution in (29) (repeated here as (40)) also indicates that each of the three objects in tritransitive sentences is an argument not adjunct, because do so must replace the VP including any arguments of the verb: (40) a. b. c. d.

John bet me five dollars that Bill would win, and Mary did so as well. *John bet me five dollars that Bill would win, and Mary did so that Susan would win as well. *John bet me five dollars that Bill would win, and Mary did so ten dollars that Susan would win as well. *John bet me five dollars that Bill would win, and Mary did so you ten dollars that Susan would win as well.

Similarly, the view that the status of a that-clause in this type of sentence is an argument is supported by the applicability of backward pronominalization, as exemplified in the tritransitive sentence (31b), repeated here as (41): (41) *They bet him five dollars that the candidate would finish the speech within ten minutes.

Backward pronominalization of an element within a that-clause can not take place, just as in the double-object sentence in (30b), where a that-clause is an argument of the verb. From the above facts, we can be fairly certain that the that-clause in a tritransitive sentence is not an adjunct but an argument. Next, the hierarchical relationship among three objects in a tritransitive sentence can be established from the data in (33) and (35), repeated here as (42) and (43):

On Tritransitive Verbs (42) a. b. c. d.

I bet no one anything that I would win. *I bet anyone nothing that I would win. I bet her nothing that John would win over anyone. I bet no one a beer that John would win over anyone.

(43) a. b. c. d.

I bet every workeri hisi paycheck that my office would never fail. *I bet itsi owner every paychecki that my office would never fail. I bet every workeri a beer that hisi paycheck would be large. *I bet itsi owner a beer that every paychecki would be large.

137

The former involves NPIs, and the latter QPs and their bound pronoun. As has been mentioned in Section 1.2, Barss & Lasnik (1986) point out that the indirect object asymmetrically c-commands the direct object in DOCs. As shown in (32)-(35), the binding relationship between complements in tritransitive sentences is the same as that in DOCs. Therefore, it is reasonable to argue that the first object asymmetrically c-commands the second one and the that-clause, the second object asymmetrically c-commands only the that-clause, and the that-clause does not c-command anything. Given these, one correct structure is selected from among the three possible ones in (21) for tritransitive sentences. This is the structure in (21b), reproduced here as (44), where there is an asymmetrical c-command relationship between one NP and another NP, between the second NP and a CP, i.e., a that-clause, and between the first NP and the CP: (44)

vP Spec

v′ v

VP NP

V′ V

VP NP

V′ V

CP

Since the pioneering work by Larson (1988), strictly right-branching types of phrase structure, as in (44), have been widely adopted primarily based upon data from ditransitive verbs (Hale & Keyser (1991) and

138

Ryohei MITA

Chomsky (1995b), among many others). The results of the present investigation strongly motivate this approach by examining a related but independent type of sentences namely those in terms of tritransitive verbs. In the next subsection, we shall go on to demonstrate that (44) is correct with regard to constituency as well. 3.2 Constituency The above-mentioned discussion made clear the hierarchical relationship among three objects, i.e., their asymmetrical c-command relations to each other. In this subsection, the apparent constituency problem in Section 2.2.2 is resolved by the Incrementality Hypothesis without contradicting the hierarchy discussed above. Coordination, in general, involves multiple constituents which belong to the same category. Let us take a look at some relevant tritransitive examples of coordination in (37) (reproduced as (45)): (45) a. b. c. d.

John bet me five dollars [that Bill would win the race] and [that Mary would lose it]. John bet me [five dollars that Bill would win the race] and [ten dollars that Mary would lose it]. John bet [me five dollars that Bill would win the race] and [you ten dollars that Mary would lose it]. John bet [me five dollars] and [you ten dollars] that Bill would win the race.

Under the structure in (44), although (45a-c) are explainable, (45d) is not at first sight. The reason is that the two strings five dollars that Bill would win the race in (45b) and me five dollars in (45d) overlap if each of them is a constituent. This apparent problem can easily be solved by the ‘Incrementality Hypothesis’ advanced by Phillips (2003): (46) Incrementality Hypothesis Sentence structures are built incrementally from left to right. (Phillips 2003:42)

By adopting this hypothesis, Phillips explains, for example, the following overlapping sequences: (47) a. Wallace will give [Gromit crackers] and [Preston dog food] before breakfast. b. Wallace will give Gromit [crackers before] and [biscuits after] breakfast. (ibid.:48)

On Tritransitive Verbs

139

Clearly, the bracketed elements in (47a) and those in (47b) can not simultaneously be constituents under the familiar type of right-branching structure. Phillips (2003: 49) argues that the coordination structure in each of the two sentences in (47) is created when the derivation reaches each of the stages given below: (48) a. Wallace will give [Gromit crackers] b. Wallace will give Gromit [crackers before] (ibid.:48)

In (48a), for instance, the right conjunct Preston dog food is introduced to be conjoined to the left conjunct Gromit crackers. Afterwards the resulting structure, in which the second conjunct is coordinated, in turn introduces the prepositional phrase before breakfast to yield (47a). An analogous process yields (47b). If this hypothesis is applied to tritransitive sentences, the facts in (45) can be immediately explained as well. That is, it is possible that the sentences in (45) are coordinated at the following stages of derivation, respectively: (49) a. b. c. d.

John bet me five dollars [that Bill would win the race] John bet me [five dollars that Bill would win the race] John bet [me five dollars that Bill would win the race] John bet [me five dollars]

For instance, a new constituent that Mary would lose it is introduced to be conjoined to the existent constituent in (49a) that Bill would win the race, and the derivation terminates in (45a). A parallel observation applies to (49b, c). On the other hand, as for (49d), the that-clause that Bill would win the race is introduced after a new constituent you ten dollars is introduced to be conjoined to the existent constituent me five dollars. In this way, the problem of applying a coordination test can be resolved by the Incrementality Hypothesis. At the same time, this result can be taken to independently motivate the Incrementality Hypothesis. 4. CONCLUSION This article has attempted to explore the syntactic structure of tritransitive sentences by examining various phenomena involving them, which were compared with their DOC equivalents. Tritransitive sentences, unlike DOCs, have hardly been investigated thus far in generative literature. In this article, we have shown that tritransitive sentences are parallel to DOCs in their grammatical behavior

140

Ryohei MITA

from the viewpoint of hierarchy and constituency. On the basis of the results, it is proposed that the structure of tritransitive sentences is right-branching, supporting the current trends concerning phrase structure in the literature. We have also pointed out that there is reason to believe that the structure of tritransitive sentences is derived from left to right in an incremental fashion, arguing for the Incrementality Hypothesis advanced by Phillips (2003). However, future research is needed to elucidate those problems not addressed in this article. REFERENCES Abney, Steven. 1987. The English Noun Phrase in Its Sentential Aspect. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Amano, Masachiyo. 1998. Eigo Nijumokutekigo Kobun no Togo Kozo ni kansuru Seisei Rironteki Kenkyu [A Generative Approach to the Syntactic Structure of Double Object Constructions in English]. Tokyo: Eichosha. Anderson, Stephen R. & Paul Kiparsky (eds). 1973. A Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Baker, Mark C. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Barss, Andrew & Howard Lasnik. 1986. “A Note on Anaphora and Double Objects”. Linguistic Inquiry 17. 347-354. Chomsky, Noam. 1973. “Conditions on Transformations”. A Festschrift for Morris Halle, Anderson & Kiparsky (eds). 1973. 232-286. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding (Studies in Generative Grammar 9). Dordrecht: Foris. 1986a. Knowledge of Language. New York: Praeger. 1986b. Barriers (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 13). Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. 1993. “A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory”. The View from Building 20, Hale & Keyser 1993. 1-52. 1995a. “Bare Phrase Structure”. Government and Binding Theory and the Minimalist Program: Principles and Parameters in Syntactic Theory, Webelhuth 1995. 383-439. 1995b. The Minimalist Program (Current Studies in Linguistics 28). Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. & Howard Lasnik. 1993. “The Theory of Principles and Parameters”. Syntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, Jacobs, Stechow, Sternefeld & Vennemann 1993. 506-69. Czepluch, Hartmut. 1982. “Case Theory and the Dative Construction”. The Linguistic Review 2. 1-38.

On Tritransitive Verbs

141

Emonds, Joseph E. 1985. A Unified Theory of Syntactic Categories (Studies in Generative Grammar 19). Dordrecht: Foris. 1987. “The Invisible Category Principle”. Linguistic Inquiry 18. 613-632. Fukui, Naoki. 1986. A Theory of Category Projection and Its Applications. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Hale, Kenneth & Samuel Jay Keyser. 1991. “On the Syntax of Argument Structure”. Lexicon Project Working Papers. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Center for Cognitive Science, MIT. (eds). 1993. The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger (Current Studies in Linguistics 24). Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. Haraguchi, Shosuke & Masaru Nakamura (eds). 1992. Chomsky Riron Jiten [Kenkyusha’s Dictionary of Theoretical Linguistics]. Tokyo: Kenkyusha. Hoekstra, Eric. 1988. “On Double Objects in English and Dutch”. Views on Phrase Structure. Leffel & Bouchard 1991. 83-95. Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Iwakura, Kunihiro. 1987. “A Government Approach to Double Object Constructions”. Linguistic Analysis 17. 78-98. Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. “On Larson’s Treatment of the Double Object Construction”. Linguistic Inquiry 21. 427-456. Jacobs, Joachim, Amim von Stechow, Wolfgang Sternefeld & Theo Vennemann (eds). 1993. Syntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter. Kayne, Richard S. 1984. Connectedness and Binary Branching (Studies in Generative Grammar 16). Dordrecht: Foris. Kittilä, Seppo. 2007. “A Typology of Tritransitives: Alignment Types and Motivations”. Linguistics 45. 453-508. Larson, Richard K. 1988. “On the Double Object Construction”. Linguistic Inquiry 19. 335-391. 1990. “Double Objects Revisited: Reply to Jackendoff”. Linguistic Inquiry 21. 589-632. Leffel, Katherine & Denis Bouchard (eds). 1991. Views on Phrase Structure (Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Munn, Alan. 1993. Topics in the Syntax and Semantics of Coordinate Structures. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland. Nakajima, Heizo. 1996. “Complementizer Selection”. The Linguistic Review 13. 143-164. Napoli, Donna Jo. 1992. “The Double-Object Construction, Domain

142

Ryohei MITA

Asymmetries, and Linear Precedence”. Linguistics 30. 837-871. Phillips, Colin. 2003. “Linear Order and Constituency”. Linguistic Inquiry 34. 37-90. Smith, Henry. 1994 “ ‘Dative Sickness’ in Germanic”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 12. 675-736. Solan, Lawrence. 1983. Pronominal Reference: Child Language and the Theory of Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel. Stowell, Tim. 1981. Origins of Phrase Structure. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Webelhuth, Gert (ed). 1995. Government and Binding Theory and the Minimalist Program: Principles and Parameters in Syntactic Theory. Oxford: Blackwell. Woolford, Ellen. 1993. “Symmetric and Asymmetric Passives”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 11. 679-728.

3. Pragmatics and Corpus Linguistics

On the Cognitive Dependence Phenomena Observed in English Expressions Shuichi TAKEDA 0. INTRODUCTION It is generally recognized that a language can be defined as being comprised of an indefinite number of sentences. Each of these sentences consists of one or more words. For instance, the English sentence I like the movie is built up out of the noun I, the verb like, the article the, and the noun movie. The words as sentence constituents are not put together in random order, but are arranged according to the strict grammatical rules of the relevant language. This sets up a complex network of words. Not surprisingly, the connections among the words in a sentence are extremely varied. These diverse connections may be characterized by the concept of ‘modification’. This concept has often been explained and defined from a syntactic point of view. One typical example can be seen in the following quotation: A term used in SYNTAX to refer to the STRUCTURAL dependence of one GRAMMATICAL UNIT upon another … . (Crystal 1991: 221)

Interestingly, the dependence relations among the sentence constituents are not limited to those of a syntactic kind but are expanded to a semantic kind. The main concern of this paper is to clarify the semantic dependence phenomena observable in sentence structures and to claim that there is a cognitively significant motivation behind those phenomena. In this sense, the semantic dependence phenomena discussed in this paper will be referred to as ‘cognitive dependence phenomena’. The scope of discussion will be extended to the discourse level, at which the structures of strings of sentences are held in focus. The important point underlying the idea developed in this paper is that the semantics of words, sentences, and stretches of discourse are often governed by the same kinds of cognitive factors. This paper will be devoted to an experimental discussion of the three types of cognitive dependence phenomena observed in English expressions. In Section 1, the first type of cognitive dependence phenomenon, resting upon the relation between visual perception and awareness, will be

146

Shuichi TAKEDA

discussed. This type of dependence phenomenon, whose nature is, in principle, attributable to the semantics of visual perception verbs, will be shown to be observed both within sentences and across sentences. In Section 2, in examining the second type of cognitive dependence phenomenon, I will note the cognitive links observed in sentences with some idiomatic expressions. It will be shown that these cognitive links are significantly correlated with cognitive concepts such as the cause-result relation and the label-object relation. In Section 3, in relation to the third type of cognitive dependence phenomenon, the attraction phenomenon involved in the construction ‘so + verb’ will be investigated. It will be claimed that the relevant attraction phenomenon is primarily motivated by two independent cognitive factors. The most crucial point throughout this paper is that all three types of cognitive dependence phenomena, which emerge within and/or across sentences, are often, in some way or another, related to the semantics of words. 1. VISUAL PERCEPTION AND AWARENESS The first type of cognitive dependence phenomenon is concerned with the conceptual link between visual perception and awareness. One important aspect of our mental processing can be characterized as the transfer from visual perception through awareness to judgment. From a philosophical and cognitive point of view, visual perception is often a fundamental basis for awareness and, furthermore, for judgment. As stated in Wierzbicka (1980), what we perceive triggers our knowledge of the world. Interestingly, this aspect of mental processing is often reflected in an array of linguistic expressions. As is well known, the close connection between visual perception and awareness is observable in the semantics of the lexical item see. The perception verb see can mean either “to notice someone/something using one’s eyes” or “to understand something”. Captivatingly, the concept of awareness is often metaphorically expressed by using the verb see, in which case the basic meaning of see is “to notice something (using one’s eyes)”. Some illustrative examples are see something coming (meaning “realize that something is going to happen”), see someone’s point (meaning “understand someone’s opinion”), see the light (meaning “suddenly understand something”). This fact strongly suggests that the concept of visual perception can easily develop into that of awareness. Furthermore, various kinds of judgment are often based upon the mental process of awareness. Before considering the main point that the semantics of words influences the structures of linguistic expressions, I’d like to discuss the

On the Cognitive Dependence Phenomena Observed in English Expressions

147

meanings of visual perception verbs from a cognitive point of view. In Takeda (2004), it is claimed that verbs of visual perception can be distinguished into the following two types: Type A: glance (at), look (at), peep (at), peer (at), squint (at), stare (at), view, watch, etc. Type B: check, examine, inspect, scan, scrutinize, study, etc. Visual perception verbs of Type A describe the simple activity of perceiving an object by the eyes. On the other hand, visual perception verbs of Type B express the careful and detailed activity of perceiving an object by the eyes. These two types of activities can be properly characterized as “general object perception by the eyes” and “minute object perception by the eyes”, respectively. Visual perception verbs of Type A are different from one another in how an object is visually perceived. Differences of this kind constitute the main characterization of each lexical item. Interestingly, the verb look (at) seems to be ‘nuclear’ in the sense of Dixon (1982). Other visual perception verbs of Type A are defined in terms of “look (at)”. For instance, the verb phrase glance at X means “look at X very briefly”, and the verb phrase peep at X means “look at X quickly or secretly”. By contrast, visual perception verbs of Type B involve the core meaning “minute visual perception” in some way or another. For instance, the verb check means “make sure that something is true, satisfactory, properly done” (HEED: 158), which sometimes involves minute visual perception. The verb examine means “carefully look at something or consider something” (HEED: 320), which may also involve minute visual perception. The cognitive properties of each type of visual perception verb may be schematically shown as in the following figure: (1)

a.

General object perception

[ b.

indicates the direction of perception.

indicates the object perceived.]

Minute object perception

[

indicates one of the properties of the object perceived.]

148

Shuichi TAKEDA

General object perception is “convergent” in the sense that the perception is uniquely directed to the object as a whole. The perceiver’s attention is mainly focused on the very existence of the object perceived. The situation is different for minute object perception. Minute object perception is “divergent” in the sense that the perceiver’s attention is focused on the detail of the object perceived. The other two important groups of verbs for the discussion developed here are verbs of awareness and judgment. These two groups of verbs are: Verbs of Awareness: know, learn, realize, understand, etc. Verbs of Judgment: assume, conclude, consider, guess, imagine, infer, reason, speculate, suppose, think, etc. Verbs of awareness involve the process of information-gaining. For instance, the verb phrase know X, which means “have X in one’s mind”, presupposes the process of obtaining some information about X. The verb phrase learn X means “gain knowledge of X through study” or “gaining skill in X through training”. In the ‘study’ situation, again, the verb phrase learn X presupposes the process of obtaining some information about X. We should notice here that awareness can develop into higher mental processes such as ‘judgment’, ‘assumption’, ‘conclusion’, ‘inference’, etc. These mental processes are described by verbs of judgment. The relevant mental development processes critically need information-gathering. As will be made clear later, the mental transition from awareness to higher mental processes is reflected in many linguistic phenomena. Let us consider now the cognitive dependence phenomena displayed by verbs of visual perception and awareness. It is important to notice that the two kinds of verbs often co-occur in linguistic expressions both within sentences and across sentences. This shows that there exists a significant cognitive dependence between verbs of visual perception and awareness. The most typical dependence patterns are the following: Dependence Pattern A: General Object Perception + Awareness Dependence Pattern B: Minute Object Perception + Awareness Dependence Pattern A describes situations in which someone perceives an object and comes to an awareness of the object perceived. Dependence Pattern B describes situations in which someone perceives an object, makes a detailed observation about the object, and then comes to an awareness of the object observed. Some illustrative examples for Dependence Pattern A are given below:

On the Cognitive Dependence Phenomena Observed in English Expressions (2)

(3)

149

a.

Perry Mason (a)glanced at the date, and (b)saw that it was the date on which Norton had met his death. “I (c)see,” he remarked casually, “that he went to the bank the day of his death.” (Gardner 1992: 68) b. I (a)looked at Gaston and (b)knew he meant every word he had spoken. Marcel Gaston was one tough bastard. (Abagnale 2000: 223) Josephine Carter (a)looked at Hamilton Burger (b)to see if there were any more questions, but Hamilton Burger was making a great show of pawing through some papers. (Gardner 1987: 160)

Part (a) in (2a) is a description of Mason’s visual activity, by which one particular object (i.e., a sequence of characters and numbers) is cognitively fixed. On the basis of this activity, Mason develops an awareness of the object visually perceived. The verb phrase glance at is a typical verbal expression of general visual perception. Parts (b) and (c) in (2a) constitute a serial description of Mason’s awareness. The combination of (a) and (c) is created across the sentence boundary. In (2b), part (a) describes the speaker’s visual activity, and part (b) expresses the speaker’s awareness of Gaston’s intention. Example (3) exhibits the close cognitive relationship between visual perception and awareness in a slightly differently way from the case of (2). Part (a) is cognitively linked to part (b). The verb see in part (b) is presented in the infinitival form. Part (a) expresses the visual activity which leads to the mental process of awareness which is described by the to-infinitive. Let us consider now Dependence Pattern 2, in which minute object perception and awareness are involved. The cognitive process to be discussed here can be illustrated by the following examples: (4)

(5)

a.

We (a)checked all the garages at Roxbury and (b)found her car stored in the Acme Garage. (Gardner 1983b: 107-108) b. We (a)checked Manly’s apartment and the garage and (b)found that he was keeping a jeep station wagon stored in the garage. (Gardner 2000a: 200) I(a)’ve even checked the motels (b)to see who registered on that date. (Gardner 1987: 115)

In (4a) and (4b), part (a) describes a detailed visual activity. This activity causes the mental process of awareness, and this process is described by part (b), which is introduced by the verb found. In sentence (5), as in sentence (3), there exists a cognitive correlation between the main verb and the to-infinitive. Part (a) expresses a carefully

150

Shuichi TAKEDA

performed visual activity, and this activity leads to the mental process of awareness described by part (b). What is interesting about each of examples (2a), (2b), (4a) and (4b) above is that the perceived object is mentioned repeatedly in some way or another in the complement clause which follows the verb of awareness. In (2a), the date appears again as the substitute word it in the that-clause. In (2b), the person named Gaston is mentioned as the substitute word he twice in the complement clause taken by knew. In (4a), the Acme Garage mentioned in the complement clause is one of the garages at Roxbury. In (4b), the garage in the that-clause refers to the garage checked. This repeated mention of the perceived object seems to be an important characteristic in the cognitive dependence phenomena discussed here. By contrast, as seen in sentences (3) and (5), for an unknown reason, this kind of characteristic is not observed in the combination of the visual perception verb and the to-infinitive. It is useful to note here that an activity of visual perception often develops into a higher level of mental activity such as ‘assumption’, ‘conclusion’, ‘inference’, etc. This induces another pattern of the cognitive dependence under consideration. The point can be seen in the following example: (6)

Uh, as soon as I (a)saw you in the lobby, I (b)thought that you would be absolutely fun for me. (Allen 1983: 368)

Part (a) in sentence (6) describes the speaker’s activity of visual perception. As a result of this activity, an assumption is made about the hearer by the speaker. As is pointed out in Takeda (2004), the activity of visual perception presupposed for awareness is not always described by a verb of visual perception. An activity of visual perception may be introduced without recourse to the explicit use of a visual perception verb. One illustrative example is the following: (7)

I (a)compared the fingerprints with those on the check and (b)saw that the print on the check was a right thumbprint which coincided with the right thumbprint on the sheet of paper which had been handed me, and naturally (c)assumed it was Ralph Endicott’s print. (Gardner 1983a: 212)

The activity of comparing described in part (a) of example (7) is to a large extent based on an activity of visual perception. This visual perception triggers the mental process of awareness which is described in part (b). This

On the Cognitive Dependence Phenomena Observed in English Expressions

151

awareness in turn leads to the mental process of assumption which is described in part (c). A further layer of complexity can be added in that the concept of awareness is not always introduced by a verb of awareness. Even if a verb of awareness is not used explicitly, a situation of awareness can occur. Observe the following piece of discourse: (8)

“Your birth certificate, please.” I took it from my wallet and handed it to her. She (a)scanned it and looked at me. “I thought Kitty said your name was Frank Williams. (b)This says your name is Frank W. Abagnal, Jr.” (Abagnale 2000: 160-161)

Part (a) in example (8) describes an activity of minute visual perception. This scanning activity leads to a specific awareness process. There is no verb of awareness, but it is clear that part (b) describes one specific mental activity of awareness. As discussed in Itoh (1995) and Takeda (2004), it seems that there is some universality in the kind of cognitive dependence phenomenon that we have observed so far. Interestingly, a cognitive dependence phenomenon relating to visual perception and awareness can be observed in the classical Japanese expression “… mire-ba … -keri”. Roughly speaking, in this fixed expression, mire-ba expresses the combination of a visual activity and a causal/temporal concept, and -keri expresses awareness in the past. Examine the following poems from Manyoushuu (A Collection of Ten Thousand Leaves): (9)

mi-si Kisa-no ogawa-wo ima mire-ba (a)Mukasi in the past gaze-Aux Kisa-Part (Gen) stream-Part (Acc) now gaze-Part sayakeku nari-ni-keru-kamo (b)iyoyo more and more bright become-Aux-Aux-Part (Manyoushuu 3.316) “The River Kisa I see now again, and find it no less clear than as of yore”. (Honda 1967: 31) [The auxiliaries -si and -ni express the recollection of a past experience and the completion of an action, respectively. The auxiliary -keru is a variant of -keri. The particle -kamo expresses a sense of exclamation.] kokoro ibuse-mi ide mire-ba (10) (a)Ama-gomori rain-kept indoors heart gloomy-Suff go out see-Part irozuki-ni-keri (Manyoushuu 8.1568) (b)Kasuganoyama-wa Mt. Kasuga-Part (Top) turn color-Aux-Aux

152

Shuichi TAKEDA “Long was I kept indoors by the rain both day and night. Now I go out and see Mt. Kasuga colored red”. (Honda 1967: 128)

In (9), part (a) describes a visual perception activity, and part (b) describes an awareness process. The same situation holds for example (10). The (a) and (b) parts express a visual perception activity and an awareness process, respectively. What is important here is that the combination of visual perception and awareness is expressed in the form of a fixed construction. Interestingly, classical Japanese has the lexical item misiru, which means “see and know”. This also shows a strong cognitive link between visual perception and awareness. The point to be noted here is that the semantics of words is often reflected in the semantics of sentences and discourse structures. In other words, pieces of discourse and sentences are sometimes structured on the basis of the kind of cognitive pattern that is displayed in the meanings of words. The cognitive process observed in words creates semantic dependence phenomena in various kinds of linguistic expressions. 2. COGNITIVE LINKS AND THE LABELING PROCESS In our daily lives, we are involved in various kinds of mental activities. These activities are often governed or influenced by cognitive factors. This fact should be kept in mind when we consider the nature of linguistic expressions. The cognitive factors to be discussed in this section are correlated with the cause-result relation and the label-object relation, both of which serve as indispensable basic tools for constructing our conceptual world and advancing the process of thinking, and which create the second type of cognitive dependence phenomenon. Let us first consider idiomatic expressions with reference to the cause-result relation holding between two events. Idioms are generally defined as fixed strings of words which have a meaning that cannot be guessed by combining the meanings of the individual constituent words. Significantly, as discussed in Takeda (2003), idiomatic expressions are sometimes contextually constrained in their use. Some illustrative idiomatic expressions are hit the roof, get the sack, put one’s foot in it, etc. The point becomes clear by considering the following examples: (11) a. b. (12) a. b.

My husband hit the roof when he found out that my boss had taken me to dinner last night. (WW: 277) If I’m late again, he’ll hit the roof. (CIDI: 192) Pete got the sack for punching the foreman on the nose. (WW: 465) If you don’t work harder you’ll get the sack. (OIDLE: 331)

On the Cognitive Dependence Phenomena Observed in English Expressions (13) a. b.

153

My new son-in-law’s name is John, but I put my foot in it by calling him Roger, which was the name of my daughter’s ex-husband. (WW: 211) I really put my foot in it with Julie. I didn’t realise she was a vegetarian. (CIDI: 145)

It should be noted that in each of these examples some cognitive link is established between the idiomatic expression and the underlined part. From a syntactic point of view, it is clear that the underlined part is not a part of the relevant idiomatic expression. In spite of this, if the underlined part is omitted, the resultant sentence as a whole may sound incomplete and less informative. This indicates that in each of the above examples, the idiomatic expression and the underlined part are cognitively dependent upon each other. It is important to notice that the underlined part of each example expresses the cause or reason presupposed for the occurrence of the event expressed by the relevant idiomatic expression. This implies that the cognitive pressure attributed to the cause-result relation influences the formation of the sentences in (11)-(13). Another kind of cognitive link can be observed in relation to the idiomatic expressions make an effort, take a chance, make an excuse in the following examples: (14) You must make an effort and believe your father. (15) So I decided to take a chance and put this ad in the paper. (Gardner 2000b: 29) (16) I’m too tired to go out tonight. Let’s make an excuse and stay at home. (McCarthy & O’Dell 2005: 18)

In each of these examples, if the underlined part is omitted, the resultant sentence as a whole may again sound less complete and less informative. This means that the two conjuncts build a cognitive link. All of the verbal expressions immediately after and express some kind of action or activity. Cognitively speaking, actions and activities can be characterized from various points of view, such as ‘attitude’, ‘possibility’, ‘evaluation’. These points of view may be expressed by a certain group of nouns. Nouns of this group function as the labels for the relevant actions or activities. This label-action/activity relation is a metaphorical extension of the label-object relation observed in basic language use. In (14), the attitude towards the activity ‘believe your father’ is characterized and labeled as ‘effort’. Similarly, in (15) and (16), the possibility of the action ‘put this ad in the paper’ and the evaluation of the action ‘stay at home’ are characterized and labeled as ‘chance’ and ‘excuse’,

154

Shuichi TAKEDA

respectively. This labeling property of language use reflects our basic cognitive processes. It is instructive to examine here some additional examples. The idiomatic expressions bite the bullet and take the initiative in the sentences below would be less informative if a specific activity or action were not explicitly mentioned. (17) Getting your car repaired is often an expensive business, but all you can do is bite the bullet and pay up. (OIDLE: 28) (18) The sergeant was injured and so the corporal took the initiative and led the platoon out of the danger area. (WW: 294)

This observation indicates that in each of the sentences a cognitive link is built between the idiomatic expression and the underlined part. In (17), the verb phrase bite the bullet implies a difficult and unpleasant action. In this sense, the action ‘pay up’ is characterized as such. The phrase the bullet is used metaphorically to describe a difficult or unpleasant action. The verb bite is used to mean ‘do’. A similar thing holds for sentence (18). The phrase take the initiative means ‘be the first man to do’, which implies a certain attitude towards the action described by the verb phrase following and. So far, I have discussed the cause-result relation and the labeling function of nouns, that is, the cognitive relation between an action/activity and its label. Intriguingly enough, cognitive relations of this kind may be observable in the semantics of words. It is well known that the cause-result relation plays an important role in the formation of linguistic expressions. One illustrative case is given in Goldberg & Jackendoff (2004), who claim that the meaning of a resultative sentence contains two separable ‘subevents’. One of them is determined by the verb of the sentence, and the other is determined by the construction of the sentence. For example, Willy watered the plants flat can be paraphrased as Willy made the plants flat by watering them. This phenomenon seems to be attributable to the semantics of the lexical item water. Vendler (1967) claims that the world consists of three components: objects, events, and facts. What is important for the discussion developed in this paper is the status of facts. Concerning this point, Vendler remarked: Now facts are not in space and time at all. They are not located, cannot move, split, or spread, and they do not occur, take place, or last in any sense. (Vendler 1967: 144)

The concept ‘world’ is determined on the basis of the concepts ‘object’ and ‘event’. The interaction of a number of objects creates events. Objects

On the Cognitive Dependence Phenomena Observed in English Expressions

155

have various kinds of characteristics. Events and the relations between objects and their characteristics can be characterized from various points of view by the use of appropriate labeling nouns. The noun fact fulfills the aim of this characterization. Nouns performing this kind of function include contention, assertion, warning, assumption, evidence, chance, fact, truth, etc. These nouns function as labels for characterizing events and descriptions of the characteristics of objects. This labeling function of nouns is an important cognitive process. 3. COGNITIVE PRESSURES ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF VERBAL EXPRESSIONS One of the most important mental phenomena we should be aware of here is the attraction phenomenon emerging between two cognitively related items. This can be thought of as the third type of cognitive dependence phenomenon. A typical pattern of attraction is observed when two cognitively related items are arranged close to each other. Of these two cognitively related items, one item functions as the ‘attractor’ (=the item attracting the other item) and the other item functions as the ‘attractee’ (=the item attracted by the other item). One illustrative instance of the attraction phenomenon can be observed in the combination of the main verb and the substitute word so. The main point is the cognitive factors that are responsible for the occurrence of the attraction phenomenon. Let us consider the following pieces of discourse, in which an attraction phenomenon emerges between the main verb and so in the underlined part: (19) ‘Mr Mason,’ he said, ‘I’m Horace Warren. I’m a businessman.’ Mason smiled slightly. ‘A student of character would so classify you.’ (Gardner 1974: 7) (20) “The whole situation was rather mysterious,” Mason said. “Did you so consider it?” (Gardner 2000a: 134)

In the underlined part of example (19), the substitute word so appears before the main verb classify. This underlined part can be spelt out as ‘classify you as a businessman’. The situation is the same in the underlined part of example (20). The occurrence of so consider it can be spelt out as ‘consider the (whole) situation (rather) mysterious’. Again, the substitute word so appears before the main verb consider. In all of the cases presented above, the substitute word so is attracted to the main verb. In other words, the main verb consider and the substitute word so function as the attractor and the attractee, respectively. The question is why this phenomenon occurs.

156

Shuichi TAKEDA

It seems to me that two cognitive factors induce the attraction phenomenon under consideration. The first factor is correlated with the relation between two cognitive concepts: ‘foregrounding’ and ‘backgrounding’. The substitute word so is less informative and less salient than the main verb. The substitute word so is ‘backgrounded’, while the main verb is ‘foregrounded’. In this sense, a cognitive attractor-attractee relation is established between the verb and so. This claim seems to be supported by the discussion presented in Hopper and Thompson (1980). Consider the following pair of Hungarian sentences from Hopper and Thompson (1980): (21) a.

Péter újságot olvas. paper reads ‘Peter is reading a newspaper’. b. Péter olvas egy újságot. reads a paper ‘Peter is reading a [specific] newspaper’. (Hopper & Thompson 1980: 258)

The events described by (21a) and (21b) involve the two participants “Peter” and “a paper”, which are combined by the relation concept “read”. The point to be noticed here is that concerning both of the sentences there is a specific paper in the relevant situation. In spite of this fact, the two linguistic expressions given in (21a) and (21b) are possible. In (21a), the action of reading a paper is cognized as a whole, and the existence of a paper is put in the background. On the other hand, in (21b), the existence of the paper is put in the foreground in the relevant situation. The cognitive principle underlying this phenomenon is that an item without much information is attracted to an item with more information. The second factor producing the attractor-attractee relation in examples (19) and (20) is correlated with the principle that the two conceptually related items are attracted to each other. In example (19), so (=as a businessman) is referentially connected to a businessman in Warren’s utterance in the sense that a businessman in as a businessman expresses the same concept as a businessman in Warren’s utterance. Considering the occurrence of so consider it in (20), so refers back to (rather) mysterious in the first sentence. In other words, the concept “(rather) mysterious” expressed by so is the same as the concept described by (rather) mysterious in the previous context. This point is illustrated by the following piece of discourse, in which inversion occurs as the result of the attractor-attractee relation:

On the Cognitive Dependence Phenomena Observed in English Expressions

157

(22) Warren hesitated a moment, then reached into his coat pocket and pulled out a slip of white cardboard. Attached to this cardboard was a strip of transparent tape, and underneath the transparent tape were the black whorls of a fingerprint. (Gardner 1974: 8)

In example (22), this cardboard has a referential relation to the phrase a slip of white cardboard in the previous context. This relation induces the phrase attached to this cardboard to move to the sentence-initial position. The same relation can be observed between the phrases the transparent tape and a strip of transparent tape. The phrase underneath the transparent tape is moved to the initial position of the sentence following and because of the cognitive force induced by the attractor-attractee relation. The important point to be noticed here is that the cognitive phenomenon observed can be a reflection of the semantics of words. In Dixon (1982), the semantic relation between the English nuclear verb give and its non-nuclear verbs (e.g., lend, sell, rent, etc.) is plausibly and convincingly discussed. The non-nuclear verbs of the verb give can be defined in terms of the meaning of the nuclear verb give. As an example, let us consider here the semantics of the verb sell. The verb sell is defined as “give something to someone in exchange for money”. Along the line of Dixon (1982), the verb sell is generated by the attraction between the two semantic units “give” and “in exchange for money”. This process of attraction causes the generation of the verb sell. The attraction phenomenon in the semantics of words can be observed in many English expressions. Note the underlined parts in the following sentences: (23) She’s undoubtedly connected in some way with a diamond-smuggling operation. (Gardner 1987: 62) (24) A white-smocked man awaited the wicker’s arrival with a rather pleased smile on his long, eager-looking face. (Bradbury 1983: 133)

The adjectival phrase diamond-smuggling in (23) is implicitly connected to the verb phrase smuggle diamonds. This verb phrase has as its object diamonds. This word is attracted to smuggle and then appears before the verb. This is one instance of the attraction phenomenon. Again, the adjectival phrase eager-looking in (24) is implicitly connected to look eager. The complement eager in this phrase is attracted to the verb look and appears before the verb. This attraction phenomenon is very similar to the process of generating a group of non-nuclear verbs from a nuclear verb. In this section, I have discussed what seem to be two reasons for the

158

Shuichi TAKEDA

existence of the construction ‘so + verb’. The substitute word so and the verb produce a typical cognitive dependence phenomenon. The nature of this phenomenon is due to two cognitive pressures. One pressure is the cognitive tendency for a less salient or less informative item to be attracted to a more salient or more informative item. This may be correlated with the kind of word-creating power that can be seen in the creation of a group of non-nuclear verbs from a nuclear verb. Another pressure is the cognitive principle that two cognitively related linguistic expressions are attracted to each other. This process is very natural, since it guarantees a smooth flow of information. These pressures together create the attraction between the main verb and so. 4. CONCLUDING REMARKS Generally speaking, linguistic expressions can be characterized at two levels: form and meaning. How the meaning level influences the form level, and how human cognitive capacity influences the correspondence between form and meaning, are extremely interesting and revealing questions in the semantic study of language. In this paper, I have discussed the cognitive dependence phenomena frequently observed in English expressions. Sentential expressions consist of various expression units, and the relations among those expression units are richly varied. There is, however, some regularity behind this variety. It seems that the choice and arrangement of expression units are deeply dependent upon various kinds of cognitive factors. Interestingly, it has been found that those cognitive factors are very often attributed to the semantics of words. The first type of cognitive dependence phenomenon is closely related to the cognitive relation between visual perception and awareness. The transition from visual perception to awareness is a natural cognitive process. This process is reflected in various kinds of English expressions. One of the most remarkable instances is the co-occurrence of a verb of visual perception and a verb of awareness in a sentence or a string of sentences. What is thought-provoking about this is that the cognitive patterns behind this phenomenon can be traced back to the semantics of words. The verb see has a range of meaning from visual perception to awareness. There is some universality concerning this phenomenon. Classical Japanese has the co-occurrence of mire-ba (expressing the combination of a visual activity and a causal/temporal concept) and -keri (expressing awareness in the past). This phenomenon is quite natural, because the cognitive processes governing visual perception and awareness seem to be commonly shared by human minds. The second type of cognitive dependence phenomenon is illustrated by

On the Cognitive Dependence Phenomena Observed in English Expressions

159

the use of idiomatic expressions. Some idiomatic expressions give a feeling of imperfectness when a certain type of expression does not occur. This phenomenon can be explained by noting the cause-result link between two situations (e.g., events and states) and the labeling function of nouns. The cause-result link may be correlated with the semantics of words. It is pointed out in Goldberg & Jackendoff (2004) that the meanings and uses of some verbs are determined in terms of the cause-result relation between two ‘subevents’. Their study seems to serve to strengthen the claim and discussion developed here. What is particularly interesting is the labeling function of nouns. The function of labeling objects is one of the most fundamental mental processes. Objects, which constitute an important component of the real world, are coded by nouns, that is, given their own labels, which can be properly explained in the semantics of words. This labeling function of nouns applies to events and states. Events and states are also important component parts of the real world. Events and states are characterized by various labeling concepts such as ‘attitude’, ‘possibility’, and ‘evaluation’. This also creates cognitive dependence phenomena of the second type. Some idiomatic expressions have as their parts labeling nouns and these labeling nouns strongly imply specific events and states, which produces cognitive links. The third type of cognitive dependence phenomenon occurs by the force of the attractor-attractee relation. The substitute word so is often attracted to the main verb and appears before that verb. This phenomenon emerges in association with two cognitive factors. One factor is that the substitute word so is less informative and less salient compared with the main verb. Another factor is correlated with the principle that two referentially related items tend to be put as close as possible to each other. By the force of these two factors, the substitute word so moves backward and appears immediately before the main verb. This phenomenon again reflects the semantics of words. In the light of Dixon’s (1982) discussion about the nuclear/non-nuclear distinction of verbs, it has been shown that a cognitive process similar to the process of word-formation may cause the occurrence of the relevant phenomenon. It is important to note that the cognitive dependence phenomena discussed here involve the semantics of words in some way or another. In other words, words and other kinds of expression units often rest upon very similar cognitive principles. This may indicate that various kinds of linguistic phenomena are governed by a fixed number of cognitive processes and patterns. More cognitive research should be carried out to elucidate the nature of the form-meaning correspondence. I hope that the discussion developed in this paper will shed light on the essential nature of linguistic

160

Shuichi TAKEDA

expressions. NOTE: This research is supported in part by a special grant (2007) from the University of Shizuoka. Some of the basic ideas in this paper have been separately presented in my semantic studies on linguistic expressions (e.g., Takeda 1998, 2003, 2004). This paper is an attempt to give a systematic explanation to various ideas and data presented in a series of semantic studies I have undertaken. I wish to thank Philip Hawke, who went painstakingly through an earlier version of this paper and gave me a lot of constructive comments. I also wish to express my gratitude to Akira Nishina for giving me valuable information on classical Japanese. REFERENCES Crystal, D. 1991. A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. 3rd Edition. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Basil Blackwell. Dixon, R. M. W. 1982. Where Have All the Adjectives Gone? New York: Mouton Publishers. Goldberg, A. E. & R. Jackendoff. 2004. “The English Resultative as a Family of Constructions”. Language 80: 3.532-567. Hopper, P. J. & S. A. Thompson. 1980. “Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse”. Language 56: 2.251-299. The Institute for Research in Language Teaching (ed.). 2003. Ichikawa-SankiShou 36-nen no Kiseki [The 36-year History of the Ichikawa Sanki Prize]. Tokyo: Kaitakusha. Itoh, S. 1995. Nihonjin no Chi: Nihon-teki Chi no Tokusei [The Philosophy of Japanese People: The Characteristics of the Typical Japanese Philosophy]. Tokyo: Hokuju Shuppan. Takeda, S. 1998. Eigo-imiron no Shosou [Aspects of English Semantics]. Tokyo: Liber Press. 2003. “Eigo-hyougen ni Miru Yuuin-genshou ni kansuru Ichikousatsu [A Note on the Attraction Phenomena Observed in English Expressions]”. Ichikawa-Sanki-Shou 36-nen no Kiseki [The 36-year History of the Ichikawa Sanki Prize], The Institute for Research in Language Teaching 2003.289-297. 2004. “The Discourse Semantics of Visual Perception and Knowledge”. Tsukuba English Studies 22.177-190. Tsukuba English Linguistic Society. Vendler, Z. 1967. Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press. Wierzbicka, A. 1980. Lingua Mentalis: The Semantics of Natural Language. Sydney: Academic Press.

On the Cognitive Dependence Phenomena Observed in English Expressions

161

ILLUSTRATIVE QUOTATIONS Abagnale, F. W. 2000. Catch Me If You Can. New York: Broadway Books. Allen, W. 1983. “Stardust Memories”. Four Films of Woody Allen, Allen 1983.277-387. London: Faber and Faber Ltd. Bradbury, R. 1983. “There Was an Old Woman”. The Stories of Ray Bradbury, Vol. 1, Bradbury 1983.125-139. London: Grafton Books. Gardner, E. S. 1974. The Case of the Phantom Fortune. London: Pan Books Ltd. 1983a. The Case of the Lonely Heiress. New York: Ballantine Books. 1983b. The Case of the Buried Clock. New York: Ballantine Books. 1987. The Case of the Terrified Typist. New York: Ballantine Books. 1992. The Case of the Sulky Girl. New York: Ballantine Books. 2000a. The Case of the Mythical Monkeys. New York: Ballantine Books. 2000b. The Case of the Fabulous Fake. New York: Fawcett Books. Honda, H. H. (trans.). 1967. The Manyoshu: A New and Complete Translation. Tokyo: The Hokuseido Press. McCarthy, M. & F. O’Dell. 2005. English Collocations in Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DICTIONARIES Cambridge International Dictionary of Idioms [CIDI]. 1998. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Harrap’s Essential English Dictionary [HEED]. 1995. Edinburgh: Chambers Harrap Publishers Ltd. Oxford Idioms Dictionary for Learners of English [OIDLE]. 2001. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Word Wise: A Dictionary of English Idioms [WW]. 1988. London: Harrap Ltd.

162

Shuichi TAKEDA

On Pronoun Referents in English* Hiromi AZUMA 0. INTRODUCTION The notion of “accessibility”, or the degree to which a referent (i.e., a mental representation of an entity such as a physical object, an event, or a proposition) is assumed to be available to the addressee at the time of reference (Ariel 1990:10), is widely considered to affect the choice of a referring expression on the part of the speaker. 1 , 2 Various criteria for assessing it were proposed (see Sanford & Garrod 1981; Givón 1983a; Ariel 1990; Gundel et al. 1993; Grosz et al. 1995, among others), but little consensus among researchers has been achieved on how to assess it. With respect to the accessibility of a pronoun referent, Givón (1983b) uses three criteria: 1) the distance between the pronoun and its antecedent, namely an overt or a covert linguistic form which represents the referent in the previous linguistic context, 2) the persistence of the referent, and 3) whether there is a major juncture (e.g., paragraph boundary) between the pronoun and the referent or not.3 On the other hand, Gundel et al. (1993) use 1) the distance and 2) the syntactic position of the antecedent (e.g., the subject, the direct object and the other positions). 3) They also asked two trained coders to analyze the pronoun in each example. In this paper, we are concerned with various criteria for assessing the accessibility of the referents for personal and demonstrative pronouns in English. We compare and examine these criteria, with a view to organizing them and shedding light on problems that have yet to be sorted out. In sections 1 and 2, various formal and discourse criteria used for assessing the accessibility are taken up on the basis of the relevant literature. They are compared, examined, and organized into several sub-groups. In * 1 2

3

This is a slightly revised version of my paper published in The Journal of the Senshu University Research Society No. 82. We define reference as the function that mediates between a linguistic expression and its target, and a referring expression as an expression whose main function is reference. However, instead of accessibility, other terms are often introduced (e.g., topic continuity (Givón, 1983 a, b), cognitive status (Gundel et al. 1993), familiarity (Prince, 1981) and activation (Chafe, 1987, 1994; Lambrecht, 1994)), leading to considerable terminological confusion in the literature. The antecedent coincides with the referent in many cases, but this is not always the case, as we will see later on.

164

Hiromi AZUMA

Section 1, two formal criteria are discussed. In Section 2, four discourse criteria are discussed. Section 3 addresses an additional point to bear in mind in the assessment of the accessibility. Section 4 concludes the paper with a summary of the discussion and an outlook for future research. 1. FORMAL CRITERIA We would like to discuss two formal criteria for assessing a pronoun referent’s accessibility: the form of the pronoun and the form of the antecedent. Our discussion in this section is largely based on Ariel (1990). 1.1 The Form of the Pronoun First, let us look at the first formal criterion, the form of the pronoun. Ariel (1990:80-81) argues that a referent’s accessibility is reflected in the form of the referring expression, and she uses three scales to assess it: informativity, rigidity and attenuation. She argues that “the more informative, rigid (unambiguous), and unattenuated the marker, the lower the [a]ccessibility it is specialized for, and vice versa” (Ariel 1990:29). Using these three scales, we can predict how various pronouns differ in the degree of the accessibility they mark. She characterizes each of the three scales as follows. Informativity is the amount of lexical information a form incorporates. The less informative a pronoun is, the more accessible its referent is. Ariel gives the following example. The referents for empty forms such as zero pronouns are more accessible than those for demonstrative pronouns (such as this and that) and for personal pronouns (such as she) which at least incorporate information about person, number and gender. Rigidity is the extent to which a unique referent can be picked out unambiguously. The less rigid a pronoun is, the more accessible its referent is. To give an example, the demonstrative pronoun that is more equivocal than this (cf., Lyons 1977:647), although they encode the same amount of information. Contextual problems, such as the number of competing referents which make it difficult for the intended referent to be identified, are ignored. Attenuation is the degree to which a referring expression is phonologically weakened. The more attenuated a pronoun is, the more accessible its referent is. This scale captures distinctions between shorter and longer forms (e.g., differences between zero or cliticized pronouns and full unstressed pronouns) and between unstressed and stressed forms. 1.2 The Form of the Antecedent The second formal criterion for accessibility is the form of the antecedent. We will show that it reflects the degree of the referent’s

On Pronoun Referents in English

165

accessibility as well as the pronoun does. First, we’ll take up Azuma (2002), which suggests that the form of the antecedent affects the choice of a pronoun. In our paper of 2002, we examined how the three pronouns it, that and this were different regarding the form of their antecedents. We first classified all the antecedents into nominal and non-nominal antecedents. The nominal antecedents cover noun phrase and noun clause antecedents. The noun phrase antecedents comprise pronoun and full noun phrase antecedents. The pronoun antecedents include it, that and this. Among the full noun phrase antecedents are not only noun phrases whose heads are lexical nouns but also derived nominals with a strong suffix. The noun clause antecedents include gerundial clauses, infinitival clauses, that-clauses, whether-clauses and embedded questions. The non-nominal antecedents include non-nominal clauses, sentences and larger discourse segments such as several sentences and paragraphs. We sub-classified the non-nominal antecedents into two categories by whether or not they were easily specified. The antecedents that cannot be specified in a clear-cut way include the whole conversation and discussion. The findings that were made in the study are as follows. It is likely to take noun phrase antecedents. That is likely to take all kinds of antecedents, other than the antecedents which cannot be specified in a clear-cut way. This is likely to take all types of antecedents. To put it another way, of the three anaphoric pronouns, the proximal demonstrative has the widest distribution, followed by the non-proximal demonstrative, while the personal pronoun has the narrowest distribution. This can be summarized as shown in Table 1. The shading designates the type or types of antecedent each pronoun is likely to take. Table 1. Findings in Azuma (2002) Nominal Antecedents Non-nominal Antecedents NPs NCs It That This

Non-nominal Antecedents (which cannot easily be specified)

This result seems to suggest that the form of the antecedent affects the choice of a pronoun. Moreover, it suggests that referents represented by a noun phrase are more accessible than referents represented by the other types of antecedents, which tend to be more informative, rigid and unattenuated. It has been argued that referents for personal pronouns are more accessible than referents for demonstrative pronouns (see Isard 1975; Linde 1979;

166

Hiromi AZUMA

Gundel 1980; Ehlich 1982; Brown 1983; Givón 1983a, 1983b; Schiffman 1984; Ariel 1988, 1990; Gundel et al. 1993; Kamio & Thomas 1999, among others). This leads me to claim that we can apply the three scales by Ariel (1990) not only to pronouns but also to their antecedents. If this is really the case, the accessibility hierarchy will be as follows: pronouns, full noun phrases and noun clauses, non-nominals which can be easily specified, and non-nominals which are too long to be easily specified, ranging from the most accessible antecedent to the least accessible antecedent. 1.3 Relationship Among Informativity, Rigidity and Attenuation Ariel (1990:79-81) argues that of the above three scales for assessing accessibility, informativity is most important. At the same time, she argues that although the other scales can be affected by the lexical richness of a form to some extent, they are still independent. Her discussion is as follows. As to rigidity, if much information is provided by a pronoun, it is easy to bar out competing candidates. Still, it is independent from informativity. To show this, she gives the following examples. In many cases names are much less equivocal than the other types of expression regardless of the amount of information they incorporate. In addition, at least in Western society, since there tend to be a much larger variety of last names than of first names, the former are more rigid (unambiguous) than the latter. Thus, how names work in referent retrieval suggests the importance of the rigidity as a scale for assessing accessibility. Attenuation overlaps with informativity to some extent as well as rigidity does, as suggested for example by the tendency that longer (shorter) forms tend to have larger (smaller) amounts of information. However, only this scale can tell differences in accessibility between stressed and unstressed forms, and between shorter and longer expressions which carry the same amount of information. A summary of the discussion in this section is shown in Table 2. Table 2. Formal Criteria for Accessibility Pronoun Formal Criteria Informativity Rigidity Antecedent Attenuation

Personal > Demonstrative Pronouns Pronouns > Full NPs > NCs > Non-nominals

2. DISCOURSE CRITERIA In Section 1, we discussed several formal criteria which could give an indication of the degree of the accessibility of a pronoun referent. In addition to these formal criteria, some discourse criteria affecting the accessibility have been proposed (see Sanford & Garrod 1981; Givón 1983a, 1983b; Ariel

On Pronoun Referents in English

167

1990; Gundel et al. 1993; van Hoek 1997, among others). We’ll take up “unity”, “distance”, “competition” and “saliency” on the basis of Givón (1983 a:13-15, b:350-351) and Ariel (1990:22-30). These four discourse criteria are discussed in the following four sub-sections. 2.1 Unity Unity is the strength of the connection between a pronoun and its referent. In this section, we take up and compare two relevant studies: the study by Givón (1983b) and the study by Ariel (1990). Givón (1983b:350-351) argues that the referent which is within the same segment as the pronoun is more accessible than the one which is not. He characterizes the segment as a sequence where an action continues without a break in the thematic continuity. A segment boundary breaks the current action and theme severely, and it is explicitly marked by a period or a pause, quite often accompanied by a long introductory phrase and so on. Ariel (1990:26-28), like Givón, argues that the referent which is within the same segment as the pronoun is more accessible than the one which is not, but she characterizes the segment in a different way, using more abstract notions such as frames, worlds and points of view. This reflects her view that a segment boundary is not always explicitly marked in discourse. In fact, she demonstrates that a specific marker does not necessarily have to be used to decrease the strength of the connection between the clause containing a referring expression and the one containing its antecedent, citing an example by Posner (1980:195-196). In the following example, the only difference between (1a) and (1b) is that the former employs a pronoun, while the latter employs a proper name, but the connection is weaker in the second sentence. (1) a. b.

If Annie has married and if she has had a baby, grandfather will be happy. If Annie has married and if Annie has had a baby, grandfather will be happy. (Posner 1980:195-6, cited in Ariel 1990:27)

We have looked at linguistic (i.e., Givón’s segments) and non-linguistic (i.e., Ariel’s frames, worlds and points of view) perspectives from which sentences are grouped into segments. However, some other perspectives have been proposed. Among them is Grosz and Sidner’s (1986). They argue that a “discourse purpose” (Grosz & Sidner 1986:178) is relevant to discourse segmentation. They characterize this purpose as follows: Although typically the participants in a discourse may have more than one aim in participating in the discourse (e.g., a story may entertain its listeners as well as describe an event; an argument may establish a person’s brilliance as well as convince

168

Hiromi AZUMA someone that a claim or allegation is true), we distinguish one of these purposes as foundational to the discourse. We will refer to it as the discourse purpose (DP). (Grosz & Sidner 1986:178)

According to them, each discourse segment has a discourse segment purpose (DSP), which “specifies how the segment contributes to achieving the overall discourse purpose” (Grosz & Sidner 1986:178). This discourse segment purpose seems to encompass Givón’s segment and Ariel’s worlds, frames and points of view. One problem with this criterion is that it is sometimes difficult to draw a line for a segment boundary. One segment boundary which is explicit to us is the boundary between extra-linguistic context and linguistic context. Ariel (1990:33) suggests that a referent identified in the extra-linguistic context is less accessible than a referent identified in the linguistic context. Her discussion is as follows: Antecedents may be located in the previous discourse, i.e. within the same mode, or else they may require the temporary abandoning of the current mode, accessing material from text-external sources. Because of the break, antecedents which are extra-linguistic should be less accessible, other things being equal. Hence, markers typically used to retrieve such entities must be lower accessibility markers. (Ariel 1990:33)

An example with a referent identified in the linguistic context is shown in (2a), while an example with a referent identified in the extra-linguistic context is shown in (2b). (2) a. b.

Nelly: They think I’m not good enough for him. Horvath: I’m sure that’s not true. (Tales from Hollywood, p.82) (staring out of the window). Isn’t that our greatest living poet figure? (The Common Pursuit, p.2)

2.2 Distance The second discourse criterion, distance, assesses the distance between a pronoun and its antecedent. Givón (1983a:13-14) and Ariel (1990:23-24) both use it. They agree that less distant referents are more accessible. However, they are different in their ways of assessing it. Gundel et al. (1993:291) also use it, but they do not state how they assessed it. Givón measured the distance by counting the number of the clauses between the pronoun and the antecedent. However, this has a problem. When the antecedent includes more than one clause, you do not know where to stop

On Pronoun Referents in English

169

counting the clauses. For example, in (3a), you may or may not count they think. If you count it, the number of the clauses is two, but if you do not, it is one. The same can be said about (3b). There are even cases where the antecedent is too long to be easily specified, as shown in (3c). (3) a. b.

c.

Nelly: They think I’m not good enough for him. Horvath: That’s not true. (cf., Tales fromHollywood, p.82) Kirby: … Apparently one of the reasons he’s kept on here is because many highly placed officials have been enjoying the steady supply of taped English television programmes - of which he’s the main source. Drinkwater smiles at this. Alexei (across the room): That is obviously completely untrue, …. (Soft Target, p.113) Alexei: Let me ask you, if all of this [= what has been said] is true – or indeed any of it – why have you been following me all the time? (Soft Target, p.113)

These problems will be at least partly sorted out if we assess the distance using the following simple hierarchy, which is based on Ariel’s study. A referent in the same clause as the pronoun is more accessible than a referent in the previous clause, which is more accessible than a referent in the other clauses: the same clause > the previous clause > the others (cf., Ariel 1990). As to (3a), the referent is neither in the same clause nor in the previous clause, so it is classified as being in the others. The same can be said about (3b) and (3c). In (3), we saw examples with a non-nominal antecedent. (4a-c) are examples with a full noun phrase antecedent. The referent in (4a) is in the same clause as the pronoun. The referent in (4b) is in the previous clause. The referent in (4c) is neither in the same clause nor in the previous clause. (4) a.

b. c.

Humphry: I heard your paper. The one you gave to the Maudsley Society. Peter: Really? Humphry: It had one or two good things in it. And even some originality. (The Common Pursuit, p.10) You had left the first draft of your speech at home, John, and I brought it here with--with a few little things I’ve added myself. . (What every woman knows) Claudia: Did you work late? Jack: Three o’clock. Edie: Jack, dear, how dreadful of you! Jack: Nothing else to do---may as well work. Edie: Think of the electric light.

170

Hiromi AZUMA Jack: I like that---from you! Why, sometimes I hear you stamping about over my head much later than that. (The law divine, p.11)

2.3 Competition The third discourse criterion, competition, counts the number of competing referents in the previous context. This criterion was advanced by Givón (1983a:14) and Ariel (1990:28). A referent with less competing items is more accessible than a referent with more competing items. According to Givón, to measure competition, one counts the number of the competing referents in the previous context (i.e., the previous five clauses). An interfering referent is counted only when it is “semantically compatible” (Givón 1983a:14) with the referent in terms of animacy, humanity, agentivity, semantic plausibility and so on. However, a problem arises here. This method can be applied to cases with a concrete entity whose animacy and so on can be easily specified. However, in fact, there are cases with a more abstract referent such as a process or a proposition. The referent in (5b) is more abstract than the one in (5a), and it is quite difficult to say which items are semantically compatible with it. The referent for that is a proposition and in many cases a number of propositions are included in a discourse. We might say that in such cases, there are too many competing referents. (5) a.

b.

Humphry: I heard your paper. The one you gave to the Maudsley Society. Peter: Really? Humphry: It had one or two good things in it. And even some originality. (=4a) (The Common Pursuit, p.10) Nelly: They think I’m not good enough for him. Horvath: I’m sure that’s not true. (Tales from Hollywood, p.82) (=3a)

2.4 Saliency The final discourse criterion for assessing accessibility, saliency, is the extent to which a referent is assumed to be salient in memory at the time of reference. There are two ways to measure it. One was proposed by Givón (1983a:14-15), the other by Grosz (1977, 1978, 1981), Sanford and Garrod (1981:137-138), van Hoek (1997:65), Ariel (1990:23-26), Gundel et al. (1993:279-280, 291), and so on. Givón argues that the more a referent continues to appear in the subsequent context, the more salient it is assumed to be at the time of reference. According to him, this persistence is measured by counting the number of the clauses in the subsequent context where the referent continues to appear as “a semantic argument of the clause, an argument of whatever

On Pronoun Referents in English

171

role and marked by whatever grammatical means” without being interrupted (Givón 1983a:14-15). On the other hand, Grosz proposes that there should be a close relationship between a salient referent and the structure of discourse. Sanford and Garrod propose some structural cues for salient entities. They define saliency by a grammatical relations hierarchy. Van Hoek elaborates and extends this hierarchy. She argues that various elements are ordered by salience, with the subject of a matrix clause preceding all the other elements. The direct object of a matrix clause comes next. The other elements include embedded clauses, sentences and modifiers. However, there are cases where a salient referent serves neither as the subject nor as the direct object of a matrix clause. Ariel does not characterize saliency using the grammatical relations hierarchy. Instead, she uses the notion topic (i.e., what a sentence or discourse is about) to distinguish between more and less salient referents. Gundel et al. explicitly state that not only the syntactic position of the antecedent but also the context where a referent occurs should be taken into account. The above two ways to measure saliency might appear to be quite different from each other, but they are in fact two sides of the same coin. They are different in the sense that while Givón places emphasis on the speaker’s intention to continue talking about the same referent, as shown in fact by his words that the persistence is relevant to “the speaker’s topical intent” (Givón 1983a:14), the other studies seem to focus their attention on the referent’s salience for the addressee. This salience for the addressee is obviously a more important aspect of reference, because it is not the speaker but the addressee who identifies the intended referent. The antecedent in example (6a) serves as the subject of the matrix clause, while the one in example (6b) serves as the direct object of the matrix clause. The antecedent in example (6c) serves neither as the subject nor as the direct object of the matrix clause. (6) a. b.

c.

Maggie: … I’ll wear your gold for show, but that brass stays where you put it, Will, …. (Hobson’s Choice) You had left the first draft of your speech at home, John, and I brought it here with--with a few little things I’ve added myself. (What every woman knows) (=4b) Claudia: Did you work late? Jack: Three o’clock. Edie: Jack, dear, how dreadful of you! Jack: Nothing else to do---may as well work. Edie: Think of the electric light.

172

Hiromi AZUMA Jack: I like that---from you! Why, sometimes I hear you stamping about over my head much later than that. (The Law Divine, p.11) (=4c)

2.5 Relationship Among Discourse Criteria When we move to the relationship among the four discourse criteria for accessibility discussed thus far, Ariel (1990:29) argues that unity and distance on the one hand, and competition and salience on the other, assess different aspects of the accessibility. She argues that the former are relevant to the nature of the relationship between a pronoun and its referent; being physically close or coherently more connected to the pronoun raises the chances of the referent to be still activated when the pronoun is used. She argues that the latter are relevant to whether a referent is highly activated in memory; a highly salient referent and a referent that does not have many competing referents are highly activated and are thus highly accessible. The content of the discussion in this section can be summarized in Table 3: Table 3. Discourse Criteria for accessibility Linguistic > Extra-Linguistic Context Discourse Connection Unity Criteria Distance The Same Clause > The Previous Clause > The Others Activation Competition Less > More Competitors Saliency Subject > D.Object > The Others (+ Context)

3. ADDITIONAL ISSUE Gundel et al. (1993:291) asked two trained coders to analyze the pronoun in each example. This is not a criterion for assessing the accessibility of pronoun referents. They mention, however, that decisions on the degree of the accessibility are not completely mechanical because they involve judgments based on pragmatic factors. In addition, they observe that various degrees of accessibility are not discrete but continuous. It is thus useful to ask several trained coders to analyze all examples and see how many of the tokens examined they agree on. The coders for Gundel et al.’s study resolved disagreements by discussion. 4. CONCLUSION In this paper, various criteria for assessing the accessibility of the referent for a pronoun have been discussed. They were examined, compared and classified into two groups: formal criteria and discourse criteria. First, two formal criteria, namely 1) the form of the pronoun and 2) the form of the antecedent were discussed. The relationship among the three scales on which

On Pronoun Referents in English

173

these two criteria were based was then considered on the basis of Ariel (1990). Four discourse criteria, 1) unity, 2) distance, 3) competition and 4) saliency, were discussed as well. Some of the criteria which could formerly be applied only to cases with a noun phrase antecedent were modified so that they could be applied to a wider range of cases. In addition, the relationship among the four discourse criteria was addressed, based on Ariel. Finally, an additional point relevant to the assessment of the accessibility was addressed, on the basis of Gundel et al. (1993). It should be noted that to measure accessibility more precisely, we should focus our attention on the more dynamic aspects of discourse organization such as the interactional or social strategies which participants engage in. This problem is left for future research. REFERENCES Ariel, M. 1988. Referring and Accessibility in a Theory of Grammar. Journal of Linguistics 24:1. 65-87. 1990. Accessing Noun-phrase Antecedents. London/New York: Routledge. Azuma, H. 2002. The Form of the Antecedent and the Choice of Anaphoric Pronouns in English. Etyuudo, 32. 47-64. Brown, C. 1983. “Topic Continuity in Written English Narrative”. Topic Continuity in Discourse: A Quantitative Cross-Language Study, Givón 1983. 313-342. Chafe, W. L. 1987. “Cognitive Constraints on Information Flow”. Coherence and Grounding in Discourse, Tomlin 1987. 21-51. 1994. Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press. Ehlich, K. 1982. “Anaphora and Deixis: Same, Similar or Different?” Speech, Place and Action: Studies in Deixis and Related Topics, Jarvella & Klein 1982. 315-338. Givón, T. 1983 a. Topic Continuity in Discourse: A Quantitative Cross Linguistic Study. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 1983 b. “Topic Continuity in Spoken English”. Topic Continuity in Discourse: A Quantitative Cross-language Study, Givón 1983. 342-363. Grosz, B. 1977. The Representation and Use of Focus in a System for Understanding Dialog. Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 5. 67-76. 1978. Focusing in dialogue. Theoretical Issues in Natural Language Processing 2. 96-103. 1981. “Focusing and Description in Natural Language Dialogues”.

174

Hiromi AZUMA

Elements of Discourse Understanding, Joshi, Webber & Sag 1981. 84-105. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. , & C. L. Sidner. 1986. Attention, Intention and the Structure of Discourse. Computational Linguistics 12:3. 175-204. , A. K. Joshi & S. Weinstein. 1995. Centering: A Framework for Modeling the Local Coherence of Discourse. Computational Linguistics 21:2. 203-225. Gundel, J. 1980. “Zero NP-anaphora in Russian: A Case of Topic Prominence”. Papers from the Parasession on Pronouns and Anaphora, Kreiman & Ojeda 1980. 139-146. , Hedberg, K. N., & Zacherski, R. 1993. Cognitive Status and the Form of Referring Expressions in Discourse. Language 69:2. 274-305. Isard, S. 1975. “Changing the Context”. Formal Semantics of Natural Language, Keenan 1975. 287-296. Kamio, A., & Thomas, M. 1999. “Some Referential Properties of English It and That”. Function and Structure, Kamio & Thomas 1999. 291-315. Lambrecht, K. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge/ New York: Cambridge University Press. Linde, C. 1979. “Focus of Attention and the Choice of Pronouns in Discourse”. Syntax and Semantics 12: Discourse and Syntax, Givón 1979. 337-345. Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics (Vol. 2). Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. Posner, R. 1980. “Semantics and Pragmatics of Sentence Connectives in Natural Language”. Speech Act Theory and Pragmatics, Searle, Kiefer, & Bierwisch 1980. 169-203. Prince, E. F. 1981. “Toward a Taxonomy of Given-new Information”. Radical Pragmatics, Cole 1981. 223-256. Sanford, A. J., & Garrod, S. C. 1981. Understanding Written Language: Explorations of Comprehension beyond the Sentence. Chester, England: John Wiley and Sons. Schiffman, R. J. 1984. The Two Nominal Anaphors It and That. Papers from the 20th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society. 344-357. Van Hoek, K. 1997. Anaphora and Conceptual Structure. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.

On Pronoun Referents in English

175

DATA SOURCES Barrie, J. M. What Every Woman Knows. Project Gutenberg. 2004. http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext04/ewkno11.txt Esmond, H. The Law Divine: A Comedy in Three Acts. London/New York: Samuel French. 1922. English Prose Drama Full-Text Database. 1996. Cambridge: Chadwyck-Healey. Gray, S. 1984. The Common Pursuit: Scenes from the Literary Life. London/ New York: Methuen. Hampton, C. 1983. Tales from Hollywood. London/Boston: Faber and Faber. Harold, B. Hobson’s Choice. Project Gutenberg. 2004. http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext04/hbsnc10.txt Pinter, H. 1982. Other Places (Hardback ed.). London: Methuen.

176

Hiromi AZUMA

Relative and Interrogative Who/Whom in Contemporary Professional American English Yoko IYEIRI 1 and Michiko YAGUCHI 0. INTRODUCTION Garner’s (2003: 834) description of the uses of who and whom begins by citing the following famous comment by Sapir (1921: 156): It is safe to prophesy that within a couple of hundred years from to-day not even the most learned jurist will be saying ‘Whom did you see?’ By that time the “whom” will be as delightfully archaic as the Elizabethan “his” for “its”. No logical or historical argument will avail to save this hapless “whom”.

This quotation is immediately followed by Garner’s (2003: 834) humorous statement: A safer bet might be that no one will be spelling to-day with a hyphen. In any event, writers in the 21st century ought to understand how the words who and whom are correctly used.

As 21st-century writers of the English language, we would like to try to understand “how the words who and whom are correctly used”. In what follows in the present paper, we will investigate how who and whom are selected under different linguistic circumstances, by analyzing The Corpus of Spoken Professional American English (= CSPAE).2 We have investigated the parts of the male and female utterances only,3 about which not only the sex of the speakers but also their social statuses are transparent, although highlighting the differences between men and women is not necessarily the central aim of the present paper. 1 2 3

Correspondence to: Yoko Iyeiri, Faculty of Letters, Kyoto University, Yoshida-honmachi, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8501, Japan. The CSPAE, which contains over two million words of professional American English, was compiled by Michael Barlow and released by Athelstan (2000 © Michael Barlow). In the CSPAE, there are utterances whose speakers are unknown and they are not included in the present analysis.

178

Yoko IYEIRI and Michiko YAGUCHI

1. THE MATTER OF STYLE AND OUR DATASET That the choice of whom characterizes formal and perhaps written styles of language is widely known. Weiner & Delahunty (1993: 231) argue that “[t]he use of who as object or prepositional complement is acceptable informally, but should not be carried over into serious prose”, giving the following two illustrations: (1) (2)

Who are you looking for? The person who I’m looking for is rather elusive.

By contrast, there are others who regard whom as markedly archaic. Kaye (1991: 10) maintains that “‘To whom do you wish to speak?’ is usually regarded as formal (in some circles superformal or superpolite), indeed almost as something frozen, archaic, stifling, or artificial”. The American Heritage Book of English Usage (1996: 50) even alludes to the pedantic nature of the use of whom, saying: Using whom often sounds forced or pretentiously correct, as in Whom shall I say is calling? or Whom did you give it to? Nevertheless, many writers adhere to the rules, especially in formal style.

The general understanding is that the choice of whom is a feature of formal and written styles of English, while who is more freely used in informal styles, especially in spoken varieties of English. As for regional differences, Peters (2004: 578) states that the decline of whom is “more marked in the US than the UK”. The language of the CSPAE occupies an interesting position in this respect. It is a spoken variety in the US, where the use of whom is not really expected, but it is a relatively formal variety of spoken English, where the use of whom may be attested. The CSPAE is a large body of transcripts of conversations which took place in four different settings in the 1990s, all professional in nature: (1) press conferences held at the White House and other places (=White House); (2) faculty meetings at the University of North Carolina (=Faculty Meetings); (3) national meetings of the committee on mathematics tests (=Committee on Mathematics); and (4) national meetings of the committee on reading tests (=Committee on Reading). Although the settings are all relatively formal, some are more formal than others. We have established in our previous studies that the language of the White House press conferences is the most formal of the four, while the language of the Faculty Meetings comes second. Regarding the meetings on Mathematics and Reading, the speakers are involved in fairly spontaneous

Relative and Interrogative Who/Whom in Contemporary Professional American English

179

interactions as found in usual conversations, where the language used is less formal than that of the White House and Faculty. Iyeiri, Yaguchi & Okabe (2004), for instance, show that different than (as opposed to different from), which is often stigmatized in standard references of grammar, is least frequent in the White House press conferences, while its use is observed to a noticeable extent in the much less formal language of the meetings of Mathematics and Reading.4 One interesting point about the use of different than is that women are more inclined to avoid this form than men in all of the four settings, suggesting that female speakers are more concerned with prescriptive instructions of grammar. This is relevant to the present study, since whom is the form often encouraged in non-subject positions in prescriptive grammars. About the interrogative whom, the statement by Weiner & Delahunty (1993: 231) (as cited above) is indicative of this point. Concerning relative whom, Quirk et al. (1985: 367) refer to “the traditional prescriptive rule that who is the form for subject and subject complement functions, and whom is the form for other functions”. Furthermore, Aarts (1994: 71-73) gives a list of prescriptive grammars in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries that deal with the differences between who and whom. Schneider (1992: 233) aptly summarizes by saying: “The paradigmatic relationship between who and whom in non-subject function is a usage problem affected by a discrepancy between prescriptivist traditions and actual linguistic practice”. Thus, our concerns in the present paper are: • Is the use of whom, often considered to be a feature of written English, observed in the formal spoken variety of English in the CSPAE? • If it ever occurs in the CSPAE, is the occurrence of whom conditioned by different levels of formality due to different settings and genders? Or, are there any other conditions relevant to the choice of whom?

2. THE OVERALL FREQUENCIES OF WHO AND WHOM Biber et al. (1999: 214) count the occurrences of who and whom in their corpus and find that the use of whom, both in the interrogative and relative uses, is extremely limited in conversation. There are about 1,000 examples of interrogative who per one million words in conversation, while the same corpus yields no examples of interrogative whom in conversation. Similarly, relative who is encountered around 600 times per one million words in 4

For additional pieces of evidence to support the view that the language of the White House is the most formal, followed by the language of the Faculty, see Yaguchi, Iyeiri & Okabe (2004) and Iyeiri, Yaguchi & Okabe (2005).

180

Yoko IYEIRI and Michiko YAGUCHI

conversation, whereas relative whom just manages to be attested. The graph provided by Biber et al. (1999: 610) shows that there are examples of relative whom in conversation, but it is difficult to judge from the graphical image of it how frequent whom is, since its frequency is very close to zero. We have conducted the same kind of investigation into the CSPAE and observed that whom is indeed very restricted in use. Table 1 displays the raw frequencies of who and whom in the CSPAE. Table 1. The raw frequencies of who and whom in the CSPAE interrogative who whom who White House 123 2 1,311 Faculty 51 1 455 Mathematics 106 0 655 Reading 73 3 507 Totals 353 6 2,928

relative whom 19 17 11 8 55

This table indeed reveals how restricted the use of whom is in the formal spoken variety of English of the CSPAE. However, there is an important problem in the statistical method of Biber et al. (1999) and consequently in Table 1, which follows their method. Here, the entire frequencies of who and whom are contrasted, while the variability between who and whom is mainly a feature of non-subject positions. And a large number of examples of interrogative and relative who in Table 1 are attested in subject positions, where who (rather than whom) is almost invariably selected. For example: (3) (4)

Who is Connie’s proxy? [Committee on Reading, July 1997] The same would be true for students who could write, but who required several hours to compose a short paragraph. [Committee on Mathematics, August 1997]

The only exceptional example observed in the CSPAE is: (5)

Beyond that, we’ll try to assist those whom ought to leave who are perhaps representative of some of our allies or foreign countries. [White House, 1996]

(5) may simply be a case of transcription error, although at the same time whom here can be a hypercorrect form, the use of which may have been triggered by the fact that the antecedent those is objective in case. As for the matter of hypercorrection, the use of whom instead of who in clauses where another clause is inserted is often commented upon by grammatical guides. The New Fowler’s Modern English Usage, for instance,

Relative and Interrogative Who/Whom in Contemporary Professional American English

181

gives the following as an illustration of this phenomenon:5 (6)

The junior Civil Servant whom the Government has claimed is implicated in insider dealing has been allowed to return to work at the Office of Fair Trading. [Times 1988, from Burchfield 1998: 848]

Although examples of this kind are fairly easy to find, not only in conversation but also in written texts,6 the CSPAE does not provide any. All in all, the use of who is almost consistently attested in subject positions in our corpus, and therefore it is perhaps wise to concentrate on the use of who and whom in non-subject positions in the following discussion. Thus, the table to be analyzed is: Table 2. The use of who and whom in non-subject positions in the CSPAE interrogative relative who whom who whom White House 20 2 17 18 Faculty 2 1 4 17 Mathematics 9 0 3 11 Reading 3 3 3 9 Totals 34 6 27 55

The encroachment of who into the domain of non-subject positions is certainly much in progress, as the table above displays. However, the use of whom has not reached the point of extinction in the spoken American English of the CSPAE. It is preserved to a significant extent, especially when it is used as a relative pronoun. Thus, we now need to discuss the second question of the present paper, i.e. whether any conditions, stylistic or linguistic, are relevant to the choice between who and whom in the CSPAE. 3. WHO AND WHOM IMMEDIATELY PRECEDED BY A PREPOSITION Supposing that the language of the White House press conferences is the most formal of the four settings in the CSPAE (see above), the matter of style does not seem to be the predominant condition related to the choice between who and whom in Table 2, since who is abundantly employed in 5

6

In relation to erroneous and perhaps hypercorrect uses of whom, Foster (1968: 220) already in the 1960s states: “… the average writer has a vague idea that it is correct to use ‘whom’ on certain occasions, but the feeling for grammatical case in English is so weak that he is not always very sure where these occasions are”. Garner (2003: 835-836) cites a long list of examples of nominative whom from written texts.

182

Yoko IYEIRI and Michiko YAGUCHI

non-subject positions even in the White House. There is, in fact, another factor which is more relevant to the choice of the forms. The syntactic circumstance where the item concerned is immediately preceded by a preposition, as in (7) and (8), particularly favors the use of whom: (7) (8)

… and if so, to whom should they be directed? [Committee on Reading, June 1997] … we will confuse the folks with whom we serve and work. [Faculty Meeting, 1997-1998]

This tendency is fairly consistent irrespective of the gender of the speakers or of the degree of formality of the settings. As Table 2 shows, there are 55 examples of relative whom in our corpus, of which 45 illustrate this type. There is no example of “preposition + who (rather than whom)” here. To turn to the interrogative use, our corpus provides six examples of whom, of which as many as five are of the “preposition + whom” type. Thus, the tendency to employ whom after a preposition is observed with the interrogative use as well. Unlike the case of the relative use, however, we have two examples of interrogative who in this syntactic context: (9)

I don’t think we have confirmation as to who fired on who today. [White House, 1994] (10) Of who, of Panetta? [White House, 1994]

(9) and (10) above could possibly indicate the earlier decline of interrogative whom than relative whom. If so, the decline of whom is taking place even after prepositions, where the form is dominantly whom, and this linguistic change is led by interrogative who. As a matter of fact, Breul (1999) provides a list of examples of “preposition + relative who” in BNC (see de Haan 2002: 215-216).7 Despite the fact that the data provided by Breul are from the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, the use of relative who immediately after a preposition certainly indicates a future direction. Incidentally, (9) above is an interesting example, where another who is involved in the same sentence. In cases of this kind, it seems to be more usual to employ whom rather than who in object position to make the grammatical relation clear. The following are some examples to illustrate this point:

7

Breul provided the list in a message sent to the Corpora Distribution List. It is available at (accessed 23 February 2008).

Relative and Interrogative Who/Whom in Contemporary Professional American English

183

(11) Who’s responsible for connecting whom to the network in this physical sense of providing the cards and the wires and so on that connect computers to networks? [Faculty Meeting, 1995] (12) I wouldn’t presume to know what— who had conversations with whom. [White House, 1996]

In other words, who is employed even in contexts where whom would be expected for another reason. This is another piece of evidence corroborating the notable decline of interrogative whom.8 Before concluding the present section, we would like to refer to some interesting data provided by Walsh & Walsh (1989: 284-285). They sent a questionnaire to ten Louisiana State University students, asking them to fill in the blanks of twelve sentences either with who or whom. Although about twenty years have passed since then, their data are still relevant to our analysis in that their informants would possibly belong to more or less the same generation as many of the speakers of the CSPAE.9 The following are two of the twelve sentences, both of which are related to our discussion: Table 3. From Walsh & Walsh (1989) Sentence numbers followed by sentences 8. The man to ______ you were speaking is my math teacher. 10. To ______ were you speaking when I saw you in the library?

who 0% 0%

whom 100% 100%

Table 3 reveals that speakers have a firm view that whom rather than who has to occur immediately after a preposition both in relative and interrogative clauses. The result of our investigation of the CSPAE is largely in accordance with this, although there are two exceptions of interrogative who as mentioned above. 4. PREPOSITION STRANDING One way to avoid the “preposition + whom” construction is to leave the preposition at the end of the clause, as in: (13) John, who do we send these items to? [Committee on Mathematics, May 1997] (14) It honors our students who we’ve been working with all year. [Faculty Meeting, 1995]

8 9

About thirty years ago, Close (1975: 52) encouraged the use of whom in a contrast situation of this kind. It is not illogical to assume that students in the 1980s would have obtained professional jobs by the 1990s.

184

Yoko IYEIRI and Michiko YAGUCHI

Quirk et al. (1985: 368) consider that the use of who with a stranded preposition (e.g. who … to) is the informal version of the “preposition + whom” type (e.g. to whom). Peters (2004: 578) also states that the use of who with the stranding of prepositions belongs to the informal style, pointing out at the same time that it occurs in writing as well as in speech. As for the CSPAE, who is indeed the dominant form when the preposition is stranded, despite the result of the questionnaire conducted by Walsh & Walsh (1989: 284-285). As Table 4 shows, some speakers still consider that whom is the preferred form in this context. Table 4. From Walsh & Walsh (1989) Sentence numbers followed by sentences 1. ______ did you give the letter to? 11. The dude ______ you delivered the pizza to is my brother.

who 80% 80%

whom 20% 20%

As for the CSPAE, we have 21 relevant interrogative cases, all of which illustrate the use of who (rather than whom). As in the previous section, relative clauses are a little slower in terms of the decline of whom. Here, we have sixteen relevant examples, of which thirteen illustrate who and three whom. The three exceptional examples of whom (two in the same sentence) are: (15) … but also to my beloved Mike McCurry whom I loved working with, and Maggie Williams whom I loved working with. [White House, 1996] (16) If you know of more people than that whom you’d like to share it with, please help yourself until the pile is gone. [Faculty Meeting, 1997-1998]

Although stylistic differences among the four different settings or differences due to the gender of the speaker do not seem to affect the choice between who and whom in this syntactic context in general, the particular case of (15) may be related to the formality of the language of the White House. It is attested in the following context, where the speaker is consciously making a formal speech: (17) PANETTA: Evelyn, you should say a few words. LIEBERMAN: Thank you very much. I’m very excited to be doing this. I’m a little nervous, as you can see. I want to thank, of course, the President, but Leon and Harold for bringing me on, but also— and for their confidence in me, but also to my beloved Mike McCurry whom I loved working with, and Maggie Williams whom I loved working with. And I look forward to continue to working with all of you. Thank you. [White House, 1996]

Relative and Interrogative Who/Whom in Contemporary Professional American English

185

As for the remaining exceptional example (i.e. (16) above), the choice of whom is probably related to the complexity of the construction. The existence of the intervening elements between the noun to be qualified and the relative pronoun may have encouraged the elaborate form whom, which identifies the objective case clearly. In this connection, we would like to refer to Rohdenburg’s (1996: 151) “Complexity Principle (transparency principle)”, which runs as follows: “In the case of more or less explicit grammatical options the more explicit one(s) will tend to be favored in cognitively more complex environments”. In the case of relative pronouns, Rohdenburg (1996: 172) refers to the matter of distant antecedents as an example of complex environments, where he mentions explicit relative pronouns such as who(m) and which rather than that are favored. And in our view, whom, which indicates the case distinction, is even more explicit than who, when the relative pronoun is in the objective case. As the above discussion reveals, it is not imperative at all to use whom instead of who even when the antecedent is distant, but this is certainly one of the possible explanations when whom is employed where who is expected, as in (16) above. The final point to make about preposition stranding is that the phenomenon itself is more frequent in the case of interrogative who than in the case of relative who. Table 5 below elucidates the relationship between the “preposition + who/whom” type and the “who/whom … preposition” type (preposition stranding). Table 5.

“Preposition + who/whom” and “who/whom … preposition” (preposition stranding) in the CSPAE interrogative relative preposition + who/whom … preposition + who/whom … who/whom preposition who/whom preposition White House 4 12 14 9 Faculty 0 0 14 4 Mathematics 0 7 10 1 Reading 3 2 7 2 Totals 7 21 45 16

Our corpus provides 28 relevant examples of interrogative who/whom, of which as many as 21 (75%) illustrate the stranding of prepositions.10 By 10

Incidentally, the seven examples of “preposition + interrogative who/whom” include the following two examples, where the stranding of the preposition is impossible: I don’t think we have confirmation as to who fired on who today [White House, 1994]; and Of who, of Panetta? [White House, 1994]. They are discussed above under (9) and (10).

186

Yoko IYEIRI and Michiko YAGUCHI

contrast, the corresponding proportion is much smaller in the case of relative who/whom. There are 61 relevant examples of relative who/whom, of which only 16 (26.2%) illustrate the phenomenon of preposition stranding. Whether the extensive occurrences of preposition stranding encourage the earlier decline of whom in interrogative sentences or whether the latter encourages the former is an open question. Perhaps both factors are mutually related. 5. WHO AND WHOM AS THE OBJECTS OF VERBS The previous two sections discussed the case of who and whom as prepositional complements, where the overall tendencies are relatively straightforward. When the relevant item occurs immediately after a preposition, it tends to be whom rather than who. By contrast, who is highly inclined to occur when a preposition is stranded. This is the case with interrogative and relative clauses alike, but on the whole relative clauses tend to preserve whom to a larger extent. The remaining case, which the present section investigates, is the use of who and whom as the object of verbs, as in: (18) I have people— the list of people who I have for this afternoon are Madeline McDaniel, Mari Muri, Charles Beavers, and Shelley Ferguson. [Committee on Mathematics, August 1997]

Apparently, there is more freedom of choice between who and whom in this linguistic circumstance than in the case where the relevant item occurs with a preposition. The result of the questionnaire conducted by Walsh & Walsh (1989: 284-285), as displayed in Table 6 below, also reveals that the judgment differs depending upon the speaker in the circumstance at issue. Table 6. From Walsh & Walsh (1989) Sentence numbers followed by sentences 5. That guy ______ you met last night is a bit nuts. 7. ______ did you see at the party?

who 60% 70%

whom 40% 30%

Indeed, both who and whom are encountered in this syntactic context in our corpus, too, but when the relevant item is interrogative (rather than relative), there is a markedly strong inclination for the choice of who, as Table 7 shows.

Relative and Interrogative Who/Whom in Contemporary Professional American English Table 7. Who and whom as the object of verbs in the CSPAE interrogative who whom who White House 6 0 10 Faculty 2 1 1 Mathematics 2 0 2 Reading 2 0 1 Totals 12 1 14

187

relative whom 2 2 1 2 7

The sole example of interrogative whom is: (19) Who’s responsible for connecting whom to the network in this physical sense of providing the cards and the wires and so on that connect computers to networks? [Faculty Meeting, 1995]

As mentioned above, whom in (19) clearly stands out as a contrast item to who in the same sentence. All the other relevant cases yield who in the object position in interrogative clauses. This applies not only to direct but also to indirect interrogation, in which the position of who is not sentence-initial. Hence, the decline of whom has almost reached the state of completion in this linguistic circumstance in the CSPAE. By contrast, relative whom is better preserved, as Table 7 shows. (20) may be a case of contrast, but whom occurs even when a sense of contrast like this is absent, as in (21): (20) To set up a small coordinating committee of the provost, the president of the student body and myself and others, if there are others who wish to or whom you wish me to propose, and that we would then identify as the second step the appropriate working groups for each of the major recommendations or bodies of recommendations. [Faculty Meeting, 1997-1998] (21) And to the extent that you have those kinds of individuals whom we might otherwise miss that we sort of welcome you to provide us either e-mail addresses or regular plain old post office addresses so that we can get this out. [Committee on Reading, July 1997]

Thus, relative clauses are slightly more conservative than interrogative ones. So far, we have ignored the distinction between relative who/whom in restrictive and non-restrictive uses, partly because it is not always easy to make this distinction in conversational data and partly because relevant items are not so abundant as to allow for further subdividing. However, we would like to mention at least that the variability between who and whom is

188

Yoko IYEIRI and Michiko YAGUCHI

observed both in restrictive and non-restrictive uses. Since (20) and (21) are most probably restrictive, we will cite the following examples which most likely illustrate the non-restrictive use: (22) And Audrey Qualls, who most of you may know from the University of Iowa, will be on it from reading. [Committee on Mathematics, May 1997] (23) And Elaine will talk for a little bit and also introduce Secretary of Labor Bob Reich, who we are delighted to have with us today. [White House, 1995] (24) And that’s what we— I mean, these are, I think, people who are very involved in the policy process both in the White House, which is Nancy Soderberg, and Leon Fuerth, whom you all know; and at the State Department it’s the principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Europe. [White House, 1994] (25) … and that the President, whom I think you’ve all heard on this subject, is— he has great pride in the values of the United States and I think he does a pretty good job explaining them. [White House, 1997]

The occurrence of who instead of whom in non-restrictive use as illustrated by (22) and (23) is interesting, considering the prediction by de Haan (2002: 226) that the decline of relative whom will be earlier in restrictive use than in non-restrictive use. 6. AN ADDITIONAL COMMENT Thus far, we have discussed the use of who and whom in three different linguistic contexts, i.e. prepositions plus who/whom, preposition stranding, and who/whom as the object of verbs. One thing consistent throughout these contexts is that interrogative uses are always more progressive than relative uses in terms of the decline of whom. In this relation, we would like to refer to Rhodenburg’s “Complexity Principle” once again. Sentences involving relative clauses are usually more complex than interrogative sentences, and therefore the circumstances where relative clauses are encountered tend to favor the use of whom. Relative clauses include two or more clauses by definition. If there is another clause within a relative clause, as in (25) above, the level of complexity is further enhanced. Needless to say, interrogative sentences can also be complex, especially when the interrogation is indirect, as in: (26) I’m not sure who all he met with, but he did— as you know, he produced a report— his office produced a report on this issue sometime ago. [White House, 1994] (27) It depends on who you ask, I think. [White House, 1994]

Relative and Interrogative Who/Whom in Contemporary Professional American English

189

(28) If you look and find out who they came from, I’m willing to put money on the fact that they don’t represent all of our population. [Committee on Mathematics, May 1997]

The cognitive processing of these sentences is, however, far easier than in the case of complex relative clauses, perhaps because the semantic patterns of the superordinate clause tend to be more or less fixed in the way they can be linked to the following interrogation. Also, the clause introduced by who/whom is usually free from the additional occurrence of another clause within it. It is, therefore, a reasonable conjecture that the comparative simplicity of interrogative sentences is related, at least to a certain extent, to the earlier decline of interrogative whom than relative whom. 7. CONCLUSION The present paper has thus far discussed to what extent whom has declined in contemporary professional American English and which circumstances and conditions are related to the decline of whom. The tendencies in our corpus are fairly clear and straightforward. Whom is best preserved immediately after prepositions, while who is almost regular in the case of preposition stranding. Furthermore, there is a more flexible variability between who and whom when the relevant item occurs as the object of a verb without prepositions. One point to note is that in all these circumstances the decline of interrogative whom is more advanced than the decline of relative whom, which may be related to the issue of the degree of complexity of sentences. Sentences involving relative clauses are frequently more complex than interrogative sentences. Since the tendencies mentioned above are fairly consistent, the factors of style and gender are perhaps minor if they are even existent. Who has already encroached into almost wherever it can, including fairly formal spoken contexts. Virtually the only remaining context is the one immediately after a preposition, although even here who is occasionally encountered. REFERENCES Aarts, Flor. 1994. “Relative Who and Whom: Prescriptive Rules and Linguistic Reality”. American Speech 69.71-79. The American Heritage Book of English Usage. 1996. Boston & New York: Houghton Mifflin Company. Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman.

190

Yoko IYEIRI and Michiko YAGUCHI

Breul, Carsten. 1999. “Prep + Relative who”. . Burchfield, Robert W. 1998. The New Fowler’s Modern English Usage. 3rd edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Close, R. A. 1975. A Reference Grammar for Students of English. London: Longman. de Haan, Pieter. 2002. “Whom is not dead?”, in New Frontiers of Corpus Research: Papers from the Twenty First International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora, Sydney 2000, ed. Pam Peters, Peter Collins & Adam Smith, 215-228. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Foster, Brian. 1968. The Changing English Language. London: Macmillan. Garner, Bryan A. 2003. Garner’s Modern American Usage. 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Iyeiri, Yoko, Michiko Yaguchi & Hiroko Okabe. 2004. “To be different from or to be different than in Present-day American English?: A Study of Style and Gender Differences Using the Corpus of Spoken Professional American-English”. English Today 20(3).29-33. . 2005. “Gender and Style: The Discourse Particle like in the Corpus of Spoken Professional American English”. English Corpus Studies 12.37-51. Kaye, Alan S. 1991. “Is English Diglossic?” English Today 28.8-14. Peters, Pam. 2004. The Cambridge Guide to English Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman. Rohdenburg, Günter. 1996. “Cognitive Complexity and Increased Grammatical Explicitness in English”. Cognitive Linguistics 7.183-226. Sapir, Edward. 1921. Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech. New York & London: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Schneider, Edgar W. 1992. “Who(m)? Case Marking of wh-Pronouns in Written British and American English”, in New Directions in English Language Corpora: Methodology, Results, Software Developments”, ed. Gerhard Leitner, 231-245. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Walsh, Thomas & Natasha Walsh. 1989. “Patterns of who/whom Usage”. American Speech 64.284-286. Weiner, E. S. C. & Andrew Delahunty. 1993. The Oxford Guide to English Usage. 2nd edition. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. Yaguchi, Michiko, Yoko Iyeiri & Hiroko Okabe. 2004. “Style and Gender Differences in Formal Contexts: An Analysis of sort of and kind of

Relative and Interrogative Who/Whom in Contemporary Professional American English

191

Appearing in the Corpus of Spoken Professional American-English”. English Corpus Studies 11.63-79.

192

Yoko IYEIRI and Michiko YAGUCHI

New Functions of FrameSQL for Multilingual FrameNets1 Hiroaki SATO 0. INTRODUCTION The Berkeley FrameNet Project (BFN) is making an English lexical database called FrameNet, which describes syntactic and semantic properties of an English lexicon extracted from large electronic text corpora (Baker et al. 1998). Other projects dealing with Spanish, German and Japanese follow a similar approach and annotate large corpora. The Spanish FrameNet Project (SFN) and the Japanese FrameNet Project (JFN) have been working within the framework of Frame Semantics (Fillmore 1976) which BFN is based on. The Saarbrücken Lexical Semantics Acquisition Project (SALSA) also adopted the paradigm of Frame Semantics and created a large German annotated corpus. FrameSQL is a web-based application developed by the author, and it allows the user to search the BFN database in a variety of ways (Sato 2003). FrameSQL shows a clear view of the headword’s grammar and combination properties offered by the FrameNet database. FrameSQL has been developing, and new functions were implemented for processing the Spanish FrameNet data (Subirats & Sato 2004). FrameSQL is also in the process of incorporating the data of the Japanese FrameNet Project (Ohara et al. 2003) and that of the Saarbrücken Lexical Semantics Acquisition Project (Erk et al. 2003) into the database and will offer the same user interface for searching these lexical data. FrameSQL is designed to search the FrameNet database, a lexicon of contemporary written English that BFN is producing for both computational and lexicographic interests. FrameSQL can search and view the BFN data release 1.3 on a standard web browser. You do not need to install any additional software tools to use FrameSQL, nor do you even need to download the BFN data to your local computer, because FrameSQL accesses the database of the server computer in Japan and executes searches. The server computer handles the BFN data with MySQL, a popular relational 1

This paper is a revised version of Hiroaki SATO’s “New Functions of FrameSQL for Multilingual FrameNets” included in the Proceedings of the Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC 2008), (c) 2008; ELRA.

194

Hiroaki SATO

database application that can execute complex searches. Directly searching a MySQL database requires learning the database query language SQL, but with FrameSQL, you do not have to learn SQL at all. You only select several search parameters and a form of the output search results on the web browser, and FrameSQL translates these parameters into their corresponding SQL command and executes the search. 1. BASIC SEARCHES FrameNet is based on the theory of Frame Semantics. The central idea of the theory is that word meanings must be described in semantic frames which schematically represent conceptual structures. Each semantic frame has a group of lexical units (LUs). A lexical unit is a pairing of a word with a sense (Cruse 1986) whose semantic properties are described with semantic roles called frame elements (FEs). For example, the Arriving frame, which has a list of LUs such as approach.N, approach.V, arrive.N and arrive.V, and semantic properties of example sentences in this frame are described with its own set of FEs such as Theme (the object that moves) and Goal (the place where Theme ends up). There are several search modes in FrameSQL. Figure 1 shows the LexUnit search mode (http://sato.fm.senshu-u.ac.jp/fn2_13/notes/ index2.html) for the BFN data, where you can search and view annotated sentences of a single LU at a time.

Figure 1. FrameSQL LexUnit Search Mode

New Functions of FrameSQL for Multilingual FrameNets

195

You can select another search mode by clicking a button on the upper pane. When you click on the [Frame] button on the upper pane, you can select the Frame search mode, where you can search and view annotated sentences of a single frame at a time. FrameSQL uses lists of frames, LUs and FEs as search parameters. Figure 2 shows the Frame search mode where a user selected Arriving in the frame list of the middle-left pane, approach.V in the LU list and Source (a general direction from which Theme moves) in the FE list of the middle-right pane. When the user clicks on the [Search] button, FrameSQL translates these search parameters into a SQL command2 and executes the search.

Figure 2.

BFN Frame Search Mode

In the lower pane of Figure 2, FrameSQL shows search results which include all the example sentences with the FE Source of the LU approach.V in the Arriving frame of the BFN data.

2

SELECT bncid, word0.sentid, sentence, list.frameID, list.frame, list.lemma, list.pos, sensedesc, word0.fe, pt, gf, headX, headN FROM list, word0, sentence WHERE word0.fe = ‘Source’ AND pos = ‘V’ AND lemma = ‘approach’ AND list.frame = ‘Arriving’ AND list.listid = sentence.listid AND word0.sentid = sentence.sentid LIMIT 400;

196

Hiroaki SATO

2. MUTUAL HYPERLINKS OF THE SAME FRAME At the left-bottom of the middle-right pane in Figure 2, there are three hyperlinks: [SFN] [SALSA] and [JFN]. They are linked to FrameSQL search menus of SFN, SALSA and JFN of the Arriving frame respectively. Since all the three projects of SFN, JFN and SALSA adopt the basic notions of BFN, FrameSQL search menus for these projects are basically the same. Once you get accustomed to one of those search menus, you can search those lexical databases in the same manner, and compare LUs of the same frame among those languages. For example, when you click on [SFN] of the screen shown in Figure 2, the corresponding SFN search menu of the Arriving frame appears in the middle-right pane, as shown in Figure 3. The user-interface in Figure 3 is basically the same as that of Figure 2. You can execute a search command similar to that in Figure 2 by selecting the Spanish LU aproximarse.V (to approach) and the FE Source of this search menu. FrameSQL shows search results in the lower pane where all the example sentences for the LU aproximarse.V with the FE Source in the Arriving frame of SFN are displayed.

Figure 3. SFN Frame Search Mode

FrameSQL is Unicode compliant, and it can process Japanese Unicode data of JFN as well as English and Spanish data. Figure 4 shows the search

New Functions of FrameSQL for Multilingual FrameNets

197

menu of the Arriving frame for the JFN data. A user executed a search after selecting the Japanese LU 着く.V (to arrive) of the LU list and the FE Source in the FE list in the middle-right pane. Search results in the lower pane display a Japanese annotated sentence with the FE Source of the Arriving frame.

Figure 4.

JFN Frame Search Mode

SFN and JFN use the same XML format as BFN, but SALSA uses a different XML format for the German database (Burchardt, et al. 2006). I wrote a Perl script to convert the SALSA XML format into that used in BFN, and imported the SALSA data into FrameSQL. Figure 5 (next page) shows the search menu of the Arriving frame of the SALSA data, which corresponds to Figures 2, 3 and 4. Those pages are mutually linked to each other with the hyperlinks [BFN] [SFN] [SALSA] and [JFN]. FrameSQL adds translation buttons to the end of each annotated sentence for translating the Spanish sentence into English. When you click on the translation button [1] in Figure 3, FrameSQL sends the Spanish sentence to the Spanish-to-English machine translation website (Instituoto Cervantes, http://62.97.114.150/ats_0001.aspx) and shows the translation as in Figure 6. FrameSQL provides similar translation buttons for the JFN and SALSA data.

198

Hiroaki SATO

Figure 5. SALSA Frame Search Mode

Figure 6.

Translating Spanish to English

3. COMPARING CORRESPONDING LUS AND SEMANTIC STRUCTURES Another search mode of FrameSQL makes it possible to compare semantic structures of corresponding LUs of two languages. In this mode, FrameSQL shows a table of FEs assigned to annotated sentences. For example, Figure 7 shows how FEs of the Arriving frame are assigned to annotated sentences of the Spanish LU aproximarse.V and its English translation equivalent approach.V.

New Functions of FrameSQL for Multilingual FrameNets

199

Figure 7. Spanish aproximarse and English approach

The numbers on the right in the table show occurrences of example sentences annotated with those FEs on the left. For example, the third row (Goal) + Manner + Theme 01 01 shows that the LU aproximarse.V has one annotated Spanish sentence with the FEs (Goal) + Manner + Theme, and approach.V has one English sentence with the same FEs. The numbers on the right are linked with the corresponding annotated sentences, and you can access English and Spanish annotated sentences by clicking on the hyperlinked numbers. When you click on the hyperlinked number 01 of approach beside (Goal) + Manner + Theme, FrameSQL will display on your web-browser the sentence (shown in 1 below) which contains this FE set. (1) Guided by the agent, [the pair] approached Tgt [with extreme caution], using the trees for cover until they emerged from the tree-line above the valley. [DNI] The symbol [DNI] in (1) corresponds to the parenthesized (Goal) of Figure 7. The parentheses of (Goal) signify that the FE Goal is conceptually salient, but does not appear in the sentence. BFN calls this type of FE null instantiation. There are three types of null instantiation and one of them is DNI (Definite Null Instantiation), in which the missing element is already understood in the linguistic or discourse context. FrameSQL

200

Hiroaki SATO

parenthesizes all null instantiated FEs. FrameSQL uses sense description in a Spanish-to-English electronic dictionary for making a list of corresponding LUs. For example, the Spanish Adorning frame, which involves a static relationship between a Location and a Theme, has the LU adornar.V, whose sense is described in the dictionary as: tr. to adorn, beautify, grace, decorate, embellish, deck, garnish. English LUs in the same frame are: adorn.V, blanket.V, cloak.V, coat.V, cover.V, deck.V, decorate.V, dot.V, encircle.V, envelop.V, festoon.V, fill.V, film.V, line.V, pave.V, stud.V, wreathe.V When you extract English words which occur in both, you get the English translation equivalents adorn, decorate and deck for the Spanish LU adornar. I wrote a Perl script to make English translation equivalents for every Spanish LU in this manner, as shown in Table 1 on the next page. This table is used for comparing semantic structures of corresponding LUs, as in Figure 7. FrameSQL provides similar bilingual tables for the JFN and SALSA data. 4. GAPS OF LUS AND FRAMES Table 1 shows correspondences between Spanish LUs and English LUs in the Adorning frame. The symbol φ means that the Perl script cannot find English LUs corresponding to Spanish ones, when it compares sense description in the electronic dictionary and the English LUs of the Adorning frame of the BFN data. These gaps are common not only in the Adorning frame but also in other frames. Human translators could fill appropriate English LUs in some of the gaps, when there are corresponding LUs. There are also gaps in frame correspondences. BFN makes an inventory of frames and FEs for annotating English sentences. Most of them work for annotating sentences of other languages, because frames are meant to characterize conceptual structures at a basic level of description. Some frames, however, seem to be language-specific. For example, SFN created new frames which are not defined in BFN, such as Become_different, Becoming_wet and Being_influenced, because these are needed for annotating Spanish sentences.

New Functions of FrameSQL for Multilingual FrameNets

201

Table 1. Corresponding Spanish and English LUs Frames Spanish LUs English LUs Adorning abarrotar φ Adorning adornar adorn,decorate,deck Adorning atestar φ Adorning cubrir cover,envelop,coat Adorning decorar decorate,adorn Adorning envolver φ Adorning impregnar cover,envelop

5. TRAINING ANNOTATORS The process of annotation is more complicated in FrameNet than in most other lexical projects, because the number of frames and FEs is large. Although BFN compiled a user manual which explains every concept of BFN in detail, it is still difficult to annotate sentences with rich semantic information. It is useful for annotators to practice annotation on training materials before they start real annotation. FrameSQL has quiz pages in which you can try “quasi” annotation. You are asked to select the appropriate FE in the pull-down menu for each phrase. Figure 8 (next page) shows the quiz page for the LU approach.V of the Arriving frame of BFN, in which a user is about to select Path in the pull-down menu as the FE assigned to the word it in the sentence. After the selection, FrameSQL automatically marks the user’s choice, where Path (with a strike-through) signifies that the choice is the wrong answer. The quiz pages also show the definition of the FE which the user selects in the lower pane, as in Figure 8, when the user makes a choice in the pull-down menu. I wrote a Perl script to make the quiz pages from the BFN XML data. In other words, sentences in the quiz pages are actually used in the BFN corpus. There are hundreds of FE names used in the BFN corpus, and showing all the FEs in the pull-down menu would confuse the trainee. The quiz pages only show those FEs which are used in annotated sentences of a single frame. For example, each pull-down menu in Figure 8 has 12 FEs: Cotheme, Depictive, Goal, Goal_conditions, Manner, Means, Mode_of_transportation, Path, Period_of_iterations, Source, Theme and Time. These FEs are used in annotated sentences of the Arriving frame, and their definitions appear in the lower pane, when you select them in the pull-down menu. FrameSQL has similar quiz pages for the SFN, JFN and SALSA data.

202

Hiroaki SATO

Figure 8. Quiz for training annotators

6. CONCLUSION There are a number of search tools to process XML data, but only FrameSQL can investigate BFN, SFN, JFN and SALSA databases seamlessly. Mutual hyperlinks among these databases, and the new search mode, make it easy to compare the semantic structures of corresponding LUs across languages, and it could be useful for building multilingual lexical resources, or more generally for multilingual studies. Training good annotators for FrameNet is difficult, and the quiz pages of FrameSQL will be useful for this purpose. REFERENCES Baker, C.F., C.J. Fillmore & J.B. Lowe. 1998. “The Berkeley FrameNet project”. Proceedings of the COLING-ACL, 86-90, Montreal, Canada. Burchardt, A., K. Erk, A. Frank, A. Kowalski, S. Pado & M. Pinkal. 2006. “The SALSA Corpus: a German Corpus Resource for Lexical Semantics”. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, 969-974, European Language Resources Association. Cruse, D.A. 1986. Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Erk, K., A. Kowalski & M. Pinkal. 2003. “A Corpus Resource for Lexical Semantics”. Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Computational Semantics (IWCS), 106-121, Tilburg, The Netherlands. Fillmore, C.J. 1976. “Frame Semantics and the Nature of Language”. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences: Conference on the Origin and Development of Language and Speech, 280, 20-32.

New Functions of FrameSQL for Multilingual FrameNets

203

Fillmore, C.J., C.F. Baker & H. Sato. 2002. “The FrameNet Database and Software Tools”. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, 1157-1160, European Language Resources Association. Ohara, K.H., S. Fujii, H. Saito, S. Ishizaki, T. Ohori & R. Suzuki. 2003. “The Japanese FrameNet Project: A Preliminary Report”. Proceedings of Pacific Association for Computational Linguistics (PACLING’03), 249-254. Halifax, Canada. Sato, H. 2003. “FrameSQL: A Software Tool for FrameNet”. ASIALEX ’03 Tokyo Proceedings, 251-258, Asian Association of Lexicography, Tokyo, Japan. Subirats, C. & H. Sato. 2004. “Spanish FrameNet and FrameSQL”. Proceedings of Building Lexical Resources from Semantically Annotated Corpora, 13-16, European Language Resources Association.

204

Hiroaki SATO

Index of Names Abney, S. 115 Ackema, P. 115 Alexiadou, A. 110, 116 Amano, M. 121, 122, 125, 127-129, 132 Andersen, I. K. 8, 9, 12 Anderson, M. 107, 117 Anderson, S. 38 Aranovich, L. K. 32 Arfs, M. 15 Ariel, M. 163, 164, 166-173 Askedal, J. O. 11, 23, 24 Azuma, H. 165 Baker, C. F. 193 Barnes, M. 13, 41 Barss, A. 123, 124, 128, 133, 137 Bartoli, M. 66 Bauer, G. 80 Bech, G. 12, 14, 20, 21, 23, 26, 29, 47 Berger, D. 29, 32 Biber, D. 179, 180 Bonfante, G. 64 Braunmüller, K. 8, 9, 50 Brinton, L. J. 23, 29 Brown, C. 166 Burchardt, A. 197 Campbell, A. 29, 72 Carstens, V. 115 Cassidy, F. G. 69 Chomsky, N. 85-92, 107, 122, 123, 127, 128, 138 Collinge, N. E. 59 Cruse, D. A. 194 Crystal, D. 72, 145 Culicover, P. W. 98, 99 Czepluch, H. 126, 127 Dahl. Ö. 39

Dal, I. 21, 23 Déchaine, R. 116 Décsy, G. 59 de Vries, J. 67 de Wit, P. 116 Diderichsen, P. 40 Diewald, G. 42 Dixon, R. M. W. 147, 157, 159 Doron, E. 111 Ehlich, K. 166 Einarsson, S. 18 Emonds, J. 126 Epstein, S. D. 88 Erk, K. 193 Faarlund, J. T. 20, 27, 30, 35, 38 Fillmore, C. J. 193 Fries, C. C. 70, 80 Fujiwara, Y. 70, 73, 81 Garner, B. A. 177, 181 Garrod, S. 163, 166, 170, 171 Giorgi, A. 107 Givón, T. 163, 166-168, 170, 171 Goldberg, A. E. 154, 159 Greenberg, J. H. 9, 10, 50 Grimshaw, J. 108-110, 112, 113, 115 Grønvik, O. 30, 34 Grosz, B. 163, 167, 168, 170, 171 Gundel, J. 163, 166-168, 170-173 Habermann, M. 42 Haeseryn, W. 12, 15, 23, 29, 40, 44, 45 Hansen, Aa. 38 Harbert, W. 7, 8, 10-13, 17, 20-24, 26, 29, 30, 32, 33, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41, 43, 44, 50 Hasegawa, H. 86-89, 92, 95, 101, 102 Hasegawa, K. 95

206

Index of Names

Hawkins, J. A. 18 Heine, B. 40, 41, 43 Helke, M. 86 Hendrick, R. 88 Hesse, A. 44 Hiraiwa, K. 91, 92, 101 Hoekstra, E. 126 Hoekstra, J. 14, 21, 26, 29 Hopper, P. J. 156 Huang, C.-T. J. 95 Huddleston, R. 121 Hulthén, L. 24, 27, 38 Iijima, K. 68 Isard, S. 165 Itoh, S. 151 Iwakura, K. 126 Jackendoff, R. 124, 125, 154, 159 Kamio, A. 166 Kayne, R. S. 107, 126 Kefer, M. 14 Kiparsky, P. 12, 17 Klaeber, F. F. 70 Knott, T. A. 69 König, E. 62 Koptevskaja-Tamm, M. 39 Krahe, H. 57 Krapp, G. P. 70 Kress, B. 38, 40, 43, 44 Kuteva, T. 40, 41, 43 Larson, R. K. 121, 123-127, 133, 137 Lasnik, H. 88, 122-124, 128, 133, 137 Lebeaux, D. 97 Lehmann, W. P. 8, 50 Leiss, E. 42 Lejeune, J. 14 Linde, C. 165 Lockwood, W. B. 38, 40 Longobardi, G. 107 Lyons, J. 164

Maling, J. 13 Mayerthaler, W. 49 Michelena, L. 68 Mitchell, B. 69 Moore, S. 69 Napoli, D. J. 124 Neeleman, A. 107, 115-117 Nielsen, H. F. 48 Næs, O. 40 Ohara, K. H. 193 Paul, H. 20, 42 Pesetsky, D. 102, 112 Phillips, C. 121, 125, 134, 135, 138-140 Ponten, J. P. 30 Posner, R. 19, 34, 39, 43, 48, 49, 167 Pottier, B. 62 Prell, H.-P. 9, 12, 20 Pullum, G. K. 121 Quirk, R. 18, 22, 23, 27, 28, 40, 43, 69, 179, 184 Radford, A. 115 Randall, J. 113 Rappaport, H. 111 Reinhart, T. 86 Reuland, E. 86, 92 Richards, N. 95 Ringler, R. N. 69 Rizzi, L. 99 Roelcke, Th. 50 Roeper, T. 113, 114, 117 Rohdenburg, G. 185 Safir, K. 86 Sanford, A. 163, 166, 170, 171 Sapir, E. 177 Sato, H. 193 Scaglione, A. 9 Schiffman, R. 166 Schleicher, A. 66 Schlenker, P. 89

Index of Names

Schmidt, J. 66 Schneider, E. W. 179 Shimomiya, T. 62 Sidner, C. 167, 168 Sigurðsson, H. Á. 18 Siloni, T. 115 Smith, C. 108, 114, 115 Snyder, W. 110, 112 Solan, L. 132 Stowell, T. 125 Subirats, C. 193 Takeda, S. 147, 150-152 Tancredi, C. 86, 88, 89, 93 Thieroff, R. 23, 41 Thomas, M. 166 Thompson, S. A. 156 Thráinsson, H. 10, 18, 38, 44 Tiersma, P. M. 13, 14, 21, 40, 44 Torrego, E. 112 Tovar, A. 68 van den Toorn, M. C. 23

Van der Auwera, J. 60, 62 van de Velde, M. 15 Van Hoek, K. 167, 170, 171 Van Pottelberge, J. 45 Vendler, Z. 154 Vennemann, Th. 50 Venås, K. 40 Vincent, N. 12, 26 Visser, F. Th. 23 Wagner, H. 23 Walsh, N. 183, 184, 186 Walsh, Th. 183, 184, 186 Weber, H. 8 Wierzbicka, A. 146 Williams, E. 108 Wrenn, C. L. 69 Wright, E. M. 69 Wright, J. 69 Zifonun, G. 10 Zubizarreta, M. L. 108 Zwart, J-W. 86

207

Index of Subjects Ablaut 58 accessibility 163-166, 168, 170, 172, 173 adjective 69, 71, 72 adjunct 124, 130-133, 135, 136 adornar 200, 201 adverb 71, 81 (agreeing) participle 20-25, 29-31, 34-38, 44, 47-49 agreement 90-102 alliteration 70-82 alliterative evidence 72 alliterative hierarchy 73, 81 alliterative priority 71 alliterative status 81 The American Heritage Book of English Usage 178 analogy 72 analyticity 37, 39, 43, 47-49 Anglo-Saxon poet 71 antecedent 163-169, 171-173 approach 194, 195, 198, 199, 201 aproximarse 196, 198, 199 argument structure 108, 110, 111, 113115, 117-119 article/non-article 60 aspectual constructions 43-47 assumption 148, 150, 151 (asymmetrical) c-command 123, 124, 133, 137, 138 attenuation 164, 166 attitude 153, 159 attractee 155-157, 159 attraction 90, 146, 155-158 attractor 155-157, 159 Auslautsgesetz 58 Austrian 14

a-verse 71-81 awareness 145, 146, 148-152, 158 backgrounding 156 Baltic 39, 48, 49 Basque 48 Bavarian 14 Beowulf 70, 72, 74-76, 80, 81 Berkeley FrameNet Project (BFN) 193197, 199-202 be-verb 71 binary-branching 123, 129, 130 Binding theory 85, 89 boundary of half-lines 72-74, 81 b-verse 71-81 case 69, 81 case marking 9-12, 48, 50 cause-result relation 146, 152-154, 159 Celtic 12, 23, 43, 47-50 chain 86-89 Charlemagne-Sprachbund 59 clause markedness hierarchy 18 cognitive dependence phenomenon 145, 146, 150-152, 155, 158, 159 cognitive link 146, 152-154, 159 cognitive pressure 153, 155, 158 competition 167, 170, 172, 173 complement 130, 131, 135-137 complementizer 18, 22, 26, 27, 48, 49 complex event nominal 108-119 Complexity Principle 185, 188 conclusion 148, 150 conjunction 81 constituency 125, 130, 134, 135, 138, 140 Continental West Germanic 7, 16, 32-38 conversion 81

Index of Subjects

coordination 125, 126, 134, 138, 139 copy theory 86-88 corpora 193 The Corpus of Spoken Professional American English (CSPAE) 177-181, 183-185, 187 Danish 7, 20, 24, 26, 27, 32-37, 48 default of alliteration 74 Defective Intervention Constraint (DIC) 91, 94, 101 derived adverb 71 deviation 72, 74, 76, 77, 79, 81 difference in preposition 61 different from 179 different than 179 distance 163, 167-169, 172, 173 distribution of structural features 62 ditransitive 123, 137 DNI 199 do so substitution 130, 132, 136 double alliteration 71, 73, 74, 77-79 double object constructon (DOC) 121128, 130, 133-135, 137, 139 Dutch 7, 10, 12, 15-17, 23, 24, 29, 30, 32, 41, 43-47, 49, 50 Dutch avoids genitive -s 60 Dutch-Danish isogloss 60 Dutch fonder of diminutives 61 Early New High German 42 ELRA 193 embraciation 8 English 7, 12, 13, 18-23, 27, 28, 32, 3437, 41-43, 47-49 enjambment 73 entgermanisiert 57, 65 entromanisiert 57 European drift 59 European syntax 59 evaluation 153, 159

209

Faroese 7, 10, 13, 17-20, 24, 27, 31, 35, 37, 38, 41, 44, 47-49 finite form 71 first half-line 71 five areas of Germania 66, 67 for (…) to (English) 22 foregrounding 156 frame 194-198, 200, 201 frame element (FE) 194-201 Frame Semantics 193, 194 FrameNet 193, 194, 201, 202 FrameSQL 193-202 French 8, 12, 17, 20, 26, 28, 29, 32, 34, 43, 47, 49 Full Interpretation (FI) 87 function 71, 74, 76, 77, 82 function word 71 future auxiliary 43 future infinitive 61 gender 69, 81, 179, 182, 184, 189 Genesis A 70, 76, 78, 80, 81 genitive 69, 70, 72, 74-76, 78-82, 107, 110, 116 genitive for modification 70 German 7-11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 20, 23, 26, 29, 30, 32, 34, 41, 42, 45-50, 127 Germanic 7-12, 17-23, 25, 26, 29-31, 34, 36, 37, 39, 40, 42, 43, 46-51 Germanic innovations 59 Germanic vocabulary 64 gerund 14, 21-23, 25, 26, 44, 47, 49 goal 90-94, 98 Goal 194, 199, 201 grammatical function 71 grammaticalization 7, 16, 26, 31, 34-36, 40-43, 45, 46, 49, 51 habeo-construction 60 half-line 70, 71, 75-79 head 69, 70, 72-79, 81

210

Index of Subjects

Head Movement Constraint 102 hierarchy 125, 130, 135, 138, 140 hyperlink 196, 197, 199, 202 Icelandic 7, 8, 10, 18-20, 24, 27, 31-33, 35, 37, 38, 41, 43, 44, 48-50 idiomatic expression 146, 152-154, 159 impersonal to personal 63 Incrementality Hypothesis 125, 126, 138140 inference 148, 150 infinitive 21-25, 27, 28, 38, 42-46, 49 infinitive particle 24-29, 49 inflection 69 inflectional system 69 informativity 164, 166 inherent Case 126, 127 inheritance 113-115, 117, 118 inherited adverb 71 initial consonant 74, 77-79 innovation-receptive 59 Insular Scandinavian 7, 13 inversion 156 Italian 12, 26, 34, 47 Japanese FrameNet 193 judgment 146, 148 labeling function 154, 155, 159 labeling process 152 label-object relation 146, 152, 153 Latin 8, 9, 12, 48, 50 Latinization 8, 9, 12 Lautverschiebung 58 left-branching 8, 13-15, 17, 47, 48 lexical category 71, 81 lexical database 193, 196 lexical unit (LU) 194-202 lexicon 193 LF deletion 87-89 LF movement 85, 89, 102 light noun 115, 116

linguistic property 69 loan translation in Finnish 65 locality 85, 86, 88, 89, 93, 97, 102 LREC 193 Mainland Scandinavian 7, 9, 11, 13, 16, 18, 20, 34, 43, 44, 46, 48, 49 male noun 69 Manner 199, 201 marked position 75 metrical status 77 metrical unit 73 metrics 70 Middle High German 20, 41 Middle Low German 11, 20 minimalist program 85, 90, 102 Minimize operator restriction 88, 89, 96, 97 mobile index 86 modal auxiliary 71 modal verb 40-43, 49 modification 70, 72, 74, 75, 145 morphology impoverished 59 Multiple Agree/MULTIPLE AGREE 9092, 101, 102 multiple agreement 91-93, 95, 102 MySQL 193, 194 negative polarity item (NPI) 124, 130, 133, 137 neuerungsfreudig 59 The New Fowler’s Modern English Usage 180 (non-agreeing) supine 20, 21, 23, 25, 29, 31, 34-39, 47-49 nonfinite form 71 non-nuclear verb 157, 158 normal position 72, 73 North Frisian 26, 44 North Germanic 7, 36, 38, 51 Norwegian 7, 13, 24, 27, 34, 38, 48

Index of Subjects

Norwegian Nynorsk 7, 13, 31, 35, 37, 48 Norwegian Riksmål/Bokmål 7, 13, 33, 35, 37, 48 noun 71, 72 nuclear 147, 159 nuclear verb 157, 158 null instantiation 199 number 69, 81 object perception 147-149 Old Czech 42 Old English 69-72 Old English poem 70, 76, 81 Old High German 31 Old Norse 10, 30, 31, 35 om (…) te (Dutch, Frisian) 21-24 one-and-twenty type 63 optimal metrical type 73 passive nominal 107-113, 117-119 periphrastic passive 35-37 periphrastic perfect 30, 34, 37, 44, 49 Perl 197, 200, 201 personal pronoun 69 phase 94, 97-101 Phase Impenetrability Condition (PIC) 92, 94, 97, 98, 102 Pied-piping 90 planetary and deity names 64 poetic license 71, 73, 79, 80 (position of) finite verb 8-10, 17-20 possession 69, 70, 74, 80, 82 possessive 69, 70, 72-77, 80-82 possessive adjective 72 possessive pronoun 69, 72 possibility 153, 159 postmodification 72-80, 82 preaspiration 57 premodification 72-81 preposition stranding 183-186, 188, 189

211

prescriptive grammar 179 principle of alliterative hierarchy 70-72 priority of alliteration 71 probe 90-94 PRO-Drop 19 progressive (English) 22, 41, 43, 46, 47, 50 pronoun 69-71, 73 Proto-Germanic 10, 48 pseudo-coordination 44, 46, 49 quantificational phrase (QP) 130, 133, 134, 137 ‘receive’-passive (Dutch) 15 referent 163-172 reflexive binding 85, 86, 91-93, 100-102 reflexive movement 87 ‘remain’-passive (Dutch) 15 result nominal 108-110, 114, 115, 117 rhythm 80 right-branching 13-15, 17, 49, 50 rigidity 164, 166 Romance 8, 12, 17, 19, 20, 25, 26, 28-30, 34-37, 39, 43, 47-50 Romanization 9, 34, 36, 37, 39, 47, 48 Rumanian 12 Saarbrücken Lexical Semantics Acquisition Project (SALSA) 193, 196-198, 200202 saliency 167, 170-173 second half-line 71 seven liberal arts 57, 66 single alliteration 71, 76-79, 81 Slavic 39, 42, 48, 49 Source 195-197, 201 Spanish 12, 26, 34, 47 Spanish FrameNet 193 Spell-out 98-100 split infinitive 27 sprachbundbezogen 59

212

Index of Subjects

strong declension 69 structural Case 122, 126, 127 style 178, 181, 184, 189 stylistic preference 81 substitute infinitive 29, 47, 50 Substrattheorie 64 suffix 69, 108, 113-119 suffixal (reflexive) passive 37-39 superiority 123 superlative instead of comparative 60 Swedish 7, 21, 24, 27, 32-35, 37, 41, 48 Synkretismus 58 syntactic relationship 70, 73, 81 syntax 70 syntheticity 8, 37, 39, 43, 48 ternary-branching 122, 124, 125, 127 that-clause 121, 122, 125, 130, 131, 133-137, 139 Theme 194, 195, 199-201 Topicalization 99 translation button 197 tritransitive 121-123, 125, 126, 128, 130-140 type of modification 72, 74, 75 type of pronoun 69, 70, 75, 80 Unicode 196

uninflected genitive 70 unity 167, 172, 173 unmarked position 72, 73, 75-77, 81 V-1 17-19, 48, 49 V-2 10, 17-19, 48, 49 V-3 18-20, 49 verb 71 verb chain 8, 12, 13, 17, 20, 23, 47, 48 verb complex 12-16, 47 verse 71, 75, 80-82 verse-type 75 V-Final 10-13, 16, 19, 24, 26, 32, 35, 37, 47, 48 visual perception 145-152, 158 VP-shell 124, 125 (West) Frisian 7, 10, 13, 16, 17, 21-24, 29, 32, 41, 44, 46, 47, 49 West Germanic 7-9, 12, 21 West-Germanization 9, 35, 43, 47, 48 West Romance 43, 48 wh-movement 123, 127, 128 who 177-189 whom 177-189 word order 70 XML 197, 201, 202 着く (to arrive) 197

Editors & Contributors Editors John Ole ASKEDAL

Department of Literature, Area Studies and European Languages, University of Oslo

Ian ROBERTS

Department of Linguistics, University of Cambridge

Tomonori MATSUSHITA

School of Literature, Senshu University

Hiroshi HASEGAWA

School of Laws, Senshu University

Contributors John Ole ASKEDAL

Department of Literature, Area Studies and European Languages, University of Oslo

Tadao SHIMOMIYA

Professor Emeritus, Gakushuin University

Yasuaki FUJIWARA

Graduate School of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Tsukuba

Hiroshi HASEGAWA

School of Laws, Senshu University

Junji HAMAMATSU

School of Literature, Senshu University

Ryohei MITA

Graduate School of the Humanities Doctoral Program, Senshu University

Shuichi TAKEDA

Faculty of International Relations, University of Shizuoka

Hiromi AZUMA

School of Laws, Senshu University

Yoko IYEIRI

Graduate School of Letters, Kyoto University

Michiko YAGUCHI

Faculty of Foreign Studies, Setsunan University

Hiroaki SATO

School of Commerce, Senshu University