Levels of representation in the lexicon and in the syntax 9783110859928, 9783110131499

Citation preview

Levels of Representation in the Lexicon and in the Syntax

Studies in Generative Grammar The goal of this series is to publish those texts that are representative of recent advances in the theory of formal grammar. Too many studies do not reach the public they deserve because of the depth and detail that make them unsuitable for publication in article form. We hope that the present series will make these studies available to a wider audience than has hitherto been possible. Editors:

Jan Koster Henk van Riemsdijk Other books in this series: 1.

Wim Zonneveld A Formal Theory of Exceptions in Generative Phonology

17.

JerzyRubach Cyclic and Lexical Phonology: the Structure of Polish

2.

Pieter Muysken Syntactic Developments in the Verb Phrase of Ecuadorian Quechua

18.

Sergio Scalise Generative Morphology

3.

Geert Booij Dutch Morphology

4.

Henk van Riemsdijk A Case Study in Syntactic ness

Marked-

19. Joseph E. Emonds A Unified Theory of Syntactic Categories 20.

Gabriella Hermon Syntactic Modularity

21.

Jan Koster Locality Principles in Syntax

Jindfich Toman Studies on German

22.

6.

Pieter Muysken (ed.) Generative Studies on Creole Languages

J. Gu6ron/H.G. Obernauer/ J.-Y. Pollock (eds.) Grammatical Representation

7.

Anneke Neijt Gapping

23.

S.J. Keyser/W. O'Neil Rule Generalization and Optionality in Language Change

8.

Christer Platzack The Semantic Interpretation and Aktionsarten

24.

Julia Horvath FOCUS in the Theory of Grammar and the Syntax of Hungarian

25.

Pieter Muysken and Henk van Riemsdijk Features and Projections

26.

Joseph Aoun Generalized Binding. The Syntax and Logical Form of Wh-interrogatives

27.

Ivonne Bordelois, Heles Contreras and Karen Zagona Generative Studies in Spanish Syntax

5.

9.

of Aspect

Noam Chomsky Lectures on Government and Binding

Grammar

10.

Robert May and Jan Koster (eds.) Levels of Syntactic Representation

11.

Luigi Rizzi Issues in Italian Syntax

12.

Osvaldo Jaeggli Topics in Romance Syntax

13.

Hagit Borer Parametric Syntax

28.

14.

Denis Bouchard On the Content of Empty Categories

Marina Nespor and Irene Vogel Prosodic Phonology

29.

15.

Hilda Koopman The Syntax of Verbs

Takashi Imai and Mamoru Saito (eds.) Issues in Japanese Linguistics

30.

16.

Richard S. Kayne Connectedness and Binary

Jan Koster Domains and Dynasties

Branching

Maria Luisa Zubizarreta

Levels of Representation in the Lexicon and in the Syntax

¥ 1987

FORIS PUBLICATIONS Dordrecht - Holland/Providence Rl - U.S.A.

Published by: Foris Publications Holland P.O. Box 5 0 9 3 3 0 0 A M Dordrecht, The Netherlands Sole distributor for the U.S.A. and Foris Publications U S A , Inc. P.O. Box 5 9 0 4 Providence Rl 0 2 9 0 3 U.S.A.

Canada:

Sole distributor for Japan: Sanseido Book Store, Ltd. 1-1, Kanda-jimbocho-cho Chiyoda-ku Tokyo 101, J a p a n CIP-DATA Zubizarreta, M a r i a Luisa Levels of Representation in the Lexicon and in the Syntax / M a r i a Luisa Zubizarreta. Dordrecht [etc.]: Foris. - (Studies in Generative Grammar; 31) W i t h ref. ISBN 9 0 6 7 6 5 2 8 5 7 bound ISBN 9 0 6 7 6 5 2 8 6 5 paper SISO 805.1 UDC801.5 Subject headings: syntax; generative grammar / semantics.

ISBN 9 0 6 7 6 5 2 8 7 7 ISBN 9 0 6 7 6 5 2 8 6 5 © 1987 Foris Publications - Dordrecht No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission from the copyright owner. Printed in The Netherlands by ICG Printing, Dordrecht.

Contents

Introduction Chapter 1: Levels of Lexical and Syntactic Representation: Their Form, Their Content, and Their Relations 1.1. Levels of lexical representations: Lexico-semantic structure (S-R) and lexico-syntactic structure (L-R) 1.1.1. On the representation of predicate-argument relations 1.1.2. The mapping onto syntax of predicate-argument relations 1.2. Distorted mappings of predicate-argument relations onto syntax 1.2.1. On certain locative and goal arguments 1.2.2. Nonstative experiences 1.2.3. A class of German adjectives 1.2.4. A reformulation of the Rule of Projection 1.3. Conclusion Notes Chapter 2: The Lexical and Syntactic Representations of Noun Phrases 2.1. On certain aspects of the syntax of noun phrases 2.1.1. Some differences between verbs and their derived nominals 2.1.1.1. Nonstative experiencers in nominals 2.1.1.2. Certain locative and goal arguments in derived nominals 2.1.1.3. The so-called passive construction in derived nominals 2.1.1.4. The so-called raising constructions in derived nominals 2.1.1.5. The evaluation of the external argument in derived nominals 2.1.2. Rappaport's analysis of process derived nominals

1 7 7 7 12 26 27 28 32 33 34 35 39 39 39 39 41 43 44 44 45

vi

Contents 2.1.3. Levels of representation in noun phrases . . . The representation of "affectedness" Some remarks on the syntax of noun phrases in Romance Conclusion

47 58

Chapter 3: Types of Lexical Processes 3.1. Lexical processes that affect predicate-argument relations 3.1.1. Anti-causativization 3.1.2. Causativization 3.1.3. Adjectival passive participle formation . . . . 3.2. Lexical processes that affect the mapping of arguments onto syntax 3.2.1. Verbal passive participle formation 3.2.2. Romance causatives 3.3. The dative-shift construction and related cases . . . 3.4. Conclusion Notes

87

2.2. 2.3. 2.4. Notes

Chapter 4: Semantic and Syntactic Verbal Operators 4.1. The properties encoded at S-R and at L-R: Some refinements 4.2. Verbal operators 4.2.1. A lexico-semantic verbal operator: The case of English middles 4.2.2. Syntactic verbal operator: The case of Romance se 4.2.2.1. Se-cliticization at L-R: Se-moyen, certain anti-causatives, and certain inherent reflexives 4.2.2.2. Se-cliticization at S-structure: Reflexive verbs 4.3. Conclusion Notes Bibliography Author Index Subject Index

67 79 81

87 87 92 94 97 97 107 120 126 128 133 133 141 141 149 150 161 179 180 185 189 191

Introduction

This research is concerned with the anatomy of the lexical and syntactic components of the grammar. The central questions addressed are: what are the levels of representation that constitute each component, what are the properties of these levels (what kind of information do they encode and how is this information structured), and how are these levels related? The study has as background the standard Government and Binding framework (GB), as outlined in Chomsky 1981, and related works (especially work by E. Williams and van Riemsdijk & Williams 1981). A fundamental feature of GB is its modular character: properties of what seems to be a complex system are factored out into several autonomous subcomponents whose interaction insures that all and only the grammatical sentences of a given language are generated with their appropriate structural descriptions. Given a sentence S, the grammar assigns to S a set of structural descriptions SDi . . . SDj, each at some linguistic level L. The architecture of the grammar must insure compatibility between the various structural descriptions of S; the choice is not arbitrary: it must reflect the properties of the mental representation of S. A natural way to insure that the various SD of S are compatible is to organize the linguistic levels of representation as related through well defined mapping operations. The structure of the grammar proposed by GB is summarized by the following schema: Lexicon

(1)

+

Base

Phrase Structure Rules D-structure (Move X) S-structure

PF (= Phonetic Form)

LF (= Logical Form)

2

Introduction

The base component is composed of two subcomponents: the lexicon and the phrase-structure rules (PS rules). Work by Stowell 1981 and others have reduced the PS rules to a minimum: S' — Comp S,S — NP Infl VP, XP — Spec X'. The other PS rules are derived from the subcategorization features of predicates and from properties of Case assignment, which may vary among languages. As for the lexicon, it is usually assumed explicitly or implicitly within GB that it consists of an unstructured list of mostly idiosyncratic information: selectional features (i.e. number and type of thematic roles) and subcategorization features, which insure that lexical items are inserted into the appropriate phrase structures. The base generates phrase structures with inserted lexical items, called D-structures, which are pure representations of thematic relations. These are mapped onto other phrase structures, called S-structures, by the rule "Move X". This_rule gives rise to two types of relations at S-structure: A-binding and A-binding. A-binding arises when the target of movement is an A(argument) position (as in the passivejmd subject-to-subject raising constructions generated by NPmovement). A-binding arises when the target of movement is a nonA(argument) position (as in wh-constructions generated by wh-movement and constructions with extraposed constituents). The positions occupied by the trace(s) and its (or their) antecedent are said to constitute in the first case an A-chain and in the latter case an A-chain. S-structure is mapped onto the two interpretative components: PF (via filters, and stylistic and phonological rules) and LF (via Quantifier Raising and other construal rules, which create the structure necessary for the rules of semantic interpretation to apply). Van Riemsdijk & Williams 1981 have proposed that the levels of Dstructure and S-structure are mediated by an intermediate level: NPstructure. The rule of NP-movement (or more generally A-binding) maps D-structure onto NP-structure; the rule of wh-movement (or more generally A-binding) maps NP-structure onto S-structure. The authors argue, on the one hand, that this model allows for a straightforward characterization of the distinction between A-binding and A-binding relations and, on the other hand, that NP-structure is the level where the Binding Principles apply. A model which does not include this level is forced to have recourse to the mechanism of reconstruttion at LF in order to account for the behavior of phrases in a non-A(argument) position with respect to the Binding Principles. Reconstruction is a suspicious mechanism because it entails undoing structures at LF that have been created in the syntax for the sole purpose of accounting for the above-mentioned phenomenon. Moreover, it crucially assumes the existence of LF, a level whose existence is disputable; cf. van Riemsdijk & Williams 1981, Williams 1986, Koster (to appear), Reinhart (class lectures, Spring 1985, Paris), Vergnaud (in preparation). Note that the mapping between levels can be in principle of two different types: projectional or derivational. If all the information encoded at level A is

Introduction

3

represented at level B but not vice versa (i.e. there is some information which is represented at level B but not at level A), then A can be said to be a projection of a subset of the properties of B. If there is some information encoded at level A which is not represented at level B and, vice versa, if there is some information encoded at level B which is not represented at level A, then A can be said to be derivationally related to B. The model presented in Jackendoff 1972, a pre-trace-theory model, is an example of the latter type of mapping. In this model, grammatical relations are read off of D-structure, while the scope of negation and quantifiers is determined at S-structure. The GB model, on the other hand, is of the projectional type. All the properties represented at D-structure are represented at S-structure in this model: D-structure is a projection of a subset of the properties represented at S-structure, namely properties pertaining to thematic relations. This type of mapping relation is made possible by the presence of traces. (See Sportiche 1983 for extensive discussion and a defense of this type of mapping, given certain a priori assumptions.) Of course, the presence of traces is not sufficient to insure a projectional type of mapping; in fact, the model I will propose in this work assumes the existence of traces, but it is of the derivational type rather than of the projectional type. The following chapters are an attempt to develop and motivate a more elaborate lexical component and to argue in favor of a syntactic component composed of two levels: NP-structure (NP-S) and S-structure (S-S). Two levels of lexical representation will be distinguished: 1) a lexico-semantic level (S-R), which encodes the selectional properties of a lexical item, not as an unordered list of lexical specifications but rather as a set of partially structured relations, and 2) a lexico-syntactic level (L-R), which consists of frames that mediate the mapping onto syntax of arguments selected by main predicates at S-R. Two types of operations define the mapping between S-R and L-R in the core cases: a rule of projection (which also applies between S-R and NP-S and between NP-S and S-S) and rules of L(exical)-predicate formation, which replace the rule of NP-movement in the previous model. The mapping of lexical representations onto syntax gives rise to the level of NP-structure; NP-structure is mapped onto S-structure via wh-movement and other A-binding operations. To the extent that no free indexing of traces is allowed, no intermingling of A-chains and A-chains can arise and NPtraces can be fully constrained by L-R. While the rules of predicate formation give rise to L-predicates at L-R, operator binding at S-structure gives rise to S(yntactic)-predicates. Assuming that the Rule of Predication applies as soon as its context of application is met, L-predicates will trigger Predication at NP-structure and S-predicates will trigger Predication at S-structure. It will be proposed that the Rule of Predication is not a coindexing mechanism, as suggested by Williams 1980; rather, Predication is a contextual rule of interpretation: the

4

Introduction

value of the argument-variable borne by an open predicate is interpreted according to its context. Therefore, if the choice of variable borne by the predicate changes in the course of the derivation (for example, by converting an L-predicate into an S-predicate), then the context assigns a value to different variables at different levels of representation. If such a case can be argued to exist, then we have evidence in favor of a derivational (rather than a projectional) mapping relation between levels. I will suggest in Chapter 4 that such a case is attested in the Romance reflexive construction. The organization of the grammar proposed here can be summarized as follows. (It will be assumed that quantifier interpretation can be read off of an annotated S-structure, along the lines of van Riemsdijk & Williams 1981, Williams 1986, and Vergnaud (in preparation).) S-R

(2) Lexicon:

+

Base:

L-R

Phrase Structure Rules

NP-structure (Rule of Predication) —

Semantic Interpretation (SI)

(Ä-binding operations)

S-structure (Rule of Predication) —•

Semantic Interpretation (SI)

Phonetic Form (PF) The central concept in defining syntactic structures as well as lexical representations is government, a relation defined between a governor and its dependent. Note that the fact that lexical and syntactic structures share this common feature in no way reduces the former to the latter. Unlike lexical representations, syntactic representations crucially define phrases and clauses, whose raison d'être is probably the existence of reference: phrase structure provides the background against which the order among referential

Introduction

5

entities in the sentence is computed. If this were not the case, natural language would be essentially reducible to a system of complex-word compounding. The general organization of this work is as follows. The framework sketched above is presented in detail in the first chapter: the different levels of lexical and syntactic representation, their properties, and the manner in which they are articulated. The second, third, and fourth chapters provide motivation for the model introduced in the first chapter and, in particular, for the hypothesis that the lexicon consists of two levels of representation: S-R and L-R. The second chapter deals with the syntax of noun phrases; I suggest that many well-known differences between the syntax of clauses and of NPs can be attributed to the fact that nouns lack the level of L-R, the reason being that they cannot function as L-predicates. In the third chapter, I discuss the different types of lexical processes. It is argued that two main types may be distinguished: those that apply at S-R affect lexical meaning, while those that apply at L-R do not; the latter affect the mapping of arguments onto syntax. In the fourth and last chapter, I argue in favor of the existence of verbal operators, which are introduced at different levels of representation. The insertion of the generic verbal operator at S-R gives rise to the English middle construction, the insertion of the syntactic verbal operator se at L-R gives rise to the Romance se-moyen construction, and its insertion at S-structure gives rise to the Romance je-reflexive construction. It is also argued in this chapter that lexical representations encode scope relations between arguments and that some peculiar properties of the dative-shift construction, the English middle, and the Romance reflexive se can be explained if we assume that scope relations and binding relations established at a lexical level of representation obey a certain invariancy in the syntax, as required by a generalized version of the Rule of Projection. Before concluding these introductory remarks, I would like to acknowledge the institutions that have made this research possible and the friends and colleagues that have contributed in one way or another to its development. While the results reported in this study are the crystallization of ideas that I have been working on for the past two years, it received its final shape, with respect to both content and form, during the academic year 1985-86 with the support of Tilburg University and the Netherlands Organization for the Advancement of Pure Scientific Research (Z WO) under grant number B 30-230.1 am grateful to Henk van Riemsdijk and Jan Koster for making this possible. I benefited immensely from teaching this material at Tilburg University during the fall and spring semesters; I thank the participants in these seminars and especially Ton van Haaften, Craig Thiersch, Hans Peter Kolb, Henk van Riemsdijk, Jan Koster, Peter Coopmans, and Norbert Corver. Various parts of this work were presented during the spring of 1986 at the Workshop on Romance Languages at Utrecht University, at the Workshop on Lexicon and Syntax at Amsterdam

6

Introduction

University, at Nijmegen University, at the Universidad Autönoma de Madrid, and at the GLOW Conference held at the Universität Autönoma de Barcelona (Girona), which gave me the opportunity to benefit from the comments of many colleagues, among them Lars Hellan, Riny Huybregts, David Pesetsky, Jonathan Kaye, Martin Prinzhorn, Joseph Bayer, Jacqueline Guéron, Ivonne Bordelois, Jane Grimshaw, Alec Marantz, Pieter Muysken, Carlos Piera, Violeta Demonte, Patrick Bellier, and many others. Special thanks for very valuable discussions which have influenced this work in many respects (although they may not agree with it), as well as for encouragement, are due to Jean-Roger Vergnaud, Norbert Hornstein, Alain Rouveret, Henk van Riemsdijk, and Amy Weinberg, and also to Ton van Haaften, Hans Peter Kolb, and Lars Hellan for helpful comments on a preliminary draft. All errors are, of course, my sole responsibility. Finally, I would like to acknowledge support from the Fondation Fyssen (Paris, France) during the academic year 1984-1985 (when some of the ideas laid out in this work began to take shape) and to thank Juan Segui for housing me during that time at the Laboratoire de Psychologie Expérimentale (Université Réné Descartes). Paris, August 1986

Chapter 1

Levels of Lexical and Syntactic Representations: Their Form, Their Content, and Their Relations

1.1. LEVELS OF LEXICAL REPRESENTATIONS: LEXICO-SEMANTIC STRUCTURE (S-R) AND LEXICO-SYNTACTIC STRUCTURE (L-R)

lit. 1. On the representation of predicate-argument relations An implicit assumption within most current work in the Government and Binding (GB) framework is that the information contained in the lexicon is mostly idiosyncratic and that most (if not all) grammatical phenomena that deserve a principled explanation are to be accounted for by principles that govern the syntactic level of representation. It is therefore not surprising that most work within this framework postulates a very impoverished lexical representation for argument-taking predicates, which consists basically of an unordered list of thematic roles (agent, theme, goal, etc.). However, based on observations concerning the types of alterations that argument structures may undergo, Williams 1981 proposed to enrich the level of predicateargument structure by distinguishing "external" from "internal" thematic roles. The external theta-role is the one mapped onto subject position (the position sister to the VP) and the internal theta-roles are the ones mapped onto positions governed by the verb (positions inside the VP). Williams suggested that this distinction should be encoded simply by marking the external theta-role with a diacritic feature. In this chapter I will propose a formally richer and more articulated lexical representation than the one usually assumed in the GB framework (which is basically the one summarized above). The level which represents the grammatically relevant aspects of lexical meaning will be called lexico-semantic structure (S-R). S-R consists of a set of structured predicate-argument relations. Among the predicates that select an argument are the major lexical categories (verb, adjective, noun) and the minor lexical category preposition. Predicate-argument relations are structured to the extent that an argument may be within the scope of the predicate (internal argument) or outside the scope of the predicate (external argument). The notions "within the scope of a predicate" and "outside the scope of a predicate" are grammatical primitives of S-R (perhaps grounded on the way we perceive events and state of affairs). Thus, the view assumed here is that

8

Levels of lexical and syntactic representation

the external/internal distinction between arguments reflects a fundamental property of how lexical meaning is organized. The lexico-semantic structure of simple transitive, intransitive, and unaccusative verbs are those in (a), (b), and (c), respectively. (P = predicate, y = internal arg(ument)-variable, x — external arg(ument)-variable.) b. P

P, x

y

P

y

In the structures (a) and (b), arg-variable y is within the scope of P. The relation "within the scope" will be represented from now on by the concatenation symbol " D " , which is to be understood as equivalent to the bracketing notation or tree structure that characterizes the hierarchical relations in the syntactic phrase-marker. Therefore, if y is said to be within the scope of P at S-R, it means that P governs y at S-R. The definition of government that I will assume in this work is as follows: (1.2)

A governs B iff A is a (syntactic or semantic) head or a nonmaximal projection of a head and A and B are sisters

Some simple examples of S-R are given in (1.3). Arguments headed by a lexical item (like John, the table, the destruction, him) constitute a type of semantic argument which I will call "lexical argument" (sometimes called "term" in the linguistic literature). We will assume that lexical items like table, John, destruction, him are identified in the lexicon by indices i, j, k, which I will call "lexical indices". The variables x, y, z in S-R are placeholders for such lexical indices. Among the non-lexical arguments are the semantic types Proposition (P), Question (Q), Exclamation (E) (see Grimshaw 1979), and Event (Ev) (see Higginbotham 1983 and section 3.2.2). Non-lexical arguments will be considered only sporadically in this work: see the discussion of raising predicates in section 1.1.2, of verbal passives in section 3.2.1, and of causative and perception verbs in section 3.2.2. (The members of the set, each constituted of a predicate and the argument(s) it selects, are separated by a semicolon in (1.3). The parenthesized predicate-argument relations indicate optionality.) (1.3)

a.

work:

work, x

b.

arrive:

arrivPy

c.

hit:

hit y, x

9

Levels of lexical and syntactic representation d.

go:

go, x; toz

e.

sit:

sit, x; orPz

f.

put:

puiy, x; Loc

g.

buy:

buyy, x; (forz)

Pz

r h.

fond:

fond, x; of y

i.

loyal:

loyal, x; (to'y)

j.

discussion: discussiony, x

The above examples illustrate S-Rs which contain simple predicates. But there also exist S-Rs which contain complex predicates. There are undoubtedly many types of semantically complex predicates, only some of which will be discussed here. In particular, I will not discuss here semantically complex predicates that are mapped discontinuously onto the syntax: put.. . to shame 'embarrass', take ... to task 'reprove', bring... to 'revive'. These are noncompositional discontinuous predicates, but there also exist plausible candidates for compositional discontinuous predicates: resultative predicates like paint.. . red, freeze . . . solid, as in John painted the house red; The ice froze solid (see Rapoport 1986). The argument headed by the dative preposition to in the case of verbs like hand, give, write is probably selected conjointly by the verb and the preposition, also giving rise to a discontinuous predicate in the syntax. Some motivation in favor of this hypothesis will be given in sections 3.3 and 4.2.2.2. Semantically complex predicates of the type that I will be concerned with here are cases which contain an incorporated argument. I will suggest that predicates with an "affected" internal argument (in the sense of M. Anderson 1979) are of this type. The correct S-R for a verb like destroy will be as follows: (1.4)

destroy:

,x

The symbol " < > " will be used to indicate the presence of a complex predicate. This is to be understood simply as shorthand for a tree structure of the following type: P P

y

10

Levels of lexical and syntactic

representation

(See sections 2.2 and 4.2.1 for a discussion of the notion "affectedness" and some of its grammatical relevance.) Among the predicates with an "affected" internal argument, which are formally represented as semantically complex predicates, there are cases in which the incorporated argument is a constant, rather than a variable. Constants have semantic specification or lexical content and they are distinguished from arg-variables in that they do not surface in the syntax. Constants at S-R are not projected onto other levels of representation. An example of a predicate with an incorporated internal argument is the intransitive verb eat. As noted by Gruber 1965, transitive and intransitive eat do not have the same meaning. While the object selected by transitive eat is quite free (only constrained by pragmatic considerations), this is not the case for intransitive eat. Thus, while it is possible to say The baby ate a cigarette, the utterance The baby ate can only entail that 'the baby ate food'; it cannot entail (irrespective of the pragmatic context) that 'the baby ate a cigarette'. It is therefore appropriate to assign two distinct S-Rs to transitive and intransitive eat, as shown in (1.5a). The incorporated internal argument position in the S-R of transitive eat is occupied by a variable, while the incorporated internal argument position in the S-R of intransitive eat is occupied by the constant F O O D . Other plausible candidates for predicates with an incorporated constant internal argument are the intransitive verbs live, die, and sigh. The postverbal N P in the sentences John lived a happy life, John died a gruesome death, John sighed a weary sigh can then be analyzed as an adverbial which modifies the incorporated constant argument LIFE, D E A T H , or S I G H , respectively. The head of the adjunct in the above sentences is semantically constrained by the incorporated constant argument that it modifies. On the other hand, the adjunct must be semantically more specific than the constant argument that it modifies: *John lived a life, *John died a death, *John sighed a sigh. (See section 2.2 for further discussion of incorporated constant arguments.) (1.5)

eat(l):

, x

eat(2):

, x

b.

live:

, x

c.

die:

, x

a.

Verbs and nouns may define a relation between a predicate and an external argument and between a predicate and an internal argument. But what about adjectives and prepositions? Implicit in the S-R attributed to the adjective fond above (see (1.3h)) is the contention that it is a property of the lexical

Levels of lexical and syntactic representation

11

category adjective that it never selects a lexical argument as an internal argument (i.e. an argument which is headed by an item with lexical content: e.g. the table, John). Thus, in John is fond of Mary, Mary is an argument selected by the preposition of and not by the adjective fond. Support for this hypothesis comes from the observation that adjectives of the unaccusative type (comparable to the verbs arrive, come, etc.) do not exist. An unaccusative adjective in English would be an adjective like present*, which could appear for example in a fAere-construction: There were present* many people at the party. An unaccusative adjective in French would be an adjective whose argument could appear in post-adjectival position in the impersonal construction and which would allow the genitive clitic en to cliticize from such a post-adjectival position onto the verb être 'be': for example, an adjective like présent*, as in Trois personnes étaient présentes* dans la salle 'Three persons were present in the room'; Il en étaient présent* trois dans la salle.1 We could hypothesize that the nonexistence of adjectives of this type is due to the requirement that an adjective must select an external argument. But we know that this cannot be true, because raising adjectives like likely and certain do exist. In order to account for the above-mentioned lexical gap, I therefore suggest that it is a categorial property of adjectives that they never select an internal argument of the lexical type (i.e. an argument which is not of the type P, Q, or E). Some consequences of this assumption will be pointed out in sections 1.2.3 and 3.1.3. As for the lexical category preposition, it is unclear whether or not it ever selects an external argument at the level of S-R. The locative prepositions are the natural candidates for taking an external argument, since they define a relation between an object and a location.2 It is unclear, though, whether this relation should be encoded at S-R, given that it is not a lexical property of any one preposition. It is a general property of all locative and directional prepositions. A comparable situation arises with temporal phrases. Every VP that denotes an event or an act takes place at a given time. Therefore, such VPs can always be temporally specified in the sentence. Still, a temporal phrase invariably has the status of an adverbial, rather than that of an argument, which suggests that it is unnecessary to include temporal information in the S-R of verbs and that the time-variable can be directly inserted on the verb phrase node in the syntax. In the same manner, it can be assumed that PPs which are the projection of a locative preposition are assigned an arg-variable in the syntax (as in Ifound a soup in the fly, The fly is in the soup). The time-variable will then be assigned a value via the Rule of Modification and the arg-variable on a PP will be assigned a value via Predication (see below for discussion of these rules). Although this issue is surely an important one, I will ignore it here since the topics to be discussed in the following chapters do not depend on it in any crucial way. To summarize, this work does not share the view that the level of representation that encodes the grammatically relevant aspects of lexical

12

Levels of lexical and syntactic

representation

meaning consists of a list of substantive thematic roles (known as the "thetagrid" in much current work in GB). This level (referred to in this work as S-R) is argued here to consist of (partially) structured formal relations between predicates and argument-placeholders, relations which represent the selectional properties of predicates (in the sense of Chomsky 1965). I will argue throughout this work (explicitly or implicitly) that substantive notions like theme, patient, goal, experiencer have no grammatical import: rules and principles of grammar are never formulated in terms of these notions. The only thematic role that is perhaps of some grammatical relevance is agent, a notion which distinguishes two types of external arguments ("+agentive" and " - agentive" external arguments). This notion is perhaps a remnant of a primary semantic category in early stages of language acquisition. In the adult grammar it probably has the status of a "recessive" feature, to which rules and principles of grammar do not refer, but which proves useful in stating certain selectional restrictions. The claim that thematic roles are not grammatically relevant features does not mean that there are no substantive semantic categories which are operative in the grammar. I will suggest that the notions state and causation are necessary in order to correctly formulate some meaning-changing lexical processes. Having presented the major properties of the lexico-semantic level of representation, the question that arises is: how is this representation mapped onto the syntactic level of representation? 1.1.2. The mapping onto syntax of predicate-argument

relations

The mapping onto syntax of predicate-argument relations specified at S-R is articulated around two main properties. First Property. External and internal arguments are mapped onto syntax via two distinct grammatical mechanisms. The external arg-variable is associated with a position in the syntax via Predication, while the internal arg-variables are associated with a position in the syntax via Projection. Putting aside the problem raised by discontinuous predicates, which will be ignored in this work, association by Projection is quite straightforward. It can be formulated as follows (in the spirit of the so-called Projection Principle proposed by Chomsky 1981): (1.6)

Rule of Projection (to be revisited) If arg-variable y is within the scope of predicate P at S-R, and P is projected onto a syntactic position H, then y must be associated with a position governed by H at every syntactic level; and vice versa, if an argument category C is governed by a syntactic position H, where H is the projection in syntax of a predicated, then C must

Levels of lexical and syntactic representation

13

be associated with an arg-variable which is within the scope of predicate P at S-R. The Rule of Predication as a syntactic rule was first proposed by Williams 1980.1 will assume the following formal requirement on Predication: an open predicate P can be predicated of Z if P and Z are sisters. Moreover, I will assume that in order to qualify as an open predicate, a category must bear a variable index. The syntactic function of the Rule of Predication is to assign a value to the variable index borne by the predicate. In particular, it is via the Rule of Predication that the external arg-variable of a verb or adjective is assigned the value of the lexical index borne by the subject, as shown in (1.7a). It is also via the Rule of Predication that a variable in a relative clause is assigned the value of the lexical index borne by the head of a relative clause, as exemplified in (1,7b). Rather than considering Predication to be a coindexing mechanism (as Williams 1980 does), I will assume it to be a contextual interpretative rule. In other words, Predication does not convert an argvariable into a lexical index; rather, it interprets the value of an arg-variable according to the context in which it is found. As we will see in Chapter 4, this way of thinking about Predication allows for an analysis of the Romance reflexive construction in which one and the same lexical index assigns a value to two distinct arg-variables in the course of a derivation.3 (The lexical index of the head noun percolates up to the NP by projection.) (1.7) a. [S[NP. The man,] [ vp xmet x Mary yesterday]] x = j by Predication b. [NPj The manj [s.x that x [ s Mary met ex yesterday]]] x = j by Predication The Rule of Predication may be formulated as follows: (1.8)

If an open predicate P is present at a syntactic level L, then P has as sister a category C with index i at level L and the variable borne by P is interpreted as having the value i at level L.

Predication has other functions besides that of assigning a value to a variable. It also plays a crucial role in determining denotation. Recall that each lexical item bears a lexical index that identifies it in the lexicon. This lexical index stands for the concept or type that the lexical item designates (Frege's "sense"). Technically speaking, we can then say that, for example, the noun man, which bears the lexical indexj, denotes j. By assigning the value

14

Levels of lexical and syntactic representation

j to the arg-variable borne by the predicate VP and S' in (1.7a) and (1.7b), repectively, the Rule of Predication creates a new concept or type (one which is not represented by a lexical item), namely an object which has the property of "being a man" and of "having met Mary yesterday". A lexical index, borne by lexical items, is not to be confused with a referential index, borne by noun phrases which function as referential expressions in a discourse. It will be argued in Chapter 2 that the predicate N' contained in an NP (unlike a VP or an operator-headed S') is not predicated of a lexical index. Instead, as suggested by Williams 1981,1982, the N' is predicated of the referential index of the NP which contains it (i.e. the "referent" of the NP). The N thus accomplishes the function of restricting the class of possible denotations of the NP. Some motivation for the hypothesis that Predication plays a role in determining denotation will be mentioned in section 2.2. (See also Vergnaud (in preparation) for arguments that predication plays a crucial role in determining referential dependencies.)4 Among the open predicates that bear an arg-variable index, two types may be distinguished. There are those that are formed at S-structure, like the relative in (1.7b) and similar operator-headed clauses. The operator in Comp position in (1.7b) acquires its index via wh-movement. This index is then percolated onto S' by the following Rule of Predicate Formation, which applies as soon as its context of application is met:5 (1.9)

Rule of Predicate Formation Copy the index of an operator onto its mother node

I will refer to such predicates as syntactic predicates (or S-predicates). The Rule of Predication applies to them at S-structure, assigning a value to their arg-variable index. The other type of predicates that bear an arg-variable index are adjective and verb phrases that acquire their status as open predicates by virtue of being the syntactic projection of a lexical head. I will refer to them as lexical predicates (or L-predicates). The linking of an arg-variable index to the lexical head is accomplished in this case by the linking rules that map the lexico-semantic level of representation (S-R) onto a second level of lexical representation called lexico-syntactic structure (L-R). This leads us to the second property around which the mapping from S-R onto syntax is articulated. Second Property. L-Rs are lexico-syntactic frames which mediate the mapping from S-R onto syntax of arguments selected by a major lexical predicate. Prepositions are minor predicates. Therefore, their arguments are not mapped onto L-R; in the unmarked cases, they are mapped directly from S-R onto syntax. I will refer to arguments whose mapping is mediated by L-R as "direct arguments" and to those which are not mediated by L-R as "indirect arguments".

Levels of lexical and syntactic representation

15

The distinction between direct and indirect arguments is not new. It is found in many different frameworks: Lexical-Functional Grammar (LFG) and Relational Grammar draw this distinction at the level of grammatical functions or grammatical relations (cf. the "semantically restricted" vs. "semantically unrestricted" GFs in LFG and the "pure" vs. "impure" grammatical relations in Relational Grammar). See also Marantz 1984, who draws the distinction between direct and indirect arguments with respect to selection. Unlike the other frameworks, including the one I am presenting here, Marantz assumes that the external argument is an indirect rather than a direct argument of the main predicate. The following linking rules map the direct arg-variables from S-R onto L-R: (1.10)

Core Linking Rules If a predicate P is projected onto a position Hin the lexical frame, then A. Link the internal arg-variable of P to a position governed by H (Rule of Projection) B. Link the external arg-variable of P to the head of the lexical frame (Rule of L-predicate Formation)

Default Linking Rule C. If B does not apply, then copy the index of the argument governed by the head of the lexical frame onto the head of the lexical frame (Default Rule of L-predicate Formation) Linking rule (1.10A) is essentially the Rule of Projection formulated earlier, but applied to the mapping between S-R and L-R. Linking rules (1.10B) and (1.10C) are rules of L-predicate formation; they link an arg-variable to the head of the lexical frame, thus creating an open L-predicate. (1.10C) is a default rule that only applies if (1.1 OB) does not. To illustrate, consider the mapping of the S-R of put onto L-R by application of rules (1.1 OA) and (1.1 OB). The lexical frame specifies the categorial nature of the syntactic category onto which an arg-variable is mapped. This information is predictable in many cases; but some idiosyncrasies also exist. See the discussion of "hidden Q" and "hidden E" in Grimshaw 1979 and the discussion of raising predicates below. In the examples in (1.11) N stands for a nominal syntactic category. The argument selected by the locative preposition in (1.11a) is not mapped onto L-R; it is directly mapped onto the syntax.

16

Levels of lexical and syntactic representation

(1.11)

a. put: S-R: put^y, x; Loc P z L-R: VX Ny

An unaccusative verb like arrive gives rise to the following S-R/L-R mapping by application of core linking rule (1.10A) and default linking rule (1.10C):

b. arrive:

S-R: arrive^y

Vy Ny Note that the Default Rule of L-predicate Formation (1. IOC) replaces the rule of NP-movement. In effect, within this system NP/trace relations are the projection onto syntactic structure of lexical binding relations (i.e. binding relations established at L-R by a rule of predicate formation). If the Rule of Predication applies as soon as its context of application is made available, then an L-predicate will trigger the Rule of Predication at D-structure. In (1.7a), as well as in (1.12), the Rule of Predication assigns the value j to the variable x at D-structure. The man in subject position in structure (1.12) is therefore bound to the object position at D-structure. (1-12) [ s [ NPj The man,] [vpX [vx arrived] ex yesterday]] x = j by Predication This means that, within this system, D-structure is equal to the NP-structure proposed by van Riemsdijk & Williams 1981; i.e. a structure that contains NP/trace binding relations (but not operator/trace relations, which are formed at S-structure or in the mapping from NP-structure to S-structure). The study of many different languages has shown that a verb assigns accusative Case to its internal argument if it also selects an external argument. That is, in general, transitive verbs (like put, eat, hit) but not monadic verbs (like arrive, come) assign accusative Case to their object. See Perlmutter 1978, Burzio 1981, B. Levin 1983, and others. Within the theory of lexical representation outlined above, this generalization can be captured by formulating the context for accusative Case assignment in the following way: (1.13)

Assign accusative Case to i in the following structural context: \l) Zi], where L is the head and Z is a sister of the head, j and i are lexical indices, and j is different from i.

Levels of lexical and syntactic representation

17

In the core cases Acc Case may be seen as the morphosyntactic reflex of a certain type of L-R, namely the type of L-R illustrated in (1.11a), where an arg-variable index is governed by a head which bears a different arg-variable index. Structural Case assignment applies at S-structure and requires adjacency between the Case assigner and the NP that receives Case (see Stowell 1981).6 We have seen that within the system proposed here, syntactic NP/trace relations are the projection of lexical binding. This raises the question: what is the lexical representation of the so-called raising predicates? As is well known, monadic predicates such as seem, appear, turn out, likely have the peculiar property that they require the subject of their infinitival complement to be mapped onto the matrix subject position: John seems to have left; John is likely to leave. Some languages (English, for example) also have diadic raising predicates: consider, believe, prove... They have the property that they can Case-mark the subject of their infinitival complement: We consider Mary to have succeeded in this enterprise. And, when they undergo passivization, the subject of their infinitival complement is mapped onto the matrix subject position: Mary was considered to have succeeded in this enterprise. Within GB (see Chomsky 1981), these peculiarities of raising predicates are captured by assuming that these predicates can trigger a rule which deletes the S' node of their infinitival complement. Lacking a maximal projection, the clausal complement becomes transparent with respect to government and the matrix predicate then governs the embedded subject position (modulo a definition of government which does not require sisterhood between governor and governee, unlike the definition given in (1.2)). Given this transparency, the matrix verb may assign Acc Case to the embedded subject (if the verb is diadic) or the embedded subject may undergo NP-movement (if the matrix predicate is monadic or if it has undergone passivization). Given that the Rule of S'-deletion is lexically governed, it is reasonable to assume that it applies in the lexicon rather than in the syntax. I will propose below a particular way of incorporating the phenomenon of S'-deletion into the lexical representation of raising verbs and adjectives. It is often assumed that S is the projection of an Inflection node (Infl), which carries the ±tense feature and the verbal agreement features: person, number, and gender (AGR). S is therefore an Inflection Phrase (IP) (a suggestion due intially to K. Hale). S' may then be analyzed as the concatenation of Comp and IP. While propositional arguments usually map onto an S' (leaving aside "hidden" propositional arguments which map onto an NP), the so-called raising predicates have the lexical property that they can map their propositional argument onto a Comp-less clause, namely IP. Let us assume the following plausible hypothesis: the rule of subject-verb agreement, which coindexes Infl with the subject position, applies blindly; that is, it applies regardless of whether the Infl node contains an agreement morpheme.

18

Levels of lexical and syntactic representation

If the lexical index of the subject is copied onto Infl (both in finite and infinitival clauses), then we can assume that the Rule of Predication applies in (1.14), not between VP and the subject, but rather between VP and Infl (which always bears the lexical index of the subject). (1.14)

S'

Given these assumptions, we can assign the L-Rs in (1.15) to raising predicates like seem and consider. Raising predicates can map their propositional argument onto a projection of Infl. If Infl always carries an index which stands for the lexical index of the subject, then it follows that the subject's index of the complement of raising predicates is indirectly made accessible at L-R. In (1.15a), rule (1.10C) copies the index of Infl onto the head of the lexical frame, creating the required lexical binding, which, when projected onto the syntax, gives rise to the binding relation that exists in raising constructions between matrix and embedded subjects. In (1.15b), rule (1.10B) links the external arg-variable to the head of the lexical frame. The lexical item associated with the variable y in the syntax will then be assigned Acc Case by virtue of the fact that y is governed by a verb which bears the index x (where x and y are distinct arg-variables).

Levels of lexical and syntactic representation (1.15)

a. seem:

19

L-R(l):

L-R(2): Vy Infly (after application of (1.10C)) b. consider:

L-R: V" Infly

Verbs like seem and consider can also take a complement that is traditionally analyzed as a small clause (John seems sick; John considered Mary happy). According to the analysis proposed by Stowell 1981, 1983, small clause complements are the projection of a lexical category (rather than a projection of the syntactic node Infl). If Sto well's analysis is correct, it is not possible to extend the analysis proposed above for the so-called S'-deletion verbs in order to account for subject-to-subject raising and for the Acc Case-marking of the embedded subject in constructions with small clauses. It was suggested above that it is an inherent property of Infl to bear a variable that stands for the lexical index of the NP with which it agrees. It is then reasonable to assume that if a lexical head takes an IP as syntactic complement, it is Infly that appears as sister of the head in the lexical frame (where y = the embedded subject's lexical index). On the other hand, it is not an inherent property of a lexical category to carry an arg-variable. A lexical category acquires one via the Rules of L-predicate Formation. In fact, there are some cases of verbs that do not carry an arg-variable (i.e. verbs which do not function as open L-predicates): the passive of intransitive verbs in Dutch, German, and other Germanic languages. Verbs of this type are undoubtedly marked, but they are nevertheless attested (see section 3.2.1 for discussion). The verbs seem and appear, when they take an S' as complement, cannot function as open L-predicates either (cf. *That John left early seems; *That Mary is the youngest person in this class appears). Consequently, if a lexical head maps its internal propositional argument onto an adjectival complement, it is not to be assumed that it is simply the bare category A that appears as sister of the head in the lexical frame. In order to account for subject raising out of an adjectival small clause (as in Mary seems happy) and for the Acc Case-marking of the subject of an adjectival small clause (as in We considered Mary happy), we could exploit the following lexical property of adjectives. Adjectives carry a morphological AGR element that agrees in person, number, and gender with

20

Levels of lexical and syntactic

representation

the noun of which the adjective is predicated (Mary is crazy) or with the noun which the adjective modifies (as in the small tables). In English, agreement is not overt, but it is in many other languages, like French for example {Marie est folle (sing, fem); les petites (sing, fem) tables). We may therefore consider adjectives to be a composite category " < A + A G R y > " , where y stands for the lexical index of the NP with which the adjective agrees. The lexical index of the subject of the small clause is then indirectly made available at L-R via the AGR element borne by the adjectival head of the small clause, as shown in (1.15'a) and (1.15'b), which are alternative L-Rs to (1.15a) and to (1.15b), respectively. (1.15')

a. L-R(l):

^ V

L-R(2):

^

< A + AGRy> ^ ^ ^

Vy

< A + AGRy>

(after application of (1.10C)) b. L-R: Vx

To recapitulate, the idea behind the analysis of raising predicates with a sentential complement is the following. These predicates project their propositional argument onto a Comp-less clausal node, IP, which is the projection of Infl. Infl carries an arg-variable index which, in the syntax, is assigned the value of the subject. Consequently, the index of the subject of a Comp-less clause is indirectly made accessible at L-R via Infl. (Note that neither a Question nor a tensed Proposition can be mapped onto a Comp-less clause. We could attribute this to the fact that Comp is the locus of the Q-operator as well as of the tense-operator.) Raising predicates with an adjectival small clause complement are predicates that map their propositional argument onto a projection of an adjectival head. Adjectives are composite categories that carry an AGR element; AGR bears a variable index that stands for the lexical index of the NP of which the AP is predicated in the syntax (or of the noun which the AP modifies). Consequently, the index of the subject of an adjectival small clause is indirectly made accessible at L-R via AGR. (For an analysis of passivized raising predicates, as in Mary was believed to have left early and Mary was considered happy, see section 3.2.1 ; for some remarks on nominal small clauses, see Chapter 3, note 6; and for a discussion of verbal small clauses, see section 3.2.2.)

Levels of lexical and syntactic

representation

21

Let us now examine the status of the Theta-Criterion within the framework outlined here. The Theta-Criterion is formulated by Chomsky 1981 in the following way: (1.16)

Theta-Criterion Part A: An argument must be assigned at most one theta-role. A theta-role must be assigned to at most one argument. Part B: An argument must be assigned at least one theta-role. A theta-role must be assigned to at least one argument.

Within the framework outlined here, Part A of the Theta-Criterion is reformulated as follows, where "lexical index" and "arg-variable" replace the notions of "argument" and "theta-role", respectively. (1.16A') Biuniqueness Condition on Interpretation An occurrence of a lexical index cannot assign a value to more than one arg-variable in the S-R of a given lexical item. An arg-variable in the S-R of a given lexical item cannot be assigned a value by more than one occurrence of a lexical index. Note that the Biuniqueness Condition must be stated in terms of "occurrence of a lexical index" rather than in terms of "lexical index" in order to allow for cases like This boy likes that boy. In effect, the lexical item boy is identified in the lexicon by a lexical index k. Therefore, both the external and internal arg-variables are associated with the lexical index k in the above-mentioned sentence, but crucially they are associated with two distinct occurrences of A:. Naturally, lexical indices which are members of an NP/trace chain created by the Rule of Predication at NP-structure count as one single occurrence, as well as the lexical indices which are members of a chain headed by a nonargument or adjunct position (i.e. an A-position). Note furthermore that (1.16A') is restricted to verify biuniqueness locally for the predicateargument structure of a given lexical item. In fact, given that the model of grammar proposed here does not have recourse to free chain formation, Part A of the Theta-Criterion as reformulated in (1.16A'), in conjunction with the Rule of Projection (see (1.6)), is sufficient to characterize the structures that are well formed with respect to biuniqueness. The well-formedness of NP/trace chains are constrained by lexical representations. Furthermore, NP/trace chains can never intermingle with wh/trace chains in an undesirable way, since wh-movement, which applies between NP-structure and S-structure, is a rule of adjunction. I will argue below that the reformulation of Part A of the Theta-Criterion given in (1.16A') is not only sufficient but also necessary.

22

Levels of lexical and syntactic representation

Let us consider the first part of the Biuniqueness Condition. Note that the formulation given in (1.16A') allows for one and the same occurrence of a lexical index to assign a value to two arg-variables of two distinct lexical items. This is in fact the desired formulation, given examples like those in (1.17a-d), where one and the same occurrence of a lexical index can assign a value to an arg-variable of a main predicate and to an arg-variable of an adverb (the examples are from Jackendoff 1972, discussed in Zubizarreta 1982 in connection with Part A of the Theta-Criterion). The external argvariable of the active verb seduce in (1.17a) and the internal arg-variable of the passive verb seduced in (1.17b) are assigned a value via Predication by the lexical index in subject position, namely by the lexical indices of John and Mary in (1.17a) and in (1.17b), respectively. These same occurrences of lexical indices assign a value to the external arg-variable of the adverb intentionally via Modification in these sentences. The intention is thus attributed to John in (1.17a) and to Mary in (1.17b). (1.17c-d) are examples of "subject-oriented" adverbs in S'-deletion complements. Jackendoff notes that "examples of this type are somewhat inconsistent in acceptability" (1972:83), but to the extent that they are to be considered grammatical, they illustrate the same point as the examples in (1.17a-b) do. The lexical index of Mary in embedded subject position in (1.17c) and in matrix subj ect position in (1.17d) assigns a value to the internal arg-variable of the embedded verb seduced by Predication and to the external arg-variable of intentionally by Modification. (1.17)

a. b. c. d. e.

Intentionally John seduced Mary Intentionally Mary was seduced by John Max expected Mary intentionally to be seduced by John Mary was expected intentionally to be seduced by John The ball was dropped intentionally

A brief parenthesis is in order here to clarify the notion of Modification. Modification does not always relate a modifier with an argument's index directly. It may do so indirectly by establishing a relation between the modifier and a syntactic category which is directly related to an argument's index. I will therefore refer to Modification as a mechanism of indirect evaluation of arg-variables. In the examples in (1.17a-d) the adverb modifies IP (= S) (the embedded IP in the case of (1.17c-d)); it therefore has access to the lexical index borne by the head of IP (Infi), namely the lexical index of the NP in subject position. Given the indirect nature of Modification, modifiers may have access to a "hidden argument", i.e. an argument which is not mapped onto the syntax, as shown by example (1.17e). Constructions with "hidden arguments" will be discussed extensively in the following chapters. It will be suggested that, in cases in which a syntactically unrealized argvariable is not assigned a lexical value by a modifier, it is assigned an

Levels of lexical and syntactic representation

23

existential or generic interpretation by a default mechanism of arg-variable interpretation ("Ex" and " G " stand for existential and generic values, respectively). In (1.17e), the syntactically unrealized external arg-variable of dropped is assigned an existential interpretation by the default mechanism of arg-variable interpretation. The adverb intentionally modifies the VP in (1.17e) and therefore has access to the arg-variable with an "Ex" value in the lexical representation of the head of the VP (i.e. the passive verb dropped). The external arg-variable of intentionally is thus assigned an existential interpretation. I give below a formulation of the Rule of Modification which insures the interpretation of modifiers which are predicates and of modifiers which are arguments. I will refer to the former as "adjunct predicates" and to the latter as "adjunct arguments". Several cases of adjunct arguments will be discussed in the following chapters. (The Rule of Modification will be slightly revised in section 3.3.) (1.18)

Rule of Modification A modifies B in the context: [C... A ... B ...] iff C immediately dominates A and B, C is a projection of B, and B is not a head. If A is an adjunct predicate which contains a variable x, then B or the head of B contains an arg-variable with lexical index i and x is assigned the value i. If A is an adjunct argument with lexical index i, then B or the head of B contains a variable x and the value / is assigned to x.

According to the definition of Modification given above, a sister of XP' is a modifier of XP'. It therefore follows that if the subject of a sentence is a sister of IP', the subject modifies IP'. This is not an undesirable result to the extent that it allows us to reduce the rule of subject-verb agreement to the Rule of Modification. In other words, a subject agrees with Infl (which carries the verbal agreement features) to the extent that Infl is the head of IP' and that the subject modifies IP'. Turning back to the main thread of the discussion, note that the same occurrence of a lexical index is considered to assign a value to an arg-variable of a verb via Predication and to an arg-variable of an adverb via Modification in examples (1.17a-d), to the extent that both Predication triggered by an L-predicate and Modification apply at the same level of representation, namely at NP-structure. If Modification were to apply at S-structure, then, strictly speaking, two different occurrences of a lexical index would be assigning a value to the arg-variable of the verb and to the arg-variable of the adjunct predicate. NP-structure and S-structure are distinct representations; therefore, a lexical index k borne by the subject position at NP-structure and

24

Levels of lexical and syntactic

representation

by the subject position at S-structure are, strictly speaking, distinct occurrences of k. The notion "occurrence of an index" is not to be confused with the standard notion "token-index" by which items are recognizable across levels. Consider, for example, relative clauses like The lady that Orson met was born in Shanghai. The lexical index of lady assigns a value to the external arg-variable of born at NP-structure and to the internal arg-variable of met at S-structure. But the lexical index borne by lady at NP-structure and the lexical index borne by lady at S-structure (although they are the same tokenindex) represent distinct occurrences of lexical indices. The reason that Modification must be considered to apply at NP-structure within this framework is that certain adjuncts can be removed from their context of interpretation via wh-movement: cf. How raw did John eat the meat; How late did John arrive. With van Riemsdijk & Williams 1981,1 assume in this work that the grammar exploits the notion of levels for the sake of interpretation, rather than chains of indexed positions coupled with some mechanism of reconstruction. The main motivation in favor of the level of NP-structure given by these authors is that certain grammatical principles (like the principle that governs the distribution of anaphora, for example) are sensitive to the "D-structure" position of displaced wh-phrases but not to the "Dstructure" position of "displaced NPs". Following this line of reasoning, Modification must apply prior to wh-movement, in order to furnish the correct interpretation to sentences with wh-moved adjuncts; namely, it must apply at NP-structure. The next question that arises is the following: is the first part of the biuniqueness condition on arg-variable interpretation reducible to some other property of grammar? The answer is probably yes. It is a general property of lexical items that argument-placeholders in their lexico-semantic representation are represented by distinct arg-variables, which stand for distinct occurrences of lexical indices. Therefore, if the grammar pairs a lexical representation L with a syntactic structure S and associates one and the same occurrence of a lexical index with more than one arg-variable of L, then the above-mentioned well-formedness condition is violated by L. As we shall see in Chapter 4, there exists a construction in which a lexical index in subject position assigns a value to both the external arg-variable and the internal arg-variable of one and the same lexical item, but crucially this occurs at different levels of representation: the lexical index in subject position assigns a value to the external arg-variable at NP-structure and to the internal arg-variable at S-structure, a phenomenon which will be shown to arise when a syntactic process converts an L-predicate into an S-predicate. And recall that a lexical index i in a certain structural position at two distinct levels of representation represents two distinct occurrences of i. Note furthermore that it is not necessary to stipulate that Predication is triggered by a phrasal predicate (for example the VP in (1.7a)) but not by the

Levels of lexical and syntactic representation

25

head of the phrase, even though the head of the phrase might govern an argument (as is the case in (1.7a)). The reason is that if the head of the phrase governs an argument, that argument is necessarily associated by Projection to an internal arg-variable (see the Rule of Projection in (1.6)). Therefore, if the Rule of Predication is triggered by the head of the phrase, this would give rise to a situation in which one and the same lexical index is associated with two arg-variables at the same level of representation. An example of such a case would be a sentence like It killed a man, where it is an expletive and the lexical index of man assigns a value to both the internal and external argvariables of kill. This violates the lexical requirements of the verb kill, which contains two distinct arg-variables in its lexico-semantic structure, and recall that distinct arg-variables stand for distinct occurrences of lexical indices. Let us now turn to the second part of the Biuniqueness Condition, which says that an arg-variable selected by a lexical item must be assigned a value by at most one lexical index. As stated, this condition correctly disallows an arg-variable selected by a lexical item to be assigned a value by more than one lexical index, while it correctly allows for an arg-variable which is not part of the S-R of a lexical item (i.e. an arg-variable which is a property of the phrase) to be assigned a value by more than one lexical index. In effect, the E(vent)-variable borne by verbal phrases that denote an event can be assigned a value by more than one temporal and/or locative adjunct via Modification (She met Orson yesterday atfour o'clock in Paris in a crowded restaurant). See Davidson 1966, Higginbotham 1985.7 Part B of the Theta-Criterion, restated using the concepts assumed in this work, reads as follows: (1.16B') Every variable must be assigned a value. Every index must assign a value to a variable. Chomsky 1986a suggests that this part of the Theta-Criterion is reducible to a more general condition on the interpretative components of the grammar, namely, the Principle of Full Interpretation (FI), which requires that every grammatical entity be interpretable at PF (if present at the level where the phonological/phonetic interpretation is assigned to a sentence) and at LF (if present at the level where the semantic interpretation is assigned to a sentence). FI forbids the presence of uninterpreted phonemes, as well as vacuous operators, free variables, and lexical material that is not integrated semantically in the sentence. (See Chapter 3 for a proposal to extend the application of FI to the lexicon.) To summarize, the model of grammar that will be assumed in the following chapters consists of two levels of lexical representation and two levels of syntactic representation:

26

Levels of lexical and syntactic

representation

Lexicon: Lexico-semantic structure (S-R): the level which encodes the grammatically relevant properties of lexical meaning in the form of a set of partially structured predicate-argument relations. Lexico-syntactic structure (L-R): the level which mediates the mapping of direct arguments from S-R onto syntax. This is accomplished by the Rule of Projection (1.1 OA) and two Rules of L-predicate Formation ((1.1 OB) and (1.10C)). Syntax: NP-structure (as defined in van Riemsdijk & Williams 1981): the syntactic level which constitutes the pure representation of lexical properties. This includes NP/trace relations (or so-called A-binding relations), which are generated, in part, by a rule of predicate formation applied at L-R. Lpredicates trigger the application of the Rule of Predication at NP-structure. The Rule of Modification applies at this level as well. NP-structure feeds the Semantic Interpretative Component (SI). S-structure: the level derived from NP-structure by wh-movement and other syntactic A-binding processes (see sections 2.3 and 4.2.2.2) that create binding relations between an adjoined position and a trace. S-predicates are formed at this level via rule (1.9). Consequently, S-predicates trigger the application of the Rule of Predication at this level. S-structure feeds, on the one hand, PF and, on the other hand, SI. In the core cases, the mapping from S-R onto syntax of arguments selected by verbs and adjectives is mediated by L-R, while arguments selected by a preposition are mapped directly from S-R onto syntax. It is conceivable though that irregular or marked cases of linking do exist in the lexicon, i.e. cases in which arguments selected by a preposition get linked to L-R. In the following section, I will suggest that such marked cases of linking are attested, giving rise to distorted relations between lexico-semantics and syntax.

1.2. DISTORTED MAPPINGS OF PREDICATE-ARGUMENT RELATIONS ONTO SYNTAX

In this section, some examples of distorted mappings between lexicosemantics and syntax created by marked linkings between S-R and L-R are discussed: certain cases of locative and goal arguments in 1.2.1, a class of experiencer predicates in 1.2.2, and a class of German adjectives in 1.2.3. To the extent that the S-R/L-R distinction provides the means to characterize this phenomenon, it provides an initial motivation for postulating these two

Levels of lexical and syntactic representation

27

levels of lexical representation. In section 1.2.4 the Rule of Projection (1.6) will be revisited in order to make it compatible with the cases of marked linkings described in sections 1.2.1 and 1.2.3. 1.2.1. On certain locative and goal arguments Locative arguments are selected by locative prepositions. There are cases though in which the locative argument, instead of surfacing in the syntax as the object of a preposition, surfaces as the object of the verb. Examples (1.19b) and (1.20b) illustrate this case: (1.19)

a. b.

The soldiers fled from the city The soldiers fled the city

(1.20)

a. ?The soldiers entered into the city b. The soldiers entered the city

An argument selected by the preposition to at S-R (or perhaps by the combination verb + to, as suggested in section 1.1.1 ) is expected to surface as the object of the preposition to in the syntax. But there are cases in which such arguments turn out to surface as the object of the verb. Compare (1.21) with its French counterparts in (1.22), where the argument selected by the dative preposition à surfaces obligatorily as the object of the preposition à in the syntax: (1.21)

a. The general commanded/ordered/instructed/invited the troops to evacuate b. John promised Mary/to Mary to leave early

(1.22)

a. Le général a ordonné *les troupes/aux troupes de partir b. Jean a promis *Marie/à Marie de partir tôt

The existence of L-R permits us to describe distortions of the type illustrated above by establishing in the lexical representations of such verbs a marked linking between the argument selected by the preposition at S-R and the position governed by the head of the lexical frame. For example,flee will have the lexical representation in (1.23). The parenthesized linking encodes a marked option: (1.23)

flee:

S-R: flee,

x;fromy

L-R V"

(Ny)

28

Levels of lexical and syntactic representation

The external arg-variable is linked to V by rule (1.10B), but no rule can be held responsible for the linking of the internal arg-variable of the preposition from to the position governed by V. This is an idiosyncratic property o f f l e e . (But see section 3.3 for an alternative analysis of the verb enter and of the dative examples in (1.21).) 1.2.2. Nonstative experiencers The class of nonstative experiencers (amuse, interest, bore) constitutes another case of distorted mapping between S-R and syntax.8 These verbs have the following peculiarity. The argument that surfaces in the subject position in the verbal sentences (1.24) surfaces as the object of a preposition in the adjectival counterparts (1.25a-c). The choice of preposition is not determined by the adjectival passive construction; it is determined by the base predicate: interest.. . in, bore . . . with, amuse ... at. (1.24)

John's stories amused/interested/bored the children

(1.25)

a. The children are amused at John's stories b. The children are bored with John's stories c. The children are interested in John's stories

If the adjectival passives in (1.25) are derived from the verbs in (1.24) by externalization of the internal argument (see section 3.1.3 for a discussion of adjectival passive formation), then the sentences in (1.25) suggest that the "object of experience" is selected at S-R by a preposition. The verbs amuse, bore, and interest must therefore be attributed the following S-R/L-R pairs:9 (1.26)

a. amuse: S-R:

amuseY\aPy

b. interest: S-R: interesPx; iriy c. bore:

S-R: borPx;

wittiy

f\

Vy

Nx

The verb's internal arg-variable is linked to the position governed by the head of the lexical frame by rule (1.1 OA). In contrast, the linking of the preposition's internal arg-variable to the head of the lexical frame cannot be attributed to a rule. It is an idiosyncratic property of this class of predicates. (Note that this idiosyncratic linking overrides the default linking rule (1.10C).)

Levels of lexical and syntactic representation

29

Other examples of nonstative experiencers are: astonish (at), delight (at), disappoint (with), disgust (at), dismay (at), distress (at), elate (at), embarrass (at), irritate (at), puzzle (at), relieve (at), surprise (at). In a handful of cases the language does not provide phonological content for a prepositional predicate, as is the case with the nonstative experiencers convince, hurt, humiliate, inspire. The argument that surfaces in subject position in (1.27) is selected by an "abstract preposition", which has semantic content but no phonological specification. These verbs have the type of lexical representation given in (1.28) (where P stands for a semantically full but phonologically null preposition). (1.27)

a. b. c. d.

The The The The

evidence convinced her disclosures humiliated her remark hurt her sunset inspired the poet

(1.28)

S-R: convince)/-, P^x

V* Ny The argument selected by the phonologically unspecified preposition is headed in the adjectival passive by the dummy preposition by. (The following examples are from Amritavalli 1980.) (1.29)

a. b. c. d.

She remained unconvinced by the evidence John seemed humiliated by the disclosures I was very hurt by that remark The poet seemed more inspired by the dinner than by the sunset

We may assume that a dummy preposition whose function is to provide phonological content for a phonologically empty but semantically full prepositional predicate is inserted at L-R. This is a reasonable assumption to the extent that its presence is lexically determined. The dummy preposition by in (1.29a-d) is inserted in the lexical frame of the adjectival passives convinced, humiliated, hurt, inspired, as illustrated in (1.30) for convinced (derived by adjectival passive formation; see section 3.1.3). (This dummy preposition should not be confused with semantically vacuous prepositions that function as Case-markers (such as the o/that heads the internal argument of derived nominals), which are inserted in the syntax; see section 2.1.)

30

Levels of lexical and syntactic representation

(1.30)

S-R: convinced, x ; P y L-R:

/A

Vx

by

As will be shown in section 2.1.3, the syntax of nominalizations supports the hypothesis that by is inserted in the lexical frame of these adjectives in order to allow for the syntactic realization of an argument selected by a phonologically unspecified prepositional predicate.10 It is perhaps not an accident that nonstative experiencer verbs do not organize their predicate-argument structure as in (1.31). ((1.31) would be the S-R that one would postulate if one were to consider that the syntax of such experiencer verbs do in fact reflect their predicate-argument structure.) (1.31)

a. amuse: amusex, y b. interest: interests, y c. bore:

boré\, y

(where the internal arg-variable x is the "experiencer" and the external arg-variable y is the "object of experience") What characterizes this class of verbs is the opaqueness of its subject. In the sentences X amuses/bores/interests Y, Xcan be a definite description which does not presuppose existence. Thus, the sentences The king of France amuses/bores/interests me can be assigned a truth value (either true or false) despite the fact that France has no king. J. Fodor 1979 argues that we should not think of definite descriptions like "the king of France" as nonexistent. We should think of it as nonexistent in the "real" world but existent in a fictional world, comparable to the world of the fictional character "Winnie the Pooh", with the difference that "Winnie the Pooh" belongs to a specified fictional world while "the king of France" belongs to an underspecified fictional world. Fodor argues moreover that predicates can be classified as establishing "same-world" relations or "crossworld" relations. The following sentences are judged false because stand next to and married to are predicates that establish a relation between entities in the same world (either in a fictional world or in the "real" world): (1.32)

a. The king of France is standing next to me I am standing next to the king of France b. The king of France is married to my sister My sister is married to the king of France

Levels of lexical and syntactic representation

31

On the other hand, admire, think of, amuse, interest, and resemble are crossworld predicates. Cross-world predicates can be classified into two types: "symmetric" and "asymmetric" predicates. Resemble is a "symmetric" predicate: both its subject and its object can belong either to a fictional world or to the "real" world. Thus, both sentences (1.33a) and (1.33b) can be assigned a truth value (perhaps the value "true" if in fact both my grandfather and Santa Claus happen to be specified for similar properties): (1.33)

a. My grandfather resembles Santa Claus b. Santa Claus resembles my grandfather

Examples of asymmetrical predicates are admire, think of, amuse, interest. In the case of the first two predicates the object may belong either to the fictional world or to the "real" world, but the subject must belong to the "real" world. On the other hand, in the case of amuse and interest (and other nonstative experiencer verbs) the subject is unrestricted with respect to world-type but the object must belong to the "real" world. We can, of course, use these predicates to talk about Winnie the Pooh (i.e. X amuses/interests Winnie the Pooh, Winnie the Pooh admires/is thinking of X), although Winnie the Pooh does not belong to the "real" world. Fodor proposes that pragmatic principles can "save" these cases: we tend to try to assign a truth value to sentences. Therefore, we can "shift" worlds and "act" as if the world of Winnie the Pooh were the "real" world. The asymmetric character of predicates like admire, think of, amuse, interest are reflected in the nonequivalence with respect to truth value of the following two sets of sentences: (1.34)

a. The king of France amuses/interests me b. I admire/am thinking of the king of France

(1.35)

a. I amuse/interest the king of France b. The king of France admires/is thinking of me

(1,34a,b) may be assigned a truth value (either true or false). (1.35a,b), on the other hand, are judged to be neither true nor false: they constitute cases of truth-value gaps. In effect, we can apply the above-mentioned pragmatic principle and "act" as if the fictional world of the king of France were the "real" world, but since the fictional world of the king of France is underspecified we cannot assign a truth value to these sentences. If we think of opacity in the manner suggested by Fodor, then we can postulate the following constraint on the organization of predicate-argument relations, which rules out predicate-argument structures like those in (1.31).

32

Levels of lexical and syntactic representation

(1.36)

Constraint on S-R *Px, y — if P is a cross-world predicate and y is not specified for existence in the "real" world.

Fodor casts the distinction between "real" and "fictional" within an ontology of "possible worlds". This is irrelevant for our present purpose. We can think of the notions introduced by Fodor as equivalent to the more psychologically-based distinction between "subjective" and "objective". What is important to retain here is that the constraint stated in (1.36) is not formulated in terms of ill-defined thematic roles (such as "experiencer" and "object of experience"). In this respect, it is important to stress that the distinction between "real" and "fictional" worlds (or equivalently between "subjective" and "objective" worlds) is formal, rather than substantive. Objects are conceptually classified into two different classes: those that inhabit or exist in the same mental world as the "speaker" and those that don't. In fact, (1.36) should probably not be stated as a well-formedness condition on S-R, but rather as a constraint on the mapping between conceptual representations and the grammatical lexico-semantic level of representation, since the notions invoked probably belong to the conceptual module rather than to the grammatical module. 1.2.3. A class of German adjectives It was suggested in section 1.1.1 that adjectives, unlike verbs, do not select internal arguments of the lexical type. It is therefore reasonable to assume that, in the unmarked case, grammars lack the lexical frame [A N], given that in the unmarked case there will be no argument to project onto the nominal position. It is therefore not surprising that in many languages (such as English, Spanish, French) adjectives take prepositional complements but not direct objects. But exceptions to this generalization do exist. For example, in German there is a subclass of adjectives which take direct objects Casemarked dative or genitive (rarely, accusative). See van Riemsdijk 1983, from whom I borrow the following examples: (1.37) a. Der Hans ist seiner Freundin uberdrussig geworden Hans is of his girlfriend weary become 'Hans has grown tired of his girlfriend' b. Die Universalgrammatik soil dem Menschen angeboren sein universal grammar is-said to man innate be 'Universal grammar is said to be innate to man' One can attribute this property of German adjectives to their marked choice of the lexical frame [A N], onto which the dependent of a prepositional

Levels of lexical and syntactic representation

33

predicate at S-R is mapped. Both the choice of lexical frame and the linking of the argument of a preposition onto the position governed by the head of this lexical frame are considered (within this analysis) to be a marked property of German adjectives. It is therefore not surprising that the arguments thus mapped are in most cases assigned genitive or dative Case (which probably reflects their S-R origin) rather than the structural accusative Case. 1.2.4. A reformulation of the Rule of Projection The formulation of the Rule of Projection given in (1.6) requires that, on the one hand, if a predicate that selects an internal argument is projected onto a syntactic position H, position H must govern the internal argument selected by the predicate at every syntactic level and, on the other hand, if a syntactic position / / i s associated with a predicate at S-R and if //governs an argument, that argument must be selected by the predicate associated with//. Note that the marked linkings described in sections 1.2.1 and 1.2.3 do not conform to the second part of the requirement. In the sentence The soldiers fled the city the direct object governed by the verbflee is selected at S-R by the preposition from and not by the verb flee. Similarly, in the German sentences given in (1.37) the adjective governs an argument which it does not select; the argument governed by the adjective is selected at S-R by a prepositional predicate. It is therefore necessary to revise the Rule of Projection to allow for government relations established at L-R for which there are no counterparts at S-R. Clearly, what is needed is a more general formulation that will cover government relations encoded both at S-R and at L-R. (The formulation given below will be further revised in Chapter 4.) (1.38)

Rule of Projection (revisited) If arg-variable y is governed by predicate P at a lexical level of representation, and Pis projected onto a syntactic position//, then >> must be associated with a position governed b y / / a t every syntactic level; and vice versa, if an argument category C is governed by a syntactic position H, where / / i s associated with a lexical predicate P, then Cmust be associated with an arg-variable which is governed by P at a lexical level of representation.

Examples like The soldiers fled the city conform to this revised version of the Rule of Projection to the extent that the argument governed by flee in the syntax is also governed by flee at a lexical level of representation, namely at L-R. Similarly, in the case of the German examples in (1.37), the argument governed by the adjective in the syntax is also governed by the adjective at L-R. Further motivation for the Rule of Projection as formulated in (1.38) will be given in sections 3.1.1 and 3.2.2.

34

Levels of lexical and syntactic representation

1.3. CONCLUSION

1 summarize below the main features of the theory outlined in this chapter. It was proposed that the lexicon is composed of two levels of lexical representation: S-R and L-R. The distinction between these two levels is similar in spirit to the distinction between selection and subcategorization proposed in Chomsky 1965. S-R is the level where selectional relations are characterized. L-R, like subcategorization frames, is defined in terms of a syntactic vocabulary (i.e. syntactic categories). Still, the theory of lexical representation proposed here is different from that of Aspects in several important respects. First, it is claimed that S-R and L-R are actually two distinct levels of representation. As we shall see in the following chapters, different types of processes apply at S-R and at L-R. Second, S-R and L-R have different properties from the lexical entries proposed in Aspects. S-R is in some respects richer than the theory of selection proposed in Aspects. On the one hand, S-R distinguishes arguments selected by a major predicate from arguments selected by a preposition. On the other hand, S-R distinguishes between external and internal arguments (a la Williams), a distinction which reflects a fundamental property of how lexical meaning is organized and which is encoded in structural terms. An .internal argument is "within the scope" of the predicate which selects it, while the external argument is "outside the scope" of the predicate which selects it. In other words, a predicate governs its internal arg-variable but not its external arg-variable at S-R. (A proposal similar in spirit to ours, concerning the manner of representing the external/internal distinction, has been put forth by Hale 1982.) The properties assigned to subcategorization frames in Chomsky 1965 and the properties assigned to L-R are also different in important respects. First, all and only the complements of a verb, adjective, and noun are represented in subcategorization frames. Thus, subcategorization frames draw the distinction between subject and complements. L-R, on the other hand, draws the distinction between "direct" and "indirect" arguments (where "direct" arguments are those whose mapping onto syntax is mediated by lexical frames). In the unmarked cases, only arguments selected by a major lexical predicate (both external and internal) are associated with L-R. L-R conceived in this manner allows us to characterize cases of marked linkings, where an argument selected by a preposition ends up being mapped onto the subject or object position by virtue of being irregularly linked to L-R. In a certain sense, L-R is also richer than subcategorization frames in that it makes a distinction as to how the external and internal arguments are associated with a syntactic position. While the internal argument is associated with the position governed by the head of the lexical frame by the Rule of Projection, the

Levels of lexical and syntactic representation

35

external argument is associated with the head of the lexical frame by a rule of predicate formation, thus creating an open predicate to be saturated at NP-structure by Predication. L-R is then the level where L(exical) predicates are formed. When there is no external argument available, as in the case of the so-called unaccusative verbs, a default rule of predicate formation copies the arg-variable governed by the head of the lexical frame onto the head of the lexical frame, thus creating a binding configuration which, when mapped onto the syntax, gives rise to NP/trace relations. Predicates formed at L-R trigger the application of the Rule of Predication at D-structure. Therefore, within the framework proposed here, the traditional notion of D-structure is equivalent to the NP-structure of van Riemsdijk & Williams 1981, a level which includes binding relations between NPs and their traces. S-structures are derived from NP-structure by whmovement and other processes of binding between adjunct or A-positions and their traces (such as the ones to be discussed in sections 2.3 and 4.2.2.2). S(yntactic) predicates are formed at S-structure by a rule which copies the index of an operator onto its mother node; they therefore trigger the application of the Rule of Predication at S-structure. In conclusion, both syntactic levels, NP-structure and S-structure, are relevant in determining the semantic interpretation of a sentence. In other words, both NP-structure and S-structure constitute inputs to SI. It was argued that the domain of application of the biuniqueness part of the Theta-Criterion should be restricted to the S-R of a given lexical item. Furthermore, it was suggested that one part of the biuniqueness condition (the part that requires that a lexical index assign a value to at most one arg-variable in the S-R of a given lexical item) is reducible to a general property of lexical structures, namely the requirement that each argumentplaceholder in the lexico-semantic structure of a lexical item be occupied by a distinct variable, which represents a distinct occurrence of a lexical index. Besides the mechanisms of direct evaluation of arg-variables (the Rule of Projection and the Rule of Predication), the grammar also contains a mechanism of indirect evaluation of arg-variables: the Rule of Modification, which, within the framework presented here, must be assumed to apply at NP-structure.

NOTES 1. G. Cinque (personal communication) notes that in Italian there exist some adjectives that allow ne-cliticization from post-adjectival position (Ne è nota Vonestà 'Of him is known the honesty'). Given the proposal outlined in the text, I would argue that the verb essere 'be' and these adjectives form a semantically complex verbal predicate. A verbal predicate, unlike an adjectival one, can select an internal argument of the lexical type.

36

Levels of lexical and syntactic

representation

2. The type of grammatical phenomenon that is often evoked in the literature as a test for determining when a preposition takes an external argument (or, more precisely, a syntactic subject) has to do with referential opacity, but see Chomsky 1981: 290-91 for a critique. 3. I am indebted to N. Hornstein for lengthy discussion on William's notion of predication and for suggesting to me that predication could be seen as a mechanism for "theta-role assignment". For some different ideas on the topic, see Hornstein 1985,1986, who proposes that Predication as well as Modification apply at PF. 4. As is well-known, an NP which contains an adjectival modifier, such as the small elephant, picks out a class of objects different from the one picked out by the NP subject in The elephant is small. We can attribute this difference to the fact that in the first example the adjective is contained within the predicate that is predicated of the reference of the NP. This gives the following meaning: 1 C (elephant & small), where " 1" is the referential index of the N P and " C " stands for the relation "x is attributed the property P". In the second example, the adjective is not contained within the predicate that is predicated of the reference of the NP. The meaning obtained is therefore the following: (1 C elephant) & (elephant C small), where " 1 " is the referential index of the NP in subject position. 5. If we assume that S is the projection of Comp, then rule (1.9) can be dispensed with: X-bar theory insures that the properties of the head are inherited by its projections. Whether or not this assumption is correct remains open. 6. Kayne 1981a has proposed that in French sentences like Qui crois-tu être arrivé le premier 'Who do you believe to have arrived first', the index of the wh-word qui acquires accusative Case from the verb croire in passing through the intermediate Comp. Horvath 1981 and Kiss 1985 have argued that Acc Case-marking into COMP also exists in Hungarian. This is compatible with ( 1.13) to the extent that rule (1.9) percolates the index of the operator in Comp to its mother node S', thus putting the index of the operator in the context for Acc Case-assignment. (Note that if Kayne's proposal for French and Horvath/Kiss's proposal for Hungarian are correct, they constitute evidence that (1.13) applies at S-structure, given that wh-movement applies in the mapping from NP-structure to S-structure.) Still, these are to be considered marked structures to the extent that Acc Case would not constitute in this case the morphosyntactic reflex of a certain type of L-R. If Comp were considered to be the head of S' (see note 4), then Ape Case-assignment to Comp could be technically assimilated to the core cases, i.e. to cases in which the index (y) that is assigned Acc Case is governed by the head of the lexical frame (head which bears an index x, where x is different from y). It is not clear though whether such constructions should be assimilated to the core cases. It is interesting to note in this respect that in Spanish the wh-word in comparable structures is nominative, not accusative: Quien (Nom) / *A quien (Acc) crees haber venido. Also, both in French and in Spanish these sentences are felt as somewhat marked stylistically. 7. J. R. Vergnaud (personal communication) observes that one might question the belief that the E-variable does not obey the Biuniqueness Condition. First, the E-variable could be considered a composite variable: E(T,L), where T stands for "Time" and L for "Location". Second, in the example cited in the text, yesterday at four o'clock and in Paris in a crowded restaurant perhaps function as a single semantic constituent, which assign one temporal and one locative value to the T and L variables, respectively. The fact that a temporal and a locative value or unit can be decomposed into subvalues or subunits is to be attributed to the particular semantic properties of time and location. As expected, this property of time and location seems to be true of adjuncts as well as of lexical arguments. Consider, for example, the lexical item put, which contains in its S-R a locative preposition that selects a locative arg-variable. This locative arg-variable can be assigned a value which is also decomposable into subvalues, as shown by the coexistence of two locative phrases in the following example: John put the money in the drawer under a red shirt. In examples like Yesterday in Paris, I met John in a crowded restaurant at four o'clock, one might consider that there are two E(T,L) variables involved: one which is borne by Infl and another

Levels of lexical and syntactic representation

37

which is borne by the VP. In the above example, Yesterday in Paris would be analyzed as having scope over the proposition, and in a crowded restaurant at four o'clock as having scope over the VP. The proposal in this note would be further supported if instrumentáis are to be analyzed in certain cases as adjunct arguments rather than as lexical arguments. Instrumentáis behave like adjuncts with respect to VP-deletion: John cut the meat with a knife and Mary did so with a hammer. Compare with: *John loaded the truck with hay and Mary did so with sand. Still, a sentence cannot take more than one instrumental phrase: *John cut the meat with a knife with the sharp end. (But see Marantz 1984, who claims that instrumentáis must be analyzed as lexical arguments.) If the analysis proposed in this note can be maintained, then it would seem that the biuniqueness requirement on variables is inviolable and perhaps reducible to a more general cognitive principle. I leave this topic here without drawing a final conclusion. 8. Nonstative experiencers denote a process, unlike stative experiencers like love, fear, hate. 9. I will not be concerned here with the causative counterpart of these experiencer verbs: Mary amused the children with her stories, which have some peculiar properties. See Chapter 2, note 1. 10. The adjectival passives amused, interested, and bored can, to a certain extent, take the preposition by. IThe children were amused/interested/bored by the stories. As pointed out to me by C. Thiersch, this is probably due to the instability in the lexical choice of prepositions in the case of nonstative experiencer verbs, the use of the dummy preposition by being the default option. See section 3.1.3 for arguments that such examples are not the outcome of the application of verbal passive; they must be considered to be examples of adjectival passives. An explanation of why noncausative, nonstative experiencers cannot undergo verbal passive formation will also be offered in that section.

Chapter 2

The Lexical and Syntactic Representations of Noun Phrases

2.1. ON CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE SYNTAX OF NOUN PHRASES

This section will address some aspects of the syntax of derived nominals that denote a process (as opposed to those that denote a result). In particular, certain differences between the realization of arguments of verbs and the realization of arguments of their derived nominals will be discussed and an account in terms of the theory of lexical representation presented in Chapter 1 will be suggested. The account will be based essentially on the proposal that nouns lack the level of L-R; therefore, the arg-variables in the S-R of nouns are systematically mapped directly onto syntax. To the extent that this account is successful, it provides evidence in favor of the existence of two distinct lexical levels of representation: S-R and L-R. (The -ing nominal will not be taken into account in this work, but see van Haaften & Zubizarreta (in preparation).) 2.1.1. Some differences between verbs and their derived nominals It is normally assumed that verbs and their derived nominals (which denote an action or process) share the same predicate-argument structure. This is a reasonable assumption to the extent that predicate-argument structure represents the grammatically relevant aspects of lexical meaning and that verbs and their derived nominals are very close (if not identical) in meaning. In "Remarks on nominalizations" Chomsky argued that the rules for projecting argument structure onto syntax are virtually identical for verbs and their derived nominals. However, it is well known that there are a number of cases for which the projection of argument structure onto syntax is different for verbs and their nominal counterparts. I will discuss some of these cases below. 2.1.1.1. Nonstative experiencers in nominals As is well known, the syntactic realization of arguments of nonstative experiencer verbs such as amuse, bore, and interest (which were discussed in section 1.2.2) are different in S and in NP:1

40

The lexical and syntactic representations of noun phrases

(2.1)

Thd- stories amused/interested/bored the children

(2.2)

a.

The amusement of the children at the stories The interest of the children in the stories The boredom of the children with the stories b. The children's amusement at / interest in / boredom with the stories c. * The stories' amusement/interest/boredom of the children

The syntactic realization of the arguments of these experiencer derived nominals resembles that of their adjectival counterparts: (2.3)

The children are amused at / interested in / bored with the stories

Based on this observation, Jackendoff 1975 and Wasow 1977 proposed to relate such nominals to the adjectival participle rather than to the verb. Amritavalli 1980 criticized the Jackendoff/Wasow solution on the basis of the following observations. First, nouns like amusement and boredom are morphologically related to the verbs amuse and bore, respectively, rather than to the participles amused and bored. The participle morpheme -ed never shows up in nominals formed by affixation of -ment (amusement, excitement), -ation (humiliation, conviction), -ance (annoyance), or -dom (boredom).2 Second, Jackendoff/Wasow's solution misses a generalization. The verb/ noun mismatch is not an odd property of a handful of lexical items. Amritavalli notes that no nominal, whether derived or basic, has the following projection pattern: (2.4)

Experienced,

Experiencer

DET

OBJECT

Examples of basic nominals that belong to the nonstative experiencer class are terror and horror. As shown in (2.5a,b) and (2.6a,b), the arguments' projection of these nominals patterns with that of the adjective rather than with that of the verb. (2.5)

a. The news horrified/terrified Mary b. * The news' horror/terror of Mary

(2.6)

a. b. c.

Mary was horrified/terrified at the news Mary's horror/terror at the news cf. also: The horror/terror of Mary at the news

The lexical and syntactic representations of noun phrases

41

2.1.1.2. Certain locative and goal arguments in derived nominals As we saw in section 1.2.1, certain verbal lexical entries allow the argument of a locative preposition and the argument of dative to to be realized as a direct dependent of the verb. On the other hand, the nominal counterparts of these verbs do not allow these arguments to be realized as a direct dependent of the noun. Rather, these arguments must be headed by a locative preposition and by the preposition to. Compare (1.19), (1.20), and (1.21) (repeated below for convenience) with (2.7), (2.8), and (2.9), respectively.3 (1.19)

a. The soldiers fled from the city b. The soldiers fled the city

(1.20)

a. The soldiers entered into the city b. The soldiers entered the city

(1.21)

a. The general commanded/ordered/instructed/invited the troops to evacuate b. John promised Mary / to Mary to leave early

(2.7)

a.

John's flight from the city * John's flight of the city

(2.8)

b.

The soldier's entry into the city * The soldier's entry of the city

(2.9)

a.

The general's command/order/instruction/invitation to the troops to evacuate *The general's command/order/invitation of the troops to evacuate b. John's promise to Mary to leave early * John's promise of Mary to leave early

Similar contrasts are found in French with the verb fuir 'flee' and inviter 'invite', as shown by the examples in (2.10) and (2.11), respectively. (2.10)

a.

Les soldats ont fui hors de la ville Les soldats ont fui la ville b. La fuite hors de la ville * La fuite de la ville

(Some speakers may allow hors to drop in (2.10b). Still, the point I am making here remains. The phrase de la ville in the second example in (2.10b) does not function as a genitive internal argument of the noun, as shown by the

42

The lexical and syntactic representations of noun phrases

impossibility for it to undergo en-cliticization: *Onena vu lafuite 'We of it + saw the flight'. Compare with: On en a vu la destruction 'We of it + saw the destruction'.) (2.11)

a. b.

Le général a invité les soldats à évacuer la ville L'invitation aux soldats à évacuer la ville * L'invitation des soldats à évacuer la ville

The contrasts discussed above are to be compared with the following types of verb/noun pairs, where the argument that functions as a direct dependent of the verb also functions as the direct dependent of the head noun in the derived nominal. I am assuming the standard hypothesis that the argument headed by the preposition of in derived nominals is a direct dependent of the head of the NP. The preposition of is a semantically empty Case-marker (invisible to the Rule of Projection) which is inserted at S-structure by the following rule: [N NP], where NP is sister of the head noun N — [N of + NP], The of m derived nominals is thus claimed to be of a different nature from the of which heads the complement of certain adjectives. Recall that the latter is assumed to be an argument-selecting preposition which is present at S-R. (2.12)

a. The The b. The The

Romans destroyed the city Romans' destruction of the city teacher discussed Mary's book teacher's discussion of Mary's book

Languages may vary as to whether they can or cannot map the argument of a locative preposition or the argument of dative to onto the object position in S. Thus, French contrasts with English with respect to some of the above examples. Compare some of the English examples in (1.21) above with their French counterparts in (1.22) (repeated below for convenience). (1.22)

a.

Le general a ordonné/commandé aux troupes de partir * Le general a ordonné/commandé les troupes de partir b. Pierre a promis à Marie de partir * Pierre a promis Marie de partir

But languages don't seem to vary as to whether the argument of a locative or dative preposition may or may not be mapped onto the object position in the NP: it is systematically the case that they never do. Similarly, verbs within a language may vary as to whether an argument selected by a locative or dative preposition may be mapped onto the object position in S, but nominals never vary along this dimension within a language. These arguments are systematically prepositional in the NP.

The lexical and syntactic representations of noun phrases

43

2.1.1.3. The so-called passive construction in derived nominals It is commonly assumed (see Chomsky 1970, 1981, M. Anderson 1979, Dresher & Hornstein 1979, Kayne 1981b, among others) that the internal argument of a noun may be preposed to the determiner position by the rule of NP-movement, just as an object may be preposed to the subject position in a passive sentence: (2.13)

a. The Romans'destruction of the city The city's destruction (by the Romans) b. The company's performance of the play The play's performance (by the company) c. John's translation of the book The book's translation (by John) d. John's concealment of the knife The knife's concealment (by John)

But as is well known, such mappings (onto the Det position of an NP) are highly restricted, much more so than the mapping onto the subject position of a passive sentence.4 (2.14)

a.

John's avoidance of the police * The police's avoidance (by John) b. John's discussion of the book * The book's/its discussion (by John) c. The student's memorization of the formula * The formula's/its memorization (by the student) d. Sally's pursuit of the cat * The cat's/its pursuit (by Sally)

Compare (2.14a-d) with their corresponding passive sentences, which are grammatical: (2.15)

a. b. c. d.

The The The The

police/it was avoided (by John) book/it was discussed (by John) formula/it was memorized (by John) cat/it was pursued (by Sally)

M. Anderson 1979 notes that an internal argument of a noun can be preposed to the Det position if it is directly affected by the action denoted by the nominal. The objects of avoidance, discussion, pursuit, evasion, memorization, and mental statives like knowledge, realization are not affected by the action expressed by the nominal. On the other hand, the objects of nouns like destruction and dispersal are clear cases of affected objects (i.e. they undergo

44

The lexical and syntactic representations of noun phrases

change of state or location). The object ofperformance, translation, definition, publication are also affected, in some extended sense of "affected", in that the process denoted by the nominal implies the creation or recreation of an object. Likewise, the object of concealment and exposure, although not physically moved or changed, is in some way affected by being concealed or exposed: its relation to the observer is altered. (For a discussion of the formal characterization of "affectedness", see section 2.2.) 2.1.1.4. The so-called raising constructions in derived nominals While the subject of the clause embedded under passive verbs like reported, discovered and under raising verbs like prove may be preposed by "NPmovement" (as mentioned in section 1.1.2), such cases of "preposing" are excluded in the corresponding nominalizations: (2.16)

a. The conclusion proved to be wrong b. Mary was reported to be missing c. The world was discovered to be round

(2.17)

a. T h e conclusion's proof to be wrong b. *Mary's report to be missing c. *The world's discovery to be round

The impossibility of preposing the embedded subject to the Det position in (2.17a-c) could also be attributed to M. Anderson's generalization: only "affected objects" may be preposed in NPs. The embedded subject is not an object of the nominal at all; therefore it follows that it cannot function as an "affected object". Not only "subject-to-subject" raising constructions but also "subject-toobject" raising constructions are excluded from derived nominals. Compare (2.18) with (2.19): (2.18)

a. John discovered the world to be round b. John proved Mary to be wrong

(2.19)

a. * John's discovery of the world to be round b. * John's proof of Mary to be wrong

2.1.1.5. Evaluation of the external argument in derived nominals While the external argument of an (active) verb must be obligatorily evaluated in the syntax, this is not so in derived nominals: (2.20)

a. John discussed the book b. * It discussed the book (where it is an expletive)

The lexical and syntactic representations of noun phrases (2.21)

45

a. John's discussion of the book b. The discussion of the book

2.1.2. Rappaport's analysis of process derived nominals I reviewed above several cases in which the syntactic realization of arguments differ in the sentence and in the NP. Rappaport 1983 tries to cope with some of these problems within the framework of Lexical-Functional Grammar (LFG). In this framework the relation between predicate-argument structure (which consists of an unordered list of thematic roles) and syntactic structure is mediated by grammatical functions, which are considered to be primitive categories of the grammar. Two types of grammatical functions are distinguished: the semantically unrestricted GFs (SUBJ and OBJ) and the semantically restricted GFs (the OBLIQUE OBJ). Arguments of different semantic types may be mapped onto SUBJ and OBJ, since these GFs are semantically unrestricted. On the other hand, the semantic type of the argument that is mapped onto OBLIQUE OBJs is restricted by the preposition that heads these functions. As was remarked earlier, the distinction between direct and indirect arguments in the present work is similar to the distinction in LFG between semantically restricted and semantically unrestricted grammatical functions. Recall that direct arguments are those arguments whose mapping onto syntax is mediated by lexical frames, while indirect arguments are those which are projected directly onto syntax. In the core cases, the arguments mapped onto L-R are those selected by a major lexical predicate. The apparent cases of "semantic unrestrictiveness" arise when the lexical representation of a verb or adjective maps an argument selected by a preposition (i.e. a minor lexical predicate) onto a lexical frame, a frame which was initially conceived to mediate the mapping onto syntax of arguments selected by a major lexical predicate. These are the cases of "distortions" between lexical semantics and syntax discussed in section 1.2. The essence of Rappaport's proposal is the following: noun phrases lack semantically unrestricted GFs, i.e. SUBJ and OBJ. They only have semantically restricted GFs: OBLIQUE OBJs (among which the OBJ headed by the preposition of is included) and the POSS function (which is proper to NPs). Rappaport claims that the object of the preposition of is semantically restricted to themes. It therefore follows that locatives and goals may not be mapped onto the GF defined by of. The contrast between (1.19,20) and (2.7,8), and between (1.21) and (2.9), is thus accounted for. The problem with this assumption is that the notion "theme" is problematic and it is unclear whether such a notion has any grammatical relevance at all. Bresnan 1982a, who cites Gruber 1965, Jackendoff 1976, S. Anderson 1977, and Wasow

46

The lexical and syntactic representations of noun phrases

1980, gives the following definition of "theme": "The theme argument in a predicate is that argument which undergoes the motion or change in state denoted by the predicate" (Bresnan 1982a:24). Bresnan is well aware of the limitations of this definition of "theme": "...there are obvious difficulties in providing a consistent thematic analysis of nonmotional and nonlocational verbs..." Consider the derived nomináis in (2.14a-d). If we assume the definition of "theme" given above, the object of the verbs discuss, memorize, avoid, etc. is clearly not a "theme". Still, the object of these verbs is headed by the preposition of in their corresponding nominalizations. We could assume that "theme" is in fact a cover term for several types of semantic relations, but then the grammatical status of the notion "theme" becomes even more suspicious; it would seem to be a convenient label with no theoretical status. Alternatively, we could try to give a very general definition of "theme" (comparable perhaps to the definition of "object" in traditional grammars), but then the notion becomes so vague that it is useless. Rappaport claims that the status of POSS (which is optionally associated with the Det of an NP) as a semantically restricted grammatical function should explain the impossibility of mapping onto the determiner position an argument semantically classified as "an object of experience" or as "an unaffected object". See the ungrammatical examples in (2.2c), (2.5b), and (2.14). The problem with this claim is that the semantic class of arguments to which POSS is restricted does not form a natural class. It includes agents (the Romans' destruction of the city), "affected objects" {the city's destruction by the Romans; John's amusement at the stories), and time adverbials (yesterday's destruction of the city). If anything, the genitive in the specifier of the NP appears to be semantically unrestricted. As for the ungrammaticality of (2.17a-b) and (2.19a-b), Rappaport attributes it to the fact that "raising" is analyzed in LFG as a case of "functional control". Within this framework, only semantically unrestricted grammatical functions may have the status of "functional controllers", a stipulation which is independently necessary in order to account for the fact that "raising" only occurs in a sentence to positions characterized as subject or object of a verb, but never to a position characterized as object of a preposition. In conclusion, the account that Rappaport's analysis provides for most of the contrasts discussed in section 2.1.1 (i.e. the contrasts between (2.1) and (2.2), between (2.5) and (2.6b), between (1.19,20) and (2.7,8), between (1.21) and (2.9), and between (2.14) and (2.15)) is unsatisfactory. Still, there is an intuition behind Rappaport's analysis which I think is essentially correct. This intuition may be stated in theory-neutral terms in the following way: the relation between predicate-argument structure and syntactic structure is systematically more transparent in the noun phrase than in the sentence. The proposal that I will develop in the next section will be guided by the intuition implicit in Rappaport's analysis.

The lexical and syntactic representations of noun phrases

47

2.1.3. Levels of representation in noun phrases The discussion of the behavior of nonstative experiencers and of certain goal and locative arguments in nominals (sections 2.1.1.1 and 2.1.1.2) strongly suggests that NPs do not allow distortions between S-R and syntax. If an argument is selected by a preposition at S-R, that argument must be realized as a dependent of that preposition in the syntax. No irregular linkings are possible in the noun phrase. Why are irregular linkings impossible in NPs? Recall that irregular linkings are represented in the lexicon in the mapping between S-R and L-R. They arise when the lexical representation takes the marked option of [mediating the mapping of a prepositional argument from S-R onto syntax via L-R. The lack of irregular linkings in noun phrases therefore suggest that nouns lack the level of lexico-syntactic structure (L-R). Among the repertoire of L-Rs are lexical frames headed by the lexical categories V and A, but there are no lexical frames headed by N. Nominals inherit the S-R of the verb (or adjective) from which they are derived. Therefore, amusement, interest, boredom inherit the S-R of amuse, interest, bore (given in (1.26)): (2.22)

a. amusement: S-R: amusemenPy, aPx b. interest:

S-R: interesPy; irTx

c. boredom:

S-R: boredonpy; witfrx

Terror and horror (see (2.6b,c)) are basic nouns that belong to the same semantic class as the derived nominals in (2.22). It is therefore reasonable to assume that they have comparable lexico-semantic structures: (2.23)

a. terror (N):

S-R: terrofy; aPx

b. horror (N): S-R: horroPy; aPx The verbs terroriy) and horror(V) are derived from the nouns in (2.23). They therefore share the same S-R. These verbs, like amuse, interest, bore, contain a marked linking specification in their lexical entry. As illustrated below with the lexical entry of terror, the arg-variable selected by the preposition is linked to the head of the lexical frame, giving rise to examples like those in (2.5a).

48

The lexical and syntactic representations of noun phrases

(2.24)

terror (V) (derived from the noun): S-R: terrory; aPx

V"

Ny

Given that nouns lack the level of L-R, their arguments must be directly mapped from S-R onto syntax. All arguments in the noun phrase have the status of indirect arguments, including the argument governed by the nominal he^d. Recall that the Rule of Projection applies in the mapping from S-R onto L-R (projecting the internal argument of a verb onto the position governed by the head of the lexical frame) and from L-R onto syntax, as well as in the mapping from S-R onto syntax (projecting onto the syntax the internal arguments which are not mediated by a lexical frame). The Rule of Projection will therefore map both the internal argument of the noun as well as the internal argument of the preposition directly from S-R onto syntax, giving rise to examples like those in (2.2a) and (2.6c). We thus account not only for the nonexistence of (2.2c) and (2.5b), but also for why the "object of experience" is headed by the same preposition in the NP as in the adjectival passive (cf. (2.3) and (2.6a)). See section 3.1.3 for an analysis of adjectival passive formation, where it is argued that adjectival passives are derived at S-R and that a side effect of this process is the externalization of the internal argument. Since the "experiencer" is the internal argument of nonstative experiencer verbs, adjectival passives derived from these verbs trigger externalization of the "experiencer", which is then mapped (via L-R) onto subject position by the Rule of Predication. The argument selected by the preposition, on the other hand, is directly mapped onto the syntax via the Rule of Projection. Consequently, the same prepositional predicate that surfaces in the nominals of these nonstative experiencer predicates also surfaces in their adjectival counterparts. Recall that there exists a class of nonstative experiencer verbs that have in their S-R a prepositional predicate with no phonological specification: convince, humiliate, hurt, inspire (discussed in section 1.2.2). Interestingly, these verbs do not have process derived nominal counterparts. They only have result derived nominals: i.e. derived nominals that denote the result of a process (rather than the process itself). Cf. John's conviction/humiliation/ hurt/inspiration. These result derived nominals have a purely referential function; they are not argument-taking predicates. In other words, they lack the level of S-R. The reason why the derived nouns conviction, humiliation, hurt, inspiration cannot function as argument-taking predicates (and therefore cannot have the process reading) is because the grammar does not

The lexical and syntactic representations of noun phrases

49

provide the means for arguments of phonologically null prepositions to be realized in the noun phrase. If a preposition with no phonological specification is projected onto the syntax, it would give rise to a well-formed syntactic structure but to an ill-formed phonological form (PF). In effect, a phonologically unspecified preposition would be "invisible" at PF. Let us assume that the grammar contains a Case Filter that applies at PF (see Rouveret & Vergnaud 1978, Chomsky 1980, Vergnaud 1985) and which can be formulated as follows: an occurrence of a lexical index associated with a nominal argument with phonological content must be Case-marked and governed by its Case-assigner. Consequently, a sentence that contains an NP argument governed by a phonologically null preposition will be inexorably ruled out by the Case Filter. In the case of the adjectives convinced, humiliated, hurt, inspired, the prepositional argument can be successfully realized in the sentence due to the fact that its mapping is mediated by a lexical frame which inserts a dummy preposition {by) to provide phonological specification for the phonologically empty prepositional predicate (cf. (1.30)). As was said before, it is natural to assume that insertion of such dummy prepositions takes place at L-R to the extent that their presence is lexically governed. Since nouns do not have the level of L-R, a dummy preposition cannot be inserted to provide phonological specification for the phonologically empty preposition. Compare the adjectival passives in (1.29) with the noun phrases in (2.25). (2.25)

a. *The conviction of Mary by the evidence *Mary's conviction by the evidence b. *The humiliation of Mary by the disclosures *Mary's humiliation by the disclosures c. *The hurt of Mary by my remark •Mary's hurt by my remark d. *The inspiration of the poet by the sunset *The poet's inspiration by the sunset

The context of insertion of the semantically empty preposition of that functions as Case-marker in noun phrases is structurally determined (rather than lexically determined). It is therefore natural to assume that it is inserted in the syntax (more precisely, at S-structure). See section 2.1.1.2. Note that it is not possible to have recourse to the Case-marker of in order to generate NPs like The poet's inspiration of the sunset or Mary's hurt of the remark. If the NP argument selected by the prepositional predicate is present in the syntax (i.e. the sunset and the remark in the above-mentioned examples), then it means (according to the Rule of Projection, which governs the syntactic realization of internal arguments) that the prepositional predicate, although phonologically absent, is syntactically present. If the preposition is syntac-

50

The lexical and syntactic representations of noun phrases

tically present, then the context for insertion of a prepositional Case-marker is not met. Recall that the rule of »/-insertion in noun phrases requires sisterhood between the head noun and the NP to which of is adjoined. The prepositional predicate and the internal arg-variable that it selects have an optional status in the S-R of the adjectival passive of nonstative experiencer verbs {John is unconvinced, John seems inspired). Suppose that the prepositional predicate and its internal arg-variable were also specified as optional in the S-R of nonstative experiencer nominals. One might think that the lexicon could exploit this property in order to allow for the existence of argument-taking process derived nominals like conviction and inspiration. This is not possible because an arg-variable with an optional status at S-R gives rise both to an S-R with the arg-variable absent and to an S-R with an arg-variable present. In the latter case, the Rule of Projection requires that the arg-variable be mapped onto the syntax; a lexical item must then be associated with the arg-variable in order for it to receive an interpretation. Finally, note that in the case of the verbs convince, inspire, etc., the argument selected by the phonologically empty preposition is realized in the syntax (as subject of S) due to the fact that its mapping is mediated by a lexical frame which specifies (as for all nonstative experiencers) a marked linking between the arg-variable selected by the preposition and the head of the lexical frame (see (1.28)). As was said before, since nouns do not have the level of L-R, no irregular linkings are possible. Compare the examples in (1.27) with the derived nominals below. (2.26)

a. b. c. d.

*The evidence's conviction of Mary T h e disclosures' humiliation of Mary *My remark's hurt of Mary T h e sunset's inspiration of the poet

Other cases of marked linking (discussed in section 1.2.1) are found in the lexical entry of verbs like enter, flee, promise, invite, command, instruct, and order. These lexical entries allow (or require, in some cases) their prepositional argument to be linked to the position governed by the verb at L-R, giving rise to the second example of the pairs in (1.19), (1.20), and to (1.21). Again, such irregular linkings are impossible in the NP because nouns lack the level of L-R (cf. the ungrammatical noun phrases in (2.7), (2.8), and (2.9)). Instead, direct mapping of S-R onto syntax by the Rule of Projection generates the grammatical noun phrases in (2.7), (2.8), and (2.9). A similar account extends to the contrasts in French in (2.10) and (2.11). (But see section 3.3 for a reanalysis of many of these contrasts.) Recall that within the framework assumed in this work, NP/trace relations are the projection onto syntax of lexical bindings formed at L-R by a rule of predicate formation. Therefore, if nouns lack the level of L-R, it follows that

The lexical and syntactic representations of noun phrases

51

there are no lexical binding relations to project and, consequently, there are no NP/trace relations within noun phrases. This predicts the nonexistence of a passive counterpart in NPs, as well as the nonexistence of subject-to-subject raising. This prediction is entirely borne out with respect to raising (as illustrated by the ungrammatical NPs in (2.17)) and it is borne out to some extent with respect to passive (as illustrated by the ungrammatical NPs in (2.14)). The question is then: how do we account for the existence of NPs like (2.13a-d), (2.2b), (2.6b)? I.e. how is it that the genitive in the determiner can be interpreted as equal to the internal argument of the head noun just in case the internal argument belong to the "affected" class of objects? I will discuss this issue in section 2.2, where it will be suggested that there is no NP/trace relation is these cases either. Let us now turn to the following question: why do nouns lack the level of L-R? Nouns lack the level of L-R because they are not L-predicates: they cannot carry an arg-variable index to be saturated by the Rule of Predication. Since L-R is the level where L-predicates are formed, it is reasonable to assume that nouns simply lack this level of representation. Why can't nouns function as L-predicates? As suggested by Williams 1981, 1982, a noun (or, more specifically N') is predicated of the NP's referential index. Let us therefore refer to nouns as R-predicates* To illustrate, let us consider a specific example, the destruction of the city, to which we can attribute the referential index 1. (In order to distinguish referential indices from lexical indices, numbers will be used to stand for referential indices.) Let us assume that the referential index is borne by the determiner and inherited by the Spec node that dominates it. The category N, as well as its projection N', may be assumed to bear a variable index, one that stands for a referential index rather than a lexical index (which we may call the "R-variable", following Williams). Given that the N' and the specifier are sisters, the Rule of Predication can apply assigning to the R-variable the value of the index borne by the specifier (i.e. 1). Predication thus establishes the relation " 1 'is a' destruction of the city", restricting in this manner the class of possible denotations of the NP. Nouns cannot simultaneously be predicated of a referential index and of a lexical index. That is, they cannot function simultaneously as R-predicates and as L-predicates. The reason this is not possible is probably the same reason that verbs and adjectives cannot have two external arguments: a predicate cannot bear more than one variable to be saturated via Predication. (This property can perhaps be reduced to a more general biuniqueness condition, which also accounts for why one given category can assign at most one Case. See Koster 1984, Vergnaud 1985.) The fact that nouns cannot function as L-predicates explains why nouns lack the level of L-R, which in turn explains the lack of distorted mappings between lexical semantics and syntax in NPs, as well as the lack of NP/trace relations within NPs. As will be shown below, the fact that the external

52

The lexical and syntactic representations of noun phrases

arg-variable is only optionally evaluated in noun phrases (cf. the contrast between (2.20) and (2.21)) can also be attributed to the impossibility for a noun to function as an L-predicate. Recall that the external arg-variable is not evaluated by Projection. The external arg-variable of a verb or adjective is evaluated by Predication. This is possible because verbs and adjectives function as L-predicates. But given that nouns do not function as L-predicates, their external arg-variable cannot be evaluated by Predication. Recall that the Principle of Full Interpretation (FI) (from which Part B of the Theta-Criterion is derived) requires that every variable be assigned an interpretation (see section 1.1.2). How is it then that the external arg-variable of nominals gets interpreted? The Rule of Predication and the Rule of Projection (which, you will recall, are mechanisms for direct evaluation of arg-variables) have the property that they apply obligatorily: if their context of application is met, they must apply. This is not surprising since the function of these rules is to contribute to the satisfaction of FI. In the case of the Rule of Predication, its context of application is met if there is an open predicate present in the syntax. Therefore, sentences with an open L-predicate necessarily have a semantically full subject. Cf. the ungrammaticality of (2.20b). As was mentioned above, in the case of derived nominals, the external arg-variable cannot be assigned a value via Predication because nominals are not L-predicates (nor are they operator-headed structures). Given the existence of FI as a grammatical principle, the grammar must have some other rule for assigning an interpretation to an arg-variable when the mechanisms of direct evaluation fail to do so. Indeed, there are other ways in which arg-variables that fail to be evaluated by the mechanisms of direct evaluation can be assigned an interpretation. One way is via the Rule of Modification (discussed in section 1.1.2), which is an indirect mechanism of arg-variable interpretation. I repeat the formulation of this rule below. (Assignment of a lexical value to a variable is, as usual, dependent on the satisfaction of selectional restrictions.) (1.18)

A modifies B in the context [C... A ... B ...] iff C immediately dominates A and B, C is a projection of B, and B is not a head. If A is an adjunct predicate which contains a variable x, then B or the head of B contains an arg-variable with the index i and x is assigned the value i. If A is an adjunct argument with index i, then B or the head of B contains a variable x and the value i is assigned to x.

Like the rules of direct evaluation, the Rule of Modification is obligatory: if its context of application is met, it must apply. In other words, the Rule of

The lexical and syntactic representations of noun phrases

53

Modification must apply if there is a modifier present in the structure. But there is nothing in the Rule of Modification, nor in the lexical representation of predicates, nor in the phrase-structure rules that forces a modifier to be present in a given structure. Therefore, the presence of a modifier is systematically optional. To illustrate, consider time adverbials and locative adverbials (mentioned briefly in section 1.1.2). Recall that verbs do not select for a temporal argument and that many verbs do not select for a locative argument either, but that it is a property of an event or action to take place at a given time and at a given location. The time and place of the event are specified in the sentence by time and locative adverbials: John bought a boat yesterday at the store. How are yesterday and at the store integrated into or related to the sentence? As mentioned in Chapter 1, the VP in these examples bears an E(vent)-variable which can be assigned a value by locative and temporal adjunct arguments (namely, by yesterday and at the store in the above-mentioned example) via the Rule of Modification. As is well known, process or action nomináis can freely take temporal and locative adjuncts in postnominal position, as in John's criticism of my book yesterday during dinner at my aunt's house. Temporal adjuncts can also appear in the specifier of noun phrases, as in Yesterday's destruction of Saigon by the Americans. If the presence of such adjuncts implies the presence of an E(vent)-variable, then we must assume that the N' of process or action nomináis can carry an E-variable, which can be assigned a value via Modification by an adjunct argument and, in particular, by a temporal adjunct in the specifier position. Time specification as well as locative specification (in phrases headed by a lexical item that does not select a locative argument) are invariably optional. Like time and locative adverbials, but unlike the external argument of a verb, the genitive in the NP is invariably optional. Recall the contrast between (2.20) and (2.21). It is therefore reasonable to assume, as suggested in Zubizarreta 1985, that the genitive in the specifier of the NP has the status of an adjunct, which can assign a value to an arg-variable in the S-R of the head of N' via Modification. In (2.21a) the genitive John's modifies the N' discussion of the book and can therefore assign a value to the external arg-variable in the S-R of discussion. (I assume that the Spec node can simultaneously dominate a determiner and a genitive phrase. Note that while an overt determiner and a genitive phrase in the specifier cannot coexist in English, this is possible in other languages, such as Italian. For example, II suo appartamento 'the his apartment'.)

54

The lexical and syntactic representations of noun phrases

(2.21a') NP-Structure:

NP

Det1

NP'j

Johnj

S-R:

N

discussion

NP

of the book

(P

y), x

1 = R by Predication j = x (external arg-variable in the S-R of discussion) by Modification In conclusion, the optional evaluation of the external arg-variable of a process derived nominal by a syntactic phrase is due to the fact that a noun does not function as an L-predicate. The external arg-variable of a derived nominal can be indirectly evaluated by the Rule of Modification, which applies only if a modifier is present in the structure. The genitive in the specifier is not, of course, the only adverbial that can "indirectly evaluate" the external arg-variable in the S-R of a noun by Modification. As argued in Zubizarreta 1985, an adjective of a certain class as well as a ¿»j-phrase may specify the value of the external arg-variable by Modification. (These adjuncts are strictly external-argument oriented, like the adverbs voluntarily, intentionally...) (2.27)

a. The American invasion of Vietnam was condemned by the United Nations b. The destruction of Vietnam by the American soldiers was condemned by the United Nations

Rappaport 1983 (as well as Zubizarreta 1985, following Rappaport's observations) claims that the ¿^-phrase in nominals is restricted to agents: the desire to leave (*by Ann), the love of paintings (*by Ann), the knowledge of mathematics (*by John) (compare with Ann's desire to leave, Ann's love of paintings, John's knowledge of mathematics). It seems to me that this is an unnecessary restriction. It is probably the case that stative verbs (like desire,

The lexical and syntactic representations of noun phrases

55

love, fear) do not have a derived nominal counterpart with a predicateargument structure. The genitive phrase in the specifier in examples such as Ann's desire to leave is an adjunct that bears the relation of "Possessor" with respect to the N' (as in the example John's book). In fact, NPs that denote an object (concrete or abstract) or the result of a process can carry a Poss(essor)variable. This Poss-variable, which we may assume is borne by N', receives a value from the adjunct in the specifier via Modification. (See section 2.3 for discussion of the nature of the Poss-variable and the type of nomináis that can select it.) As for the infinitival clause to leave early and the prepositional phrases of paintings and of mathematics in postnominal position in the above-mentioned examples, they can be considered to be adjuncts that specify or restrict the denotation of the nouns desire, love, and knowledge, respectively. Note that the stative experiencer nouns can take a benefactive complement: Ann's lovefor painting, John's desirefor power, John's hatredfor mathematics. The for-phrase in these examples cannot be analyzed as an argument inherited from the verbs love, desire, and hate, as indicated by the nonexistence of the verbal counterparts: *Ann lovesfor painting, *John desired for power, *John hates for mathematics. The prepositional phrase must therefore be analyzed as an adjunct complement.6 It is possible to show that the phrase headed by de 'of in the French examples son amour des couleurs 'his love of colors', sa haine des Nazis 'his hatred of Nazis' is a prepositional phrase and not a nominal phrase on the basis of ew-cliticization, which supports the hypothesis that this phrase is an adjunct and not an internal argument of the head noun. The genitive "de NP" (which has a nominal status) can be cliticized out of the NP, but a prepositional complement headed by the preposition de cannot. Interestingly, a contrast seems to exist between examples like On pourrait en décrire la destruction (where en corresponds to de la ville in On pourrait décrire la destruction de la ville 'We could describe the destruction of the city') and examples like T!On pourrait en décrire 1'amour (where en would correspond to des couleurs in On pourrait décrire 1'amour des couleurs 'We could describe the love of colors'), VOn en a décrit la haine (where en would correspond to des Nazis in On a décrit la haine des Nazis 'We described the hatred of Nazis').For yet another piece of evidence that the "de NP" is a prepositional phrase in the examples under discussion, see section 2.3. Another example that comes to mind concerning the claim that the adjunct fry-phrase can only evaluate a +agentive external arg-variable in nomináis is the surrounding of the house (*by trees). Although I have omitted -ing nomináis from the discussion in this work, it is easy to verify that the stative verb surround does not have a corresponding nominal. For the sentence The trees surround the house there is no corresponding NP the trees' surrounding of the house. Compare this paradigm with the verb surround that denotes a process and its corresponding nominalization: The soldiers surrounded the

56

The lexical and syntactic representations of noun phrases

house / The soldiers' surrounding of the house; the surrounding of the house by the soldiers. We have seen that a "hidden" arg-variable (i.e. a syntactically unrealized arg-variable) in the S-R of a head of a noun phrase can be assigned an interpretation via Modification. We have also seen that the Rule of Modification applies optionally, namely when there is an adjunct present to trigger it. The question that then arises is: how is the "hidden" arg-variable assigned an interpretation when the Rule of Modification does not apply? I would like to suggest that the grammar has a default mechanism of argvariable interpretation which assigns to the "hidden" arg-variable a minimal semantic interpretation in such cases. This can be illustrated most clearly with verbal passives (which will be discussed at length in section 3.2.1). When the "hidden" arg-variable in verbal passives is not assigned an interpretation by an adjunct £_y-phrase, it can be interpreted either existentially or generically, depending on the temporal specifications of the sentence. In the presence of a generic adverbial modifier, the "hidden" argument is interpreted generically. The generic operator can be either overt, as in In this country vegetables are usually cooked in oil, or implicit, as in Until recently the earth was believed to be flat, whefe there is an understood modal with a meaning equivalent to the adverb generally.1 In the absence of a generic modifier, the "hidden" argument is interpreted existentially, as in The Prime Minister was killed yesterday infront of a cinema. Similarly, in the absence of a a generic modifier, the "hidden" external arg-variable in process derived nominals is interpreted existentially. In short, the important point to retain is that the grammar has a mechanism for assigning a minimal semantic specification to arg-variables that are not syntactically evaluated (via the mechanisms of direct evaluation or by Modification). This minimal semantic specification is sufficient to satisfy FI. Coming back to the mechanism of indirect evaluation via Modification, note that there is an important formal difference between the interpretation via Modification of a variable which is not an argument of a lexical category (like the E-variable) and the interpretation via Modification of an argvariable contained in the S-R of a lexical category. More than one adjunct may be associated with the E-variable via Modification, as shown by the possibility of having more than one time adverbial in an S or NP: John discussed the book yesterday during dinner; John's discussion of the book yesterday during dinner. On the other hand, at most one adjunct may be associated via Modification with an arg-variable contained in the S-R of a lexical head. The external arg-variable in nominals cannot be assigned a value both by the adjunct genitive phrase and the adjunct ¿j'-phrase: *The Romans' destruction of the city by the soldiers, meaning 'the destruction of the city by Roman soldiers', nor both by an adjective phrase and a genitive adjunct or 6y-phrase: *The American invasion of Cuba by the marines; *The marines'

The lexical and syntactic representations of noun phrases

57

American invasion of Cuba (these NPs are possible only under the interpretation 'the invasion of Cuba by the marines in the American fashion', where the adjective has a manner interpretation and not an agentive interpretation). The ungrammaticality of these noun phrases is to be attributed to the Biuniqueness Condition on arg-variable interpretation (cf. (1.16B')), which requires that at most one value be assigned to an arg-variable in the S-R of a lexical item. As remarked in section 1.1.2, since the Biuniqueness Condition does not apply to arg-variables that are not lexically determined, the E-variable (which is a property of the phrase and not of a particular lexical item) can be assigned a value by various adjuncts (but see note 6 in Chapter 1). It remains to be discussed why verbs that give rise to "raising-to-object" constructions do not have a derived nominal counterpart. Cf. (2.19a-b). In section 1.1.2, it was suggested that accusative Case is assigned to a lexical index j in the following context: L\..ZU where L is the head, Z is a sister of L, i and j are lexical indices, and i is different from j. A head noun, not being an L-predicate, does not bear a lexical index. Therefore, it can never meet the requirements needed to function as an accusative Case assigner. Recall that the insertion of the Case-marker of requires sisterhood between the head noun and the NP to which of is adjoined (see section 2.1.1.2). Note that the embedded subject in the "subject-to-object" raising constructions in (2.19ab) is not a sister of the head noun. Therefore, it cannot receive Case via ¿»/-insertion either. Consequently, the embedded subject in these derived nominals lacks Case. The NPs in (2.19a-b) are then excluded by the Case Filter, which, you will recall, requires that every occurrence of a lexical index associated with a nominal argument with phonological specification be Case-marked.8 To summarize, I argued in this section that the syntax of noun phrases supports the existence of the level of L-R as defined in Chapter 1. The level of L-R mediates the mapping from S-R onto syntax of arguments selected by a major lexical predicate. L-R is also the level where L-predicates are formed. When the Default Rule of L-predicate Formation applies, it gives rise to a binding relation, which, when mapped onto the syntax, gives rise to NP/trace relations. The mediation by L-R of the mapping of arguments from S-R onto syntax also allows for the existence of irregular linkings between an argvariable and a syntactic position in certain cases. It was argued that noun phrases are R-predicates rather than L-predicates (i.e. they are predicated of a referential index rather than of a lexical index). Therefore, given that L-R is the level where L-predicates are formed, it is natural to assume that nouns lack the level of L-R. This hypothesis correctly predicts the lack of irregular linkings, of NP/trace relations, of a subject argument, as well as the nonexistence of subject-to-object raising constructions in noun phrases. It was suggested that the external arg-variable of action or process nominals,

58

The lexical and syntactic representations of noun phrases

which cannot be directly evaluated by Predication, can be indirectly evaluated by Modification. This implies that the genitive phrase and the ¿j-phrase in noun phrases have the status of adjuncts, a conclusion supported by the optional status of these phrases. The fact that several adjuncts can assign a value to an arg-variable borne by phrases (like the E-variable) but that at most one adjunct can assign a value to a syntactically unrealized arg-variable in the S-R of a lexical head was attributed to the fact that the Biuniqueness Condition on the interpretation of arg-variables applies only to lexically determined arg-variables, i.e. arg-variables contained in the S-R of a lexical item (cf. (1.16B')). 2.2. THE REPRESENTATION OF "AFFECTEDNESS"

We saw in the previous section that "affected" internal arguments can be evaluated by the genitive phrase in the specifier of a noun phrase via Modification (cf. (2.13))."Affectedness" seems to play a role in other areas of the grammar as well, for example in the English middle construction, which will be discussed in section 4.2.1. What we need is a formal characterization of the notion of "affectedness" that can be operative in the two constructions. As mentioned in section 1.1.1, the representation of predicates with an "affected" internal argument that will be argued for here is one in which the predicate and its internal argument form one complex predicate. The initial motivation for this type of representation was provided by the existence among the class of verbs with an "affected" internal argument of semantically transitive but syntactically intransitive predicates like eat. Based on the observation that intransitive eat is more restricted in meaning than transitive eat, it was proposed that the representation of the former verb contains an incorporated constant argument: (1.5a)

eat(2):

, x

Predicates with an incorporated constant argument function syntactically as monadic predicates. The existence of the Rule of Projection as part of the grammar requires that constant arguments be analyzed as part of a complex predicate. Recall that constant arguments are distinguished from argvariables in that the former are not projected onto the syntax. Now, if a constant argument were not incorporated in the predicate at S-R, then the Rule of Projection would force it to be projected onto the syntax. A conflict would thus arise between the definition of constant argument and the Rule of Projection. Furthermore, the hypothesis that intransitive eat has an external arg-variable and one incorporated constant argument in its S-R also explains why oMi-prefixation can apply to intransitive eat: The children outate the parents (meaning 'The children ate to a larger extent than the parents'). See

The lexical and syntactic representations of noun phrases

59

Bresnan 1982b. Oui-prefixation applies to verbs with a single arg-variable at S-R; it inserts the semantic feature 'to a larger extent than' into the base predicate, thus producing a new semantic verbal predicate to which a new internal arg-variable is added (the latter operation being probably a side effect of the insertion of the comparative feature). Application of outprefixation to eat generates the following S-R: (2.28)

outeat:

^y, x

Owi-prefixation never applies to regular transitive verbs with two argvariables: *The Soviets outdestroyed the Americans (meaning 'The Soviets destroyed things to a larger extent than the Americans did'). Therefore, the fact that semantically diadic but syntactically intransitive verbs like eat can undergo ouf-prefixation strongly suggests that such verbs do not have the same lexico-semantic structure as regular transitive verbs. Owi-prefixation can apply to monadic verbs: to intransitives (John outran his brother) as well as to unaccusatives. When it applies to unaccusatives, owi-prefixation triggers externalization of the internal arg-variable, given that a predicate cannot select more than one internal arg-variable (The basketball outbounced the tennis ball 10 to /; unaccusative bounce is derived from causative bounce by deletion of the external arg-variable; see section 3.1.1 for discussion of the process of anti-causativization). The S-R assigned to eat in (1.5a) (with an incorporated constant argument) allows us to give a unitary characterization of the formal condition on the application of o«/-prefixation: the verb must contain at most one arg-variable in its S-R. (There are of course other constraints of a semantic nature. Compare for example the ungrammaticality of John outarrivedMary with the ungrammaticality oiJohn arrived to a larger extent than Mary.) Further support in favor of the hypothesis that "affected" internal arguments have the status of incorporated arguments and in favor of the hypothesis that constants are not projected from S-R onto other levels of representation comes from the observation that, among the class of verbs that belong to the "affected" class, we find monadic predicates with a reflexive meaning. Cf. John shaves means 'John shaves himself. Examples like The boys outshaved the men show that shave (like eat(2) discussed above) has indeed a single arg-variable in its S-R. Within the framework proposed here, two verbs shave should be distinguished: shave( 1), which is a regular diadic verb, and shave(2), which has an incorporated constant internal argument SELF. (2.29)

shave(2):

, x

Interestingly, the hypothesis that verbs with an inherent reflexive meaning

60

The lexical and syntactic representations of noun phrases

are only found within the class of verbs with an "affected" internal argument is strongly supported by data in Dutch (and other Germanic languages). (For a discussion of the Dutch facts see Köster (to appear) and Everaert 1986.) In Dutch the morpheme zieh 'self cannot be syntactically bound by a subject which is a co-argument of it, as the contrast between (2.30) and (2.31) illustrates (the examples are from Everaert 1986). In (2.30) zieh is the subject of an adjectival small clause and is syntactically bound to the matrix subject. In the ungrammatical examples in (2.31), zieh occupies the object position and is bound to a subject which is a co-argument of the object. (2.30)

a. Marie maakt zieh niet druk Marie makes herself not busy 'Marie takes it easy' b. Ans acht zieh onschuldig 'Ans considers herself innocent' c. Karel toonde zieh tevreden Karel showed himself satisfied 'Karel was satisfied' d. Ria voelde zieh rijk Ria felt herself rich 'Ria felt rich'

(2.31)

a. * Zij begrijpen zieh niet They understand themselves not b. * Zij beluisterde zieh She listened herself c. * Zij kent zieh She knows herself d. * Hij beoordeelt zieh He judges himself

Consider now the examples in (2.32), which appear to be counterexamples to the generalization that zieh cannot be bound by a co-argument subject. (2.32)

a. Jan wast zieh 'Jan washes himself b. Zij droogde zieh af 'She dried herself off c. Hij sloeg zieh 'He hit himself d. Hij krabt zieh 'He scratches himself e. Jan verbergt zieh 'Jan hides himself

The lexical and syntactic representations of noun phrases

61

There is an obvious difference between the verbs in (2.31) and (2.32). The latter, but not the fomer, belong to the class of diadic predicates with an "affected" internal argument. The verbs in (2.32) can therefore be assigned a lexico-semantic structure with an incorporated constant argument zieh. Unlike self in English, zieh in Dutch can be morphologically cliticized onto the verb. This is why the constant zieh is phonologically visible in the examples in (2.32). The claim then is that the verbs in (2.32) are semantically diadic but syntactically intransitive. Zieh in (2.32), unlike zieh in (2.30), is not linked to a syntactic argument position. Morphological cliticization is optional with some verbs — like wassen 'wash' for example: Jan wast 'Jan washed' — but obligatory with others, like verbergen 'hide': *Jan verbergt 'Jan hides'. This can be considered to be, to a great extent, a lexical idiosyncrasy, as suggested by the contrast between the last-mentioned Dutch example and its English counterpart. (It is not the case that the clitic zieh always occupies an argument position at S-R. There are verbs that are both semantically and syntactically monadic and which have the clitic zieh as part of their morphology. Cf. Jan vergist zieh (Jan mistakes himself) 'Jan is mistaken'; vergissen zieh 'to be mistaken' does not have a regular transitive counterpart. In this case zieh probably has a purely morphological status.) If all verbs that are semantically diadic but syntactically intransitive (like eat(2) and shave(2)) belong to the class of predicates with an "affected" internal argument, then we have a good initial reason to postulate that all predicates of this class have an incorporated internal argument, whether it be a constant as in the case of eat(2) and shave{2) ((1.5a) and (2.29)), or an arg-variable as in the case of verbs like eat(I), shave( 1), destroy, translate, perform, expose. (1.5a)

eat(l):

, x

(2.33)

a. shave(l):

, x

b. destroy:

, x

c. translate:

!

x; (intoz,)

Nonstative experiences also belong to the class of predicates with an "affected" internal argument. The S-Rs in (1.26a-c) must therefore be replaced by (2.34a-c). (Recall that arg-variable y stands for the so-called "experiencer" and arg-variable x for the so-called "object of experience".) (2.34)

a. amuse:

; aPx

b. interest:

; iiix

62

The lexical and syntactic representations of noun phrases c. bore:

; with x

Let us now consider the mapping onto syntax of S-Rs with an incorporated arg-variable. These S-Rs can give rise a priori to two types of mapping: either the head of the complex predicate may be projected onto the head of the lexical frame, as shown in (2.35a), or the complex predicate itself may be projected onto the head of the lexical frame, as shown in (2.35b). In the first case, Core Linking Rule (1.10A) (which, you will recall, is the Rule of Projection applied in the mapping from S-R onto L-R) projects the internal arg-variable of the head of the complex predicate onto the position governed by the head of the lexical frame. In the second case, Core Linking Rule (1.1 OA) will not apply, since arg-variable y is an internal argument of the head of the complex predicate (and not of the complex predicate itself). (The structure of the complex predicate is given in tree notation for the sake of visual clarity.)

The mapping in (2.35a) gives rise to grammatical sentences like The soldiers destroyed the city and The boy hit the girl. On the other hand, the mapping in (2.35b) gives rise to ungrammatical sentences like The soldiers destroyed and The boy hit. The question is then: why are such sentences ungrammatical? The standard answer to this question is the following. Destroy and hit are diadic predicates; therefore, they must be saturated by two,NPs in the syntax. I am not sure though that this is the right answer. The passive counterpart of these verbs are also semantically diadic predicates and, yet, their external argvariable need not be assigned a value by an NP in the syntax (The city was destroyed; The child was hit). Similarly, derived nominals like destruction are semantically diadic, and, yet, their external arg-variable need not be

The lexical and syntactic representations of noun phrases

63

syntactically evaluated (yesterday's destruction of the city). As was suggested above, in the case of nomináis, this property is to be attributed to their status as R-predicates and, in the case of passive verbs, this property is due to the function of passive morphology (see section 3.2.1 for discussion). The generalization which seems to emerge and which must be explained is the following: there exist constructions with a syntactically unevaluated external arg-variable; on the other hand, constructions with a syntactically unevaluated internal arg-variable do not exist. 9 1 will offer a tentative explanation below, based partly on the formal characterization of the notions "external argument" and "internal argument" assumed in this work and partly on a well-formedness condition on predicates that trigger the application of Predication. In order for Predication to apply, the predicate must be fully specified or complete. In order for XP to have the status of a fully specified predicate, it must meet the following requirement: if XP dominates predicate P or a node thatdominates predicate P and if P has an arg-variable within its scope, then this arg-variable must be fully specified. (Note that, since an external argument is outside the scope of the predicate which selects it, its status is irrelevant in determining whether an XP has the status of a fully specified predicate.) The VP-predicate in the sentence The soldiers destroyed is not fully specified because its head V dominates a predicate which has in its scope an underspecified variable. The syntactically unrealized arg-variable in this example (which is incorporated in the complex predicate) is merely specified for existence by the default rule of arg-variable interpretation introduced in the previous section. An arg-variable which is only specified for existence has the status of an underspecified variable. An underspecified variable can satisfy the Principle of Full Interpretation but it cannot render a predicate complete. In order to have the status of a fully specified variable it must also be specified for grammatical features (person, number, and gender). Thus, note that an arg-variable linked to the lexical item someone does not have the same status as a "hidden" arg-variable with the value "Ex"; someone has grammatical features. 10 The requirement that predicates be complete in order to trigger Predication is perhaps not surprising if, as was suggested in section 1.1.2, Predication not only assigns a value to a variable at a given syntactic level of representation but it also plays a role in determining denotation. Thus, in a sentence like The soldiers destroyed the city, the VP-predicate in conjunction with the N-predicate in subject position denotes an object (more precisely, a concept or type) with the property of "being soldiers" and the property of "destroying the city". It is natural to assume that, in order to accomplish this function successfully, the VP-predicate must be fully specified or complete (in the sense defined above). The representation of predicates with an "affected" internal argument argued for above receives independent support from the syntax of nominali-

64

The lexical and syntactic representations of noun phrases

zations. Consider the action nominals derived from destroy, translate, and amuse. They inherit the S-R of the verbs from which they are derived: (2.36)

a. destruction:

,

x

b. translation:

, x; (intoz)

c. amusement:

\

afz

As we saw above for verbal predicates, these S-Rs can give rise to two types of mappings: either the head of the complex predicate is projected onto the syntax, in which case the incorporated arg-variable will also be projected onto the syntax by the Rule of Projection (1.38) (as shown in (2.37a)), or the complex predicate itself is projected onto the syntax, in which case the incorporated internal arg-variable is not projected onto the syntax (as shown in (2.37b)). In the latter case the head of the syntactic phrase is the mirror image of the complex predicate node. (Again, the structure of the complex predicate is given in tree notation for the sake of visual clarity.) (2.37)

a. NP-structure:

NP

Det

S-R:

(NP's)

N

NP

t

t

P

y P,x

The lexical and syntactic representations of noun phrases NP

b. NP-structure:

N'

Spec

Det

65

(NP's)

N

t S-R:

P,x P

y

The mapping illustrated in (2.37a) gives rise to the examples in (2.2a) and (2.6c) and to the first example of the pairs in (2.13). The mapping illustrated in (2.37b) gives rise to the examples in (2.2b) and (2.6b) and to the second example of the pairs in (2.13), which I repeat below for convenience. (2.2b)

The children's amusement at / interest in / boredom with the stories

(2.6b)

Mary's horror/terror at the stories

(2.13)

a. b. c. d.

The The The The

city's destruction (by the Romans) play's performance (by the company) book's translation (by John) knife's concealment (by John)

The arg-variable contained within the head of these NPs cannot be directly evaluated (by Projection or by Predication), but it can be indirectly evaluated via Modification. The adjunct genitive phrase in the specifier position modifies N' and can therefore assign a value to the internal arg-variable of the head of the complex predicate. Now suppose that the Rule of Modification were to choose to assign the lexical index of the genitive phrase in the specifier to the external arg-variable in the structure illustrated in (2.37b). This would give rise to ungrammatical noun phrases like The Romans' destruction (where the Romans is interpreted as the agent of destruction) and John's concealment (where John is interpreted as the agent of concealment). Once more, such noun phrases will be excluded by the requirement that an open predicate be fully specified or complete in

66

The lexical and syntactic representations of noun phrases

order to trigger Predication. Recall that the referential index borne by the determiner assigns a value to the R-variable borne by N' via the Rule of Predication, and it is through this process of Predication that the N'predicate restricts the class of possible denotations of the NP. In order to accomplish this function successfully, the N'-predicate must be complete. In the above-mentioned examples, the arg-variable incorporated in the head of the N'-predicate is merely specified for existence by the default rule of arg-variable interpretation; the N' therefore has the status of an underspecified predicate. (Again, note that the status of the external arg-variable is irrelevant in determining whether or not the N'-predicate is fully specified, since this arg-variable is outside the scope of the predicate mapped onto phrase structure.) Finally, note that the genitive phrase in the Spec position in (2.37b) cannot be interpreted as equal to both the incorporated internal arg-variable and the external arg-variable. That is, in the Romans' destruction, the genitive cannot simultaneously assign predicative content to the two arg-variables in the S-R of destruction via Modification. This would violate the lexical requirement of destruction, which requires (like all lexical predicates do) that each argvariable in its S-R be assigned a value by a distinct occurrence of a lexical index (see the discussion in section 1.1.2). Let us now consider nouns which do not belong to the class of predicates that "affect" their internal argument, like avoidance, discussion, memorization, pursuit. These nouns have the following S-Rs (inherited from the verb from which they are derived): (2.38)

a. avoidance:

avoidancPy, x

b. discussion:

discussion y, x

c. memorization: memorization y, x d. pursuit:

pursuify, x

These S-Rs can only give rise to the type of mapping illustrated in (2.37a). The Rule of Projection requires that the internal arg-variable be mapped onto the syntax, given that it is selected by a predicate which is associated with the head of the syntactic phrase. This explains why the adjunct genitive phrase in the specifier cannot assign a value to the internal arg-variable of these nouns, as shown by the ungrammaticality of the second example of the pairs in (2.14), repeated below for convenience: (2.14)

a. *The police's avoidance (by John) b. *The book's/its discussion (by John)

The lexical and syntactic representations of noun phrases

67

c. *The formula's/its memorization (by the student) d. *The cat's/its pursuit (by Sally) To summarize, in this section I have maintained the hypothesis proposed in section 2.1.3: there are no NP/trace relations within noun phrases. The fact that the genitive phrase can assign a value to the internal arg-variable of a nominal head belonging to the class of predicates with an "affected" internal argument was explained in the following way. A particular characterization of predicates with an "affected" internal argument was proposed. These predicates and their internal argument constitute a semantic complex predicate. Given their status as complex predicates, they can be mapped as a unit onto the head of a lexical or syntactic structure. This type of mapping implies that the internal arg-variable cannot be directly evaluated. In the case of NPs, the incorporated arg-variable is assigned a value by the adjunct genitive phrase in the specifier via the Rule of Modification. The hypothesis that predicates with an "affected" internal argument form a semantic complex predicate was shown to receive independent motivation from the existence within this class of predicates of semantically transitive but syntactically intransitive verbs. It was argued that these verbs are to be analyzed as complex predicates with an incorporated constant internal argument." 2.3. SOME REMARKS ON THE SYNTAX OF NOUN PHRASES IN ROMANCE

The examination of the English facts in the first section of this chapter has led me to conclude that there is a more transparent relation between lexicosemantics and syntax in noun phrases than in sentences. At first sight, this hypothesis might seem to be challenged by data from the Romance languages. This data, which I will discuss below, was first noticed by Cinque 1980 for Italian, but the same observations can be made on the basis of French and Spanish data. I will suggest that these facts have been misinterpreted, and that if correctly analyzed, they do not constitute counterexamples to the contention that the relation between lexico-semantics and syntax is in general transparent in NPs. Furthermore, it will be shown that the analysis of the Romance data offered in this section predicts a difference between Romance and English nomináis which is verified by the data. Consider the process derived nomináis in (2.39), which are exactly comparable to their English counterparts. The internal argument is projected onto the position governed by the head noun and is preceded by the Casemarker de. The external arg-variable is assigned an interpretation by the adjunct par/por-phrase (by-phrase) via Modification.

68

The lexical and syntactic representations of noun phrases

(2.39)

a. La description du paysage par Pierre (Fr.) La descripción del paisaje por Pedro (Sp.) 'The description of the landscape by Pierre' b. L'interpretation des données par Pierre (Fr.) La interpretación de los datos por Pedro (Sp.) 'The interpretation of the data by Pierre' c. La traduction de l'oeuvre de Balzac par Pierre (Fr.) La traducción de la obra de Balzac por Pedro (Sp.) 'The translation of Balzac's work by Pierre' d. La demonstration du théorème de Pythagore par Pierre (Fr.) La demonstración del teorema de Pitágora por Pedro (Sp.) 'The proof of Pythagoras's theorem by Pierre'

An important difference between Romance and English is that in Romance a full lexical NP cannot appear in the specifier position; only adjectival pronouns may appear in this position, as illustrated by the first example of the pairs in (2.40). The counterpart of the genitive NP in the specifier of English noun phrases is a postnominal phrase preceded by the genitive Case-marker de, as shown in the second example of the pairs in (2.40). (The e«-cliticization test in French shows that the internal argument preceded by de and the postnominal genitive phrase are NPs rather than PPs. As remarked in section 2.1.3, real prepositional phrases (headed by de or any other preposition) cannot be cliticized out of the NP via the clitic en or any other clitic, but the above-mentioned nominal phrases can be cliticized out of the NP via the clitic en.) The co-occurrence of two phrases preceded by the preposition de is not entirely natural for some speakers (perhaps for stylistic reasons), but the examples are clearly grammatical. (In (cii) and (dii) the phrases de l'oeuvre de Zola and du théorème de Pythagore are heavy and therefore follow the phrase de Pierre. The adjectival pronoun and the "de NP" that have a semantic interpretation similar to the "par NP" in (2.39) are italicized.) (2.40)

a. (i) Sa description du paysage (Fr.) Su descripción del paisaje (Sp.) 'His description of the landscape' (ii)La description du paysage de Pierre (Fr.) La descripción del paisaje de Pedro (Sp.) 'Pierre's description of the landscape' b. (i) Son interpretation des données (Fr.) Su interpretación de los datos (Sp.) 'His interpretation of the data' (ii)L'interpretation des données de Pierre (Fr.) La interpretación de los datos de Pedro (Sp.)

The lexical and syntactic representations of noun phrases

69

'Pierre's interpretation of the data' c. (i) Sa traduction de l'oeuvre de Zola (Fr.) Su traducción de la obra de Zola (Sp.) 'His translation of Zola's work' (ii)La traduction de Pierre de l'oeuvre de Zola (Fr.) La traducción de Pedro de la obra de Zola (Sp.) 'Pierre's translation of Zola's work' d. (i) Sa demonstration du théorème de Pythagore (Fr.) Su demonstración del teorema de Pitágora (Sp.) 'His proof of Pythagoras's theorem' (ii)La demonstration de Pierre du théorème de Pythagore (Fr.) La demonstración de Pedro del teorema de Pitágora (Sp.) 'Pierre's proof of Pythagoras's theorem' Consider now the nominalizations of verbs like destroy, capture, assassinate, execute. These nomináis have structures comparable to (2.39), as shown in (2.41), but they do not have structures comparable to (2.40), as shown in (2.42). As remarked before, the (ii) examples in (2.40) are somewhat unnatural for some speakers due to the co-occurrence of two Je-phrases, but there is a very clear contrast between these examples and the uncontrovertible ungrammaticality of the (ii) examples in (2.42). (2.41)

a. La destruction de la ville par les soldats (Fr.) La destrucción de la ciudad por los soldados (Sp.) 'The destruction of the city by the soldiers' b. La capture des fugitives par les soldats (Fr.) La captura de los fugitivos por los soldados (Sp.) 'The capture of the fugitives by the soldiers' c. L'assassinat de 2.000 civils par l'armée (Fr.) El asesinato de 2.000 civiles por el ejército (Sp.) 'The assassination of 2000 civilians by the army' d. L'execution du prisonnier par la police (Fr.) La ejecución del prisionero por la policía (Sp.) 'The execution of the prisoner by the police'

(2.42)

a. (i) * sa destruction de la ville (Fr.) * su destrucción de la ciudad (Sp.) 'his destruction of the city' (ii)* la destruction de la ville des soldats (Fr.) * la destrucción de la ciudad de los soldados (Sp.) 'the soldiers' destruction of the city' b. (i) * sa capture des fugitives (Fr.) * su captura de los fugitivos (Sp.)

70

The lexical and syntactic representations of noun phrases 'his capture of the fugitives' (ii)*la capture des fugitives des soldats (Fr.) * la captura de los fugitivos de los soldados (Sp.) 'the soldiers' capture of the fugitives' c. (i) *son assassinat de 2.000 civils (Fr.) * su asesinato de 2.000 civiles (Sp.) 'his assassination of 2000 civilians' (ii)* l'assassinat de 2.000 civils de l'armée (Fr.) * el asesinato de 2.000 civiles del ejército (Sp.) 'the army's assassination of 2000 civilians' d. (i) *son execution du prisonnier (Fr.) * su ejecución del prisionero (Sp.) 'his execution of the prisoner' (ii)*l'execution du prisonnier de la police (Fr.) * la ejecución del prisionero de la policía (Sp.) 'the police's execution of the prisoner'

Note furthermore that in (2.43) the interpretation of the adjectival pronoun in the specifier position is ambiguous; it can be interpreted as equal either to the italicized phrase in (2.40) or to the nonitalicized "de NP" in (2.40) or (2.39). On the other hand, in (2.44) the interpretation of the adjectival pronoun in the specifier position is unambiguous; it can only be interpreted as equal to the "de NP" in (2.41). (2.43)

a. sa description (Fr.) su descripción (Sp.) b. son interpretation (Fr.) su interpretación (Sp.) c. sa traduction (Fr.) su traducción (Sp.) d. sa demonstration (Fr.) su demonstración (Sp.)

(2.44)

a. sa destruction (Fr.) su destrucción (Sp.) b. sa capture (Fr.) su captura (Sp.) c. son assassinat (Fr.) su asesinato (Sp.) d. son execution (Fr.) su ejecución (Sp.)

Based on these contrasts, Cinque 1980 concludes that there is a class of

The lexical and syntactic representations of noun phrases

71

nominals in Italian (and other Romance languages as well) that undergoes obligatory passivization in the lexicon, a process which he describes by means of lexical redundancy rules. The nouns in (2.41) belong to this class. Two crucial assumptions underlie his analysis. First, it is assumed that the nouns in both (2.39) and (2.40) are process nominals and are obligatorily specified for a predicate-argument structure. Second, it is assumed that the noun phrase, like the sentence, contains both subject and object positions that are occupied by an argument of the head noun. The subject position is occupied by the italicized phrases in (2.40) and by the "de NP" in the passivized structures (2.39) and (2.41). The nonitalicized phrases in (2.40), which are active structures, occupy the object position. According to Cinque's analysis, the examples in (2.42) are ungrammatical because nouns like (Fr.) destruction, assassinat, capture, and execution do not have an active form; they only have a passive form (as in (2.41)). Nouns like (Fr.) description, interpretation, traduction, and demonstration have both an active (as in (2.40)) and a passive form (as in (2.39)). For the same reason, the pronoun in (2.43) can be interpreted either as the subject of an active form or as the subject of a passive form, while in (2.44) the pronoun can only be interpreted as the subject of the passive form. I would like to suggest here that this interpretation of the data is incorrect. First, note that Cinque's analysis is impossible within the framework developed in this work. As we will see in Chapter 3, all lexical processes which do not affect lexical meaning but which affect the mapping of arguments onto syntax apply at the level of L-R; verbal passivization is one of these processes. Recall that nouns lack the level of L-R; therefore, a lexical process which does not affect lexical meaning but which affects the mapping of arguments onto syntax cannot apply to nouns. Second, note that Cinque's analysis is completely ad hoc. There is no principled reason why nouns like (Fr.) assassinat and destruction undergo passivization obligatorily while nouns like (Fr.) description and traduction do not. Indeed, the facts could have been just the other way around. Third, note that the difference between the two classes of nouns is also found in English. As in Romance, the English counterparts of the examples in (2.43) are ambiguous, while the English counterparts of the examples in (2.44) are unambiguous. This difference cannot always be appreciated in English because English (unlike Romance) makes a morphological distinction between human and nonhuman pronouns. But the difference between the two classes can be appreciated in English with nouns that can take a human internal argument. Consider, for example, description and destruction: his description is ambiguous (where his can refer to the person that describes or possesses a description, or to the person described), while his destruction is unambiguous (it can only refer to the person that undergoes destruction). The claim that there is a class of nouns in Romance that undergoes obligatory passivization in the lexicon can provide an ad hoc

72

The lexical and syntactic representations of noun phrases

description of the contrast between the ill-formed Romance examples in (2.42) and their well-formed English counterparts, but it does not provide an account of the contrast between (2.43) and (2.44), which exists in Romance as well as in English. The fact that the same class distinction is found in English and in Romance strongly suggests that nouns like description and nouns like destruction differ across languages with respect to an essential property P. This property P in conjunction with some parametric difference(s) between the syntax of NPs in Romance and the syntax of NPs in English must provide an explanation for the contrast between the Romance examples in (2.41) and their English counterparts. First, let us discuss the property P, which distinguishes nouns like description, translation, interpretation, proof (Class A) from nouns like destruction, assassination, capture, execution (Class B). Class A nouns can denote, on the one hand, a process or event and, on the other hand, they can denote an object (concrete or abstract) which is the result of a process. Thus, the result of the process of describing can be referred to as description (as in John's description of the landscape won a prize), the result of the process of translating can be referred to as translation (as in John's translation of Zola sold well), the result of the process of interpreting can be referred to as interpretation (as in Einstein's interpretation of the data was recently printed in a scientific journal), the result of the process of proving something to be true can be refered to as proof (as in John's proof of Pythagoras's theorem won a prize). Class B nouns can only refer to a process or event; they cannot denote the result of a process. Consider the following examples: The army's assassination/execution of civilians was filmed by the local TV station. It is clear that what was filmed was the event and not the result of the process of assassinating or executing civilians (namely, the corpses of civilians after the assassination or execution took place). The same observation can be extended to destruction and capture. Having established an important semantic distinction between Class A nouns and Class B nouns (denotation of the result of a process versus denotation of a process or event), the next step is to establish the grammatical property that correlates with this semantic distinction and which can account for the difference between (2.43) and (2.44). One hypothesis which comes to mind but must be discarded is the following: nouns that denote an event or process (Class B) obligatorily take a predicate-argument structure, while nouns that denote the result of a process optionally take a predicateargument structure. Given that destruction belongs to Class B, the genitive pronoun in his destruction must be interpreted as equal to the internal argument of the head noun for reasons discussed in section 2.2. On the other hand, description belongs to Class A and can be analyzed as lacking a predicate-argument structure, in which case the genitive pronoun in his description is analyzed as a possessor (as in the example John's book). While it

The lexical and syntactic representations of noun phrases

73

is true that nominals that denote the result of a process either do not take a predicate-argument structure at all (statives like love, fear, conviction, humiliation), or they take one optionally (John's painting (of Aristotle by Rembrandt)), it is not true that all nominals that denote an event take a predicate-argument structure obligatorily. The noun destruction obligatorily takes a predicate-argument structure (*The destruction took place yesterday; *The entire destruction was filmed), but nouns like assassination and execution, which also belong to Class B, do not obligatorily take a predicateargument structure {The assassination happened yesterday; The execution was filmed by the TV stations). It seems that event nouns that are [-count] obligatorily take a predicate-argument structure (*several destructions; *two destructions), but event nouns that are [+count] optionally take a predicateargument structure {several assassinations; two executions)}2 An alternative hypothesis to the "obligatory versus optional predicateargument structure hypothesis" is that nominals that denote an event cannot carry a Poss(essor)-variable, while nominals that denote the result of a process can. Like the E(vent)-variable discussed in section 2.1.3, the Possvariable is borne by N', and it receives a value from the adjunct in the specifier via Modification. The Poss relation includes both the notion of possessor or owner and the notion of creator or agent. If the noun denotes a concrete object, the adjunct that bears the relation of possessor with respect to N can be interpreted as possessor or owner of the object denoted by N, or it can be interpreted as the creator of the object denoted by N, or it can be interpreted as both. Thus, in John's book, the genitive can be interpreted either as possessor or creator of book or as both. Similarly, if description and translation denote a concrete object (like a written page or a book), the genitive in John's description and John's translation can be interpreted as the possessor or creator of the object denoted by N or as both. If the noun denotes an abstract object, as in the case of result nominals like interpretation and proof the relation of possessor or owner is indistinguishable from that of creator or agent. The fact that the Poss relation can be dissociated into the notions of possessor and creator in the case of nouns that denote concrete objects is shown by the following contrast: John's portrait of the baby by Mary; John's translation of Zola's book by Mary (which are perfectly natural) versus *John's interpretation of the data by Mary; *John's proof of the convergence by Pythagoras (which are extremely odd). The point is that the Poss relation may be considered to be a general notion that covers both that of owner and creator. Whether these subnotions are distinguishable or not depends on nongrammatical factors such as the concrete versus abstract nature of the object denoted by the noun. If nouns that denote a process or event (instead of the result of a process) cannot carry a Poss-variable, as suggested above, then it follows that the genitive in his assassination, his execution, and similar examples cannot be interpreted as possessor. There-

74

The lexical and syntactic representations of noun phrases

fore, the only analysis available is one in which the head noun carries a predicate-argument structure and the genitive phrase is interpreted as equal to the internal arg-variable of the head via Modification (see the discussion in section 2.2). On the other hand, examples like his description are ambiguous. It can be assigned an analysis comparable to the previously mentioned examples or it can be analyzed as a result noun with no predicate-argument structure. Since result nouns can carry the Poss-variable, the genitive phrase can be interpreted as the possessor via Modification. (As mentioned above, if description is understood as denoting an abstract object, then "possessor of description" is indistinguishable from "creator of description".) It is reasonable to assume that the two properties discussed above are universals, namely, a) the distinction between process nouns and result nouns, and b) the property of result nouns that they can carry a Poss-variable (a property not shared by event nouns). The explanation discussed in this paragraph for English therefore carries over to the Romance facts in (2.43) and (2.44).13 Before we turn to the difference between Romance and English NPs, let us briefly consider the example a picture of John's, recently dicussed by Hornstein & Lightfoot 1984. These authors note that, in this example, the genitive can be interpreted as owner/agent but it cannot be interpreted as the object represented in the picture (i.e. as the internal argument of the head noun). They attribute this observation to the fact that the genitive phrase John's is in the specifier of an empty head noun: [a picture of [John's N]], and an empty head cannot take a trace as object. Within the framework argued for here, Hornstein & Lightfoot's solution can be reinterpreted in the following way: the genitive phrase in the specifier in the above-mentioned examples cannot assign a value to an arg-variable in the S-R of the head noun via Modification because an empty head noun has no S-R. Therefore, the only function available for the genitive in the specifier is to assign a value to the Poss-variable borne by N'. Recall that the Poss-variable is a property of the phrase; hence, its presence is not contingent on the presence of a lexical head noun. It is sufficient that the interpretation attributed to the empty head noun be of the right semantic type: namely, that it denote an object or result of a process. If the only interpretation available for the genitive phrase in the specifier of the empty head is that of possessor, then we predict that nouns of Class A, but not nouns of Class B, can function as the head in the construction under discussion. The prediction is borne out, as shown by the contrast between examples like a description of John's, a translation of John's, an interpretation of John's, and examples like *an assassination of John's, *an execution of John's, *a capture of John's. Let us now turn to the difference between Romance and English NPs. The difference between the two lies in the status of the genitive adjunct phrase and the manner in which it receives an interpretation. Two properties characterize the genitive in English: it is directly generated in specifier position and it

The lexical and syntactic representations of noun phrases

75

is semantically unrestricted. As we have seen in the previous two sections and in the present section, the phrase headed b y ' s in the speciñer position of a noun in English can assign a value via Modification to a Poss-variable {John's book, John's description), to an E-variable {yesterday's destruction of the city by the army), to an external arg-variable in the S-R of the head noun {the army's destruction of the city), and to an affected internal arg-variable incorporated in the head noun {the city's destruction by the army). On the other hand, in Romance a full lexical NP is never generated in the specifier; only a pronoun can occupy this position. In Romance nomináis the adjunct genitive phrase is generated, along with all the other adjuncts, in postnominal position immediately under the NP node. This postnominal adjunct genitive phrase has two essential properties: it is lexically marked as +Poss and it is syntactically bound to the specifier position. As argued for by Zubizarreta 1979 and Aoun 1981, the specifier in the Romance noun phrase can bind a postnominal position, and in particular it must bind the postnominal adjunct genitive phrase if it is present in the syntactic_structure. This coindexing relation is established at S-structure by the rule of A-binding (A stands for adjunct or non-argument position). In English the rule of A-binding relates the Comp position (positioji adjoined to IP) with some syntactic position in S; in Romance the rule of A-binding not only relates the Comp position with some syntactic position in S but also relates the specifier of N with an NP in postnominal position inside the noun phrase.14 The general structure of NPs in Romance is illustrated in (2.45). The position immediately dominated by the NP node is the position for adjunct arguments: the genitive "de NP", the "par NP" (Zy-phrase), locative, temporal, and other adjuncts. Spec is the position where determiners and adjectival pronouns are generated. As indicated in (2.45), Spec obligatorily binds the adjunct genitive phrase if one is present in the structure. Otherwise, Spec can bind the internal argument position of the head noun.15 (2.45)

NP

(Poss(x))

Speci

Det

(Pro¡)

{de NP¡)

{par N P ) . . .

N .. .

The argument given in Zubizarreta 1979 in favor of the hypothesis that Spec of N' can function as a syntactic binder in Romance is the following. If an adjunct postnominal genitive phrase is present in the NP, then Spec cannot

76

The lexical and syntactic representations of noun phrases

contain a pronoun. Thus, in the example son portrait de Pierre, the pronoun son must be interpreted as possessor of "the portrait of Pierre"; Pierre cannot be interpreted as possessor of "the portrait of him". Compare the abovementioned example with le portrait du bébé de Pierre, where Pierre can be interpreted as possessor of "the portrait of the baby". These facts are captured by the structure in (2.45). If a genitive phrase is generated in the postnominal position immediately dominated by NP (de Pierre in the abovementioned examples), this position must be bound by Spec. Spec cannot bind more than one position (a fact which must be reducible to some more general principle of grammar, like the Bijection Principle proposed by Koopman & Sportiche 1982 or Principle C of the Binding Theory proposed by Chomsky 1981). Consequently, no other postnominal position may be bound by Spec.16 A comparable argument can be constructed on the basis of the interpretation of the genitive wh-pronoun dont in French. As is well known, it is possible to move material out of the specifier of N' in French {On a beaucoup vu de films cette semaine 'We have many seen of movies this week'). The possible extraction of the genitive wh-pronoun dont from the Spec of N' correlates with the facts discussed in the previous paragraph. In (2.46a) the extracted dont can be interpreted as the Poss of portrait or as the object of portrait. In (2.46b-c), where both the object of translation and the Poss of translation are present, only the Poss can be extracted. Once more, these facts are accounted for by the hypothesis that the postnominal genitive adjunct is obligatorily coindexed with the Spec of N'.17 (2.46)

a.

Pierre dont on a acheté le portrait... Pierre whose we bought the portrait... (Pierre = Poss or object) b. Pierre dont on a acheté la traduction du livre de Z o l a Pierre whose we bought the translation of Zola's book... (Pierre = Poss) c. * Le livre de Zola dont on a acheté la traduction de Pierre... Zola's book whose we bought the translation of Pierre... (Zola = object)

To recapitulate, English generates a full lexical genitive adjunct directly in the specifier position. This adjunct has an open interpretation; it can assign a value to a Poss-variable, or to an E-variable, or to an arg-variable of the head noun via the Rule of Modification. On the other hand, adjunct genitive phrases in Romance are generated in postnominal position immediately under the NP node and are coindexed with Spec. Such genitive phrases are marked with the feature +Poss. In other words, it must assign a value to the Poss-variáble borne by N'. (Of course, nothing prevents this genitive phrase

The lexical and syntactic representations of noun phrases

77

from assigning a value at the same time to the external arg-variable in the S-R of the head noun, if the head noun has an S-R and if the external arg-variable is free.) This difference between the adjunct genitive phrase in English and in Romance is probably due to the fact that the adjunct genitive phrase in English is overtly identifiable by its position (namely the Spec position), while the adjunct genitive phrase in French and in the other Romance languages is not overtly identifiable by its position (i.e. it is not identifiable by virtue of being dominated by a particular syntactic node). In fact, many kinds of adjuncts are generated in postnominal position, immediately dominated by the NP node. The genitive phrase ("de NP") is distinguished from all the other postnominal adjuncts by virtue of the fact that it is associated with the feature +Poss and that it is coindexed with Spec. The property of the adjunct genitive phrase in Romance nomináis discussed above, in conjunction with the independently motivated assumption that nouns which denote an Event cannot carry a Poss-variable, accounts for the ungrammaticality of the examples in (2.42). Recall that nouns like destruction and assassination denote a process or an event (and not the result of a process); therefore their N' cannot select a Poss-variable. Since the N' does not contain a Poss-variable, the adjunct "de NP" (occupied by a trace bound to a pronoun in Spec in (2.42i) and by a full lexical NP bound to an empty Spec in (2.42ii)) cannot receive an interpretation. On the other hand, the English counterparts to (2.42) are perfectly well formed, since the adjunct genitive phrase generated in the specifier in this language is not specified as +Poss. It is therefore open to an interpretation other than that of possessor. In these examples the genitive assigns a value to the external arg-variable in the S-R of the head noun. In contrast with (2.42), the +Poss "de NP" adjunct in (2.40) can receive an interpretation. Recall that nouns like description and translation denote the result of a process; therefore their N' can select a Poss-variable to which the +Poss "de NP" adjunct can assign a value. It was argued that the specifier position in Romance NPs can bind a postnominal position by the rule of A-binding at S-structure. The specifier position obligatorily binds the adjunct NP" if present in the structure. Otherwise, it can bind the "de NP" that occupies the internal argument position of the head noun. This hypothesis makes the following interesting prediction: a pronoun in the specifier of an NP in Romance can be interpreted as equal to an "unaffected" internal argument of the head noun. In fact, there is no reason why the syntactic rule of A-binding should make a distinction between an object position occupied by an "affected" internal argument and an object position occupied by an "unaffected" internal argument. The prediction is borne out. The pronoun in (2.47) can be interpreted as equal to the internal argument; compare these examples with their English counterparts, which are ungrammatical (see section 2.2 for discussion of the English

78

The lexical and syntactic representations of noun phrases

facts). This contrast between Romance and English is also noted by Cinque (1980:n.51) on the basis of Italian data (la sua discussione 'its discussion', il suo inseguimento 'its pursuit'). 18 (2.47)

a. sa comprehension (Fr) su comprensión (Sp) b. sa discussion (Fr) su discusión (Sp) c. son annonce (Fr) su anuncio (Sp) d. sa mémorisation (Fr) su memorización (Sp) e. sa suggestion (Fr) su sugerencia (Sp)

(*its understanding) (*its discussion) (*its announcement) (*its memorization) (*its suggestion)

As brought to my attention by Carlos Piera, the facts are even clearer in Spanish with the wh-pronoun cuyo 'whose' in the specifier position (although the use of cuyo is nowadays quite uncommon in spoken language). Some examples are given below; as expected, their English counterparts are ungrammatical. (2.48)

a.

Las instrucciones, cuya comprensión es indispensable para poder seguir el juego, se encuentran en este folleto * The instructions, whose understanding is indispensable in order to follow the game, are found in this brochure b. El nuevo programa, cuyo anuncio en el periódico del colegio sorprendió a todo el mundo, será implementado el próximo mes *The new program, whose announcement in the school's newspaper surprised everybody, will be implemented next month c. El proyecto, cuya discusión duró varias horas, fué aprobado unánimemente * The project, whose discussion lasted several hours, was unanimously approved

In section 2.1.3 it was argued that nomináis derived from stative verbs do not inherit the S-R of the verb. It was therefore claimed that the " o / N P " ("de NP" in Romance) in these cases is a prepositional adjunct and not an internal argument of the head noun (Aw hatred of Nazis / sahaine des Nazis). If only an NP can be linked to the Spec position, then we should expect that the "de NP" in the nomináis derived from stative verbs cannot be linked to the specifier position. The prediction is borne out, as shown by the impossibility of interpreting the pronoun (leur and dont) as equal to the object of haine in leur

The lexical and syntactic representations of noun phrases

79

haine 'their hatred' and in les Nazis dont la haine est comprehensible... lit. 'the Nazis whose the hatred is understandable...'. To summarize this section briefly, two types of nomináis were distinguished: those that denote an event or process and those that denote the result of a process. It was argued that the latter, but not the former, can carry a Poss-variable. This property was shown to explain the contrast (both in Romance and in English) between (2.43) and (2.44). The difference between English and Romance nomináis was located in the syntax and in the interpretation of the adjunct genitive phrase. The adjunct genitive phrase in English is directly generated in the specifier and is unrestricted in its interpretation (i.e. it can assign a value to different types of variables). On the other hand, the adjunct genitive phrase in Romance is generated in postnominal position along with all the other adjuncts. It is distinguished from the other adjuncts in that it is associated with the feature +Poss and is syntactically bound to the specifier. The requirement on the adjunct genitive phrase in Romance that it be interpreted as possessor, in conjunction with the independently motivated hypothesis that nouns that denote an event or process cannot carry a Poss-variable, explains the contrast between (2.40) and (2.42), as well as the contrast between the examples in (2.42) and their English counterparts. Following earlier work (Zubizarreta 1979), it was argued that there exists in Romance the possibility of establishing an Abinding relation between Spec and a postnominal"de NP". If an adjunct "de NP" is present, it must be bound to Spec in order to be interpreted. If an adjunct"de NP" is absent, then Spec can bind the position occupied by the internal argument of the head noun. It was shown that the existence of a syntactic X-binding relation between Spec and a postnominal NP in Romance makes an unexpected prediction, which turns out to be correct. Unlike English, a pronominal element in the specifier position in Romance nomináis can be interpreted as equal to an "unaffected" internal argument of the head noun. 2.4. CONCLUSION

It was argued in this chapter that the syntax of noun phrases provides evidence in favor of the theory proposed in the first chapter with respect to the form and content of lexical representations and the manner in which these are mapped onto the syntactic level of representation. The central hypothesis is that nouns function as R-predicates rather than as L-predicates; they therefore lack the level where L-predicates are formed, namely, the lexicosyntactic level of representation which mediates the mapping from S-R onto syntax. Consequently, the S-R of nouns are mapped directly onto syntax. This property of nouns gives rise to a transparent relation between lexical semantics and syntax in NPs: lack of irregular linkings between S-R and

80

The lexical and syntactic representations of noun phrases

syntax, lack of NP/trace relations, lack of constructions with exceptional Acc Case-marking (i.e. subject-to-object raising constructions). Given that the external arg-variable is mapped onto syntax via Predication and that nouns are predicated of a referential index rather than of a lexical index, the external arg-variable in noun phrases necessarily has the status of a "hidden" argument. This "hidden" argument can be assigned a value by an adjunct via the indirect mechanism of arg-variable evaluation: the Rule of Modification. Since adjuncts are optional, the "hidden" external arg-variable in the S-R of nouns may remain syntactically unevaluated. In this case, the default rule of arg-variable interpretation assigns a minimal semantic specification to the "hidden" arg-variable. We have seen that NPs like the city's destruction do not constitute counterevidence to the assumption that there are no NP/trace relations within the NP. As shown by M. Anderson 1979, NPs of this type obey the "affectedness constraint". Predicates with an "affected" internal argument have the status of complex predicates, and can therefore give rise to syntactic mappings where the internal arg-variable is contained within the head of the phrase. In the case of the noun phrase, the incorporated internal arg-variable can then be assigned a value by an adjunct in the specifier via Modification. Among the derived nomináis, we find at one end of the spectrum those that are derived from stative verbs and do not have the level of S-R {love, hatred, fear, knowledge). At the other end of the spectrum we find derived nomináis that can only denote a process and which are [-count]; these have an obligatory S-R (destruction, recognition, realization, memorization). In between these two ends we find derived nomináis that can only denote a process and are [+count] (assassination, execution, capture, condemnation, coronation) and derived nomináis that can denote either a process or the result of a process (description, translation, interpretation, proof, proposal, accusation). These have an optional S-R. Nouns that denote the result of a process have the property that they can carry a Poss(essor)-variable, which is assigned a value by the adjunct in the specifier; nouns that denote an event or process never carry a Poss-variable. This explains the differences in the interpretation of the adjunct genitive phrase in the specifier in NPs that belong to the "result class" and in NPs that belong to the "process class". Romance NPs (according to Cinque's analysis) would appear to constitute a counterexample to the contention that the mapping between S-R and syntax is transparent in the noun phrase. It was shown that this is not the case. If correctly analyzed, the Romance data supports rather than challenges the analysis defended in this chapter. The difference between Romance and English NPs lies in the status of the adjunct genitive phrase. In English, the adjunct genitive phrase is directly generated in the specifier and its interpretation is unrestricted. In Romance, the adjunct genitive phrase is generated in postnominal position along with all the other adjuncts. It is

The lexical and syntactic representations of noun phrases

81

distinguished from the other adjuncts by two features: it is marked as +Poss and it is coindexed with Spec by the syntactic rule of A-binding. The fact that the genitive adjunct in Romance is +Poss, in conjunction with the independently motivated hypothesis that only result nomináis can carry a Possvariable, explains the contrast between la description du paysage de Pierre 'Pierre's description of the landscape' and *l'assassinat de 2.000 civils de l'armée 'the army's assassination of 2000 civilians', as well as the contrast between the latter example and its grammatical English counterpart. The generalization of the rule of A-binding in Romance to apply to the specifier of the NP explains another striking difference between Romance and English. The specifier in Romance can bind a postnominal NP position inside the noun phrase. (The fact that Spec cannot bind the object of a preposition is undoubtedly related to the lack of preposition stranding in wh-constructions in Romance.) If the genitive adjunct is absent, Spec can bind the position that corresponds to the internal argument of the head noun. Consequently, the "affectedness" constraint attested in English in not found in Romance. Given the analysis of noun phrases presented in this chapter, one might wonder whether this system can dispense completely with NP-traces in the syntax.19 Since the "distribution of NP-traces" is fully constrained by L-R, we could decide to modify the Rule of Projection in such a way that positions at L-R that are coindexed with the head of the lexical frame are not projected onto the syntax. Binding relations created at L-R, although not projected onto the syntax, will still give us the "NP-movement effects" in S. The lack of L-R in nomináis would still account for the lack of "NP-movement effects" in NPs. The question whether NP-traces are present in the syntax is, of course, an empirical one. NP-traces might be needed for reasons other than characterizing the context of "NP-movement". For example, NP-traces are perhaps necessary in order to correctly characterize the distribution of the genitive clitic en in French. (See Couquaux 1979, Pollock 1985, Zubizarreta 1982.) The restrictions formulated in terms of NP-traces is clearly not a sufficient condition to characterize the context for en-cliticization, but it might still turn out to be a necessary condition. There is also an indirect argument in favor of NP-traces in the syntax: the obligatory presence of the subject position in clauses headed by Inflection (at least in languages like English). No NP-traces would imply no embedded subject position in raising constructions like John was believed to have left. If the subject position were not an obligatory property of clauses, then it would remain a mystery why the expletive pronominal is obligatory in sentences like It seems that John has left. NOTES 1. The contrast between (2.1) and (2.2) was first discussed by Chomsky 1970. I will not discuss here the causative experiencers: John amused the children with the stories.

82

The lexical and syntactic representations of noun phrases

which cannot undergo nominalization at all: *John's amusement of the children with the stories, * the amusement of the children with the stories. See Amritavalli 1980. Another curious property of some causative experiencers, pointed out to me by C. Thiersch, is that they cannot undergo passivization: *The children were amused/bored/interested with the stories by John. 2. See Amritavalli 1980 for arguments against the assumption that amusement is derived from \\amuse)ed\ via truncation of -ed. 3. The type of contrast between NP and S illustrated below in the text is noted in M. Anderson's very careful and perspicuous work on nominalizations (M. Anderson 1979), but to my knowledge, Rappaport 1983 is the first one to stress the relevance of these examples. 4. These facts are extensively discussed by M. Anderson 1979, from whom I borrow the examples. 5. The indefinite NP in the predicate of the sentence John is a fool has an open R-variable. The copula may be assumed to be semantically empty; the VP inherits by default the R-variable of the NP afool, which then acquires a value from the referential index of the NP in subject position via Predication. This is basically the position assumed by Williams 1981. 6. In Spanish, if the NP is not generic, the benefactive complement is the only option available: el amor de sus hijos 'the love of the children', *su amor de sus hijos 'his love of his chidren', su amor por sus hijos 'his love for his children'. 7. The generic operator is "weaker" than the universal quantifier. Compare All elephants are white with Elephants are (generally) white. The first example contains the universal quantifier all. In this case the existence of one nonwhite elephant is sufficient to falsify the sentence. In the case of the second example, which contains a generic adverb (either overt or implicit), the existence of one nonwhite elephant does not suffice to falsify the sentence. 8. It seems that the predicates that can take an IP complement constitute a well-defined semantic class (predicates of propositional attitude and verbs of saying). But not all languages have a "subject-to-object raising" construction. This suggests that the property of selecting an IP as complement must be stated in the lexical entry of a verb, namely, at L-R. This implies that such constructions are excluded from noun phrases, independently of the Case Filter (mentioned in the text). Nouns lack the level of L-R; therefore, they cannot subcategorize for an IP. Consider now the consequences for the theory of complementation proposed in Chomsky 1981. It is assumed there that the paradigm below is due to the fact that the matrix verb can govern the embedded subject position in the "subject-to-object raising" construction (S is transparent for government). PRO cannot be governed; therefore, (b) is ruled out. The subject of the complement of the so-called S'-deletion verbs must be occupied by a lexical NP, which is assigned Acc Case by the matrix verb, as illustrated in (a). (a) (b)

John proved [Mary to be right] »John proved [PRO to be right]

The above explanation of the ungrammatically of (b) is not compatible with the definition of government assumed in this work (see (1.2)). Fortunately, we have independent reasons to doubt the correctness of this explanation. Given that nouns lack the level of L-R, we might expect them to systematically map their propositional complement onto S' (the unmarked choice). Although the complement of the noun proof is an S', it does not give rise to a well-formed control structure, as shown by the example: *His proof [PRO to be right]. The hypothesis that the ungrammatically of this NP must be attributed to S'-deletion is challenged by French. This language does not have "subject-to-object raising"; still, the French counterpart of the above-mentioned example is ungrammatical (*Sapreuvedavoir raison). In conclusion, we are still lacking an adequate theory of control, or, more generally, an adequate theory of complementation. 9. The construction known as anti-passive, which exists in a number of non-Indoeuropean languages, is a potential counterexample to this generalization. In this construction, diadic verbs

The lexical and syntactic representations of noun phrases

83

with a special morphology surface without an object in the syntax. In order to verify whether the anti-passive is a genuine counterexample, subtle properties of its semantics must be studied. In particular, we must establish whether the syntactically unrealized internal argument in this construction behaves as a free variable (like the external arg-variable in verbal passives) or whether it behaves like a constant. If it is behaves like a free-variable, we would expect its interpretation to vary with the grammatical context (as in the case of verbal passives). It would also be useful to know whether anti-passives are lexically restricted and, in particular, whether they obey the "affectedness" constraint. Unfortunately, I have not found the answer to these questions in the litterature on anti-passives that I am familiar with. Note furthermore that the generalization as formulated in the text is too strong. When the VP-predicate denotes a generic property and the arg-variable incorporated within the head of the predicate is assigned a generic interpretation, the mapping in (2.35b) gives rise to grammatical sentences: Children like to destroy; This boy hits hard. I have ignored these examples in the text for the sake of exposition, but a fully satisfactory explanation of the ungrammaticality of *The soldiers destroyed and *The boy hit must take into account these examples. Still, the abovementioned examples must not obscure the points made in the text: a) the requirements on the interpretation of "hidden" external arg-variables and "hidden" internal arg-variables are not the same (The city was destroyed versus * The Romans destroyed; yesterday's destruction of the city versus *yesterday's destruction by the Romans), and b) as will be suggested later in the text, "affected" internal arg-variables may be interpreted via mechanisms other than Projection and, in particular, via Modification. This indicates that "affected" internal arg-variables, unlike "unaffected" internal arg-variables, may fail to be mapped onto the syntax by the Rule of Projection (a property which I have attributed to their formal status as incorporated arg-variables). 10. Perhaps we can account for the grammaticality of the sentences mentioned in the second paragraph of note 9 (Children like to destroy, This boy hits hard) by assuming that arguments that are interpreted generically but which are not associated with a lexical item are specified for the unmarked grammatical features. Thus, generics can function as constant arguments. The VP-predicates in the above-mentioned examples will then have the status of fully specified or complete predicates. The unmarked value for a grammatical feature may vary from language to language. In particular, the value of the grammatical feature "number" for generic arguments without lexical content varies among languages; in Italian, for example, this type of argument is specified for the features third person, plural, while in French and Spanish it is specified for the features third person, singular. 11. There is another phenomenon that might be related to "affectedness": long-distance modification. An adverb which has in its scope a verb with an "affected object" can modify the direct object, as in the examples below: (a)

(b) (c)

John partially destroyed the city (meaning: 'John destroyed part of the city', where the destruction could have been complete) The police entirely dispersed the crowd (meaning: 'The police dispersed the entire crowd') John completely reread/rewrote the book (meaning: 'John reread/rewrote the entire book')

Long-distance modification seems to be impossible with verbs that take an "unaffected direct object"(d) (e)

??John completely/entirely discussed/memorized/understood the book *John entirely needs/desires the cake

84 (f) (g) (h)

The lexical and syntactic representations of noun phrases *John entirely knows the crowd of students ??John entirely read/wrote the book John partially avoided the family (it can only mean that the avoidance was partial; it cannot mean 'John avoided part of the family')

This contrast can perhaps be attributed to the following fact. When a verb and an internal argument (which do not form a semantically complex predicate) are projected onto VP, the VP is equal to the lexical content of the verb and the reference of the internal argument (represented by a referential index). But when a semantically complex predicate (formed by a verb and an incorporated internal argument) is projected onto VP, the VP is equal to the lexical content of the verb and the lexical content of the internal argument (represented by the lexical index). Therefore, in the latter case an adverb not only has the verb in its scope but also the lexical index of the direct object, which it can then modify. 12. The count features can perhaps be inferred from the [-durative] versus [+durative] nature of the process or event denoted by the noun. Contrast V.The assassination of Mary lasted three hours (which is odd) and The destruction of the city lasted three hours (which is perfectly natural). 13. Williams 1982 claims that the genitive in my destruction of the city need not be interpreted as the agent of destruction. He claims that this NP can be given an interpretation equivalent to 'my version of the destruction of the city'. It is my impression that this is possible only to the extent that we strain our intuitions and force a result interpretation on the NP. This can be done by interpreting destruction of the city as 'description of the destruction of the city'. Recall that description can denote a result, and its N' projection can therefore bear a Poss-variable to which the genitive phrase can assign a value. What must be clear though is that destruction in its normal meaning cannot denote a result; we can at best perform some transformation to its meaning in order to interpret it as a result nominal (not a very natural exercise, to say the least). I think the intuitions are very clear and the point made concerning the ungrammaticality of (2.42) and the nonambiguity of (2.44) remains. 14. As first suggested by R. Huybregts (MIT lecture, 1979), the relation between the verbal pronominal clitics in Romance and the position that they bind in the VP is probably another case of a binding relation generated by the syntactic rule of A-binding. See section 4.2.2 for a discussion of one particular case, namely that of the reflexive clitic. 15. The reason why Spec can bind an NP but not a PP is due to the fact that the features person, number, and gender dominated by Spec (i.e. Pro in (2.45)) are nominal features. If the clitic en immediately binds the Specof N' in structures like TV« connais l'auteur 'I of it + know the author' (discussed earlier in the text), rather than a postnominal position, then it follows that en can bind an NP (via Spec), but not a PP, within the noun phrase. The same remark holds for the wh-pronoun dont, which will be discussed briefly below in the text. 16. Contrary to what is claimed in Milner 1977 and Zubizarreta 1979,1 now think that two genitives cannot be generated in the Romance NP, one which is presumably interpreted as possessor or owner and the other as creator or agent. Examples like son premier poéme de Marie 'his first poem from Marie' are possible only to the extent that de Marie is interpreted as a source, comparable to de Paris in the example mon ami de Paris 'my friend from Paris'. Cinque 1980 (note 46) arrives at the same conclusion. Note that in the languages under discussion, if Spec contains an overt pronoun, then Spec must bind a lexically empty postnominal position (i.e. a position not lexically filled). There is no principled reason why this should be so; we therefore expect to find cross-linguistic variations, as in the case of verbal clitics in Romance (cf. the phenomenon of clitic-doubling in Spanish). Of course, binding of more than one position by Spec will be excluded in all types of languages. 17. The same argument can be constructed with the genitive clitic en (see Zubizarreta 1979), which, like dont, immediately binds the Spec of N' (see note 15).

The lexical and syntactic representations of noun phrases

85

Similar facts are reported by Cinque 1980 for the genitive wh-pronoun di cui and the genitive clitic ne in Italian. In Spanish the genitive wh-pronoun cuyo generated in Spec (like French dont and Italian di cui) requires obligatory pied-piping of the NP, like English whose. For a discussion of the extraction of de quien 'of whom' from a postnominal position within the noun phrase in Spanish, see Demonte 1986. 18. For some reason that I don't understand, intuitions become somewhat shaky in some cases when a by-phrase is present in the NP. 19. I am grateful to R. Huybregts for bringing this point to my attention.

Chapter 3

Types of Lexical Processes

In this chapter I will argue that there are two types of lexical processes: (1) those that affect predicate-argument relations and therefore bring about a change in meaning, and (2) those that alter the mapping of arguments onto syntax but not the predicate-argument relations, and therefore do not affect lexical meaning. The modularized lexicon proposed in Chapter 1 constitutes just the right framework to describe these two types of processes. S-R is the level where those aspects of lexical meaning that are grammatically relevant are represented; hence, S-R is the natural level of description for processes that affect lexical meaning. L-R is the level that mediates the mapping of certain predicate-argument relations from S-R onto syntax; hence, L-R is the natural level of description for processes that are not meaning-changing but that alter the mapping of arguments onto syntax. In other words, given the existence of two levels of lexical representation (S-R and L-R), the existence of two types of lexical processes comes as no surprise; it is, in fact, just what we would expect.

3.1. LEXICAL PROCESSES THAT AFFECT PREDICATE-ARGUMENT RELATIONS

In this section I will discuss some of the processes that apply at S-R (which are often, but not always, mediated by morphology): anti-causativization, causativization, and adjectival passive participle formation. It will be argued that these processes can be minimally formulated by specifying for deletion or insertion of primitive semantic features like CAUSE and STATE and, in some cases, for category change. The other alterations in the predicateargument structure (externalization, internalization, deletion, or incorporation of an arg-variable) are side effects of the above-mentioned lexical changes and of general well-formedness conditions on S-R. 3.1.1. Anti-causativization Anti-causativization derives noncausative monadic verbs from causative transitive verbs. Causative verbs are necessarily transitive (burn, sink, freeze, melt, cook...). But not all transitive verbs are causatives (eat, drink, criticize.

88

Types of lexical processes

discuss, memorize...). Causative verbs carry a CAUSE feature in their S-R. Anti-causativization deletes the CAUSE feature. Deletion of the CAUSE feature entails deletion of the "causer" (i.e. the external argument selected by causative verbs). The monadic status of anti-causatives can be brought out by the well-known contrast in (3.1a). Adverbs like voluntarily and intentionally, as well as purpose adverbs, can only modify events that contain an argument to which intention or purpose can be attributed. The verbal passives in (3. lb) contain a "hidden" argument to which purpose or intention can be attributed (verbal passives are discussed in section 3.2.1). The fact that the anticausative in (3.1a) cannot be modified by such adverbs shows that these verbs do not contain a "hidden" argument. (Note that the subject, given its inanimacy, cannot qualify as the recipient of intention or purpose.)1 (3.1)

a. The boat sank (*voluntarily/*in order to impress the queen) (derived from transitive sink; cf. NP sank the boat (voluntarily/ in order to impress the queen)) b. The boat was sunk (voluntarily/in order to impress the queen)

To recapitulate, anti-causativization can be minimally formulated as follows: Delete CAUSE feature. Deletion of the external argument follows as a side effect of the deletion of the CAUSE feature: the absence of the causative relation entails the absence of a "causer". The following derivation illustrates the rule of anti-causativization. (The internal argument is "affected" by the predicate; it therefore has the status of an incorporated argument. See section 2.2.)

(3.2)

sink(l):

S-R: « C A U S E s i n k > y > , x

sink(2):

S-R:

Burzio 1981 has shown that anti-causatives in Italian behave systematically like unaccusatives with respect to a number of phenomena. As exemplified in (3.3a), monadic verbs with an internal argument (the so-called unaccusatives) select the auxiliary essere 'be' and allow cliticization of partitive ne from postverbal position. On the other hand, monadic verbs that select an external argument (the so-called intransitives) select the auxiliary avere 'have' and do not allow cliticization of partitive ne from postverbal position, as exemplified in (3.3b). The anti-causatives (whether or not they have the clitic si attached to them) pattern with (3.3a), rather than with (3.3b), as illustrated by the examples in (3.4). (3.3)

a.

Molti studenti sono arrivati 'Many students arrived'

Types of lexical processes

89

Ne arrivano molti (cf. Arrivano molti studenti) 'Of them + arrive many' Molti studenti hanno telefonato 'Many students telephoned' * Ne telefonano molti (cf. Telefonano molti studenti) 'Of them + telephone many' (3.4)

a. La nave e' affondata 'The boat sank' Ne sono affondate quattro (cf. Sono affondate quattro navi) 'Of them + sank four' La finestra si e' rotta 'The window broke' Se ne rompono moite (cf. Si rompono moite finestre) 'Of them + break many'

Interestingly, in French not all anti-causatives behave in the same fashion. Anti-causatives that have the clitic se attached to them select the auxiliary être 'be', but bare anti-causatives select the auxiliary avoir 'have': (3.5)

a. La fenêtre s 'est cassée (= (3.4b)) b. Le bateau a coulé (= (3.4a))

One possible hypothesis is that bare anti-causatives in French are simply anomalous with respect to auxiliary selection. This is the position taken in Burzio 1981, which is not implausible since there are other exceptions to the Aux-selection rule in French. For example, raising verbs, which lack an external argument at S-R, are expected to select the auxiliary 'be' rather than 'have'. In fact, this is usually the case in Italian, but not in French: Les enfants m'ont semblé aimer la musique 'The children seemed to me to love the music'. The problem with this hypothesis is that bare anti-causatives like couler do not behave as unaccusatives with respect to other phenomena either, such as partitive en-cliticization and reduced relative clause formation. Both intransitives and unaccusatives may appear in the impersonal construction (as in (3.6)), but cn-cliticization is only possible with unaccusatives (contrast (3.7a) and (3.7b)). As noticed also by Burzio 1981, reduced relatives can be formed with unaccusative verbs, but not with intransitives (as shown in (3.8)). The examples in (3.9) show that anti-causatives with the clitic se attached to them pattern with the unaccusatives with respect to en-cliticization, while bare anti-causatives pattern with intransitives. Similarly, bare anti-causatives cannot appear in reduced relative clauses. (3.10) only has the agentive meaning, as corroborated by the impossibility of inserting the adverb 'all by itself in this construction. (Anti-causatives with the clitic se cannot appear in

90

Types of lexical processes

reduced relative clauses for an independent reason; in French, unlike Italian, clitics may not be adjoined to participles.) (3.6)

a. Il n'est arrivé que trois clients 'There arrived only three clients' b. Il n'a mangé ici que trois clients 'There ate here only three clients'

(3.7)

a. Il n'en est arrivé que trois b. * Il n'en a mangé que trois ici

(3.8)

a.

Les lettres arrivées hier portaient une mauvaise nouvelle 'The letters arrived yesterday brought bad news' b. * Les garçons téléphoné(s) hier etaient mes frères 'The men called yesterday were my brothers'

(3.9)

a.

Il ne s'en est cassé que trois ici 'There of them + broke only three here' b. * Il n'en a coulé que trois ici 'There of them + sank only three here'

(3.10)

Le bateau coulé hier (*tout seul) a gagné la competition 'The boat sank yesterday (*all by itself) won the competition' Cf. Le bateau a coulé hier tout seul 'The boat sank yesterday all by itself

Within the system presented here, we can account for the peculiar behavior of bare anti-causatives like couler by assuming that their lexical representation specifies a marked or irregular linking. The internal argument, instead of being projected onto the position governed by the head of the lexical frame (by rule (1.10A)) and then linked to the head of the lexical frame (by default rule (1.10C)), is directly linked to the head of the lexical frame. Thus, while anti-causatives like se casser have a lexical representation as in (3.1 la), bare anti-causatives like couler have a lexical representation as in (3.1 lb). It is clear that in French, unlike Italian, the clitic se attached to a class of anti-causative verbs serves as a morphological marker to distinguish the anti-causatives that map their S-R onto L-R via the regular linking rules from those that contain an irregular S-R/L-R mapping. The syntactic nature of the clitic se in anti-causatives, as well as the level at which it is inserted, will be ignored here, but see Chapter 4 for extensive discussion. (Note that the irregular linking illustrated in (3.11b) provides further justification for revising the Rule of Projection as in section 1.3.)

91

Types of lexical processes (3.11)

a. se casser:

S-R:

Vx b. couler:

Nx

S-R:

(irregular linking)

L-R: Vx Given the L-Rs in (3.11), the syntactic structure associated with se casser will be comparable to that of unaccusatives, while the syntactic structure associated with couler will be comparable to that of intransitives. Since the auxiliary être 'be' is selected (in the core cases) by verbs which bind their internal argument, the fact that anti-causative verbs of the couler class select avoir follows immediately. The lexical representation in (3.11 b) also serves as the basis for an account of the fact that couler behaves like intransitives, rather than like unaccusatives, with respect to syntactic phenomena like en-cliticization and reduced relative clause formation. Recall that nonstative experiencers do not select an external argument (see section 1.2), but their prepositional argument is irregularly linked to the head of the lexical frame, giving rise to a transitive type of L-R. As expected, they pattern with transitives rather than with unaccusatives with respect to auxiliary selection: they select avoir rather than être. For example, L'histoire a amusé l'enfant 'The story amused the children'.2 Keyser & Roeper 1984 and Simpson 1983 have given empirical arguments in favor of the hypothesis that anti-causative verbs in English are also monadic verbs of the unaccusative type. Simpson 1983 notes that result predicates can modify a transitive verb (i.e. a verb with an internal argument): We painted the house red; The house was painted red; John arrived tired; but they cannot modify an intransitive verb: *John worked tired, meaning 'John is tired as a result of working'. Simpson notes that anti-causatives pattern with transitives rather than with intransitives: The water froze solid; The house burned to ashes; The nail hammered flat. (See also Simpson 1983 for a discussion of the semantic restrictions on modification by result predicates.) As is well known, the //zere-construction is sensitive to the syntactic frame of a verb. The postverbal S-structure subject in the iAerc-constnjction must be a D-structure object. Therefore, unaccusatives but not intransitives may be inserted in the i/jere-construction: There arrived three men from India versus *There worked many men on this boat. It turns out that English anti-causatives pattern with intransitives, rather than with unaccusatives, with respect to this construction: l*There sank three boats in this river. We could solve the paradox of English anti-causatives if result predicates are

92

Types of lexical processes

cases of complex predicates formed at S-R (see Rapoport 1986) and if we assume moreover that English anti-causatives, like French couler, undergo irregular linking between S-R and L-R. At S-R, where result predicates are formed, English anti-causatives would be formally identical to basic unaccusative verbs; at L-R and in the syntax they would be formally identical to intransitives and would therefore be blocked from appearing in the thereconstruction. Considerations of language acquisition, however, raise a problem for analyzing English anti-causatives in the same way as the French anti-causative couler. The child acquiring French has overt positive evidence that couler is exceptional. The fact that couler selects the auxiliary avoir rather than être indicates to the child that couler is an irregular verb. (In the case of the subject-to-subject raising verb sembler (L'enfant m'a semblé aimer la musique), the child will not reach the same conclusion. There is other overt positive evidence, like the possible presence of an expletive subject il (Il semble que l'enfant aime la musique), which indicates to the child that the choice of auxiliary is irregular in this case.) In English, on the other hand, there is no overt positive evidence from which the child could infer that anticausatives are irregular verbs. On the basis of considerations of language acquisition, we therefore conclude that English anti-causatives are regular verbs. In other words, from the formal point of view they are comparable to basic unaccusative verbs both at S-R and at L-R (and therefore in the syntax). Consequently, some other explanation for the impossibility of inserting anti-causative verbs in the fAere-construction must be sought. In fact, there is an independent constraint on the /Aere-construction at the level of the sentence: it must be presentational (see Guéron 1980). Consider the verb appear (a typical presentational verb): There appeared a man in the room. The negated counterpart is not presentational and is ungrammatical: *There disappeared a vase from the room; *There did not appear a man in the room. Anti-causative verbs are not presentational (i.e. they do not introduce an object into the discourse); consequently, they cannot be inserted in the iAere-construction.3 To summarize, anti-causative formation is a meaning-changing lexical process. It must therefore apply at S-R, the level at which the grammatically relevant aspects of lexical meaning are represented. Anti-causativization can be minimally formulated as Delete CAUSE feature. The deletion of the external argument follows as a side effect. It was shown, furthermore, that the existence of L-R as a lexical level which mediates between S-R and NPstructure can help account for the intransitive-like syntactic behavior of certain anti-causative verbs in French. 3.1.2. Causativization The suffix-zze converts an adjective into a causative verb, as in the alternation

Types of lexical processes

93

The city is modern / The major modernized the city. Similar alternations are: social/socialize, standard/standardize, systematic/systematize, ideal/idealize, formal/formalize. The rule of causativization triggered by -ize can be minimally formulated as follows: (1) Adjective — Verb, (2) Insert CAUSE feature. The presence of a CAUSE feature entails the presence of a "causer" (i.e. an external argument that meets the selectional requirements of a causative verb). This means that insertion of a CAUSE feature in the S-R of a predicate has as one of its side effects the insertion of an external argument that can function as the external argument of the newly derived causative verb. Moreover, given that, on the one hand, a predicate may select at most one external argument and, on the other hand, causative predicates are necessarily diadic, a further side effect of the CAUSE-feature insertion rule is that the external argument of the base adjectival predicate must become an internal argument. An example of a derivation is given below. (The internal argument of causative verbs belongs to the "affected" class; it therefore has the status of an incorporated argument.) (3.12)

modern:

S-R: modern, x

modernize:

r\ S-R: « C A U S E modernized x>, y

Other affixes that trigger the insertion of a CAUSE feature are: -ify, which applies to nouns {liquid/liquify, terror/terrify, horror/horrify) and -en, which attaches to adjectives (red/redden, glad/gladden, sad/sadden). To summarize, causativization is a meaning-changing process. This implies that it applies at S-R. It can be minimally formulated as follows: Insert CA USEfeature. The insertion of a new external argument as well as the internalization of the initial external argument are side effects of CAUSEfeature insertion. The question arises whether the rule of anti-causativization and the rule of causativization can be collapsed into one single rule. This can be achieved by assuming that anti-causatives are basic lexical items from which causatives are derived (rather than vice versa). For example, sink(2) in (3.2) would be derived from sink{ 1) via insertion of the CAUSE feature, which would trigger insertion of a "causer" as external argument. We would assume moreover that, while causatives derived from adjectives and nouns are mediated by morphology, causatives derived from verbs are not. There is at least one strong argument against the above hypothesis. There exist derivations which include both a process of causativization and anti-causativization, and in which the anti-causative must be considered to be derived from the causative. Examples of such derivations are: This substance is a liquid —• The chemist liquified this substance (causative) — This substance will liquify when exposed to mild heat (antircausative); His face is red —• The sun reddened his face

94

Types of lexical processes

(causative) — His face reddened after 10 minutes of standing in the sun (anti-causative). 3.1.3. Adjectival passive participle formation Adjectival passive participles are derived from "active" verbs via affixation of past-participle affixes, which in English exhibit a high degree of allomorphy: -ed (consider/considered), -en (write/written), vocalic ablaut (sing/sung), combination of vocalic ablaut and -en suffixation {break/ broken), zero morphology {split/split). For a review of the categorial tests, see Bresnan 1982a and references cited therein. Adjectival passives denote a state which is the result of a process or action.4 The stative character of adjectival passives can be tested with adverbs that can modify events but cannot modify states, such as voluntarily, intentionally, and the purpose adverbial in order to S. (3.13)

a. The food was untouched (*voluntarily/intentionally) b. The food was untouched (*in order to please the boy)

Note that the impossibility for such adverbs to modify the adjectival participle cannot be attributed to the lack of an argument to which intention or purpose can be attributed. The presence of a "hidden" argument in adjectival passives (which can be interpreted agentively) is shown by examples like those in (3.14), where an optional ¿y-phrase may specify the content of the "hidden" or syntactically unrealized argument. (3.14)

a. The island was uninhabited {by humans) b. The jacket was untouched {by human hands) c. These facts remain unexplained {by current theories)

We can state the rule of adjectival passive participle formation in very general terms. Passive participle formation, when it applies at S-R, is specified to trigger the following two processes: (1) Verb —• Adjective, and (2) Insert State feature. The other alterations of the predicate-argument structure of a verb that undergoes passive participle formation at S-R may be considered to be side effects of these two lexical specifications in conjunction with general well-formedness conditions on S-R. Recall that adjectives cannot take lexical internal arguments (section 1.1.1). It therefore follows that if a verb with a lexical internal argument undergoes adjectival passive formation, the internal argument must become an external argument. Adjectival passive formation can apply to unaccusative verbs — either to basic unaccusatives as in (3.15a-d) and (3.16a-d), or to derived unaccusatives as in (15e-f).

Types of lexical processes

95

(3.15)

a. b. c. d. e. f.

a fallen leaf (a leaf that has fallen) a widely travelled man (a man that has travelled widely) an amused person (a person that is amused) a humiliated man (a man that is humiliated) a broken leg (a leg that has broken) a sunk boat (a boat that has sunk)

(3.16)

a. Cet objet semble tombé du ciel 'This object seems fallen from the sky' b. Pierre semble just sorti du lit 'Pierre seems just (gone) out of bed' c. Cet homme semble venu d'un autre planète 'This man seems (come) out of another planet' d. Ces legumes semblent fraîchement arrivées 'These vegetables seem freshly arrived'

Illustrations of the derivation of an adjectival passive participle from an unaccusative verb are given below. (The internal arguments of the base verbs belong to the "affected" class; hence, they have the status of incorporated arguments.) (3.17)

a. fall: fallen: b. amuse: amused:

S-R: S-R: , y S-R: ;

(afz)

S-R: , y; (aPz)

Adjectival passive participle formation can also apply to transitive verbs, as in the examples in (3.14). Recall that a predicate cannot take more than one external argument. Therefore, if the internal argument must be externalized, what is the fate of the initial external argument? It cannot be internalized if it is the case, as it seems to be, that agents may only function as external arguments (recall that the +agent feature picks out a subset of external arguments; see section 1.1.1). Therefore, there is but one possible alternative: the initial external argument is incorporated into the predicate. An example of a derivation is given below. (3.18)

touch:

S-R: touch y, x

touched:

S-R: ", where the variable borne by AGR stands for the lexical index borne by the head of the NP of which the AP is predicated in the syntax (or the noun that the AP modifies). The variable index of the subject of an adjectival small clause complement is thus indirectly made available at L-R via AGR. As shown in (3.25), the Default Rule of Predicate Formation (1.1OC) copies the index borne by AGR onto the head of the lexical frame derived by verbal passive formation. 6 (3.25)

consider:

L-R(l): Vx

< A + AGR y >

Most languages do not allow intransitive verbs to undergo verbal passive. Dutch and German are exceptions in this respect (Es wurde getanzt 'It was danced'). The property that characterizes the verbal passive of intransitive verbs is that they do not function as open predicates (i.e. they do not bear an arg-variable). Their marked status can be attributed to the strong tendency for verbs and adjectives to function as L-predicates. In other words, Lpredicate formation is maximized at L-R. If this is correct, then we must assume that in English, the propositional internal argument in sentences like It was believed that John left is linked to the verb at L-R by the Default Rule of L-predicate Formation and therefore ends up being bound to the subject

100

Types of lexical processes

position. This means that the pronoun it has the status of a pronoun linked to an extraposed S (adjoined to VP) in this example. A question arises at this point. In sentences like The boy left, the predicate is predicated of the lexical content of the NP subject, namely boy, which is represented by a lexical index. But propositions do not have lexical entries and therefore do not bear a lexical index. How then can an L-predicate be predicated of a proposition? More precisely, in It was believed that John left, or in sentences like That John left was widely believed, ho w is believed predicated of that John left, given that a proposition has no lexical index? I would like to suggest that, although clauses do not bear an index which identifies them with a lexical entry, they do bear a grammatical index which is associated with the predicative feature +P(roposition), +Q(uestion), or +E(xclamation). The index borne by a clause can therefore assign a value (+P, +Q, or +E) to an arg-variable (via Predication or Projection). As is well known, verbal passive participle formation cannot apply to unaccusative verbs, even in languages like Dutch and German which have intransitive verbal passives. This can be attributed to a principle of morphological nonredundancy, which prohibits the attachment of vacuous or redundant morphology. (See Marantz 1984, Zubizarreta 1985.) Recall that verbal passive morphology carries the lexical specification "block external arg from being mapped onto derived verb". Now, consider the L-R of an unaccusative verb, given in (1.11b) and repeated in (3.26a). Affixation of verbal passive morphology would block the index on the verbal base from being inherited by the derived verb. On the other hand, the Default Rule of Predicate Formation (1.10C) would copy the index of the internal argument onto the derived V, thus rendering the presence of passive morphology absolutely redundant. In effect, both (3.26a) and its verbal passive (3.26b) specify the same linking configuration. (3.26)

a.

arrive:

b. * arrived:

L-R: Y"

Ny

Vv

ed

L-R:

Ny

The principle of morphological nonredundancy can in fact be derived from a more general principle of grammar: the Principle ofFull Interpretation (FI), which requires that every grammatical entity be assigned an interpretation (Chomsky 1986a). Chomsky suggests that FI applies to the two interpretative

Types of lexical processes

101

components: the component that assigns a phonological/phonetic interpretation to a sentence (PF) and the component that assigns a semantic interpretation to a sentence (LF). Thus, as mentioned in section 1.1.2, FI disallows uninterpreted variables and uninterpreted arguments, as well as vacuous operators. I would like to propose here that FI also applies in the lexicon, making it necessary that every lexical rule and every lexical specification be functionally meaningful. As we have seen above, verbal passive formation applies vacuously in (3.26); this derivation can therefore be considered to be excluded by FI. The hypothesis that the principle of morphological nonredundancy should be reduced to the more general Principle of Full Interpretation is supported by the following facts. Nonstative experiencer verbs cannot undergo verbal passivization. This can be better appreciated in a language like Spanish, which morphologically distinguishes two types of copulas: (a) estar, which is used with adjectives that describe nonpermanent states (Juan esta contento 'Juan is happy'), and (b) ser, which is used with adjectives that describe permanent states (Juan es pequeno 'Juan is short') and with verbal passives (El ministrofue asesinado 'The minister was assassinated'). The contrast between (3.27b) and (3.27c) can therefore be taken as indicating that divertir, aburrir, impresionar do not undergo verbal passive formation. The copula estar but not ser can co-occur with the participle form of these verbs. (3.27)

a. Los cuentos de Juan la divierten/aburren/impresionan a Maria 'Juan's stories amuse/bore/impress Maria' b. verbal passive: *Maria es divertida/aburrida/impresionada por los cuentos de Juan c. adjectival passive: Maria esta divertida/aburrida/impresionada con los cuentos de Juan 'Maria is amused/bored/impressed with Juan's stories'

Recall that nonstative experiencers specify in their lexical entry a marked linking between S-R and L-R (section 1.2). Let us call this marked linking specification M. M establishes that the prepositional argument is linked to the head of the lexical frame, giving rise to L-R(l) in (3.28). In other words, the function of M is to insure that the argument selected by the preposition be syntactically realized in subject position. Now consider the verbal passive of amuse in (3.28), derived by affixation of passive morphology onto L-R(l). Passive morphology blocks the arg-variable index borne by the base verb from being projected onto the derived verb, thus obliterating the effects of M. In other words, the application of verbal passive to nonstative experiencers is not itself vacuous but it does render the lexical specification M carried by these verbs functionally vacuous (and therefore functionally uninterpretable). Consequently, the derivation in (3.28) is excluded by FI, to the extent

102

Types of lexical processes

that this principle is assumed to apply in the lexicon (as well as in PF and LF), insuring that there be no vacuous application of lexical rules and no vacuous presence of lexical specifications. (3.28)

amuse:

S-R:

amuse y; at x

L-R(l): V* Ny (by application of M) L-R(2):

(by application of verbal passive formation) Consider now the verbal passive of verbs with dative and locative arguments that were claimed to be specified for irregular linking in the mapping from S-R onto L-R (section 1.2). Among this class of verbs, those whose syntactic object is selected by the dative preposition to can undergo passivization without exception: The soldiers were ordered/invited/instructed to attack the city; The children were promised to be allowed to leave early. Among the verbs whose syntactic object is selected by a locative preposition, some can undergo passivization and some cannot. The verb enter can be passivized (The city was entered by the soldiers at three o'clock in the morning), but the verb flee cannot {*The city was fled by the soldiers at three o'clock in the morning). Interestingly, this difference correlates with another difference between the two verbs: the locative preposition in the S-R of enter can be incorporated into the verbal predicate (The city was entered into by the soldiers at three o'clock in the morning), but not in the case o f f l e e (*The city was fledfrom by the soldiers at three o'clock in the morning).1 The case of enter and of verbs with a dative argument will be reanalyzed in section 3.3. But the analysis of the verb flee proposed in section 1.2 is maintained. As proposed in that section, the lexical entry of this verb specifies that the arg-variable selected by the locative preposition be linked to the position governed by the head of the lexical frame (let us call this lexical specification T). In other words, the function of T is to insure that the argument selected by a preposition be syntactically realized in object position. Application of verbal passive would

Types of lexical processes

103

obliterate the effects of T to the extent that verbal passive has as side effect the syntactic externalization of the argument in object position. Verbal passive blocks the external argument from being projected onto the derived verb; as a consequence, the Default Rule of Predicate Formation (1.10C) applies, binding the arg-variable in object position to the verb. This arg-variable therefore ends up receiving its value in the syntax from an argument in subject position (rather than from an argument in object position). In conclusion, the application of verbal passive renders the function of T vacuous; it is consequently blocked by FI. The same analysis can be extended to the verb leave (quitter in French), which cannot be passivized either: John left the house; Pierre a quitté la maison vs. * The house was left by John; *La maison a été quitté par Pierre. These verbs may be assumed to contain a phonologically unspecified locative preposition; their lexical entries, like flee, carry the marked specification T. The application of verbal passive to these lexical frames is consequently excluded by FI. As was pointed out in section 2.3.3, in the absence of a èj'-phrase, the syntactically unrealized external arg-variable in verbal passives is interpreted either existentially or generically, depending on the temporal specifications of the sentence. In the presence of a éy-phrase, the external arg-variable is assigned the value of the NP contained within this phrase via Modification at NP-structure (as in derived nominals). Cf. The jacket was unzipped by Mary; The boat was sunk by the navy. Interestingly, the adjunct status of the ¿»^-phrase in the verbal passive is confirmed by the test of long wh-extraction. Chomsky 1986b notes that a lexical argument (i.e. an argument selected by a lexical head) but not an adjunct argument can be extracted out of a wh-island: ? Which car did Bill wonder how to fix (the slight marginality is attributed to subjacency) versus *How did Bill wonder which car to fix. The following example shows that the ¿>>>-phrase behaves like the adjunct how with respect to long extraction: *By whom did you wonder what John was given, and it contrasts with ITo whom did you wonder what John gave. To summarize, it was argued in this section that verbal passive, unlike adjectival passive (discussed in section 3.1.3), does not affect predicateargument relations. It affects the mapping of arguments onto syntax: it blocks the mapping of the external argument onto the derived verb. Therefore, while adjectival passive participles are formed at S-R, verbal passive participles must be formed at L-R. Bresnan 1982a has argued for a different analysis of passives than the one presented here. She claims that verbal passive participles constitute the input to adjectival passive participle formation, a view which is clearly incompatible with the organization of the lexicon defended in the present work. The reason is that a lexical item formed at L-R cannot constitute the input to a process that applies at S-R. S-R may feed L-R, but not vice versa. It is therefore worthwhile to examine Bresnan's proposal.

104

Types of lexical processes

The basic argument that Bresnan invokes for considering verbal passive participles as input to adjectival passive participle formation is that the morphology of the two is identical. She claims that an analysis of passives which derives directly both verbal and adjectival passive participles from an active root misses this generalization. Bresnan proposes the following rule, which derives adjectival participles from verbal participles, thus capturing the generalization in question: (3.29)

Participle-Adjective Conversion Morphological change: Operation on lexical form: Condition:

(Bresnan 1982a:23) V[Part] — [V[Part]] A

P (...(SUBJ)...) STATE-OF P (...(SUBJ)...) SUBJ = theme of P

The weak point of the rule in (3.29) is having to invoke the condition that the subject of an adjectival predicate must be a "theme" of the adjectival predicate. Bresnan argues that this condition is necessary to account for two properties of adjectival passives. 1) This condition is necessary in order to block the derivation of sentences like (3.20a) and (3.21a). In effect, the strict locality of adjectival passives follows under this analysis from the fact that the subject of an adjectival participle must be the "theme" argument of the adjectival predicate. In (3.20a) and (3.21a) the matrix subject is not an argument of the matrix predicate at all; it is an argument of the embedded predicate. 2) Rule (3.29), on the one hand, allows adjectival participles like those in (3.14) to be derived from their corresponding transitive verbal participles and, on the other hand, allows adjectival participles like those in (3.15) and (3.16) to be derived from their corresponding monadic verbal participles. Bresnan claims that the condition on rule (3.29) is necessary to block the derivation of adjectival participles like *the hard worked man (meaning 'the man that has worked hard'). The subject of the intransitive verbal participle worlced is not a "theme"; therefore it cannot be the input to adjectival participle formation. Neither one of Bresnan's arguments is compelling. The analysis of adjectival passive presented in the previous section provides an alternative explanation for the ungrammaticality of (3.20a) and (3.21a), which does not have recourse to the notion "theme". Moreover, it was suggested in section 3.1.3 that intransitives cannot be the input to adjectival passive because adjectival passives are statives and the external argument of intransitives is +agent. It is a general property of stative predicates that they never select an agentive argument. Bresnan dismisses this explanation, basing herself on the claim that not only agents, but also goals, are excluded as subject of an adjectival passive participle. She mentions the following contrasts in support

Types of lexical processes

105

of her claim: a frequently given present versus *a frequently given child; an unsent letter versus *an unsent mother. Levin & Rappaport 1984 have provided a number of counterexamples to Bresnan's claim. There are cases where either the "theme" or the "goal" may function as the subject of the adjectival passive participle (3.30a-b) and there are cases where the "goal" but not the "theme" may function as subject of the adjectival passive participle (3.30c).8 (3.30)

a. unpaid money; a badly paid agent b. sloppily served food; unserved customers c. * unfed cereal; unfed baby

The ungrammaticality of *afrequently given child and *an unsent letter can be attributed to the fact that give and send take the so-called "theme" as internal argument. Therefore, the "theme" but not the "goal" can be externalized by the rule of adjectival passive formation. On the other hand,feed, pay, serve can take the so-called "goal" as internal argument: We paid the agent (with money); We fed the cows (with first quality grain); We served the customers. Compare these examples with *We gave the child; *We sent the mother.9 As noted by Levin & Rapapport, the ungrammaticality of *unfed cereal is to be attributed to the fact that feed takes an obligatory "goal" argument: * We fed the cereal. Compare with The cereal remained unfed to the baby (derived from the verb feed ... to: We fed the cereal to the baby). See section 3.3 for an analysis of dative-shift verbs and for an explanation why these verbs cannot serve as input to adjectival passive formation, as in *The cereal remained unfed the baby. In conclusion, the examples in (3.30) show that the condition on rule (3.29) is empirically inadequate. If so, then the ungrammaticality of (3.20a) and (3.21a) remains unexplained within Bresnan's analysis of passives. As mentioned earlier, within the analysis of passives that I have presented here, it is not possible to account for the morphological identity between adjectival passive and verbal passive by deriving the adjectival participle from the verbal participle, since the former is formed at S-R and the latter is formed at L-R, and there is no sense in which L-R can be said to feed S-R. How then can the identity of morphological form be captured within the analysis presented here? Adjectival passive morphology and verbal passive morphology carry different lexical specifications. While the former is specified for the functions (1) Verb — Adjective and (2) Insert STATE feature, the latter is specified for the function Block mapping of external argument. But given the side effects of these functions, it turns out that in a subset of cases the functions accomplished by the adjectival passive morphology and the verbal passive morphology are formally identical, as can be appreciated by comparing the

106

Types of lexical processes

derivation in (3.18) with the derivation in (3.23). Indeed, when adjectival passive participle formation applies to transitive verbs, the external argument is incorporated into the semantic predicate and the internal argument becomes the new semantic external argument. When verbal passive participle formation applies to transitive verbs, the external argument is incorporated into the L(exical)-predicate and the internal argument becomes the new L-external argument. In other words, in a subset of cases (namely, when the inputs are transitive verbs), the function accomplished by the passive participle morphology at S-R is identical from the formal point of view to the function that it accomplishes at L-R. The analysis of passives that I have presented here is similar in spirit to the one presented by Borer & Wexler 1985. They argue, as I do here, that adjectival participles and verbal participles are formed at two different levels of representation. They argue that the former is formed at the level of predicateargument structure and the latter at the syntactic level of represention. Since I am assuming here a richer lexicon than Borer & Wexler do, I can describe both adjectival and verbal passives within the lexicon and still maintain a modular view of the interaction of morphology and lexical processes. They recognize, as I do here, the formal similarity in functions of verbal and adjectival passives. Borer & Wexler assume, moreover, that the formal similarity in functions is due to the fact that there is one and only one passive morphology. Strictly speaking, this cannot be correct if, as I have claimed here, the morphology that forms adjectival passives and the morphology that forms verbal passives carry different functional specifications in the adult's grammar, which, due to their side effects, give rise to outputs that are formally identical in a subset of cases. The question that we must ask then is: why does formal identity in the output of verbal passives and adjectival passives in a subset of cases entail identity of phonological form of the verbal and adjectival participle morphologies? A speculative answer is offered below based on Borer & Wexler's proposal concerning the acquisition of passives. Borer & Wexler claim that children acquire adjectival passives before verbal passives, and they attribute this to the assumption that children initially lack A-binding relations. If their claim turns out to be correct, it can be incorporated within the model proposed here by assuming that at the initial stages of acquisition the level of L-R is not available. Assuming Borer & Wexler's hypothesis that children acquire adjectival passives before they acquire verbal passives, it is conceivable that knowledge of adjectival passives, which we can schematize as shown below, serves as the basis for the acquisition of verbal passives. Knowledge of Adjectival Passive Participle Formation (1) Morphology

Types of lexical processes (2) (3)

107

Insert STATE feature; V — A Side effects: a) externalize internal argument, b) incorporate external argument

Once the chil .'s grammar incorporates the level of L-R, the child can begin to acquire the verbal passive. Suppose that the first step in acquiring the verbal passive consists of extending part (1) and part (3) of the above schema to apply to L-R. The second step in acquiring the rule of verbal passive participle formation consists of reducing its formulation to its minimal form: "incorporate the external argument within the derived verb" (or, in other words, "block inheritance of the external arg-variable by the derived verb"). The other operation (the syntactic externalization of the internal argument) is then accomplished by the Default Rule of L-predicate Formation, given that the level of L-R maximizes the formation of L-predicates. We could speculate further and suggest that the reason the verbal passive is acquired in two stages is because when L-R first becomes part of the child's grammar it only contains the Core Rule of L-Predicate Formation; it is not until later that the Default Rule of L-predicate Formation forms part of the child's grammar. In short, the suggestion is that the formal similarities of adjectival and verbal passives, although moot in the adult's grammar, play an important role during acquisition. More precisely, knowledge of adjectival passive (in particular, its morphology and its side effects) is exploited as an initial bootstrapping for the acquisition of verbal passive.10 3.2.2. Romance causatives In this section I will argue, following the proposal put forth in Zubizarreta 1985, that Romance causative verbs trigger a process of complex-verb formation at L-R. While I believe that the main features of the analysis of Romance causatives proposed in that work are basically correct, it contains two inadequacies which can be overcome within the view of lexical representations argued for in the present work. It was assumed in Zubizarreta 1985 that the lexicon contains one single level of representation, namely, the level of predicate-argument structure, and that all lexical processes were to be described at that level. As will be pointed out below, this gives rise to an inadequate description in the case of certain causative constructions. Another shortcoming of the analysis is that it is unable to explain why it is so common for causative verbs (and not for other types of verbs, such as verbs of propositional attitude and verbs of saying) to give rise to complex-verb formation. In fact, we find that the behavior of Romance causatives is not uncommon among languages; similar behavior is found in Japanese, Turkish, Malayalam, and others (see Marantz 1984 and references cited therein for a review of these languages).

108

Types of lexical processes

Strong evidence that Romance causatives (RC from now on) give rise to complex-verb formation is provided by the fact that they alter the manner in which the external argument of the embedded verb is realized in the syntax. Like verbal passive morphology, RC may block the syntactic realization of the embedded external argument, as illustrated by the examples below. (Examples are given in French, but similar examples can be given in Spanish and Italian. Some important differences between French and Spanish, on the one hand, and Italian, on the other hand, will be pointed out later.) (3.31)

a. Ce medicament fait dormir This medicine makes sleep 'This medicine makes one sleep' b. £ a fait travailler It makes work 'It makes one work' c. L'architecte a fait tracer le plan meticuleusement The architect made design the plan carefully 'The architect had the plan designed carefully' d. On a fait peindre la maison pour impressioner les parents We made paint the house in order to impress the parents 'We had the house painted in order to impress the parents'

As was pointed out earlier, purpose and manner adverbials may modify a verb phrase which denotes an event only if it contains an argument that can be interpreted agentively. The presence of a manner and a purpose adverbial in (3.31c) and (3.3 Id), respectively, indicates that there is a "hidden" external argument in these sentences, i.e. an external argument which is lexically present but syntactically absent, as in the verbal passive construction. Note that, as in the case of verbal passives, the "hidden" external argument is interpreted either generically (as in (3.3 la-b)) or existentially (as in (3.31c-d)). As noted in Zubizarreta 1985, there are two pieces of data that show that the external arg-variable of the embedded verb is not syntactically realized in the sentences in (3.31). In other words, it is not the case that this causative construction contains a thematically full but phonologically empty embedded subject. 1) One piece of evidence is provided by sentences with a reflexive clitic attached to the embedded verb. As we shall see in section 4.2.2.2, the reflexive clitic se must be bound to the subject of the verb to which it is attached. The impossibility of attaching the clitic se to the embedded verb in sentences like those in (3.31) shows that there is no embedded thematic subject in these sentences. Cf. the ungrammaticality of *On fera se raser 'We will make refl. clitic + shave'; *// faut faire se laver les mains avant de s'asseoir a

Types of lexical processes

109

table 'One must make refl. clitic + wash the hands before sitting down at table'; *Ça fera se parler plus souvent 'That will make refl. clitic + speak more often'. These sentences contrast with the following, where there is a phonologically null but thematically full embedded subject: Ils ont promis de se raser 'They promised to refl. clitic + shave'; Ils ont décidé de se laver les mains avant de s'asseoir à table 'They decided to refl. clitic + wash the hands before sitting down at table'; Ilfaut se parler plus souvent 'It is necessary to refl. clitic + speak more often'. 2) Another piece of evidence is provided by the unaccusative verbs. While intransitive verbs may be embedded under faire in the type of causative construction under discussion (see (3.31a-b)), unaccusative verbs may not: *Des événements pareils, çafait arriver en retard 'Events like these make arrive late'; *Un caillou mal placé peut faire tomber 'A misplaced stone can make fall'. 11 Recall that unaccusatives are monadic verbs with an internal argument, which gets projected onto the position governed by the head of the lexical frame at L-R and then linked to the head of the lexical frame by the Default Rule of Predicate Formation (1.10C) (see the example in (1.11b)). When mapped onto the syntax, this L-R gives rise to a binding relation between subject and object positions. The internal arg-variable in unaccusatives can then be assigned a value by the subject position (as in (1.12)). This is not possible in the type of causative construction illustrated in (3.31) if we are right that a semantically full but phonologically empty embedded subject is nonexistent in this construction. The only analysis available for the abovementioned sentences is one in which the object position dominates the phonologically empty but semantically specified element PRO, which can then assign a predicative value to the internal arg-variable. But this option is also excluded, because we know on the basis of independent evidence that PRO cannot appear in object position (see Chomsky 1981). Note that if lexical material is inserted in object position, the above-mentioned sentences become grammatical: Des événements pareils, ça fait arriver tout le monde en retard 'Events like these make everyone arrive late'; Un caillou mal placé, ça peut faire tomber quelqu'un 'A misplaced stone can make someone fall'. 3) Finally, note that if the sentences in (3.31) contain a semantically full but phonologically empty embedded subject (i.e. a PRO), we would expect the embedded subject to be controlled by the matrix subject. This is clearly not the case in these constructions. The embedded external argument cannot be interpreted as coreferential with the matrix subject. We can conclude then that RC in (3.31) accomplishes a function comparable to verbal passive morphology: it blocks the external arg-variable of the embedded verb from being mapped onto the syntax. This conclusion is further supported by the impossibility of embedding under RC a verb that has undergone passivization, as shown in (3.32). Passive morphology in these cases is functionally vacuous, since RC can accomplish the same function as

110

Types of lexical processes

passive morphology. The L-Rs associated with the sentences in (3.32) are therefore ruled out for the same reason that (3.26b) is. (3.32)

a. * L'architecte a fait (être) tracé(j) les plans b. *On a fait (être) peint(e) la maison

Furthermore, as in the verbal passive, the "hidden" external arg-variable may be assigned a value via Modification by an adjunct par-phrase (byphrase). Cf. L'architecte afait tracer les plans par son associé; On afait peindre la maison par les enfants. (See Zubizarreta 1985 for arguments that the />ar-phrase in this construction has the status of an adjunct.) If the verb embedded under faire is intransitive, a par-phrase cannot appear in the sentence: Ce medicamentfait dormir (*par les enfants)-, Çafait travailler (*par les étudiants). But note that this is not a property specific to the causative construction. There are dialects of French that allow passivization of intransitive verbs, but a par-phrase cannot coexist with these verbs either: Il a été dormi dans ce lit récemment (*par le roi de France) 'It was slept here recently (by the king of France)'; Il a été travaillé ici récemment (*par les étudiants) 'It was worked here recently (by the students)'. See Zribi-Hertz 1982. The complex-verb hypothesis can readily explain why RC can block the external arg-variable of the embedded verb from being syntactically realized. The causative verb has itself an external argument. The derived complex verb cannot have two external arguments. Since the causative functions as the head of the derived complex verb (for reasons that will become clear below), it is the causative's external arg-variable which gets projected onto the derived verb. The external arg-variable of the dependent verb remains incorporated in the complex verb in the examples examined above. The question that arises is: what is the property of RC which makes it possible for these verbs to function as part of a complex verb in Romance and in many other languages? In Zubizarreta 1985, it was suggested that what characterizes Romance causatives is that, although phonologically words, they have the morphosyntactic status of affixes. This hypothesis does not explain why it is precisely the causative and perception verbs (rather than verbs of propositional attitude or verbs of saying) which in Romance, as well as in many other languages, trigger complex-verb formation. Higginbotham 1983 suggests that a fundamental property of these verbs is that they select an Event as internal argument. Since the E(vent)-variable is borne by VP, it is natural to make the hypothesis that causative and perception verbs map their internal argument onto a verbal complement, i.e. a verbal small clause. See also Manzini "1983, who makes the same proposal. The fact that the complement of these verbs is a projection of V rather than a projection of Infl can best be appreciated in English, which, unlike Romance, has an overt

Types of lexical processes

111

inflectional marker for infinitivals (to). Cf. John made/saw Mary (*to) leave. Causative and perception verbs will then be associated with the following lexical frame (where the italicized F represents the head of the lexical frame):

F

V

It is easy to see how the lexical frame in (3.33) can give rise to a complex verb by incorporation of the verbal complement into the head of the lexical frame. (The higher Fin (3.34) represents the derived head of the lexical frame.) 12 (3.34)

F / \ V V

While (3.33) represents the type of L-R onto which English causatives are mapped, (3.34) represents the type of L-R onto which RC are mapped. The frame in (3.33) gives rise to a syntactic structure in which the main verb F takes a verbal small clause as complement. In this case, the lexical content of the complement of F is inserted in the syntax (as is generally the case for lexical nodes immediately dominated by a phrasal category). On the other hand, (3.34) gives rise to a lexical complex verb, in which the lexical content of the complement of F is inserted in the lexicon (as is generally the case with compounds). A few remarks on verbs that take verbal small clauses are in order. Recall the suggestion in the preceding section that the lexical frame of verbs with an adjectival small clause complement can undergo verbal passive and the Default Rule of Predicate Formation, due to the fact that the variable index of the embedded subject is made available at L-R via the AGR element carried by the category A. The category V, on the other hand, does not carry an inherent AGR element. The morphological agreement that surfaces on verbs in tensed sentences (and in inflected infinitivals in languages like Portuguese and Turkish) originates under the Infl node. This fundamental difference between adjectives and verbs predicts that while verbs that take an adjectival small clause complement can undergo passivization, verbs that take a verbal small clause complement cannot. In the latter cases, the variable index of the embedded subject is not visible at L-R and therefore cannot be copied onto the head of the lexical frame by the Default Rule of Predicate Formation. Consequently, no binding relation between matrix subject and embedded subject can be generated in this case. The prediction is borne out: * John was made leave; *John was seen cry. Interestingly, the presence of an Infl node gives rise to a well-formed passive: John was made to leave. This is

112

Types of lexical processes

jtfst what we expect, since Infl makes the index of the embedded subject accessible at L-R (see the discussion in the previous section of passivized raising predicates that map their propositional argument onto an IP). This, of course, does not explain why the active counterpart of the above-mentioned passive is ungrammatical (* We made John to leave). Note, however, that this property is not specific to causatives. There are also verbs of saying that do not have an active form: John was said to have left versus * We said John to have left. Finally, note that given the rule of Acc Case-marking proposed in section 1.2.1, the subject of a verbal small clause cannot receive its Case from the matrix verb. In order for an NP to be assigned Acc Case by V, the index of the NP must be governed by V. The index of the subject of a verbal small clause is not governed by the matrix verb. Consequently, we must conclude that the subject of the verbal small clause is assigned Acc Case by virtue of its position, namely by virtue of being the preverbal subject of a verbal small clause: [VPNP VP]. In fact, in English this rule must be generalized to apply to the subject of clausal gerunds as well (e.g. We imagined [a gorilla kissing Mary]). (The Case Filter given in section 2.1.3 must be slightly reformulated to cover these cases. When an NP receives Case by virtue of its position (rather than by virtue of being governed by a Case assigner), the Case Filter must require that this NP, when checked for Case, appear in the position by virtue of which it was assigned Case.) Let us come back now to the complex-verb analysis in (3.34). As was remarked earlier, it is the external arg-variable of the causative verb which is projected onto the newly derived complex verb. We have seen that the external arg-variable may remain syntactically unrealized (as in the examples in (3.31)). But the lexical frame associated with RC provides another option for this arg-variable. It may be L-internalized; that is, it may be linked to a position governed by the complex verb. L-internalization is not a general rule that governs the mapping of S-R onto L-R or of one L-R onto another. It is a specific property of the lexical frame of complex verbs headed by causative (and perception) verbs. This option is exemplified by the following sentences: (3.35)

a. Ce medicament fait dormir les enfants This medicine makes sleep the chidren 'This medicine makes the children sleep' b. Ça fait travailler les enfants It makes work the children 'It makes the children work' c. L'architecte a fait tracer le plan à son associé The architect made design the plan to his associate 'The architect had his associate design the plan' d. On a fait peindre la maison aux enfants We made paint the house to the chidren 'We had the children paint the house'

113

Types of lexical processes

If the base verb (i.e. the sister offaire) is intransitive (as in examples (3.35ab)), the L-internalized external argument is Case-marked accusative by the complex verb at S-structure, as expected. If the base verb is transitive (as in examples (3.35c-d)), a dummy preposition à assigns dative Case to the L-internalized external argument. There is an important difference between the dummy Case-marker à in the Romance causative constructions and the dummy Case-marker of inserted in noun phrases (discussed in section 2.1). While the latter applies regardless of the lexical content of the head of the NP, the dummy Case-marker à in Romance is inserted only when the head of the VP is the complex verb faire V. In other words, o/-insertion is structurally determined, while à-insertion is lexically determined. It is therefore reasonable to assume that, while of is inserted at S-structure, à is inserted at L-R. The lexical rule of ¿-insertion can be formulated as follows: VNy Nz-*à + Nz, if Nz is linked to V. Since such a linking relation arises only when V is embedded under a causative verb (or a verb of perception) at L-R, it follows that the rule of à-insertion will only apply to the causative construction. This analysis leaves open the possibility that in other languages the L-internalized external argument be assigned Acc Case at S-structure, if the adjacency requirement is met and if the grammar of the language in question provides a lexical Case for the internal argument of the verb embedded under the causative. This case is attested in Chamorro, an Austronesian language studied by Gibson 1980. The lexical representation for faire (as well as for Italian fare and Spanish hacer) is given in (3.36). Ev(ent) is the internal argument offaire, which gets mapped as a dependent of the head of the lexical frame by the Rule of Projection; the external arg-variable x is linked to the head of the lexical frame by the Rule of Predicate Formation; Ny represents the dependent of the base verb if transitive; Nz represents the optionally L-internalized external arg-variable. The L-internalized argument is syntactically realized within the VP, but semantically it is still the external argument of the embedded verb. Note that the revised version of the Rule of Projection given in section 1.2.4 allows for this option. In the lexical frame of RC, the process of Linternalization is optional, but in other languages it could be obligatory or absent. (The dots under V represent the lexical item inserted at L-R under the sister node of faire) (3.36)

faire:

n S-R: faire Ev, x L-R:

V jaire

V,z'

(Ny)

(Nz)

114

Types of lexical processes

The analysis proposed in Zubizarreta 1985 provided an inadequate description for sentences like those in (3.35). Since predicate-argument structure was assumed to be the sole level of lexical representation, the proposal was that the external argument of the verb embedded under faire in sentences like those in (3.35) underwent internalization at the level of predicate-argument structure (as is the case for causatives derived by -ize affixation; see section 3.1.2). But there is an important difference between the type of base vérbs to which -ize is adjoined and the type of base verbs to which faire is adjoined. The former type takes a -agentive external argument, while the latter (in most cases) takes a +agentive external argument. As was remarked earlier (section 1.1.1), the feature +agentive (which is the only grammatically relevant thematic feature) factors out two major classes of external arguments. A +agentive external argument cannot be internalized at the level of S-R, because only external arguments can be defined as +agentive. The agentive status of the L-internalized external argument in the causative construction can be teased out with manner adverbials, which are agent oriented: On a fait se hisser Paul sur le cheval d'une seule main 'We made Paul climb on the horse with one hand' (from Ruwet 1972). The dummy status of the preposition à provides further evidence concerning the status of the italicized phrases at the level of predicateargument structure in examples like (3.35c-d). Although it assigns dative Case, this preposition is of a different nature from the argument-taking dative preposition à in donner un livre à Marie 'give a book to Mary'. As is well known, adjunct adjectival predicates can "be oriented towards" an argument selected by the verb that they modify, but they cannot be "oriented towards" an argument selected by a preposition. Compare John chewed the meat raw with *John chewed at the meat raw. The following contrast therefore shows that the preposition à in the causative constructions in (3.35c-d) is a Casemarker and not an argument-taking preposition: On a fait réciter ces vers à Marie complètement soûle 'We had Marie recite those verses completely drunk' versus *On a remis la prisonnière au gardien complètement soûl 'We handed over the prisoner to the guard completely drunk', where 'drunk' is "oriented towards" the indirect object. If à in the RC construction is not an argument-taking preposition, then the argument headed by à must be the external argument of the verb embedded underfaire. (The presence of an Acc Case-marked NP (le plan and la maison in (3.35c) and (3.35d), respectively) shows that the argument headed by the dummy Case-marker cannot be analyzed as the internal argument of the embedded verb or of a semantically complex verb faire + V.) The analysis of RC presented above gives exactly the correct description for Italian. The reduced structure of Italian causatives is confirmed by the possibility of passivizing the causative construction in this language, as shown in (3.37a). But in French, as well as in Spanish, the causative

115

Types of lexical processes

construction cannot undergo passivization, as shown by the ungrammatically of (3.37b). (3.37)

a.

Quei brani furono fatti leggere (a/da Giovanni) Those passages were made read (to/by Giovanni) 'Those passages were made to be read (by Giovanni)' b. * Ces passages ont été faits lire (à/par Jean) (Fr.) * Esos pasajes fueron hechos leer (a/por Juan) (Sp.)

It was suggested in Zubizarreta 1985 that this difference between French and Spanish, on the one hand, and Italian, on the other hand, can be attributed to the ambiguous status of causatives in the former languages. In French and Spanish the causative functions simultaneously as a main, autonomous verb (like English make) and as part of a complex verb (like Italianfare). This dual status can be represented by two simultaneous syntactic analyses at the level of NP-structure and at the level of S-structure: one is a nonreduced structure and the other is a reduced structure, as illustrated in (3.38). (The structure written in broken lines represents part of the L-R of the complex verb faire tracer.)n (3.38) [ s NP,

L'architectj

[VPxVx

[vp[vpzV*

fera

tracer

I

I I

NPk]]]

les piansi

à son associéK

NP,

NPk ]]

Vz

Vx

CsNPj

NPi]

tvP"

yX

(x = j and z — k by Predication applied at NP-structure) Objective clitics attach to the complex verb: Pierre Fafait nettoyer 'Pierre Acc clitic + made clean'; Pierre lui afait envoy er la lettre 'Pierre Dat clitic + made send the letter'. Since objective pronominals cliticize onto the category which assigns them Case, the examples above may be taken as an indication that the reduced structure (i.e. the structure headed by the complex verb) is relevant in determining Case assignment. (On the status of dative clitics in Romance, see section 4.2.2.2.) Although structural Case is assigned at S-structure, the Case Filter, which is a Case-checking device, applies in the phonological interpretative component (PF) (see section 2.1.3). PF does not permit ambiguous

116

Types of lexical processes

analyses. Let us then suppose that Case assignment applies freely at Sstructure both in the reduced and nonreduced structures, but that it is the reduced structure (rather than the nonreduced structure) which constitutes the input to PF, at which level Case assignment is checked by the Case Filter. The reason why the reduced structure feeds P F (rather than the nonreduced one) is due to the fact that this structure systematically satisfies the Case Filter, while the nonreduced structure does not. The external argument of the verb embedded under the causative is assigned Case in the reduced structure but not in the nonreduced structure. As remarked earlier, this NP is assigned Acc Case by the complex verb if it meets the adjacency requirement; otherwise, it is assigned dative Case by the Case-marker a-inserted at L-R by the lexical rule of a-insertion. In the nonreduced structure, this NP is linked to the embedded postverbal subject position which is not a position that receives Case. Recall that the Case Filter requires that the index of the NP which is checked for Case be governed by its Case assigner (at least in situations in which Case is assigned via government). It follows then that only the reduced structure systematically passes the Case Filter. 14 As we shall see below in discussing the construction exemplified by the sentences in (3.31) and the interaction of passive with the/a/re-construction, as well as in discussing the interaction of reflexive se with the /a/reconstruction in section 4.2.2.2, both the reduced and the nonreduced structures are relevant in determining the semantic interpretation of French causatives. Therefore, both the reduced and the nonreduced structures must be considered to be inputs to the semantic interpretative component. Of course, the semantic interpretation read off from the reduced structure and the semantic interpretation read off from the nonreduced structure must be congruent, i.e. they must be noncontradictory. The structure in (3.38) illustrates a case where complex-verb formation triggers L-internalization of the external arg-variable of the verb embedded under faire at L-R. This external arg-variable is therefore associated via Projection with a lexical item which occupies the "second object" position in the reduced analysis. This same arg-variable is associated with the subject position in the nonreduced analysis via Predication. While either the nonreduced structure alone or the reduced structure alone can give the correct interpretation for (3.38) and comparable sentences, in cases like those in (3.31) the coexistence of the nonreduced structure with the reduced structure plays a crucial role in determining the manner in which the embedded external arg-variable is interpreted. In (3.31) the external argvariable of the embedded verb is incorporated in the complex verb but it is not L-internalized; consequently, it is not mapped onto any position in the reduced structure. We have seen that the grammar provides an interpretative mechanism for such "hidden" arg-variables: either it is interpreted existentially or generically by the default rule of arg-variable interpretation, or it is

Types of lexical processes

117

assigned the value of an adjunct par-phrase via Modification. In either case, the external arg-variable acquires the status of a saturated variable within the lexical representation of the complex verb. The external arg-variable is therefore no longer available in such cases to form an open predicate to be saturated via Predication in the nonreduced analysis. Note that the conclusion that interpretative rules which apply in the reduced analysis can bleed the formation of an open L-predicate in the nonreduced analysis and, consequently, the application of the Rule of Predication, does not contradict our previous contention that Predication applies obligatorily whenever its context of application is met. In the case of parallel nonreduced and reduced analyses, the Rule of Predication is not in competition with the Rule of Modification and the default rule of arg-variable interpretation vis-à-vis the interpretation of the embedded external arg-variable. The reason is that their application is triggered by different structures; the first one is triggered by the nonreduced structure and the latter two by the reduced structure. Consider now what would happen if the bleeding worked the other way around. That is, suppose that neither Modification nor the default rule of arg-variable interpretation apply in the reduced analysis. The embedded external argvariable will then have the status of an unsaturated variable and will be able to give rise to an open L-predicate in the nonreduced analysis, to be saturated via Predication. But this option will not give rise to a well-formed structure. In such a case the argument associated with the embedded subject position in the nonreduced structure would have to be either the phonologically null element PRO or a lexical NP with phonological content. Both options are excluded. The first one is excluded because we know on the basis of independent evidence that PRO cannot appear in the subject position of small clauses (see Stowell 1981, 1983 and Chomsky 1981). This can be seen more clearly in English, where the causative is associated only with a nonreduced analysis: *This makes sleep, *John made clean the room. The second option is also excluded, because the lexical item in question would not be associated with the reduced structure and, therefore, would not be assigned Acc Case. Recall, moreover, that it is the reduced analysis that constitutes the input to PF. Lexical items which are not attached to the phonologically relevant tree (i.e. the reduced structure) will not receive a phonetic interpretation. The derivation will therefore be excluded by the Principle of Full Interpretation. 15 In conclusion, the contention that the causative constructions in (3.31) do not have a semantically full but phonologically empty embedded subject still stands, in Italian causatives (which are associated only with a reduced analysis) as well as in French and Spanish causatives (which are simultaneously associated with both a reduced and a nonreduced analysis). In fact, if the phrase structure rule which introduces clauses requires an obligatory subject position only when Infl is present, then faire may be assumed to take a bare VP complement rather than

118

Types of lexical processes

a verbal small clause complement in the nonreduced structure in the faire...par construction (3.31). See section 4.2.2.2 for some evidence in favor of this hypothesis.16 To recapitulate, the French and Spanish causatives give rise to the following mini-grammar, where the reduced and nonreduced structures are parallel syntactic analyses (SI stands for semantic interpretative component): nonreduced analysis

reduced analysis

PF Let us return now to the interaction of verbal passive and RC. Consider the Italian sentence (3.37a). Passive morphology (pp) has lexico-syntactic scope over the complex verb (although morphophonologically it is affixed onto fare)}1 Passive morphology blocks the external arg-variable of the complex verb fare leggere from being mapped onto the derived verb. The Default Rule of Predicate Formation (1.10C) then copies the index of the position governed by the head of the lexical frame onto the derived verb. The L-R of the derived verb, which gives rise to sentence (3.37a) when projected onto the syntax, is as follows: (3.39)

(Ny)

fare

(Nz)

leggere

Consider next the structures associated with the French sentence (3.37b). (The structure written in broken lines represents part of the L-R of the complex verb faits lire.)

119

Types of lexical processes (3.40) tsNPj

[\/px = 3 V

Ces passage^

faits

[ V p [VPZ V Z

NPY]

lire i i i Vz

NPK]]]

à PierreK

PP CsNP,

[VpyVy

NP Y

NPk]]

(z = k by L-internalization and Projection in the reduced structure and by Predication applied to the embedded clause at NP-S in the nonreduced structure; y =j by Predication applied at NP-S in the reduced structure; arg-variable x is assigned existential value by the default rule of arg- variable interpretation applied to the L-R of the reduced structure) The ill-formedness of this structure was attributed in Zubizarreta 1985 to the fact that the trace in the embedded object position violates Principle A of the Binding Theory (which requires NP traces to be bound within their minimal governing category, namely within the embedded clause in the nonreduced structure in (3.40)). See Chomsky 1981. Within the present framework, NP-traces are assumed to be fully constrained by L-R. It is therefore desirable to attribute the ill-formedness of (3.40) to some other principle of grammar. A close look at (3.40) reveals that the arg-variable y borne by the direct object position is not bound in the nonreduced structure and, furthermore, that the lexical index j borne by the subject position does not bind an arg-variable in the nonreduced structure. The binding relation between matrix subject and embedded object position cannot be established in the nonreduced structure by Predication, because the matrix VP-predicate does not bear the argvariable y. The reason that this is so is because the arg-variable y is not within the scope of the main verb faire at L-R. Compare with the lexical frame which gives rise to the nonreduced analysis. Note that it is not sufficient for the arg-variable y and the lexical index j to be interpreted with respect to the reduced structure. They must also be interpreted with respect to the nonreduced structure, given that both structures are inputs to SI. Therefore, the conjunction of reduced NP-S and reduced S-S, on the one hand, and the conjunction of nonreduced NP-S and nonreduced S-S, on the other hand, must

120

Types of lexical processes

conform to the Principle of Full Interpretation (from which part B of the Theta-Criterion is derived). This principle requires that the conjunction of NP-structure and S-structure which constitutes the input to SI, provide a semantic interpretation for every arg-variable and for every lexical item associated with a syntactic position. The arg-variabley and the lexical index j i n (3.40) fail to meet this requirement with respect to the nonreduced structure. As we shall see in section 4.2.2, the reduced status of Italian causative constructions versus the simultaneously reduced and nonreduced status of French and Spanish causative constructions also explains differences with respect to reflexivization and anti-causativization in the causative construction between these two sets of languages. 18 To conclude, it was shown in this section that the complex verb formation processes undergone by Romance causatives trigger alterations in the mapping of predicate-argument relations onto syntax, but do not affect predicateargument relations. Such processes must therefore be described at L-R. In Zubizarreta 1985, where one single level of lexical representation was assumed, the processes triggered by the Romance causatives were wrongly described as processes that affect predicate-argument structure. The postulation of L-R as a lexical level which mediates the mapping between predicate-argument structure and syntax allows us to maintain the main features of the analysis proposed in the above-mentioned article, while remedying its shortcomings. 3.3. THE DATIVE-SHIFT CONSTRUCTION AND RELATED CASES

I discussed in the first two sections of this chapter the most common types of lexical derivational processes that affect lexical meaning or the mapping of predicate-argument relations onto syntax. One type of construction which was not discussed, and which is often described in derivational terms, is the so-called dative-shift construction: John gave Mary a book; John sent Mary a letter; John baked Mary a cake. The question is: are the verbs in this construction derived at S-R or at L-R? In other words, does the dative-shift process affect predicate-argument relations or does it simply affect the mapping of predicate-argument relations onto syntax? Within the framework defended in this work, the dative-shift construction cannot be seen as a rule-derived, alternative way of mapping onto the syntax the predicate-argument structure that underlies the " N P to N P " and " N P for N P " constructions (e.g. John gave a book to Mary; John sent a letter to Mary; John baked a cake for Mary). There are two ways one could try to accomplish this: 1) by incorporating the preposition to or for into the verbal syntactic head, thus producing a complex verb (in English, at least, the complex verb would be considered to contain a "hidden" preposition). The argument selected by the preposition would then be automatically governed by the

Types of lexical processes

121

derived complex verb. 2) by mapping the argument selected by the preposition directly onto the position governed by the verb (without the intermediary step of incorporating the prepositional predicate). Both descriptions are excluded in the framework described here. While prepositions can be incorporated into a semantic predicate at S-R, they cannot be incorporated into a syntactic predicate at L-R because prepositions are not mapped onto lexical frames. Recall that prepositions are mapped directly from S-R onto the syntax. Therefore the first description mentioned above is not available within the present framework. The second description is also unavailable to the extent that it is rule-governed. It was argued in section 1.3 that there are cases of marked linkings between S-R and L-R in which an argument selected by a preposition is mapped onto a lexical frame. But these are irregular cases specified in the lexical entry of a given lexical item or a given class of lexical items. They are not derived by a general rule. The only alternative available within the present framework is to assume that the predicate-argument structure that underlies the dative-shift construction is different from the predicate-argument structure that underlies the " N P to N P " or the " N P for N P " constructions. This conclusion seems to be on the right track to the extent that not all dative-shift constructions have a prepositional counterpart: give Xa headache (*give a headache to X), lendXa hand (*lend a hand to X), give X a kick (*give a kick to X), give X a hard time (*give a hard time to X), envy X his success (*envy his success to X), begrudge X his wealth (*begrudge his wealth to X), cost X a dollar (*cost a dollar to X). These examples suggest that the meaning associated with the dative-shift verbs is not necessarily the same that is associated with the verbs that underlie the prepositional construction. Although a detailed study of the dative-shift alternation is beyond the scope of the present work, a sketch of an analysis will be presented below, based on some ideas put forward by Stowell 1981.19 It is very common for languages to have a regular dative-shift alternation. Less common are languages with a regular instrumental-shift alternation, and very rare are languages with a regular locative-shift alternation (one such language is Kinyarwanda, a Bantu language spoken in Rwanda and Burundi; see Marantz 1984 and references cited therein). I would like to suggest that the reason the dative-shift alternation is so common is that the dative preposition (and also the benefactive preposition) forms a semantically complex predicate with the verb. In John gave a book to Mary, Mary is not selected solely by to, rather it is selected by the discontinuous semantic predicate give...to. As was said before, I will not attempt to provide an analysis of discontinuous predicates in this work. Clearly, the Rule of Projection that we have been assuming throughout this work is not sufficient to account for these cases. But for the sake of concreteness, we can represent such cases of discontinuous compositionality at S-R in the following way:

122 (3.41)

Types of lexical processes S-R:

give y, x; rt ... to z

Given that give... to is a semantically complex predicate, it can easily give rise to the following S-R, where io°z is incorporated in the main predicate: (3.42)

S-R:

«give

to> z > y , x

In other words, the process of dative-shift incorporates the dative preposition into the main predicate. Since eveiy argument at S-R must be selected by a predicate, arg-variable z cannot remain dangling; it is therefore incorporated into the main predicate as internal argument of the newly derived verb V-VP. Recall that in section 2.2 it was argued that incorporated internal arguments belong to the "affected" class. Therefore, the incorporated arg-variable z in (3.42) must be interpreted as "affected". The "affected" nature of the incorporated argument is in fact quite perceptible in the case of some dativeshift verbs, such as the verb teach. As noted by Oehrle 1976 and other studies cited therein, the dative-shift construction Mary taught the child French implies that 'the child has learned French'. No such implication is found in the "NP to NP" counterpart: Mary taught French to the child. It is therefore not surprising that cases like give X a headache do not have an "NP to NP" counterpart. In these examples, the argument X is necessarily "affected". The S-R in (3.42) gives rise to the L-R in (3.43) via the Rule of Projection and the Rule of L-Predicate Formation ((1.10A) and (1.10B)). The head of the complex predicate (namely, give to) is associated with the lowest V node in the lexical frame (the preposition, although phonologically invisible, is assumed to be present as part of the complex predicate); the argument of give to is projected onto the position governed by the lowest V. The complex predicate « g i v e to> z> is associated with a higher V node, which governs the arg-variable selected by the complex predicate. (3.43)

L-R:

Vx Nz

N,'y

When the L-R in (3.43) is mapped onto phrase structure, the lowest V node in the lexical frame is associated with the head of the VP and the highest V in the lexical frame is associated with an intermediary verbal projection (V').

Types of lexical processes

V"

123

NPZ

The NP governed by V is assigned Acc Case at S-structure. As for the NP governed by V', we may assume that it is assigned oblique Case by V' at S-structure as well. (Like all cases of structural Case assignment, oblique Case assignment requires that the Case-marked NP be adjacent to the Case assigner.) Note that dative-shift verbs in English cannot give rise to a mapping in which the complex predicate is associated with the head of the phrase structure. Recall that the VP-predicate must be fully specified or complete; therefore, all arg-variables within the scope of the head of the VP or within the scope of a predicate dominated by the head of the VP must be fully specified (see section 2.2). In order to achieve this, the internal arg-variable incorporated in" the complex predicate must be syntactically evaluated; that is, it must be projected onto a position in the phrase structure. The L-R in (3.43) can only achieve this if both the complex verb and the head of the complex verb are mapped onto the syntax as shown in (3.44). On the other hand, a complex verb constituted of a root and of passive morphology inserted at L-R (see section 3.2.1) cannot give rise to a mapping in which the complex verb is associated with a V' node in the phrase structure, the reason being that the passive verb is a morpho-lexical unit and that a morpho-lexical unit must be dominated by a terminal node in the phrase structure. Complex verbs headed by RC also have the status of a morpho-lexical unit and must therefore be dominated by a terminal node in the phrase structure (see section 3.2.2). Given the phrase structure in (3.44), it is necessary to slightly reformulate the Rule of Modification. Given the formulation of the rule in (1.18), the second NP modifies V' in (3.44). This, of course, is not what we want. The second NP in this structure is an argument of V'. In order to avoid this undesired result, it suffices to replace the requirement B is not a head in (1.18) by B is not an argument-taking predicate. The L-R in (3.43) can undergo verbal passive formation, giving rise to sentences like John was given a book; Mary was sent a letter.20 As shown in (3.45), passive morphology attaches to the lowest V (since it is this node which is associated with a terminal node in the phrase structure). The Default Rule of Predicate Formation (1. IOC) then applies, copying the arg-variable z onto the derived passive verb. (For an explanation of why arg-variable y cannot be bound to the derived passive verb, see section 4.1.)

124 (3.45)

Types of lexical processes L-R derived by verbal passive formation applied to L-R in (3.43):

V"

ed

Nz

Ny

Note that many of the examples that were considered in section 1.3 to be specified for a marked linking relation between the argument selected by to at S-R and the position governed by the head of the lexical frame can be reanalyzed as cases of dative-shift. Some of these examples are: (1.21)

a. The general instructed/commanded/ordered/invited the troops to evacuate Cf. The general's instruction/command/order/invitation to the troops to evacuate b. John promised Mary to leave early Cf. John promised to Mary to leave early / John's promise to Mary to leave early

The S-R and L-R that underlie these sentences are comparable to the S-R in (3.42) and the L-R in (3.43), with the difference that in these cases argvariable y is a propositional argument. While English (as well as most other languages) does not have a regular process of locative preposition incorporation, some isolated verbs do allow this option. One such verb is enter. As mentioned in section 3.2.1, enter and flee contrast minimally in this respect: The city was entered into by the soldiers at three o'clock in the morning versus *The city wasfledfrom by the soldiers at three o'clock in the morning. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the verb enter in the above-mentioned example and the verb enter in the following examples: The soldiers entered the city at three o'clock in the morning; The city was entered by the soldiers at three o'clock in the morning are associated with the same S-R. Despite the fact that in the latter examples the preposition is phonologically invisible, it is lexically there as part of the complex predicate. The argument of the preposition becomes the "affected" argument of the newly formed predicate. In fact, it seems that the diadic verb enter is close in meaning to the verb penetrate or invade. The semantically transitive nature of enteral) explains why this verb can undergo adjectival passive formation, whileflee, which is semantically intransitive (see (1.23)), cannot. Compare an unentered room and *an unfled city. Recall that intransitive verbs cannot undergo adjectival passive formation for principled reasons; see the discussion in section 3.1.3.

Types of lexical processes (3.46)

enter(l):

S-R: enter, y; into z

enter(2):

S-R: « e n t e r into>'z>, y

125

Having reanalyzed some of the verbs that were considered to contain marked linking specifications in their lexical entry, an alternative account is needed for the ungrammaticality of the following nomináis: (2.8)

*The soldier's entry of the city

(2.9)

a. *The general's command/order/invitation of the troops to evacuate b. * John's promise of Mary to leave early

The ill-formedness of the NPs in (2.9) must be attributed to the lack of dative-shift in nomináis. Cf. John's gift ofa book to Mary versus *John's gift of Mary of a book. Given the analysis of dative-shift given above, we can relate the nonexistence of such constructions in NPs to another well-known property of NPs: there is no preposition incorporation in nomináis. Cf. This bed was slept in; The event was much talked about versus * The sleeping in of this bed; *John's talking about of this event. The ill-formedness of (2.8) can also be attributed to the impossibility of incorporating a preposition into a nominal predicate. The question then is: why can't prepositions be incorporated into nominal predicates? A plausible answer to this question is that prepositions cannot function as R-predicates; only nomináis may function as Rpredicates. Recall that while verbs and adjectives are predicated of the lexical content of an argument, nomináis are predicated of a reference. Prepositions (like verbs and adjectives) can be predicated of the lexical content of an argument, but they cannot be predicated of a reference. If prepositions cannot be predicated of a reference, then they cannot be incorporated into an R-predicate. Finally, note that adjectives cannot undergo the process of dative-shift (*The cereal remainedunfed the baby) because adjectives cannot take a lexical internal argument (see the discussion in section 1.1). To summarize, it was argued in this section that dative-shift verbs are generated at S-R by incorporating the preposition to/for into the main predicate. The argument of the preposition then becomes the incorporated internal argument of the predicate V + P, thus giving rise to a semantically complex predicate (which is the representation associated with predicates having an "affected" internal argument). Several of the verbs analyzed in section 1.3 as cases containing a marked linking specification in their lexical entry were reanalyzed along these lines. The lack of a corresponding derived nominal was then attributed to the lack of preposition incorporation in

126

Types of lexical processes

nominals. Prepositions cannot function as R-predicates; therefore they cannot form part of an R-predicate. 3.4. CONCLUSION

In this chapter a second type of argument was provided in favor of distinguishing two levels of lexical representation: a lexico-semantic structure (the level at which the selectional properties of predicates are specified) and a lexico-syntactic structure (the level which mediates the mapping from S-R onto syntax of arguments selected by main predicates that are "lexical-index oriented", as opposed to "referential-index oriented"). This second type of argumentation consisted of showing that there exist two types of lexical processes. One type affects predicate-argument relations, which brings about a change in lexical meaning. The other type does not affect lexical meaning; it alters the manner in which arguments are mapped onto syntax. Within a modular view of grammar, it is reasonable to describe the two types of processes at different levels of representation. Within the framework proposed here, the first type can be described at the level which characterizes the selectional properties of predicates — the level of lexico-semantic structure (S-R) — and the second type can be described at the level which mediates the mapping between predicate-argument structure and syntax — the level of lexico-syntactic structure (L-R). Among the meaning-changing lexical processes are anti-causativization, causativization, adjectival passive participle formation, and the process known as dative-shift. All of these processes affect the content of the main predicate either by adding or deleting a semantic feature or by incorporating a prepositional predicate into the main predicate. Other operations (like deletion, externalization, internalization, and incorporation of an argument) are claimed to be side effects of the above-mentioned processes in conjunction with general principles that govern the well-formedness of lexicosemantic structures. Anti-causativization applies to verbs which are semantically causatives. Causative verbs are distinguished from noncausatives in that their predicates contain a CAUSE feature. Anti-causativization deletes the CAUSE feature, making the predicate noncausative. Deletion of the CAUSE feature has as a side effect the deletion of the "Causer", i.e. the external argument selected by causative predicates. Anti-causatives, then, are monadic verbs of the unaccusative type. Causativization is triggered by -ize and other affixes. The affix -ize in particular applies to adjectival predicates and turns them into verbal predicates. Causativization makes causative predicates from noncausative ones by adding the feature CAUSE. A side effect of this process is that a "Causer" is added, i.e. an external argument which meets the selectional

Types of lexical processes

127

requirements of a causative predicate. Since a predicate can take at most one external argument and causative verbs are necessarily diadic, it follows that the external argument of the base predicate must be internalized. The newly derived predicate is therefore diadic, as all causatives are. Adjectival passive participle formation makes adjectives out of verbs and inserts the feature STATE. It can apply either to transitives or unaccusatives. Since adjectives do not select internal arguments of the lexical type, the internal arg-variable must be externalized. Since a predicate can take at most one external argument, the external argument of a transitive verb which undergoes adjectival passive participle formation must be incorporated into the predicate. Adjectival passive cannot apply to intransitive verbs, because these select an agentive external argument and stative predicates do not select agentive arguments. The derivation cannot be saved by incorporating the agentive external argument. If incorporation were to apply in this case, then the new adjectival predicate would be argument-less. This is not allowed: a predicate must select at least one argument. The strictly local nature of adjectival passives follows from the fact that they are formed at S-R. Dative-shift verbs are formed by incorporation of the preposition to/for into the main verbal predicate. Since every argument in S-R must be selected by a predicate, the argument of the preposition must also be reanalyzed. It becomes the "affected" internal argument of the newly fbrmed V + P predicate. In other words, it acquires the status of an incorporated internal argument, thus giving rise to a semaptically complex predicate « . V + P > y > (where y is the initial argument of P). Among the processes that affect the manner in which arguments are mapped onto syntax are verbal passive formation and complex verb formation triggered by causative and perception verbs. Verbal passive participle formation is formed by affixing passive morphology onto the head of a verbal lexical frame. Verbal passive morphology is lexically specified to block the external arg-variable of the base lexical frame from being inherited by the newly derived lexical frame. The external arg-variable thus remains incorporated in the derived lexical frame. This arg-variable is assigned an interpretation either by an adjunct ¿»^-phrase or by the default rule of arg-variable interpretation. This rule assigns an existential or generic value to the "hidden" external argument, depending on the temporal specifications of the sentence. The fact that verbal passive formation can apply neither to unaccusatives nor to verb$ that are lexically specified for a marked linking between S-R and L-R (such as nonstative experiencer verbs and verbs with a locative argument like flee and leave) follows from the Principle of Full Interpretation, generalized to apply not only at PF and at LF but also in the lexicon. The non-strictly local nature of verbal passives was shown to follow from the fact that they are formed at L-R.

128

Types of lexical processes

Complex-verb formation (triggered by Romance causative verbs and verbs of perception) also alters the manner in which arguments are mapped onto the syntax. It was suggested that the reason it is so common for causative and perception verbs to trigger complex-verb formation is because these verbs map their internal argument (of the "Event" type) onto a verbal projection. Complex-verb formation arises when a verbal dependent is incorporated into the verbal head at L-R. The result of this operation is the following. The external arg-variable of the head is inherited by the derived complex verb. The external arg-variable of the dependent verb either remains incorporated in the complex verb (in which case it can be assigned an interpretation either by an adjunct par- phrase or by the default rule of arg-variable interpretation) or it can be linked to a position governed by the derived head of the lexical frame (a process which was referred to as "L-internalization"). There are important differences among the causative constructions of Italian, on the one hand, and of French and Spanish, on the other hand. Italian causative constructions are associated uniquely with a reduced structure. French and Spanish causative constructions are associated simultaneously with a reduced structure (like Italian fare) and with a nonreduced structure (like English make). This explains why French and Spanish causative constructions, unlike the Italian causative constructions, cannot undergo passivization, as well as other important differences between the two sets of languages to be discussed in section 4.2.2.

NOTES 1. Williams 1985 considers that anti-causatives can be modified by purpose adverbials in the appropriate discourse context. I do not agree with his judgments. 2. With respect to verbal passive formation, nonstative experiences differ from verbs with a transitive type of L-R. See section 3.2.1 for discussion and an explanation. 3. I thank David Pesetsky for bringing this point to my attention. 4. As noted in Bresnan 1982a, stativity is not an inherent property of the category adjective: (a)

(b)

That argument is unconvincing to me (active interpretation: 'That argument doesn't convince me') That audience is unconvinced (stative interpretation) That novel is very boring (active interpretation: 'That novel bores me') That person is very bored (stative interpretation)

5. Jaeggli 1985 suggests that passive morphology "absorbs the external theta-role". Assuming that the term "absorption" does not simply hide a technical trick, this hypothesis would imply that passive morphology has the status of a lexical argument. In other words, it has some intrinsic predicative content that can attribute a value to the external arg-variable. If this were correct, we would not expect variation in the interpretation of the external arg-variable according to context. This prediction is incorrect: the external arg-variable in verbal passives can have either an existential or generic value, depending on the temporal specifications of the sentence. See section 2.1.3.

Types of lexical processes

129

6. In Chapter 2, note 5, it was suggested (following Williams) that the noun afool functions as an open R-predicate in examples like John is a fool. The R-variable receives its value from the referential index borne by the subject via Predication. It is also the case that such predicative nouns agree in person, number, and gender features with the subject of Predication (a property which is overtly manifested in languages with a richer inflectional morphology). We can therefore assume that nominal arguments that function as open predicates also bear an AGR feature at L-R (like adjectives) and that it is through this AGR feature that the matrix subject is bound to the subject of the nominal small clause complement in examples like John is considered a fool. 7. I thank Jonathan Kaye for judgments and discussion of these data. 8. Levin & Rappaport note that the notion "theme" is not without problems. Bresnan claims that the grammaticality of untaught child does not constitute a counterexample to the condition that the subject of an adjectival passive must be a "theme". She claims that the first object in sentence (a) below functions as the theme, the reason being that the child has been "affected" by the teaching; i.e. (a) implies that 'the child has learned French', an implication which does not exist in sentence (b). (a) (b)

They taught the child French They taught French to the child

Levin & Rappaport raise the following question: if the first object is the "theme" in sentence (a), then what is the semantic role of the second object? Normally, the second object is analyzed as the "theme", but then we would have two "themes" in the sentence, a situation which is assumed to be impossible. 9. It is unlikely that pay the agent, serve the customer, feed the baby have as source the dative-shift construction (with an optional theme): paid the agent (the money), serve the customer (the food), feed the baby (the cereal). Although French has no dative-shift construction comparable to the English dative-shift (see section 4.2.2.2), the French counterpart of these verbs can also take a "goal" as direct object (On a payé Vagent; On a servi le client; On a alimenté le bebé). 10. Note that the hypothesis that L-R does not form part of the child's grammar at the initial stage makes an interesting prediction: the syntax of sentences and the syntax of noun phrases should be very similar at the earliest stages of acquisition. We might expect to find sentences without subjects. In other words, the so-called "subject of a sentence" in the adult grammar will have the status of an adjunct in the early stages of a child's grammar and will therefore be optional. Interestingly, Hyams 1983 reports that this is in fact the case. Presumably, the "subject of a sentence" will be part of the child's grammar as soon as L-R becomes available and, in particular, before the verbal passive participle formation rule is fully acquired. Recall that the latter is fully acquired only when the Default Rule of Predicate Formation also forms part of the child's grammar. Of course, these suggestions are purely speculative and are only meant to lay out a basis for future research on this topic. 11. Except for frozen expressions like laisser vivre 'let live', laisser passer 'let pass', laisser tomber 'abandon'. 12. Other predicates (besides causatives and perception verbs) that often trigger complex-verb formation are the modals (which express necessity, possibility, volition) and aspectuals. See Zubizarreta 1982, where it is suggested that these predicates can function as verbal modifiers. 13. The representation of simultaneous analyses as concomitant phrase structures was proposed independently by Vergnaud & Zubizarreta 1980 (published 1982) and by Williams 1980b. The purpose of the formalism in Vergnaud & Zubizarreta was, on the one hand, to represent "free word order" in languages like Japanese and, on the other hand, to provide a representation of the Japanese causative construction, which exhibits properties of both biclausal and monoclausal structures. Williams 1980b proposed the use of concomitant tree structures for representing

130

Types of lexical processes

French causatives. Following work developed in Williams 1981, he also made the novel suggestion that faire brings about an alteration in the predicate-argument structure of the embedded verb. This suggestion was adopted in Zubizarreta 1982, 1985, but is explicitely rejected in the present work. In an attempt to integrate the idea of concomitant phrase structures within a formal theory of constituent structure, Vergnaud & Zubizarreta 1980 and Zubizarreta 1982 suggest that simultaneous analyses are, in fact, two projections of a parenthesized phrase marker. (See also van Haaften & Zubizarreta (in preparation) for arguments in favor of this hypothesis.) The nonreduced structure is the projection of all nodes in the phrase maker (putting aside dummy Case markers), including the parenthesized ones (the so-called "virtual categories"). The reduced structure is the projection of the nonparenthesized nodes in the phrase marker. I refer the interested reader to the above-mentioned references for further details. 14. In the constructions under discussion the input to PF corresponds exactly to one of the two S-structure analyses. Van Haaften & Zubizarreta (in preparation) argue that this is also the case in English -ing nomináis. These constructions are analyzed as two concomitant nominal and verbal projections, where only the nominal projection feeds PF. On the other hand, in the case of the Dutch nominal infinitive (which corresponds to the English -ing nominal construction), the PF tree is built on the basis of information provided by the nominal and/or verbal projections. 15. In section 4.2.2 I will discuss some French causative constructions in which the clitic se is syntactically analyzed only with respect to the nonreduced structure, but it is phonologically cliticized onto the reduced structure. 16. Note that the Rule of Predication insures the presence of a subject in the verbal small clause complement of English make. I assume that the embedded subject in the following examples (from Gee 1977) has the status of an argument or a quasi-argument (in the sense of Chomsky 1981): Let there be peace on earth; Make it rain; Make it be known that John is a fool. See Zubizarreta 1982 for arguments that the French counterparts of existential there (il y a) and the subject of weather verbs behave like arguments. The it in the last example mentioned above corresponds to French fa (which is an argument) rather than to French il (which is an expletive). The impossibility of passivizing weather verbs and existential be can be attributed to the impossibility of assigning an interpretation to their external arg-variable by the default rule of arg-variable interpretation. Only the lexical items it and there can saturate these quasi arg-variables. 17. There is no necessary correspondence between morphophonology and morphosyntax. The mismatch between the morphophonological scope and the morphosy ntactic scope of the passive participle morphology in (3.39) is comparable to the mismatch found in the so-called cases of "bracketing paradoxes"; e.g. nuclear scientist, where -ist has syntactic scope over nuclear science, but is phonologically affixed onto science. 18. According to the description of Japanese, Turkish, and Malayalam given in Marantz 1984 and references cited therein, it would appear that Japanese causatives are like French causatives, while Turkish and Malayalam are like Italian causatives. On the representation of Japanese causatives, see Vergnaud & Zubizarreta 1980. See also Haegeman and van Riemsdijk 1986 for an analysis of verb-raising in Germanic languages, and Coopmans 1985 for an analysis of Dutch causatives, in terms of dual syntactic analyses. 19. Stowell 1981 does not make a distinction between the notion of semantically complex predicate and syntactically complex verb. He analyzes give John in We gave John a book as a syntactic word. The analysis that I will present below in the text is different from Stowell's in this respect, but I borrow his intuition that give and the so-called "goal" argument constitute a unit of some sort (a semantic one according to our analysis, which is then projected onto the syntax as a phrasal unit). 20. Some speakers accept passivization of benefactives; others don't (e.g. Mary was baked a cake). I do not have an explanation to offer for this variation. Undoubtedly, a more refined

Types of lexical processes

131

analysis of dative-shift than the one I have presented here must explain these variations in judgments (which perhaps reflects the unstable status of the benefactive preposition). Perhaps the explanation must be partly sought in the status of thefor NP argument, which is not intrinsic to the meaning of the verb; rather, it is added to the meaning of the verb at S-R. (Note that the contention that the benefactive is added to the meaning of the verb is not necessarily incompatible with the hypothesis that the verb and the benefactive preposition constitute a basic complex predicate in examples like John baked a cakefor Mary. These two parameters are a priori logically independent.) The following examples are judged acceptable: John was given a hard time; John was begrudged his wealth, while John was given a headache is judged more or less acceptable, and John was cost a dollar is judged totally unacceptable. Perhaps these variations are related to the degree of idiomaticity of the expression.

Chapter 4

Semantic and Syntactic Verbal Operators

4.1. THE PROPERTIES ENCODED AT S-R AND AT L-R: SOME REFINEMENTS

Before I proceed to discuss verbal operators, it is necessary to make more explicit the properties encoded at S-R and at L-R. I would like to suggest here that, far and beyond the encoding of selectional relations between predicates and arguments, S-R establishes scope relations between arguments. In fact, the external/internal distinction between arguments selected by the same predicate is a manifestation of this phenomenon. If argument x and argument y are selected by predicate P, y is within the scope of (or governed by) P, and x is outside the scope of P, then the scope of y is contained within the scope of x (I will use the inclusion symbol " C " to write the relation "contained within the scope".) Similarly, we may view the incorporation of the "goal" argument into the main predicate in the case of dative-shift verbs (see section 3.3) as creating a scope relation between the incorporated argument and the argument governed by the derived complex predicate. More precisely, if argument z is within the scope of (or governed by) the head of PH but not within the scope of P and if argument y is within the scope of P, then the scope of y is within the scope of z. We saw in the preceding chapter that the processes that apply at S-R may alter the selectional properties of predicates. For example, there are processes that delete or insert a CAUSE feature. This creates a new semantic predicate with different selectional properties from the base predicate. On the other hand, the processes that apply at L-R may not alter the selectional properties of predicates, but they can alter the scope domain of arguments and the scope relations among arguments. As shown in (1.15), the L-R of so-called S'deletion verbs puts the arg-variable borne by Infl (namely, the embedded subject) within the scope of the matrix verb and thus, if the matrix verb bears an arg-variable (namely, its external arg-variable), a scope relation between the embedded subject and the matrix external argument is established (namely, the scope of the embedded subject is contained within the scope of the matrix external argument). For example, in (1.15b), repeated below for convenience, L-R establishes that y C x .

134

Semantic and syntactic verbal operators

(1.15b) consider:

L-R:

^ ^ Vx

Infly

Other alterations of scope domains are exemplified by the cases of irregular linkings between S-R and L-R discussed at various points in the previous chapters. For example, in the S-R of amuse (repeated below) there is no scope relation between x and y, because they are selected by different predicates. But the L-R of amuse establishes a scope relation between the two arguments: the scope of x is contained within the scope of y (x C y). (1.26)

amuse: S-R:

amusfx;aPy

Vy

N,

Lexical processes like verbal passive formation and complex-verb formation also alter scope domain and scope relations. Consider the example of verbal passive formation in (3.23), which I repeat below. Passivization cancels the relation y C x present in L-R(l) and assigns external (or subject) scope to y. (3.23)

a. memorize: S-R:

memorize y, x

Let us now turn to the interaction of dative-shift and verbal passive. In the previous chapter, we saw that verbal passive can apply to the L-R of a dative-shift verb giving rise, in conjunction with the Default Rule of LPredicate Formation, to the L-R in (3.45), repeated below for convenience. The scope relation z C x is cancelled and arg-variable z is assigned external scope. This L-R gives rise to sentences like Mary was given a book; Mary was sent a letter.

Semantic and syntactic verbal operators (3.45)

135

L-R derived from (3.43) via passive formation:

Vx

ed

Nz

Ny

Consider now a case in which arg-variable y (instead of arg-variable z) is L-externalized by the Default Rule of Predicate Formation, as shown in (4.1) below. This would give rise to ungrammatical sentences like *A book was given Mary; *A letter was sent Mary. The question is then: how do we block the L-R in (4.1)? I would like to suggest that (4.1) is ill-formed because it encodes contradictory scope relations, and contradictory scope relations are uninterpretable: if x C y, then y ] this DAT feature binds the L-internalized arg-variable: ...Nz DATz + ...NZ. The application of this rule to (4.2a) gives rise to the L-R in (4.68). The DAT feature gets morphologically realized by attaching itself to a clitic in the syntax. Either it attaches to the pronominal clitic lui or leur (as in Pierre lui/leur a envoyé desfleurs 'Pierre to him/them + sent flowers') or it attaches to the operator clitic se (as in Pierre s'est envoyé desfleurs 'Pierre to himself+sent flowers'). 17 As shown in (4.69), the internal argument of the complex verb surfaces as the "first NP" in the VP and is assigned Acc Case by rule (1.13), while the L-internalized argument bound by the DAT Case feature surfaces as the "second NP". (The same analysis applies to Pierre lui a parlé 'Pierre to him + talked'.)

envoie

des fleursk

k = y and I — zby Projection

176

Semantic and syntactic verbal operators

Recall that, given that arg-variable z is within the scope of the complex verb in the L-R in (4.68), this lexical frame does not encode a scope relation between arg-variable y and arg-variable z (see section 4.1). Therefore, when verbal passive applies to the L-R in (4.68), arg-variable y may be L-externalized by the Default Rule of Predicate Formation, giving rise to the L-R in (4.70a), which encodes the scope relation y C z. This L-R reverses the scope relation encoded at S-R between z and y (z C y), a situation which is permitted by (4.66). On the other hand, arg-variable z cannot be L-externalized by the Default Rule of Predicate Formation (cf. (4.70b)), giving rise to ill-formed structures like Pierre\ lui\ a été envoyé des fleurs et par Marie 'Pierre to him + was sent flowers by Marie' and Pierrei s{est envoyé des fleurs e\ par Marie 'Pierre se + is sent flowers by Marie'. The reason is that arg-variable z is bound in the syntax by a Dative Case-marked clitic. If the clitic is pronominal, the structure will be ruled out by the biuniqueness part of the Theta-Criterion, because arg-variable z will be assigned a value both by the argument in subject position and by the pronominal clitic. If the clitic is the operator se, the structure will be ruled out by the Principle of Full Interpretation. In effect, if arg-variable z is already syntactically externalized by the Default Rule of Predicate Formation at L-R, insertion of the operator se at S-structure would be entirely vacuous. (4.70)

L-Rs derived from (4.68)by application of verbal passive: a.

Vx

Nz

é

Ny

Nz

Nz

é

Ny

Nz

b.

(The phrase-structure projection of this L-R is ruled out in the syntax by the biuniqueness part of the Theta-Criterion or by FI) The analysis presented above in conjunction with (4.66) makes an interesting prediction: the "first object" in the structure in (4.69) cannot be bound by the

177

Semantic and syntactic verbal operators

reflexive clitic se. If the "first object" in (4.69)) is bound to the operator se at S-structure, the scope relation z C y is created (where y corresponds to the "first object" and z corresponds to the "second object" in (4.69)). This violates (4.66). Although z and y do not stand in a scope relation with respect to each other at L-R in (4.68), they do so at S-R (see (4.67)). At S-R, y C z . The prediction is borne out: *Pierre se leur présentera 'Pierre refl. cl. + dat. cl. + will introduce', meaning 'Pierre will introduce himself to them'. Compare this example with one in which the reflexive clitic binds the "second object" (i.e. the dative argument) and which is perfectly well formed: Pierre se les présentera 'Pierre refl. cl. + acc. cl. + will introduce', meaning 'Pierre will introduce them to himself. This minimal contrast, which has remained unexplained until now, provides striking support in favor of the analysis presented here. Finally, let us turn back to (4.63b). When the L-R of envoyer given in (4.68) is inserted in the lexical frame o f f a i r e , the L-R in (4.71) is obtained (the DAT Case feature is inherited by the causative complex verb). This L-R gives rise to the monoclausal NP-structure in (4.72), in which, on the one hand, the scope marker of Nx precedes the scope marker of Ny and the scope marker of N z and, on the other hand, the scope marker of N z precedes the scope marker of N y . This is so because, although z, y, and x are not in a scope relation at L-R, at S-R z and y are within the scope of x, and y is within the scope of z (see (4.67)). The operator se is inserted at S-structure. As shown in (4.72), se triggers syntactic externalization of the arg-variable which it binds (namely, arg-variable z). This creates the scope relation x C z, which contradicts the scope relation between these two arguments encoded by the scope markers on the VP (i.e. z C x). The structure is therefore ruled out as uninterpretable. (4.71)

L-R:

Vq faire

Vx envoyer

Nz

Ny

Nz

Nx

178 (4.72)

Semantic and syntactic verbal operators NP-structure: (monoclausal analysis) [ s Pierre, [Ox, Oz, Oy + NPJ]]

faire] [vX envoyer NJ] NPy NPZ a

j = q by Predication; des fleurs* = NPZ and Marie\ ~ NPX by Projection S-structure: (monoclausal analysis) [ s Pierr ej [Ox, Oz, O [vpz [yZ se* a + NPJ]]

faire] [ v , envoyer N ]]] NPv NPz

j = z by Predication; des fleursy — NPZ and Mariex — NPX by Projection Note that the contrast between (4.61) and (4.63) cannot be accounted for in purely structural terms. As in the case of dative-shift constructions, the scope relation between the embedded Acc internal argument and the embedded dative external argument in (4.63a), and between the embedded dative internal argument and the embedded dative external argument in (4.63b) cannot be represented in terms of c-command. On the other hand, the notion of ordered inherent scope markers borne by the same syntactic node (which is a property that follows from the lexical representation) provides the means of representing these scope relations. To summarize, it was argued in this section that insertion of the verbal operator se at S-structure gives rise to the reflexive construction. In the previous section, we saw that se is not specified for the passivizer function in the se-moyen construction. The passivizer function of se was shown to follow as a side effect of its status as a verbal operator inserted at L-R. In this section, we have seen that se in the reflexive construction is not specified as a lexical anaphor either. The reflexive interpretation follows from the status of se as a verbal operator inserted at S-structure. In this construction, the argument in subject position assigns a value to the external arg-variable at NP-structure and to the internal arg-variable at S-structure, thus giving rise to the reflexive interpretation. The existence of this construction thus shows that both NPstructure and S-structure are inputs to the semantic interpretative component. The analysis proposed in this section was shown to explain several peculiar properties of the Romance reflexive: the fact that reflexive se is strictly subject oriented, that it cannot bind the object of a light preposition, that it cannot be attached to a raising or passive verb, that it cannot be embedded under Italian fare, and finally the fact that the reflexive se can be attached to the matrix verb in the faire...par construction but not in the

Semantic and syntactic verbal operators

179

faire-dative construction. To account for this last fact the Generalized Rule of Projection was extended to weakly cover scope relations among arguments. This extension of the Rule of Projection, in conjunction with the analyses of reflexive se and dative clitics in Romance, also makes a striking prediction concerning the coexistence of reflexive se and a pronominal dative clitic. 4.3. CONCLUSION

I put forth in this chapter the hypothesis that lexical structures encode scope relations between arguments. In particular, it was proposed that lexical scope relations between arguments are found in the following two cases: 1) between the external and internal arguments of a transitive verb and 2) between the internal argument incorporated in the complex predicate and the internal argument selected by the complex predicate in dative-shift verbs. Unfortunately, I am unable at this point to give a unitary definition of "lexical scope relation" that would cover the two above-mentioned cases. This suggests that we are in need of yet more abstract lexical representations. But I think that the form and content of the lexical structures proposed in this work, although certainly not definitive, are on the right track. Following work in progress by J.R. Vergnaud, it was proposed that phrase structure is, to a large extent, the realization of scope domains and scope relations encoded in the lexicon. The syntactic projection of every head associated with a predicate at a lexical level of representation bears an inherent scope marker which binds the argument governed by the head. (Note that this entails that adjuncts do not bear an inherent scope marker; see Vergnaud (in preparation) for interesting consequences of this implication.) The subject position functions as a scope marker for itself given that, although selected by a lexical head, it is not governed by a lexical head. The notion of inherent scope markers for lexical arguments proves useful in representing referential dependencies among arguments at S-structure and in representing scope relations between arguments where the notion of ccommand fails (as in the case of dative-shift and Romance causative constructions). The other concept introduced in this chapter is that of "verbal operator", which I owe to N. Hornstein. It was argued that verbal operators can be introduced at different levels of representation: S-R, L-R, and S-structure, a hypothesis which provides further evidence in favor of the existence of these levels. The existence of lexical operators shows that not only predicates (via government) but also operators (via binding) can determine the lexical scope domain of an argument. Given that lexical structures encode scope domains for arguments via government and via binding as well as scope relations among arguments, it is

180

Semantic and syntactic verbal operators

natural to expect that the Rule of Projection should cover all of these notions (the Generalized Rule of Projection). The analysis of several constructions shows that this expectation is in fact fulfilled. The generic operator introduced at S-R gives rise to the English middle construction. It was shown that this analysis — in conjunction with the Rule of Projection generalized to cover binding relations, the representation of "affected" arguments as incorporated arguments, and the independently motivated assumption that constants (other than heads) are not projected from S-R onto other levels of representation — is able to relate the generic meaning of English middles with the fact that only predicates with an "affected" internal argument can undergo middle formation in this language. The analysis of se as a syntactic verbal operator, in conjunction with the assumption that predicates headed by se are formed either at L-R or at S-structure, provides a unitary analysis of the morpheme se in the se-moyen construction, the unaccusative inherent reflexives, the anti-causatives, and the reflexive construction. The clitic se is not lexically specified for a "passivizer" function nor is it specified as a lexical anaphor. The "passivizer" function and the reflexive interpretation are consequences of the operator status of se. The first is obtained when se is attached to a transitive verb at L-R; the latter is obtained when se is inserted at S-structure. In certain lexically specified cases, se can be attached to unaccusative verbs at L-R as well (in a class of anti-causative and inherent reflexive verbs). The analysis of se as a verbal operator also contributes towards providing an explanation for various facts, such as the nonexistence of intransitive se-moyen, the contrast between French and Italian causatives with respect to reflexivization and anti-causativization, the impossibility of attaching reflexive se to passive and raising verbs, the binding restriction of reflexive se to direct and indirect object positions, and the possibility of applying "stylistic inversion" to constructions with a reflexive verb. This analysis of se as a verbal operator, in conjunction with the Rule of Projection generalized to cover scope relations between arguments, can also account for the distribution of reflexive se in causative constructions and for the non-coexistence of reflexive se with a dative clitic. Finally, an important theoretical implication of the analysis of reflexive se presented in this chapter is that both NP-structure and S-structure feed the semantic interpretative component. NOTES 1. Other languages that allow passivization of both objects in dative-shift constructions are Icelandic (see Zaenen & Maling 1983) and Kinyarwanda (see Marantz 1984 and references cited therein). 2. It is generally assumed that referential dependencies between arguments are clause-bound, except in the case of the subject of "S'-deletion" verbs and of small clauses.

Semantic and syntactic verbal operators

181

3. I owe the notion of "verbal operator" to N. Hornstein. In fact, this chapter owes its existence to N. Hornstein's suggestion (which I adopt in section 4.2.2.2.) that the clitic se in the Romance reflexive construction functions as a verbal operator. 4. Keyser & Roeper note that the examples below are not counterexamples to the contention that middles are diadic verbs and therefore do not undergo owi-prefixation. In the examples below, the verbs are derived by application of ouf-prefixation to anti-causative verbs and not by application of oui-prefixation to middle verbs. That the base verbs are anti-causatives rather than middles is shown by the lack of tense restrictions (a property to be discussed next in the text), as illustrated by the examples (c) and (d). (a) (b) (c) (d)

Fords outsell cadillacs easily Russians outmaneuver Germans easily The cars all sold; The cars are selling well The Russians maneuvered; The Russians are maneuvering well

5. D. Pesetsky (personal communication) notes that middles formed from verbs with an "affected" internal argument are not always natural. Cf. This box opens easily versus V.This box pushes easily. I think though that this reflects an independent constraint: verbs that do not denote a change of (internal) state do not make good generic properties. First, note that the middle of the verb push is not as bad as the ones in (4.13). Second, we will see in section 4.2.2.1 that Romance se-moyen does not obey the "affectedness constraint". Still, the se-moyen construction (with generic tense) is also somewhat odd with a verb like pousser 'push'. Compare Ces boites s'ouvrent facilement with ICes boîtes se poussent facilement. Jaeggli 198S suggests that middle verbs are monadic verbs like anti-causatives, and that only verbs with an "affected" internal argument may have their external argument deleted. There are two problems with this analysis. First, as we have seen, o«/-prefixation provides evidence that middles are diadic. Second, it is false that the class of verbs that can give rise to a middle construction coincides with the class of verbs that can give rise to an anti-causative construction. Some counterexamples are cut, hammer, and read. They have a middle but not an anti-causative counterpart: This meat cuts easily; This metal hammers easily; This book reads easily versus *The meat cut yesterday; *The metal hammered yesterday; *This book read yesterday. 6. The first and second person "reflexive" clitics are morphologically distinguished with respect to number (me/nous, te/vous). This, of course, does not mean that they are "inherently" specified for this feature. We may assume that they acquire it from their antecedent and are morphologically realized accordingly. 7. The least successful of these attempts is perhaps Manzini 1985, who specifies the clitic se with the feature ± passivizer. 8. Belletti 1982 and Manzini 1985 lump together the so-called impersonal subject se in Italian (Spanish, Portuguese) with the other types of se under discussion. Like Zribi-Hertz 1982,1 think that this hypothesis is incorrect. 9. Zribi-Hertz 1982 notes that there is a strong tendency to interpret the following sentences as reflexive. This is perhaps due to the fact that se-moyen verbs that denote a change of state strongly favor the generic interpretation. Further research is needed to see whether the marginality of these sentences is related in some way to the marginality of the sentence discussed in the first part of note 5. (a) (b) (c)

?Ce sandwich s'est préparé hier matin This sandwich se -I- prepared yesterday morning ? Cette photo s'est prise hier soir This picture se + took yesterday night ?Mes lunettes se sont nettoyées hier soir My eyeglasses se + cleaned yesterday night

182

Semantic and syntactic verbal operators

10. Some apparent counterexamples cited by Zribi-Hertz 1982 are 11 s'est discuté/traité/décidé de ce point à la dernière réunion 'It se + discussed/dealt/decided of this point at the last meeting'. The fact that the preposition de can be dropped after these verbs suggests that these predicates are in fact transitive. Zribi-Hertz also cites the following sentence as acceptable: Il s'est parlé de ce point à la dernière réunion 'It se + spoke of this pointât the last meeting'. Others speakers whom I have consulted find this sentence unacceptable. Interestingly, the preposition de after the verb parler cannot be dropped. Perhaps those speakers (like Zribi-Hertz) who find this sentence acceptable assimilate parler de to discuter de, in which case their judgment would be due to a process of analogy. 11. Native speakers usually feel that sentences like (4.34b) have a different flavor from sentences like (4.34a). This is perhaps due to the fact that the postverbal position is the natural position for focus. Therefore, the "impersonal" construction (4.34b) contrasts with the "personal" construction Beaucoup de clients mange ici with respect to focus. On the other hand, the "impersonal" construction (4.34a) has the same focus structure as its "personal" counterpart On a lavé du papier. 12. Some of the "inherent reflexives" are intransitive verbs: se gausser 'to sneer at', se moquer 'to mock or make fun', se marrer 'to laugh'. The intransitivity of these verbs is^ shown by the impossibility of en-cliticization in the impersonal construction: * Il s'en est marré/moqué/gausser plus dun de ton chapeau 'It se + of them + laughed/mocked/sneered more than one at your hat'. Still, this "inherent reflexive" clitic agrees obligatorily with the subject (as shown by examples with first and second person subjects: Je me marre; Tu te marre). In any case, the clitic se in these examples must be solely attributed a morphological analysis; it has no syntactic status. Perhaps it serves to delimit a semantic class of intransitive verbs, namely, a class of intransitives that denote an internal process. 13. Note that nonstative experiences associated with the first L-R in (4.42) (i.e. the choice with irregular linking) cannot be embedded under faire: *On a fait amuser l'enfant au jouet / par le jouet. But this is not unique to Romance causatives; the same fact is found in English: *We made/had the toy amuse the child. Some French speakers allow the clitic se to drop with certain inherent reflexives (like s'évanouir 'to faint', se suicider 'to commit suicide') when embedded under faire, but these same speakers never allow the clitic se to drop with anti-causatives. This is probably due to the fact that, as pointed out in section 2.1.1, the se in French anti-causatives also serves as a morphological marker for irregular linking. 14. Recall that the lexical indices which are members of a chain headed by an A-binder (as well as by an A-binder) count as one occurrence (see section 1.1.2). Therefore, the lexical indices borne by the trace in object position and the operator se constitute one occurrence. Recall moreover that the Case Filter requires that each occurrence of a lexical index associated with phonological content be Case-marked (see section 2.1.3). This means that the lexical index of the trace bound by se must be Case-marked (like the lexical index of chains headed by a pronominal clitic). We may assume that it is assigned Acc Case by rule ( 1.13) at S-structure before se is adjoined to F a n d obliterates the context for Acc Case assignment. 15. This hypothesis is supported by the fact that a direct object can be referentially dependent on an indirect object. Cf. Mary read hisfirst poem to every poet. In the representation of this sentence the scope marker of the indirect object binds the scope marker of the direct object (see section 4.1): [ s M a r y [O^ 0 | 7 | [ v p read his poem i to every poet]]] While in the dative-shift construction the scope marker of the "goal" argument must precede the scope marker of the "theme" argument, in the case of the NP...toNP construction either order of scope markers is possible (either, the scope marker of the "goal" may precede the scope marker of the "theme", as in the example above, or vice versa).

Semantic and syntactic verbal operators

183

16. Stowell 1981 makes a similar suggestion for cases of inalienable possession in Romance (e.g. Pierre lui lave les mains 'Pierre Dat cl. + wash the hands'). 17. The rule of ¿-insertion triggered by Romance causatives (see section 3.2.2) should be reformulated as a more general rule which inserts either the dummy preposition a or the DAT Case feature: V Ny Nz, where Nz is an L-internalized external argument — V Ny a + NIt or DATZ + V Ny Nz As stated, this rule correctly generates sentences like Pierre lui afait manger la soupe 'Pierre Dat cl. + made eat the soup', but not *Pierre lui a fait travailler 'Pierre Dat cl. -I- made work'.

Bibliography

Amritavalli, R. 1980. "Expressing cross-categorial selectional correspondences: An alternative to the X-bar syntax approach", Linguistic Analysis 6, 305-343. Anderson, M. 1979. Noun Phrase Structure, Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Conn. Anderson, S. 1977. "Comments on the paper by Wasow", in P. Culicover, T. Wasow, and A. Akmajian, eds., Formal Syntax, Academic Press, New York. Aoun, J. 1981. The Formal Nature of Anaphoric Relations, Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. (Published as A Grammar of Anaphora, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.) Belletti, A. 1982. "Morphological passive and Pro-drop: The impersonal construction in Italian", Journal of Linguistic Research 2, 1-34. Borer, H. and K. Wexler 1985. "The maturation of syntax", paper presented at the Amherst Conference on Parameter-Setting, to appear in the proceedings, T. Roeper and E. Williams, eds., MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Bresnan, J. 1982a. "The passive in lexical theory", in J. Bresnan, ed., The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 3-86. Bresnan, J. 1982b. "Polyadicity", in J. Bresnan, ed., The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 282-390. Burzio, L. 1981. Intransitive Verbs and Italian Auxiliaries, Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Carrier-Duncan, J. and J. Randall 1986. "Derived argument structure: Evidence from resultatives", unpublished manuscript, Harvard University, Cambridge, and Northeastern University, Boston, Mass. Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Chomsky, N. 1970. "Remarks on nominalization", in S.A. Jacobs and P.S. Rosenbaum, eds., Readings in English Transformational Grammar, Ginn, Waltham, Mass., 184-221. Chomsky, N. 1980. "On binding", Linguistic Inquiry 11, 1-46. Chomsky, N. 1981 .Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris, Dordrecht. Chomsky, N. 1986a. Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use, Praeger, New York. Chomsky, N. 1986b. Barriers, Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 13, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Cinque, G. 1980. "On extraction from NP in Italian", Journal of Italian Linguistics 1,47-99. Coopmans, P. 1985. Language Types: Continua or Parameters, Doctoral dissertation, Utrecht University, Utrecht. Couquaux, D. 1979. "Sur la syntaxe de phrases predicatives en français", Linguisticae Investigationes 3.2, 245-286. Davidson, D. 1966. "The logical form of action sentences", in D. Davidson (1980) Essays on Actions and Events, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 105-122. Demonte, V. 1986. "Papeles temáticos y sujeto sintáctico en el sintagma nominal", unpublished manuscript, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid. Dobrovie-Sorin, C. 1985. "A propos du contraste entre le passif morphologique et se-moyen dans les tours impersonnels", unpublished manuscript, CNRS, Paris.

186

Bibliography

Dresher, B. and N. Hornstein 1979. "Trace theory and NP movement rules", Linguistic Inquiry 10, 65-82. Everaert, M. 1986. The Syntax of Reflexivization, Doctoral dissertation, Utrecht University, Utrecht. Fodor, J. 1979. "In defense of the truth value gap", in C. Oh and D. Dinneen, eds., Syntax and Semantics 11, 199-224. Gibson, J. 1980. Clause Union in Chamorro and in Universal Grammar, Doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego. Grimshaw, J. 1979. "Complement selection and the lexicon", Linguistic Inquiry 10, 279-326. Gruber,J. 1965. Studies in Lexical Relations, Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. (Published as Lexical Structures in Syntax and Semantics, North Holland Linguistic Series, North Holland, Amsterdam, 1976.) Guéron, J. 1980. "On the syntax and semantics of PP extraposition", Linguistic Inquiry 11, 637-678. van Haaften, T. and M.L. Zubizarreta (in preparation), "-ing nominals: A case of simultaneous verbal and nominal projections", Tilburg University, Tilburg. Haegeman, L. and H. van Riemsdijk 1986. "Verb projection raising, scope, and the typology of rule affecting verbs", Linguistic Inquiry 17, 417-466. Hale, K. 1982. "Warlpiri and the grammar of non-configurational languages", Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1, 5-48. Hale, K. and J. Keyser 1985. "Some transitivity alternations in English", unpublished manuscript, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Higginbotham, J. 1983. "The logic of perceptual reports: An extensional alternative to situation semantics", The Journal of Philosophy 80, 100-127. Higginbotham, J. 1985. "On semantics", Linguistic Inquiry 16, 547-593. Hornstein, N. and D. Lightfoot 1984. "Rethinking predication", unpublished manuscript, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland. Hornstein, N. 1985. "Levels of meaning", paper delivered at the Hampshire Conference on Modularity, to appear in the proceedings, J. Garfield, ed., MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Hornstein, N. 1986. "Restructuring and interpretation in a T-model", unpublished manuscript, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland. Hyams, N. 1983. The Acquisition of Parametrized Grammars, Doctoral dissertation, City University of New York, New York. Jackendoff, R. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Jackendoff, R. 1975. "Morphological and semantic regularities in the lexicon", Language 51, 639-671. Jackendoff, R. 1976. "Toward an explanatory semantic representation", Linguistic Inquiry 7, 89-150. Jaeggli, O. 1985. "Passive", unpublished manuscript, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Kayne, R. 1975. French Syntax, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Kayne, R. 1981a. "On certain differences between French and English", Linguistic Inquiry 12, 349-371. Kayne, R. 1981b. "Unambiguous paths", in R. May and J. Koster, eds., Levels of Syntactic Representation, Foris, Dordrecht, 143-183. Keyser, S.J. and T. Roeper 1984. "On the middle and ergative constructions in English", Linguistic Inquiry 15, 381-416. Kiss, K. E. 1985. "Parasitic chains", The Linguistic Review 5.1 (in press). Koopman, H. and D. Sportiche 1982. "Variables and the bijection principle", The Linguistic Review 2, 139-160.

Bibliography

187

Koster, J. 1984. "On binding and control", Linguistic Inquiry 15, 417-459. Koster, J. (to appear). Domains and Dynasties, Foris Publications, Dordrecht. Levin, B. 1983. On the Nature of Ergativity, Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Levin, B. and M. Rappaport 1984. "The formation of adjectival passives", Lexicon Project Working Papers, Center for Cognitive Science, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Mallinson, G. and B. Blake 1981. Language Typology, North Holland, Amsterdam. Manzini, R. 1983. Restructuring andReanalysis, Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Manzini, R. 1985. "On Italian si", to appear in H. Borer, ed., Syntax and Semantics 18, Academic Press, New York. Marantz, A. 1984. On the Nature of'Grammatical Relations, Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 10, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Milner, J.C. 1977. "A propos des génitifs adnominaux en français", in C. Rohrer, ed., Actes du Colloque Franco-allemand de Linguistique Théorique, Niemeyer, Tubingen, 67-107. Oehrle, R. 1976. The Grammatical Status of the English Dative Shift Alternation, Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Perlmutter, D. 1978. "Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis", Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, University of California, Los Angeles, California. Pollock, J.Y. 1985. Etude sur la Syntaxe de l'Impersonnel, Doctoral dissertation, Université de Paris 8, Paris. Rappaport, M. 1983. "On the nature of derived nominals", in L. Levin, M. Rappaport, and A. Zaenen, eds. Papers in Lexical- Functional Grammar, Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington, Indiana, 113-142. Rapoport, T. 1986. "Small clauses in Hebrew", GLOW Newsletter, Foris, Dordrecht. van Riemsdijk, H. 1983. "The case of German adjectives", in F. Heny and B. Richards, eds., Linguistic Categories: Auxiliaries and Related Puzzles, vol. 1, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, 223-252. van Riemsdijk, H. and E. Williams (1981) "NP-structure", The Linguistic Review 1, 171-217. Rouveret, A. and J.R. Vergnaud 1980. "Specifying reference to the subject", Linguistic Inquiry 11,97-202. Ruwet, N. 1972. Théorie Syntaxique et Syntaxe du Français, Seuil, Paris. Safir, K. 1982. Syntactic Chains and the Deflniteness Effect, Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Simpson, J. 1983. "Resultatives", in L. Levin, M. Rappaport, and A. Zaenen, eds, Papers in Lexical-Functional Grammar, Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington, Indiana, 143-158. Sportiche, D. 1983. Structural Invariance and Symmetry, Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Stefanini, J. 1962. "La voix pronominale en ancien et moyen français", Ophrys, Aix-enProvence. Stowell, T. 1981. Origins of Phrase Structure, Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Stowell, T. 1983. "Subjects across categories", The Linguistic Review 2, 285-312. Vergnaud, J.R. and M.L. Zubizarreta 1980. "On virtual categories", MIT Working Papers, vol. 4, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. (published 1982), 293-303. Vergnaud, J.R. 1985. Dépendances et Niveaux de Représentations, Benjamins, Amsterdam. Vergnaud, J.R. (in preparation). The Syntactic Representation of Reference and Binding, CNRS, Paris. Wasow, T. 1977. "Transformations and the lexicon", in P. Culicover, T. Wasow, and A. Akmajian, eds., Formal Syntax, Academic Press, New York, 327-360. Wasow, T. 1980. "Major and minor rules in lexical grammar", in T. Hoekstra, H. van der Hülst, and M. Moortgat, eds., Lexical Grammar, Dordrecht, Foris. Wehrli, E. 1985 "On some properties of the French clitic se", to appear in H. Borer, ed., Syntax and Semantics, vol. 18, Academic Press, New York.

188

Bibliography

Williams, E. 1980. "Predication", Linguistic Inquiry 11, 203-238. Williams, E. 1980b. "French causatives", unpublished manuscript, university of Massachusetts at Amherst, Amherst, Mass. Williams, E. 1981. "Argument structure and morphology", The Linguistic Review 1, 81-114. Williams, E. 1982. "NP cycle", Linguistic Inquiry 13, 277-295. Williams, E. 1985. "PRO and subject of NP", Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3,297-315. Williams, E. 1986. "A reassignment of the functions of LF", Linguistic Inquiry 17, 265-299. Zaenen, A. and J. Maling 1983. "Passive and oblique case", in L. Levin, M. Rappaport, and A. Zaenen, eds., Papers in Lexical-Functional Grammar, Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington, Indiana, 159-191. Zribi-Hertz, A. 1982. "La construction se-moyen du français et son statut dans le triangle: moyen, passif, réfléchi", Linguisticae Investigations 6, 345-401. Zubizarreta, M.L. 1979. "Extraction from NP and a reformulation of subjacency", unpublished manuscript, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Zubizarreta, M.L. 1982 On the Relationship of the Lexicon to Syntax, Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Zubizarreta, M.L. 1985. "The relation between morphophonology and morphosyntax: The case of Romance causatives", Linguistic Inquiry 16, 247-289.

Author Index

Amritavalli, R., 29, 40, 82nl, n2 Anderson, M., 9, 43, 44, 80, 82n3, n4 Anderson, S., 45 Aoun, J., 75, 149 Bayer, J., 6 Belletti, A., 149, 181n8 Bellier, P., 6 Blake, B., 151 Bordelois, I., 6 Borer, H., 106 Bresnan, J., 45, 46, 59, 94, 96, 103, 104, 105, 128n4,129n8,142 Burzio, L., 16, 88, 89 Carrier-Duncan, J., 142 Chomsky, N., 1, 12, 17, 21, 25, 34, 36n2, 39, 43, 49, 76, 81, 82n8, 100, 103, 109, 117, 119, 130nl6 Cinque, G„ 35, 67, 70, 71, 80, 84nl6, 85nl7 Coopmans, P., 5, 130nl8 Corver, N., 5 Couquaux, D., 81

Higginbotham, J., 8, 25, 110 Hornstein, N., 6, 36n3, 43, 74, 161, 179, 181n3 Horvath, J., 36n6 Huybregts, R., 6, 84nl4, 85nl9, 149 Hyams, N., 129n9 Jackendoff, R., 3,22, 40, 45 Jaeggli, O., 128n5, 143, 148, 151, 181n5 Kaye, J., 6, 129n6 Kayne, R., 36n6,43, 165 Keyser, S.J., 91,141,142,148,181n4 Kiss, K.E., 36n6 Kolb, H.P., 5, 6 Koopman, H., 76 Koster, J., 2, 5, 51, 60 Levin, B., 16, 105, 129n8 Lightfoot, D., 74

Davidson, D., 25 Demonte, V., 6, 85nl7 Dobrovie-Sorin, C., 155 Dresher, B., 43

Maling, A., 180nl Mallinson, G., 151 Manzini, R., 110, 149, 181n7, n8 Marantz, A., 6, 15, 36n7, 100, 107, 121, 130nl8, 180nl Milner, J.C., 84nl6 Muysken, P., 6

Everaert, M., 60

Oehrle, R., 122

Fodor, J., 30, 31,32

Perlmutter, D., 16 Pesetsky, D., 6, 128n3, 181n5 Piera, C., 6, 78 Pollock, J.Y., 81 Prinzhorn, M., 6

Gee, 130nl6 Gibson, J., 113 Grimshaw, J., 6, 8, 15 Gruber, J., 10, 45 Guéron, J., 6, 92 Haaften, T. van, 5, 6, 39, 130nl3, nl4 Haegeman, L., 130nl8 Hale, K„ 17, 34, 148 Hellan, L., 6

Randall, J., 142 Rapoport, T., 9, 92 Rappaport, M., 45, 46, 54, 82n3, 105, 129n8 Reinhart, T., 2 Riemsdijk, H., 1, 2,4, 5, 6, 16, 24, 26, 32, 35, 130nl8, 139

190

Author Index

Roeper, T., 91, 141, 142, 148,181n4 Rouveret, A., 6,49 Ruwet, N., 114, 151 Safir, K., 148, 154 Simpson, J., 91 Sportiche, D., 3, 76 Stéfanini, J., 149 Stowell, T., 2, 17, 19, 117, 121, 130nl9 Thiersch, C., 5, 37nl0, 82nl Vergnaud, J.R., 2,4, 6, 14, 36n7,49, 51, 129nl3, 130nl8, 138, 139, 179

Wasow, T., 40,45 Wehrli, E„ 149,163 Weinberg, A., 6 Wexler, K., 106 Williams, E., 1, 2, 3,4, 7,13,14,16, 24, 26, 34, 35, 36n3, 51, 82n5, 84nl3, 96, 128nl, 129n6, 129nl3, 139 Zaenen, A., 180nl Zribi-Hertz, A., 110, 143, 149, 150, 151, 153, 154,181n8, n9,182nl0 Zubizarreta, M.L., 22, 39, 53, 54,75, 79, 81, 84nl6, nl7,100,107,108,110,114, 115, 119, 120, 129nl2, nl3, 130nl4, nl6, nl8, 150, 161

Subject Index

à as Case-marker, 113-4, 169, 175 à-insertion, 113, 116 A-binding, see NP-trace relations A-binding vs. Â-binding, 2, 26 À-binding in Romance, 75,77, 81, 149 À-position, 21 absorption, 128 abstract prepositions, 29,49-50 accusative Case assignment, 16-19, 33, 36n6, 57, 112-3, 116, 123, 137, 169 action ne minais, see process derived nominals adjectival passive, 28-9,49-50 formation, 48,94-8, 103A 106, 127 strict locality of, 104 adjectival small clauses, 19-20, 60 adjectives, 11,19 adjunct arguments vs. adjunct predicates, 23 adjunct fry-phrase, 56, 103 adjunct genitive phrases, 56, 65-6, 73-6 Romance vs. English, 77, 80 adjunct predicates, 23, 114 adjuncts, temporal, 53, 56 adverbials locative, 53 manner, 108, 114 purpose, 88, 108, 143, 150 time, 11, 53, 56 affectedness of internal arguments, 9-10,43-4, 75, 77, 122-4 representation of, 58-67 affectedness constraint, 80, 143-4, 150, 153 agentive arguments, 12, 96, 114 AGR, 17, 19-20 inherent, 111 American English, dative shift in, 135-6, 174 Amharic, 151 anaphor, lexical, 178 anti-causative formation as a meaningchanging lexical process, 92, 126 anti-causatives, 87-93, 150, 158-61 and inherent reflexives, 160

as unaccusative monadic verbs, 88,91 bare, 89-90 anti-passive, 82n9 arg-variable index, 14, 17, 51 arg-variable interpretation, default rule of, 56,63, 66 arguments, 8, 13,47 adjunct, 23 agentive, 12,96, 114 direct vs. indirect, 14-5, 34-5,45 embedded, 116-7, 169 existential interpretation of, 23 external vs. internal, 7,12, 21-2,24-5, 34, 63 goal, 27-8,41-2, 45, 133, 135, 174-5 hidden, 22, 56, 80, 88, 94, 108, 110, 145 incorporated, 9-10, 58, 61-6,95-6, 122-3, 138, 174 L-externalization of, 135, 138, 157, 176 L-internalization of, 112-4, 135-6, 169, 171-5 lexical vs. non-lexical, 8 locative, 27-8, 41-2,45 prepositional, 48-50 propositional, 98-9, 107, 124, 155, 167 theme, 46, 104 see also A-binding; external arguments; internal arguments; predicate-argument structure auxiliary selection, 89,91 bare anti-causatives, 89-90 benefactive prepositions, 121 biclausal structures, 158, 168-9, 171 Bijection Principle, 76 binding, 111, 138, 166-8, 170 Arbinding, 2, 26,75, 77, 81 by NP-trace, 16-7, 26, 119, 157-8 by se, 108, 152, 155-6, 166-8, 170 in raising constructions, 18 lexical, 16-7, 26 Binding Theory Principle A, 119

192

Subject Index

Principle C, 76 Biuniqueness Condition, 21-2, 24-5, 35, 57, 163, 176 British English, dative shift in, 135-6, 174 by, dummy preposition, 29,49 iy-phrase, 54-6, 94, 96, 103 adjunct, 56, 103 c-command, 139 Case assignment and reduced structures, 115 at S-structure, 116 see also accusative Case; dative Case; genitive Case; oblique Case Case Filter, 49, 57, 112, 115-6, 137 Case-marker á, 113-4, 169, 175 Case-marker de, 67-8 Case-marker of, 57, 113 causatives, 87, 92-4, 107-20, 158-61, 167-71 and intransitives, 109 and passivization, 114-5, 170 and reflexives, 167 as derived from anti-causatives, 93 as triggering complex verb formation, 110 empty embedded subject in, 108-9, 117 causativization, 92-4 as a meaning-changing process, 93, 126 CAUSE feature, 87, 93, 133 Chamorro, 113 child's grammar, 92, 106-7, 129nl0 Class A vs. Class B nouns, 72-4 clitic en, 42, 55, 68, 81, 89, 91, 164 clitic se, 89-90, 108, 149-79 cliticization, phonological rule of, 158 cliticization of partitive ne, 88 clitics, objective, 115, 149 complex predicates, 9-10, 58, 62-5, 92, 96, 137-8, 148, 173 complex verb formation, 107-20, 128 as altering scope, 134 concomitant phrase structures, 130nl3 constants at S-R, 10 Core Linking Rules, 15 see also Rule of Projection; Rule of Lpredicate Formation; Default Rule of L-predicate Formation cross-world predicates, 30-1 D-structure as equal to NP-structure, 16, 35 dative internal argument, 174 preposition, 42, 114, 121-2, 165-6 reflexive clitic, 166

dative Case assignment, 33, 114, 116, 169 dative-shift, 120-7, 134-6, 140 and middles, 147 and nominals, 125 and verbal passive, 123, 134-5 as a meaning-changing lexical process, 126 in American vs. British English, 135-6, 174 in Romance vs. English, 174-5 de as Case-marker, 67-8 de-phrases, 69-71, 75, 77-8 Default Linking Rule, see Default Rule of L-predicate Formation default rule of arg-variable interpretation, 56,63, 66 Default Rule of L-predicate Formation, 156, 57, 98-100, 103, 111, 136, 156, 176 definite descriptions, 30 denotation of result vs. process, 72 role of Predication in, 13-4 derived nominals, 39-46, 62 and dative-shift, 125 as R-predicates, 125 external arguments in, 44, 52-4, 56 indirect arguments in, 48 locative and goal arguments in, 41-2 nonstative experience» in, 39-40 passive construction in, 43 process derived nominals, 45-6, 50, 53, 64 raising construction in, 44 result class vs. process class, 48, 72-4, 80 syntax of, 63-4, 69 Det(erminer), 43-4 direct arguments mapping from S-R onto L-R, 15-6,47-8, 80,90 vs. indirect arguments, 14-5, 34-5, 45 direct objects of German adjectives, 32-3 discontinuous predicates, 9, 121, 165 distorted mappings of predicate-argument relations onto syntax, 26-34, 51 dummy Case-marker à, 113-4, 175 vs. of, 113 dummy preposition by, 29,49 Dutch: infinitive, 130nl4 passive, 19, 99-100 zich, 60-1 E-variable, see Event-variable embedded arg-variable, 116-7, 169

Subject Index embedded object, 170 embedded subject, 108, 116, 167, 169 embedded trace, 170 empty embedded subject, 108-9, 117 empty head noun, 74 e/i-cliticization, 42, 55, 68, 81, 89, 91, 164 English, 11, 20, 32,42, 61, 67-8, 71-2, 74, 769, 81, 99, 110, 117, 123-4, 157, 160-1 anti-causatives, 91-2 causatives, 111 middles, 141, 143-4, 148 noun phrases, 74, 80 preposition incorporation, 165 epistemic modals, 160 event nouns, 73 E(vent)-variable, 25, 36n7, 53, 56-7, 73, 75, 110 existential interpretation of arguments, 23 experiencers, nonstative, 28-32, 39-40, 48, 50, 61,91, 101, 157 expletive subject, 92 external arguments, 12-3, 18, 23, 53, 65-6, 75,77, 88, 113, 117 agentive, 96, 114 and complex verbs, 110 interpretation of, 44, 52-4, 62-3, 67 L-internalization of, 112-4, 135-6, 169-75 of causatives, 112 vs. internal arguments, 7,12, 21-2, 24-5, 34, 63 external scope, 134 externalization of internal arguments, 59, 135, 138, 141, 153, 157, 159, 168, 171, 176 FI, see Principle of Full Interpretation focus and predicate-argument structure, 148 /or-phrase, 55 French a, 27, 113-4, 116, 165, 169 accusative Case, 36n6 adjectival passive, 94-5 adjectives, 32 agreement, 20 anti-causatives, 92, 156 auxiliary selection, 89, 91-2 causatives, 107-20, 158, 168-71 de, 55, 67-8, 77 derived nomináis, 41-2 dont, 76 en-cliticization, 42, 55, 68, 81, 89, 91, 164 faire, 116, 158, 167-73 impersonal construction, 154-5

193 indirect objects, 164, 167 intransitive passives, 156 ne, 88 nonstative experiencers, 91 noun phrases, 50, 67-71, 76-8 par-phrase, 67, 75, 110, 151, 171 preposition stranding, 164-5 reduced relative clause formation, 89-91 se-cliticization, 89-90, 108, 149-80 stylistic subject inversion, 163 unaccusative adjectives, 11 Generalized Rule of Projection, 33, 145-7, 166 addendum to, 172 generic operator, 56, 82n7, 141, 143-4, 147 genitive Case, 33, 53, 68 adjunct genitive phrases in Spec(ifier), 556, 65-6, 73-6 German adjectives, 32-3 passive of intransitive verbs, 19, 99-100 goal arguments, 27-8, 45, 133, 135, 174-5 in derived nominals, 41-2 see also incorporated arguments government, 4, 8, 17, 33 Government and Binding framework (GB), 1,7, 17 impoverished lexical representation for argument structures, 7 modular character of, 1 grammar, modular view of, 126 grammatical features, 63, 149 grammatical primitives, 7,45 hidden arguments, 22, 56 in adjectival passives, 94 in verbal passives, 56, 88 hidden external arguments, 80, 108, 110, 145 generic vs. existential interpretation, 108 hidden generic operator, 143 Hungarian, 36n6 Icelandic, 180 impersonal construction in French, 154-5 impersonal se in Romance, 149 incorporated arguments, 9-10, 58, 61, 95 affectedness of, 122-3 incorporation of external arguments, 96, 174; see also L-internalization mapping onto syntax, 62-6, 138 incorporated prepositions, 124-5, 147, 165

194

Subject Index

indices arg-variable, 14, 17, 51 lexical, 8, 13, 18, 25, 57, 65, 99, 119, 126 of the embedded subject, 167 referential, 14, 36n4, 51, 66 token, 24 variable, 13,51,99, 111 indirect objects in French, 164, 167 indirect vs. direct arguments, 14-5, 34-5,45 inflnitivals and se-moyen verbs, 161 inflected, 111 Infl(ection), 17-9, 111-2, 154, 167 Inflection Phrase (IP), 17, 19, 22, 167 inherent AGR element, 111 inherent reflexives, 59,157, 160-1 inherent scope marker, 139-40, 164-5, 170-3, 177-8 instrumental-shift alternation, 121 internal arguments, 7, 12, 28,48, 67, 88, 137 affectedness of, 9-10, 43-4, 58-67, 75, 77, 122-4 dative, 174 human, 71 L-externalization of, 59, 135, 138, 141, 157, 159, 176 lexical, 94 mapping onto syntax, 62-6, 138 movement of, 43, 155-6 of prepositions, 48-50 intransitive passives, 110, 155 intransitives, 10, 142 and adjectival passive, 96, 104 and anti-causatives, 91 and causatives, 109 and ou/-prefixation, 59 and reduced relatives, 89 en se, 153 and verbal passive, 99 S-R of, 8 irregular linking, see marked linking s Italian anti-causatives, 88-90 causatives, 108, 113-5, 117-8, 120, 158-60, 167, 170-1 impersonal se, 149 ne-cliticization, 35nl noun phrases, 67, 71, 78, 83nl0 Japanese, 107, 129nl3, 130nl8 Kinyarwanda, 121, 180

L-externalization of arguments, 59, 135, 138, 141, 157, 159, 176 L-internalization of arguments, 112-4, 1356, 169-75 L-predicates, see lexical predicates L-R, see lexico-syntactic structure language acquisition, 12,92, 129nl0 of passives, 106-7 Latvian, 151 lexical anaphor, 178 lexical binding relations, 16-7, 26 Lexical-Functional Grammar (LFG), 15, 45 lexical indices, 8, 13, 18, 25, 57, 65, 99-100, 119, 126 vs. referential indices, 14 lexical internal arguments, 94 lexical meaning, organization of, 8, 34 lexical predicates (L-predicates), 14-6, 19, 23, 154 and nouns, 51-2 Default Rule of L-predicate Formation, 15-6, 57,98-100, 103, 111, 136, 156, 176 Rule of L-predicate formation, 3, 15, 19 three mechanisms of L-predicate formation, 144 lexical processes affecting predicate-argument relations, 87-97 affecting the mapping of arguments onto syntax, 97-120 as changing meaning, 126-7 lexical redundancy rules, 71 lexical representation, 7-26 arguments for two levels of, 126 lexico-semantic level (S-R) and lexicosyntactic level (L-R), 3 mapping between S-R and L-R, 3, 15-6, 47-8,80, 90 lexical scope relations between arguments, 133-6, 171-9 lexico-semantic structure (S-R), 3, 7-15, 26, 67 as structured predicate-argument relations, 7 of transitive, intransitive, and unaccusative verbs, 8 lexico-syntactic structure (L-R), 3, 14-20, 26, 33-5 lexico-syntactic verbal operator, 141 lexicon as containing one single level of representation, 107 modularized, 87

Subject Index nature of, 2 linking, see marked linking Linking Rule, Default, see Default Rule of L-predicate Formation linking rules, 15, see also Rule of Projection; Rule of L-predicate Formation; Default Rule of L-predicate Formation locative adverbials, S3 locative arguments, 27-8, 45 in derived nominals, 41-2 locative preposition incorporation, 124 locative prepositions, 11, 15, 27,41-2 locative-shift alternation, 121 long-distance modification, 83nll long wh-extraction, 103 Malayalam, 107,130nl8 manner adverbials, 108, 114 mapping, 97-131 between S-R and L-R, 15-6, 47-8, 80, 90 distorted, 26-34, 51 of incorporated arguments, 62-6,138 of predicate-argument relations, 12-26 projectional vs. derivational, 2-4 marked linking, 26, 33-4, 47, 50-1, 90-2, 1245, 134, 138, 156 marked linking specification M, 101 meaning-changing lexical processes, 92-3, 126-7 middles, 141-8 modals, epistemic, 160 Modification, Rule of, 23-4, 26, 52-4, 65, 735, 117, 123 as a mechanism of indirect evaluation of arg-variables, 22, 52-3 modular view of grammar, 1, 126 of lexicon, 87 monadic verbs, 16-7, 58-61, 87-8, 91 morpho-lexical unit, 123 morphological cliticization, 61 movement of internal arguments, 43, 155-6 N', 51,53, 55,65-6, 73-7 nominals, derived, see derived nominals nonreduced vs. reduced structures, 115-6, 119, 169 nonstative experiencers, 28-32, 48, 50, 61, 101,157 and auxiliary selection, 91 in nominals, 39-40 noun phrases irregular linkings impossible in, 47, 51

195 levels of representation in, 47-58 Romance vs. English, 74, 80 syntax of, 39-47 syntax of in Romance, 67-79 nouns as R-predicates, not L-predicates, 51, 57, 79 Class A vs. Class B (process vs. result nominals), 72-4 predicate-argument structure, 73-4 NP-movement, 16-7, 81 NP-structure, 1, 3, 16, 26, 35, 75 NP-trace relations, 16-7, 21, 26, 50-1, 119 in noun phrases, 51, 67 in je-constructions, 152-3, 156-8 need for in syntax, 81 object control verbs, 97 objective clitics in Romance, 115, 149 objective pronominals, 115 objects, affected, 43-4 objects, embedded, 170 obligatory vs. optional predicate-argument structure for nouns, 73-4 oblique Case assignment, 45, 123, 137, 175 of, 42,45-6, 49-50, 57, 78, 113 opacity, 30-1 open predicates, 13-5, 19, 99 operator, generic, 56, 82n7, 141, 143-4, 147 operator, vacuous, 168 operator clitic se, 168, 175 operators, verbal, 133-83 o«/-prefixation, 58-9, 141-2 par-phrase, 67, 75, 110, 151, 171 parametric differences in syntax of NPs, 72 passive and intransitives, 96,99, 155 in derived nominals, 43-4 see also adjectival passive; verbal passive passive participles, verbal vs. adjectival, 104 passivization and scope relations, 174 obligatory, 71 of causatives, 114-5, 170 of complex verbs, 137, 173 of intransitives, 110, 155 past participle affixes, 94 perception verbs, 110-2, 153 as triggering complex verb formation, 110 percolation, 14 phonological form (PF), 49 phonological rule of cliticization, 158

196

Subject Index

Portuguese, 111, 149, 181n8 Poss(essor)-variable, 46, 55, 73-5 postnominal genitive adjuncts, 68, 75-6 postverbal subjects, 154 predicate-argument relations and lexical processes, 87-97 distorted mappings onto syntax, 26-34 mapping onto syntax, 12-26 representation of, 7-12 predicate-argument structure, 7, 39 and focus, 148 internal vs. external arguments, 7, 12, 212, 24-5, 34, 63 obligatory vs. optional for nouns, 73-4 relation to syntactic structure, 45-6 Predicate Formation, Rule of, 14 Default Rule of L-predicate Formation, 15-6, 57, 98-100, 103, 111, 136, 156, 176 Rule of L-predicate Formation, 3, 15, 19 predicates adjunct, 23, 114 complex, 9-10, 58, 62-5,92,96, 138, 148 cross-world, 30-1 discontinuous, 9, 121, 165 lexical, 14-6, 19, 23, 51-2, 144, 154 monadic, 16-7, 58-61, 87-8, 91 open, 13-5, 19, 99 prepositional, 29, 33, 48-50, 120-1 R-predicates, 51, 57, 79, 125 S-predicates, 14, 26, 167 selectional properties of, 12, 133 stative, 54, 78, 96 symmetric vs. asymmetric, 31 well-formedness condition on, 63 Predication, Rule of, 3, 12-26,48, 52, 63, 66, 117, 162 as a contextual interpretative rule, 163 syntactic function of, 13 preposition incorporation, 124-5, 147, 165 preposition stranding, 81, 164-5 prepositional predicates, 29, 33,48-50, 120-1 prepositions abstract, 29, 49-50 as minor predicates, 14 benefactive, 121 dative, 42, 114, 121-2, 165-6 dummy, 29,49 locative, 11, 15,27,41-2 primitive categories of grammar, 7,45 primitive semantic features, 87 Principle A of the Binding Theory, 119 Principle C of the Binding Theory, 76 Principle of Full Interpretation (FI), 25, 52,

56, 63, 100-101, 103,117, 120, 138, 153, 159, 168, 176 principle of morphological nonredundancy, 100-101 PRO, 109 process derived nominals, 50, 53, 64 in Romance, 67-73 Rappaport's analysis of, 45-6 vs. result derived nominals, 48, 72-4, 80 Projection Principle, 12 see also Rule of Projection pronominals, objective, 115 property P (of nouns), 72 proposition, tensed, 20 propositional arguments, 98-9, 107, 124, 155, 167 purpose adverbials, 88, 108, 143, 150 quantifier, universal, 82n7 quantifier interpretation, 4 questions, 20 R-predicates, 51, 57, 79,125 R-variables, 51, 66 raising, 18,46, 89, 167 and reflexive se, 165 in derived nominals, 44 subject-to-object, 44, 57, 97 subject-to-subject, 19, 44, 51, 92 raising predicates, lexical representation of, 17-8 reciprocals, 161 reduced relative clause formation in French, 89-91 reduced vs. nonreduced structures, 115-6, 119, 169 referential indices, 14, 36n4, 51, 66 reflexives and causatives, 167 and fe-cliticization, 108, 149, 161-79 inherent, 59, 157, 160-1 Relational Grammar, 15 relative clauses, 13, 24 reduced, 89-91 result nominals, 48, 72-4, 80 result predicates, 91-2, 142 result vs. process, denotation of, 72 Romance, 67-8, 74, 138 à, 113-4, 175 à-insertion vs. ¿»/-insertion, 113 Â-binding, 75, 77, 81, 149 objective clitics, 115, 149 preposition incorporation in, 165

Subject Index process derived nommais, 67-73, 75 reflexives, 13, 149, 161-2 rule of Case assignment, 175 vs. English adjunct genitive phrases, 77, 80 vs. English dative-shift, 174-5 vs. English NPs, 74, 80 Romance causatives (RC), 107-19, 158-61, 167-71 rule of arg-variable interpretation, 56, 63, 66 Rule of L-predicate Formation, 3, 15, 19 Default Rule of L-predicate Formation, 15-6, 57, 98-100, 103, 111, 136, 156, 176 Rule of Modification, 23-4,26, 52-4, 65, 735, 117, 123 Rule of Predicate Formation, 14 Rule of Predication, 3, 12-26, 48, 52, 63, 66, 117, 162 as a contextual interpretative rule, 163 syntactic function of, 13 Rule of Projection, 3, 12, 15, 21, 25, 48-50, 52,58, 62,64, 66,137,172 Generalized, 33, 145-7, 166, 172 S-predicates (syntactic predicates), 14, 26, 167 S-R, 9, 16, 25, 33-5, 79, 133, 145-7 S', analysis of, 17 S'-deletion, 19, 22, 82n8, 98 Rule of, 17 saturated variable, 117 scope, 7-8, 34, 63, 168 external, 134 scope domain, 133-4, 164, 170, 173 scope marker, inherent, 139-40, 164-5, 1703, 177-8 scope relations, 133-6, 171-9 se and anti-causatives, 89-90 and binding, 108, 152, 155-6, 166-8, 170 as verbal operator, 156, 161 function of, 153, 156, 163, 173 impersonal, 149 ie-cliticization, 149-79 se-moyen constructions, 149-56, 161 selection and subcategorization, 34 selectional properties of predicates, 12, 133 semantic categories, relevance for grammar, 12 Semantic Interpretative Component (SI), 26, 118-20, 162, 178 NP-structure and S-structure as inputs, 35 semantic unrestrictedness, 45

197 semantically complex predicates, 9-10, 96 semantically transitive but syntactically intransitive predicates, 58, 61 small clauses, 19, 99,171 adjectival, 19-20, 60 verbal, 110-1 Spanish acccusative Case, 36n6 adjectives, 32 causatives, 108, 113-5, 117-8, 120, 158, 167 cuyo, 78 impersonal se, 149, 181n8 noun phrases, 67-70, 78, 82n6, 83nl0 passive, 101 Spec(ifier), 51, 55-6, 65-6, 73-8, 81 Sre, 151 STATE feature, 107 stative experiencer nouns, 55 see also nonstative experiences stative predicates, 54, 78,96 stativity, 128 stylistic subject inversion in French, 163 subcategorization, 34 subject-to-object raising, 44, 57, 97 subject-to-subject raising, 19, 44, 51,92 subjects embedded, 108-9, 116, 167, 169 expletive, 92 opaque, 30 postverbal, 154 symmetric vs. asymmetric predicates, 31 syntactic component, two-level, 3 syntactic predicates (S-predicates), 14 syntactic structure, relation to predicateargument structure, 45 temporal adjuncts, 53, 56 temporal phrases, 11 tensed proposition, 20 thematic roles, 7, 32 external vs. internal, 7 relevance for grammar, 12, 45 theme argument in predicates, 46, 104 Mere-construction, 91-2 Theta Criterion, 21-2, 25 see also Biuniqueness Condition time adverbials, 11, 53, 56 token index, 24 traces, embedded, 170 see also NP-traces transitives, 8, 16, 59, 87, 91, 124, 142, 152, 169

198

Subject Index

transparency between lexico-semantics and syntax in NPs, 67 between predicate-argument structure and syntactic structure, 46 in raising predicates, 17 truth value, 31 Turkish, 107, 111, 130nl8 unaccusative adjectives, 11 unaccusative verbs and adjectival passives, 94-5 and anti-causatives, 88-92 and causatives, 109 and oui-prefixation, 59,142 and se, 157 basic vs. derived, 94 lexico-semantic structure of, 8 underspecified variables, 63, 66 universal quantifier, 82n7 Urdu, 151 V', 123, 137 vacuous operator, 168 variable index, 13, 51, 99, 111 variables, saturated, 117 verbal clitics as A-binders, 149

verbal operators, 133-83 verbal passive and dative-shift, 123, 134-5 and lexical meaning, 98 and nonstative experiences, 101 and Romance causatives, 109, 118 and scope, 134-7 as formed at L-R, 98 formation, 97-107, 123-4, 127, 134, 166 verbal small clauses, 110-1 verbs complex, 107-20, 128, 134 monadic, 16-7, 58-61, 87-8, 91 of perception, 110-2,153 of saying, 107, 155 propositional, 99, 107, 124, 155, 167 vs. derived nominals, 39 see also intransitives; transitives; unaccusatives well-formedness conditions on predicates, 63 on S-R, 94 wh-movement, 21, 24 long wh-extraction, 103 wh-pronouns, 78 wh-trace chains, 21