Linguistic Representation: Structural Analogy and Stratification 9783110848991, 9783110135312

Citation preview

Linguistic Representation

Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs 67

Editor

Werner Winter

Mouton de Gruyter Berlin · New York

Linguistic Representation Structural Analogy and Stratification

by

John M. Anderson

Mouton de Gruyter Berlin · New York

1992

Mouton de Gruyter (formerly Mouton, The Hague) is a Division of Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin.

® Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines of the ANSI to ensure permanence and durability.

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

Anderson, John M. (John Mathieson), 1941 — Linguistic representation : structural analogy and stratification / by John M. Anderson. p. cm. — (Trends in linguistics. Studies and monographs : 67) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 3-11-013531-0 (alk. paper) ; 1. Linguistic analysis (Linguistics) 2. Grammar, Comparative and general. 3. Analogy (Linguistics) 4. Stratificational grammar. I. Title II. Series. P126.A675 1992 410—dc20 92-26797 CIP

Die Deutsche Bibliothek — Cataloging in Publication Data

Anderson, John M.: Linguistic representation : structural analogy and stratification / by John M. Anderson. — Berlin ; New York : Mouton de Gruyter, 1992 (Trends in linguistics : Studies and monographs ; 67) ISBN 3-11-013531-0 NE: Trends in linguistics / Studies and monographs

© Copyright 1992 by Walter de Gruyter & Co., D-1000 Berlin 30 All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this book 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 in writing from the publisher. Typesetting and printing: Arthur Collignon GmbH, Berlin. Binding: Lüderitz & Bauer, Berlin. Printed in Germany.

to infinitively EC.

Preface

In an unjust world the reader should blame what follows on Fran Colman, who brought more overtly to my consciousness the realisation that a certain theme (or perhaps complex of themes) underlay a number of things I had been working on over the last few years (to the extent that I had explicitly recognised this in some of their titles), and that it might be appropriate (or at least tidy) to pull the various strands together in a single place and so take advantage of the potential for elaboration, integration and continuity that is offered by a more extended presentation. The present work is thus in some part based on material originally discussed in papers which appear elsewhere; but I have taken the opportunity not only to reformulate in some detail the arguments put forward in these places (as well as to introduce fresh relevant considerations) but also to introduce much that is new (to me) by way of extension and synthesis of the concepts involved. The following discussion accordingly draws on material (apart from that deriving from an unpublished paper which masqueraded around some branchline of the underground under various guises, such as The lexical head hypothesis) from the following publications, in particular: Anderson 1980 c, 1985 a, 1986d, 1987 d, 1989 a. These are all concerned to some degree with "structural analogy" between levels — crudely, the assumption that the same structural properties recur (ceteris paribus) on different linguistic planes and levels. The reader should note in particular that chapter 1 and section 2.3 draw on parts of Anderson 1980 c and 1987 d; sections 2.2 and 2.1, 2.4 — 2.6 are based on Anderson 1985a; sections 3.1—3.4 and 4.1—4.2 involve a reworking of Anderson 1986 d; sections 5.1 — 5.4 are based on Anderson 1989 a; and sections 7.3 — 7.7 draw on parts of Anderson (to appear). But whatever the success of these individual discussions and whatever the plausibility of such a global principle, the demonstration of its operational appropriateness is an essentially cumulative and integrative process. It is therefore my intention that the present work should at least map out over a wide panorama of relevant linguistic phenomena how this process might proceed. To avoid too much diffusion, however, exemplification is mainly from English; but the concepts invoked are of general import, as is obviously the notion of structural analogy. Indeed, as will become clear, the establishment of some detailed analogies (such as that concern-

viii

Preface

ing sequencing proposed at the end of chapter 3 below) will ultimately depend on a comparative investigation. Part of the interest of the exercise, and something that again is promoted by a rather more extended treatment, is the throwing up of a variety of particular analogies between levels. Some of these have been left relatively undeveloped here, while others ("dependency", "contrast", "substantive alphabets", "cyclicity") have been rather more fully exploited, in an attempt to show the convergence of evidence from different levels with the predictions of the analogy assumption, and, conversely, the support this gives for apparently plane-specific proposals (such as that concerning "notional grammar" formulated in chapter 5). The treatment of particular topics is by no means exhaustive (whatever that might consist in); and while (on the one hand) much of the argument is necessarily allusive (given the major focus), no attempt (on the other hand) is made to survey the relevant literature (though I hope not to have omitted too much that is obviously relevant). My overriding concern has been to try to illustrate something of the scope and depth of interest deriving from the idea of structural analogy between levels — and from where it is apparently lacking. Only by pursuit of such an enterprise can we arrive at a suitable definition of the respective roles of analogy and stratification (modularisation) in language structure. In one sense, the text can be read as an attempt at a corrective to what seems to me the excessive modularisation of linguistic theorising characteristic of much recent work. Such imbalance is only one of the deficits arising from the present-day pervasiveness of (synchronic and diachronic) theoretical parochialism. In preparing for publication the chapters which follow I have benefited from comments from and/or discussion with, apart from Fran Colman and the audiences for oral presentations of the aforementioned papers (to which I refer the reader for details) and successive classes of the Modern and Historical English Syntax courses at Edinburgh, the following, in particular: Roger Böhm, Jacques Durand, Colin Ewen, Heinz Giegerich, Roger Lass, Scott McGlashan, Gunnar Persson, Nigel Vincent. They are, however, and as ever, no more to be held responsible for its form and content than the scapegoat mentioned initially. Thanks, finally, to Werner Winter for his helpful comments on the pre-final version. And — ο joy — this work is in a no-f> situation. John M.

Anderson

Contents

Preface Chapter 1. Introduction and retrospection

vii 1

Chapter 2. Dependency in phonology and morphology 2.1. Dependency in syntax 2.2. Subjunction and the head of the sentence 2.3. Morphological structure 2.4. Phonological structure: suprasegmental 2.5. Phonological structure: segmental 2.6. Dependency preservation

15 15 20 25 31 43 51

Chapter 3. Contrast in syntax 3.1. Constraining case grammar 3.2. Contrast and the case relations 3.3. Case relations as a universal alphabet 3.4. Contrast and the case grammar hypothesis 3.5. Case relations, the lexicon, cyclicity and control

58 58 60 69 74 80

Chapter 4. Cyclicity in syntax 4.1. The unaccusative hypothesis and the strict cycle condition 4.2. Subject and the strict cycle condition 4.3. Cyclicity and the pre-lexical base 4.4. Further remarks on control

89 90 99 104 116

Chapter 5. Syntactic categories 5.1. The nature of syntactic categories 5.2. Subcategories of the noun 5.3. Syntactic prosodies 5.4. Remarks on grammaticalisation 5.5. Subcategories of the verb I 5.6. Subcategories of the verb II: auxiliaries 5.7. Coda on categorisation

125 126 134 140 146 152 158 171

Chapter 6. Features, words and segments

177

χ

Contents

Chapter 7. Categories of change 7.1. Introduction 7.2. Phonological recategorisation 7.3. Realignment: modals 7.4. Conflation: infinitives 7.5. Differentiation I: gerund 7.6. Differentiation II: participles 7.7. Conclusion

189 189 196 200 204 209 213 223

Bibliography

227

Index

249

Chapter 1 Introduction and retrospection

Grammars, it is generally agreed, attribute to linguistic objects (sentences, utterances or whatever) structural representations of different kinds, each of which can be said to be associated with a different level. Representations of structure are assigned to different levels on the basis of their displaying different structural properties and of being related to each other in specific ways. Thus, typically, there are recognised at least two different levels, or sets of representations, whose members are constructed out of phonetically defined elements — i.e. which constitute phonological levels — but which are distinguished by whether or not they embody contrastivity: on the basis of possession of this property phonemic representations constitute a level distinct from the phonetic. Along another dimension, we can distinguish among such representations on the basis of the domain with which they are most appropriately associated: commonly, a distinction is drawn between word-level phonological representations and utterance-level (or sentence-level). Both these distinctions are supported to the extent that their recognition and the introduction of further structure that this entails — viz. the expression of the relationship between different levels — facilitate the formulation of generalisations concerning the structure of language and languages. Further sub-levels may be recognised on the same basis. To the extent, for instance, that the phonological structure of words is most appropriately built up in stages we can recognise derivational sub-levels within that level, sublevels which differ minimally in the structural properties they display. At the other end of the scale of differentiation lies the fundamental division among representations based on the character of the set of substantive elements, or alphabet, out of which they are constructed: all the representations we have been discussing so far belong to the "super-level" or plane of phonology characterised by an alphabet of phonetically defined elements (cf. e.g. Anderson 1982); syntactic representations are constructed out of a distinct alphabet defined in other terms and are thus assigned to a different plane. This diversification of levels of representation is accompanied by a modularisation of the generalisations, or rules, which specify how representations are constructed and related. Again fundamental is the dis-

2

1. Introduction

and

retrospection

tinction between the "super-modules", or components, of phonology and syntax and the relationship between the two. My concern at this point, however, is not with any specific articulation of modularity; although already I have no doubt implied particular divisions which are controversial. Rather, I am simply spelling out, rather abstractly, a characteristic shared by and explicitly formulated within a wide range of linguistic frameworks: the recognition of the modularity of linguistic generalisations and the partially corresponding differentiation into levels of the representation of linguistic structure. Less commonly acknowledged in any explicit way is the need to constrain this diversificatory strategy within appropriate limits; stratificational modularisation of one principle of structure does not entail that a related one is also module-specific. Excessive modularisation can lead to fragmentation of a research programme, with loss of trans-modular generalisations, as well as, under more extreme abuse, making available undesirable escape routes from troublesome data — the what-is-a-problem-for-blending-theory-can-be-left-to-mending-theory syndrome. What I shall be arguing for in what follows is the appropriateness of a particular, highly restrictive constraint on diversification which I shall call "structural analogy": The structural analogy

assumption·.

Minimise (more strongly, eliminate) differences between levels that do not follow from a difference in alphabet or from the nature of the relationship between the levels concerned Consider, for instance, the planar distinction between syntax and phonology. Rather typically, syntactic and phonological structures are expressed in superficially very different notations (cf. e. g X' structures in syntax and metrical trees or grids or autosegmental associations in phonology). But it is less than clear that these differences reflect real (motivated) divergence in the structural properties that should be attributed to phonology and syntax. The structural analogy assumption, in its strong form, requires that such implied differences be discarded if they are not consequent upon the difference in alphabet or upon the (say, interpretative) relation between phonology and syntax. The structural analogy assumption merely spells out in a strong form a reductionist strategy for a domain (language) to which such a strategy seems intuitively appropriate by virtue of its unity and relative well-definedness. It would indeed be rather surprising if phonological and syntactic representations required quite distinct structural relations and principles of construction. And this

1. Introduction

and retrospection

3

has been recognised at least implicitly and sometimes explicitly within various different linguistic frameworks in terms of the translation of particular constructs, such as the emic concept, from one plane to another. The strong form of the structural analogy assumption may turn out to be untenable; there may be alternative bases for legitimating certain structural properties which are apparently unique to a specific plane or level. However, adoption of the strong assumption should at least encourage the uncovering of such bases. And in their absence it does provide us with a very powerful criterion in the evaluation of representational or organisational proposals. Thus, for example, not only must the proliferation of notations characteristic of current phonological theory be submitted to comparisons devoted to the establishment of equivalences and differences, but also each such notation must meet the requirements of the structural analogy assumption: dependency phonology (as developed in e. g. Anderson and Jones 1974; 1977; Anderson 1980 a; Anderson and Ewen 1980, 1987; Durand 1986; Anderson and Durand 1987), for instance, satisfies the assumption of structural analogy, in so far as dependency structures are independently motivated for syntactic (and morphological) structures (cf. Robinson 1970; Anderson 1971 a, b, 1976, 1977: ch. 1, 1979 a, 1980 c (on morphology); Böhm 1982; as well as much work, from Tesniere 1959 on, not in a "case grammar" framework). I shall, indeed, argue below (in chapter 2) for quite detailed analogies between the dependency configurations appropriate to the syntax and those which have been suggested for the phonology. The proper trading relation between modularity and the structural analogy assumption is yet to be established (so that, as indicated, the structural analogy assumption as stated may be too strong); but any such transaction at least requires that both parties be actively present. It is my contention that the recent predominance in linguistic theorising of what Zwicky (1985a) calls the "modularist" (vs. "homogenist") attitude has led to a proliferation of ill-supported notational alternatives, in the same as well as different domains (i. e. in competition as well as complementation), and a consequent obscuration of generalisations both within and shared by different domains. This provides a major motivation for the discussion which follows, wherein I shall explore various "analogies" between the different planes, analogies whose implementation serves to considerably constrain our view of linguistic structure. As far as I am aware (always a vulnerable admission — so I await the brickbats, but with some curiosity as well as trepidation), there has in

4

1. Introduction and retrospection

modern times been little by way of explicit articulation of anything resembling the structural analogy assumption since — or before — Hjelmslev's contention of an isomorphism between the two planes of expression and content: It turns out that the two sides (the planes) of a language have completely analogous categorical structure, a discovery that seems to us of far-reaching significance for an understanding of the structural principle of a language or in general of the "essence" of a semiotic (Hjelmslev 1953: 101). The major exception has consisted in Pike's (1967, etc.) insistence on the linguistic (and indeed cultural) universality of the etic/emic distinction and on the trimodal character of linguistic (and again non-linguistic cultural) structure — to which we return in the discussion which follows. Hjelmslev, unfortunately, fails to exemplify in any detail the claimed analogy in categorical structure between content and expression, principally because, in his terms, such an exemplification would anticipate, illegitimately, the results of the glossematic procedure to which his discussion is a preface. Siertsema (1965: 207 — 211) does attempt a reconstruction of part of the analogy that might be appropriate on the basis of descriptions offered by Hjelmslev himself (notably 1937, 1938, 1939). She summarises this in the table reproduced here as table 1.1. "Exponents" (vs. "constituents") are governable; "extense" (vs. "intense") exponents can characterise a complete utterance. Table 1.1. Some "Hjelmslevian" analogies Content Plane (Plerematic) Constituents (Pleremes) Central Const. (radical elements)

Marginal Const. (derivational elements)

Exponents (Morphemes) Intense Exp. (noun morphemes: case comparison number gender article)

Extense Exp. (verb morphemes: person voice stress aspect mood tense)

Expression Plane (Cenematic) Constituents (Cenemes) Central Const. (vowels)

Marginal Const. (consonants)

Exponents (Prosodemes) Intense Exp. (accents)

Extense Exp. (modulations)

1. Introduction

and retrospection

5

As Siertsema concedes, "there are some difficult points" of interpretation in the analyses presented by Hjelmslev; and in the absence of a full glossematic treatment many of the "categorial" assignments remain uncertain. However, I suggest that the interest of the analogy strategy emerges rather clearly, precisely in the form of questions concerning the appropriateness of particular analogies. For instance, what predictions follow from the equation of "noun morphemes" (like case), on the content plane, with "accents", on that of expression? Hjelmslev (1939) suggests that "accent themes" (syllables) may display "accent declension", whereby the accent associated with a syllable varies according to the context. One might consider this to be manifested e. g. in the phenomenon of "iambic reversal" exhibited in I saw Princess Mary vs. I saw the Princess, and the like. But, apart from the fact that both nominal declension and "accent declension" are (apparently independent) typological variables, what further consequences are there of this particular analogy? I raise this as a question worthy to be pursued rather than necessarily as an expression of scepticism. Unfortunately, to my knowledge, there has been no systematic attempt to pursue the consequences of Hjelmslev's far-reaching inter-planar analogy assumption, which ignores even the differences of alphabet included in the characterisation of structural analogy assumption suggested above, as well as the kind of asymmetry between the two planes also assumed in my introductory remarks. But such a strong assumption, if pursued appropriately, promises to throw light on a wide range of phenomena, even in the process of its possible disconfirmation: where does the analogy break down? A partial exception to this failure to systematically pursue Hjelmslevian "isomorphism" is Togeby's (1951) work on the structure of French, which at least illustrates analogies merely alluded to in Hjelmslev's publications. Also, to be sure, particular analogies are quite common in other work of this period and earlier: note especially Jakobson's analyses of case (1936) and tense (1932) in terms of the concept of "markedness" familiar from phonology. But the theoretical status of such analogies remains uncertain. Kurylowicz (1948 a, b, 1949) deploys the inter-planar analogy assumption quite explicitly as a heuristic device, one that leads to a number of insightful analyses of linguistic structures, but again without according it a theoretical status or exploring the consequences thereof. Here too belongs the Pikes' early work (e. g. 1947), and Hockett's (1955), on the "immediate constituents" of the syllable. The clearest manifestation of analogy in Hjelmslev's own work lies in the status of the relations in terms of which the glossematic procedure is

6

1. Introduction and retrospection

carried out, and in the distinction between "system" (paradigmaticity) and "process" (syntagmaticity) that (amongst other things) they induce. Hjelmslev (e.g. 1953: § 11) distinguishes three kinds of "dependency" or "function": interdependences (where two terms are mutually presupposing), determinations (where one term presupposes another) and constellations (where two terms are merely compatible), the relation between process and system being one of determination. These structure both system and process in both planes; representations and rule-systems are complexes of these functions. I should at this point admit that the discussion in the chapters which follow leaves unclear the extent to which the structural properties of language can indeed be reduced to such complexes; but this is partly because the nature of the reduction which would be required is at best in many instances obscure. My aimed-for "reductions" are rather more modest in scope, but in themselves not without significance, if viable. Lamb (1966, etc.) develops a notation which expresses (certain combinations of) these relations, a notation which is trans-planar, in conformity with with the structural analogy assumption. But he also introduces a much greater degree of modularisation than is envisaged by Hjelmslev: up to six "strata", each of which introduces a distinct alphabet and thus represents a distinct plane (in the terms discussed above), and is involved in "commutation" relations with adjacent strata, again (in Hjelmslev's terms) introducing a distinction in plane. This, it seems to me, frustrated the development within stratificational theory of appropriate inter-planar analogies beyond the basic common structural principles embodied in the graphic notation. Significantly, Lamb has since (1980) explicitly retreated to the Hjelmslevian two-plane position. I am indeed aware of no motivations for rejecting the essentials of this assumption; linguistic description as such requires only two basic alphabets, both distributionally appropriate but both substantively based, one phonetically (phonetic features), the other notionally (determining word classes). On this view, "semantics" relates "notionally"-based (initial) syntactic structures to conceptual structure, which is not entirely determined by linguistic considerations, just as "phonetics" relates (the output of) phonological structure to perceptual targets with articulatory and acoustic correlates. We pursue the consequences of this bi-planar view in some detail below, particularly in chapters 2, 5 and 6. However, I shall also be suggesting (in chapter 2) a distinctive, "interplanar" status for morphology: it is a plane without its own alphabet; it relates syntactic and phonological representations via structures which

1. Introduction

and retrospection

7

are purely relational. Lamb's (1966) "-eme" terminology generalises a common analogy, which recognises the appropriateness of according to each plane a minimal contrastive segmental unit: "phoneme", "morpheme", "lexeme" .... Now, this is misleading to the extent that it suggests an exact parallelism between phonology and morphology, given the distinction just made. On the other hand, if the proposals of chapter 2 below are substantially correct, then Lamb's recognition here of different basic units for the morphology ("morpheme") and syntax ("lexeme") is justified over the commoner "structuralist" assumption that the morpheme is the minimal segment of the syntax. Syntactic and morphological generalisations are distinct; and, whereas morpheme types (root, affix) are defined in purely relational terms, word classes introduce a substantive alphabet, notionally based. And I shall go on to try to demonstrate that more fruitful analogies with the phonology emerge from a word-based syntax than from a morpheme-based (chapters 3 — 5), as well as its rendering the distinctive structure of morphology more transparent (chapter 2). In this respect, then, I am not in accord with the most radical "analogists" of recent times, Pike and Halliday: for them the morpheme/word distinction belongs to the "grammatical hierarchy" (e.g. Pike 1967) or "rank scale" (Halliday 1961) to which they also refer distinctions in syntactic constituency; whereas I have suggested it involves a distinction in plane (or rather between plane and inter-plane). As I have indicated, it seems to me that the common "structuralist" abolition of morphology detracts from the possibility of formulating the most appropriate analogies. On the other hand, the notion of a fixed hierarchy of units (as defended for the syntax in Halliday 1966), notwithstanding the possibility that units may be shifted down the hierarchy (Halliday) or either up or down (Pike), imposes a significant, analogous constraint on syntax and phonology. Part of what seems to me to be of interest here is the determination of the basis for (the restriction on the cardinality of the units of) the hierarchy and the explication of where the analogy breaks down (such as in the absence, or at least marginality, of (downward) "rank-shift" in the phonology). We return to these questions in chapters 2 and 5, where it is suggested that, within a dependency grammar, the hierarchy is limited in terms of the interaction of the restricted set of atomic (lexical) categories with the possible distinct dependency configurations that can be erected over strings of them (and cf. already, on the phonology, Anderson 1984 b/1986).

8

1. Introduction

and

retrospection

This is not the place, unfortunately, to explore the rich and detailed analogies developed within these two traditions: see again, for an explicit articulation of the analogy assumption, Pike 1967; and compare the syntactic descriptions provided at an early stage by Halliday (1961, 1967/ 1968) with the phonology of Halliday 1967, for example — involving, of course, particularly analogies of "scales" and "categories", many of them parallel to those of the Pikean paradigm. Such an exploration would involve a different, essentially historiographic treatise, with its own distinctive problems. In the case of the Hallidayan enterprise in particular, such an exploration would encounter uncertainties somewhat like those associated with an account, in this respect, of stratificational grammar: the degrees of diversification and analogy are left somewhat indeterminate in much later work (such as Halliday 1973: e. g. ch. 4, § 6). Still less shall I attempt to dissect out the more fragmentary analogies of other traditions, such as that associated with Chomsky (involving e. g. the extension of the cycle from the phonology to the syntax (though see, in a slightly different context, chapter 4 below), or of "move-α" from syntax to "logical form"). One offshoot of this tradition has thrown up an analogy which, it seems to me, is rather plainly not worthy of pursuit: this is the application of the apparatus of "markedness theory" elaborated in regard to phonology by Chomsky and Halle (1968: ch. 9) to other components, such as the syntax. I see no reason to disagree with Lass' (1975) evaluation of Chomsky and Halle's ingenious formulations as empty of content; their analogical extension is therefore analogously without interest. This is not to deny there may be analogous phenomena on different levels to be accounted for here (phenomena which can label as involving "markedness") but rather to deny that "markedness theory" actually has anything to contribute to our understanding of them. With respect to other recent developments in this tradition (following on from Chomsky 1981), my impression is that, as suggested above (once more) with respect to stratificational grammar, the particular (under-constrained) modularisations assumed in recent "modularist" work frustrate the formulation of many appropriate analogies. But, again, I do not pursue this in any detail. It is perhaps significant, however, that one of the few recent explicit articulations of an anti-analogist position should emerge from this particular tradition. Bromberger and Halle (1989: 69) assume that "a major result of the work of the last twenty years" is "that syntax and phonology are essentially different". How contradictory this is with respect to what I am suggesting here depends in part on how "essentially" is to be

1. Introduction

and retrospection

9

interpreted. Differences between syntax and phonology are "of the essence" in terms of the structural analogy assumption: they must follow from inherent differences in the alphabets invoked in the two planes or from the relationship between the them. But otherwise, in terms of this assumption, the two planes are "essentially" the same; the burden is on the "diversificationist", or anomalist. The research strategy advocated by Bromberger and Halle appears to be the reverse. Unfortunately, the demonstration of the appropriateness of their assumption is largely concerned only with one type of allegedly plane-specific property, the stipulation of order of application for phonological rules; and it depends on an undefended espousal of recent Chomskyan articulations of syntax whereby "syntax is concerned with the relations among representations that encode different types of information requiring different types of notation", whereas "phonology is concerned with the relationship between representations that encode the same type of information" (1989: 53). It will be clear already that I do not consider this an appropriate startingpoint. One aspect of the inappropriateness, the exclusion from syntax of the traditionally syntactic variations described as "stylistic", is one of various factors that make it difficult to evaluate the distinctiveness claimed for phonology. On the basis of the synchronic evidence offered by Bromberger and Halle (1989: § 2), which is concerned with some rather controversial variations in the realisation of certain diphthongs in Canadian English, it is not obvious that the proposed rules (even if appropriate) necessitate arbitrary stipulation of order of application, independent of other aspects of organisation which may be replicated in the syntax. The diachronic evidence offered (§ 3), on the other hand, is simply not maintainable as such in the face of the objection of Kiparsky's reported in Bromberger and Halle's footnote 13 (p. 65). Bromberger and Halle maintain that the sub-part of "Grimm's Law" formulated (following them) as in (1.1): (1.1)

[—cont, —voiced] —»· [+cont] except after obstruents e.g. p — f

remains part of Germanic phonology when "Verner's Law", formulated, again following Bromberger and Halle, as in (1.2): (1.2)

[-I-cont] —*• [ +voiced] after unstressed vowel

is introduced. (1.2) must be applied after (1.1). Recall that Bromberger and Halle are concerned to show that such ordering stipulations are

10

I. Introduction and retrospection

characteristic of phonology (but not syntax). However, it is not clear that such an account is preferable to one in which the results of "Grimm's Law" are lexicalised at this point, with the provision that after obstruents voiceless obstruents are neutralised as stops, so that the exceptions to "Grimm's Law" fall together with the products of the other sub-part of the "Law" given, once more after Halle and Bromberger, as (1.3): (1.3)

[—cont, —asp] —• [—voiced] e.g. b—>p

(which, Bromberger and Halle [1989: 62 — 63] concede, need not be ordered after [1.1]). The present work attempts to show the fruitfulness of the bi-planar position, whereby linguistic representations are grouped into two planes, the conceptually interpretable syntax and the phonetically interpretable phonology, and an inter-plane of morphology without substantive interpretation. The lexicon is strictly the repository of irregularities from any plane and of the idiosyncratic relationships between planes (crucially most "sign relations", or lexical items, which we can regard as "bundles" of such relationships) and of redundancies relating such irregularities. In the light of this, it is perhaps apposite after all to give some consideration here to one aspect of Pikes's explicitly analogical proposals which contradicts the view just sketched out, namely the claimed trimodality of linguistic structure. Pike (1967) recognises three "hierarchies": grammatical, phonological and lexical. It seems to me, however, that from the start it has been clear that the notion of a "lexical hierarchy", analogous to the grammatical and phonological, is very problematical, as one would predict on the basis of Hjelmslev's bi-planar assumption. This lack of analogy was emphasised by some consequences of the work of Crawford (1963), as is to some extend conceded by Pike (1976): the so-called "lexical hierarchy" was parasitic upon, not merely interpretative of the grammatical one. And this inter-dependence, at least, is maintained within more recent proposals for a "lexemic hierarchy" (e.g. Wise 1971) rather than (?) a "lexical" one. Thus Becker (1967), for instance, attributes to the tagmeme both "grammatical" and "lexemic" properties: a single element is, for example, said to be simultaneously "subject" ("grammatical") and "actor" ("lexemic"). This suggests that "lexemic" and "grammatical" structure are more intimately related to each other than either is to phonological structure. If one accepts that grammatical functions (like "subject") are derivative of (are neutralisations or diversifications of) semantic (as ar-

1. Introduction

and retrospection

11

gued by e.g. Anderson 1971, 1977, etc.; and see further chapters 3—4 below), then "lexemic" and "grammatical" structure belong to the same plane: they interpret the same alphabet. Even if one does not, the relationship between "lexemic" structure and "grammatical" is clearly of a more intimate character than the relationship of either to phonology. The Hjelmslevian (or Saussurean) bifurcation seems to be inescapable. More recently, after experiments with an integration of the hierarchies in a composite nine-cell unit (Pike 1974), distinct four-cell grammatical and phonological tagmemes have been reinstated, along with a "referential" tagmeme (Pike and Pike 1977). Trimodality is maintained. But once again, as far as the interpretation of linguistic structure is concerned, the referential hierarchy is clearly parasitic upon the grammatical (cf. e.g. Pike and Pike 1977: ch. 12, 1983: § 1.3.1.2). And, on the other hand, from the point of view of the referential hierarchy, different texts (and, by implication, different languages) can be regarded as providing alternative semiotic media for an extra-linguistic structure: "Grammar is the structure of the text as it is told (or written); reference is the structure of the events in history which the stream of speech (or writing) is referring to" (Pike and Pike 1983: 72). This formulation is quite in line with the Pikean conviction of the structural unity of language and culture; but it does, it seems to me, obscure the characterisation of what is properly linguistic, in particular the degree of stratification intrinsic to linguistic structure. I maintain here then the "extended Hjelmslevian" position: two planes plus a morphological inter-plane; and this provides the basis for our exploration of structural analogies and their constraining role in linguistic theorising. As indicated, the lexicon is the repository for those nonsystematic conjunctions of properties from different planes that we refer to as "lexical items". What follows is thus in part a plea for explicit recognition and exploitation of the role of structural analogy in the study of language and for the directing of more attention to the determination of the trading relationship between (the consequences of) modularisation (or stratification) and analogy. Chapter 2 re-affirms and attempts to illustrate in some detail the appropriateness of the dependency (head-modifier) relation, originally introduced with respect to syntactic representations, to the explication of phonological structure, both segmental and suprasegmental. (For fuller accounts see again particularly Anderson 1984 b/1986; Anderson and Durand 1986; Anderson and Ewen 1987; as well as the earlier accounts in Anderson and Jones 1974, 1977; Anderson and Ewen 1980 a). Com-

12

1. Introduction

and

retrospection

parison of the internal structure of the basic units of phonology (the segment) and syntax (the word) and of the structure of sequences is accompanied by an examination of morphological structure proper, which is argued to be "purely relational" (category-free). (Cf. the preliminary accounts in Anderson 1980c, 1984a, 1985a.) Chapter 3 relates a concept most fully developed with respect to phonology, contrast, to the long-standing problem of delimiting the set of semantic functions or roles (case relations), and argues that contrastivity requires a set whose character is in accord with the predictions of a restrictive substantive theory of semantic functions, the localist theory of case formulated in Anderson 1971 b, 1977: ch. 2. Deployment of the concept of contrast leads, moreover, to the conclusion that many aspects of syntactic structure (including the distribution of grammatical relations and the "basic word order") are non-contrastive. Further, they are derivative crucially of notionally based elements, the semantic roles contracted by arguments, which as relations are basic to the syntax. These themes are pursued in some more detail in chapter 4 on the basis of further analogies with the phonology, particularly the strict cyclicity condition and the making of a distinction between cyclic and post-cyclic application (possibly of the same rule). And an attempt is also made therein to delimit in terms of cyclicity the scope of lexicality (access to the lexicon): it is concluded that just as there is post-lexical phonology, so there is pre-lexical syntax. Such a conclusion is crucial to an explication of the similarities and differences between selection of, respectively, "trigger" and "victim" in "control" phenomena. A major consequence of the discussion of chapters 3 and 4, the basicness to the syntax of the semantic functions, is taken up and generalised in chapter 5, where it is argued that syntactic representations as a whole are constructed on the basis of an alphabet, analogous to the phonetic one in phonology, which is in this instance notionally defined. I thus take up the task of developing a "notional grammar", such as has been advocated in recent times by Lyons (e. g. 1966), in particular, though in rather different terms from those he envisages. This discussion embodies a conviction that the establishment of the proper trading relationship between diversification and analogy depends on a bi-planar assumption whereby the representations on each plane are based on a substantive alphabet, respectively phonetic and notional. The analogy with phonology leads to an attempt to find motivations within the syntax for notionally based grammar.

1. Introduction

and retrospection

13

Chapter 6 attempts to draw together some of the proposed analogies between phonology and syntax in focussing on the respective roles therein of the segment and the word. And, finally, chapter 7 discusses, with detailed exemplification from the history of English, the consequences for theories of change of the proposals made here concerning phonological and (particularly) syntactic categorisation: specifically, it is suggested that a minimalist view of category innovation follows from universal principles of categorisation in language, especially the notion of category continuity, which disallows categories which are systematically isolated in terms of their characterisation. Here and elsewhere in what follows, such as in the discussions of lexicality and control in chapter 4 anticipated above, aspects of some phenomena not directly relevant to the structural analogy assumption are investigated in some detail. Nevertheless, given the main thrust of the argument, these are not intended to be full independent accounts of the relevant areas. Rather, my intention is to try to show that the assumption, rather than being programmatic only, is compatible with a richly detailed view of linguistic structure. Likewise, I hope to demonstrate some of the range of application of the notion of the structural analogy assumption both in some depth, by pursuing certain analogies in some detail (dependency, cyclicity, for example), and in breadth, by drawing attention to a number of particular analogies not investigated in any detail here.

Chapter 2 Dependency in phonology and morphology

2.1. Dependency in syntax Descriptions of syntax tend to agree on the range of structural properties that should be ascribed to syntactic structures: they include crucially linearity, constituency, categorial labelling and, perhaps, head-hood. Hesitation concerning the last of these is prompted by the observation that the extent and nature of the role accorded to the head-modifier relation vary considerably among different traditions, despite there being some pre-theoretical agreement about the character of head-hood — that the head of a construction is in some sense "characteristic", "nuclear", "more salient" .... Thus, this relation may, indeed, be uncharacterised by particular notations (such as the phrase structure representation adopted by Chomsky 1965: ch. 2); or it may be claimed to be limited, however it is characterised, to particular construction-types (e.g. "endocentric" — Hockett 1958: chs. 21—22). The latter kind of limitation depends, obviously, on one's particular notion of the term "head"; say, that the head of a construction must be, in most, or in prototypical cases at least, substitutable for the construction as a whole, which may coincide with a requirement that the head be the sole obligatory member of the construction. Another variable in conceptions of head-hood concerns whether or not heads may be phrasal: for instance, X'-notation (e.g. Jackendoff 1977) permits phrasal heads — though each is indeed a projection of a non-phrasal category. I adopt here the most restrictive view of head, in terms of the above variables: a head, as well as being obligatory to a construction type, is also syntactically atomic, it is a lexical category; and every construction is headed. Thus, each construction contains an atomic head to which other elements in the construction are subordinate; elements which are immediately subordinate to a particular head (i. e. which are not subordinate to another subordinate of that head) depend on the head; the head governs its immediate subordinates (modifiers). This conception dispenses with the endo/exo distinction as far as the characterisation of dependency (the head-modifier relation) is concerned. This seems to me just. The dependency relation is generalised to all constructions. This is appropriate to the extent that other generalisations

16

2. Dependency in phonology and morphology

pre-suppose this. Say, for instance, that the formulation of word order patterns (both universally and in particular languages) invokes the notion "head" (as argued e. g. in Anderson 1976), where "head" include not just the obligatory element in endocentric constructions (e. g. the adjective in adjective phrases) but also an element in exocentric constructions (e. g. the preposition in prepositional phrases) which displays the properties of head-hood mentioned above: it is obligatory (though not necessarily uniquely) and atomic. Then we have independent support for imposing on syntactic constructions the restriction embodied in the generalised notion of head, a restriction that is of rather more significance than anything associated with a notion of "head" based on endocentricity alone, whereby head-hood is rather crudely derivative. Of course, the notion of head delineated above is of even greater significance if only one element in each construction satisfies the requirements (of obligatoriness and atomicity); and I make this assumption here (for some discussion see Anderson 1979 a, b). Notice too that the endo/exo distinction is operationally rather problematical as the basis for a criterion of head-hood. Optionality vs. obligatoriness of complementation seems to be a property of individual items (or sub-classes of items) rather than of major syntactic categories themselves. Thus whereas some verbs arguably do not take (non-subject) complements (e. g. tremble), others take an obligatory one (e. g. like) and others still show "optionality" (e.g. eat, change). What, then, do we conclude about the headedness of constructions containing verbs? Headedness and optionality of complementation belong to different domains (crudely, syntax vs. lexicon — or, at least, category vs. subcategory). Equally, and for similar reasons, it is unclear how the dependency relation can be reduced to a syntagmatic interpretation of Hjelmslev's "functions" (cf. chapter 1 above): elements related by dependency may involve either an "interdependence" (they are mutually pre-supposing) or a "determination" (the dependent pre-supposes the head). (Optional dependents of the same head would then constitute a "constellation".) At most we can say that a head will never determine a dependent. It is uncertain what a paradigmatic interpretation of dependency in these terms would consist in, as is the case with respect to the nature of the distinctive characterisations of dependency and precedence. It is a mistake, I am suggesting more generally, to try to reduce the notion head to other, independent properties: Zwicky (1985 b) provides the requisite reductio here, though this is perhaps not entirely his intention. Dependency is an independent relation which imposes certain restrictions

2.1. Dependency

in syntax

17

on syntactic structures. This is not to deny that we have certain "substantive" expectations of head-hood, but this varies as to the level of representation involved (as I shall be trying to illustrate in what follows). More generally, heads are "characteristic" of their constructions; and this is embodied in the convention we shall be formulating in a moment. In syntax, government is manifested (however else) in relative predicability and strict-subcategorisability: heads are subcategorised with respect to their modifiers. But this anticipates much of our discussion of the dependencies appropriate to particular construction types (see further especially chapter 5); let us not insist upon it at this point. In grammars which adopt such a conception of head as I have been describing, dependency grammars, a further property is usually ascribed to heads: they must be unique, as heads, to a particular construction type. This ensures that phrasal labels may be dispensed with; a construction is identified by its head. And this in turn requires the imposition of a significant constraint on syntactic rules. In default of distinct phrasal labels, a label like "noun" refers both to a particular set of atomic elements, words, and to constructions headed by such words. In the absence of some interpretative convention, "noun" is ambiguous. A particular claim as to interpretation is embodied in the head convention (Anderson 1985 a: § 1, 1986 a - and see too Robinson 1970 a): The head convention: Any regularity mentioning category X is to be interpreted as applying to the construction headed by X unless a subordinate of X is mentioned in the same regularity, in which case the element manifesting X is referred to

This imposes a restriction on the applicability of syntactic rules which is analogous to the role of the "A-over-A convention" and its descendants. What is significant in the present context is that the existence of some such convention is required by the assumption that there are no distinct phrasal categories. I return below, however, to the status of the uniqueness requirement, as a consequence of some considerations which arise from the dependency characterisation of certain construction-types. But let us at this point provide some illustration of dependency structures in syntax. Consider, for example, the sentence of English bracketed into constituents in (2.1): (2.1)

[[[Very old] ladies] will [travel [to [his concerts]]]]

Each construction in (2.1) contains a unique immediate constituent which is both obligatory and lexical (non-phrasal); and in the absence of this

18

2. Dependency in phonology and morphology

constituent there is no such construction. The phrase very old contains an element old which meets these requirements: it is the head of that phrase. Ladies is the head of the phrase very old ladies·, the other element is phrasal, and moreover is inessential to a phrase with the distributional potential of this one. A word of the class of ladies and concerts is obligatory to their respective constructions. (Here I take a rather conservative view of noun phrase structure, such that very old and his "modify" the following noun; for a rather different interpretation, however, see chapter 5.) To his concerts has the obligatory first element as its head, given that the other immediate constituent is phrasal. And come to his concerts is similarly left-headed, the second immediate constituent being once more phrasal. Finally, with respect to the whole string of elements, the only candidate for head-hood is will·, the other immediate constituents of the sentence {very old ladies and come to his concerts) are phrasal. But if will belongs to a category unique to this constructions, its obligatory status is obviously in doubt, given the like of (2.2): (2.2)

Very old ladies travel to his concerts

However, I leave this question aside for the moment; the immediately following discussion ignores the problem. In order to express the assumption that individual items are the heads of constructions by virtue of belonging to particular categories we need to enrich the notation of (1) as in, say, (2.3): (2.3)

[[[very [A old]] U ladies]] [x will] [[j/ travel] [[/> to] [his concerts]]]]]

where X = "Auxiliary", Ν = Noun, A = Adjective, V = Verb, Ρ = Preposition; and they label the heads of constructions only, each head being associated, as head, with the smallest construction it is a constituent of — i.e. with the construction it is an immediate constituent of. Very and his belong to the derivative categories adjective- and noun-modifier respectively. Alternatively, and perhaps more transparently, we can deploy the graphic notation of (2.4): where each word is associated with a category, and the array of categories determines the head-modifier relations represented in the associated unlabelled tree. (2.4) expresses three relations as primary: the non-symmetric binary relation of immediate (strict) precedence, manifested in (4) as left-to-right adjacency, so that V immediately precedes ( « ) P; the non-symmetric binary relation of dependency indicated by the arcs (directed lines) in (4), wherein V governs/has as a dependent (—•) P; the symmetric binary

2.1. Dependency

in syntax

19

ο

(2.4) ο

Ό

ο

.ο ο

ο

Α\

Α

. Ν

Χ

V

very

old

ladies

will travel

Ρ

Ν\

Ν

to

his concerts

relation of immediate association which holds in (4) between e. g. to and P. To is also associated (non-immediately) with a node in the tree, just as Ρ is subordinate to X (as well as V) and follows (non-immediately) X. And we can define on the basis of these: contituency, where a constituent or construction is a word and all its subordinates (so that travel and to his concerts form a constituent; and phrasal category, projected to phrasal constituents from heads — neither of which need be invoked, given the head convention. Such dependency structures (and the grammar which assigns them — cf. e.g. Hays 1964; Robinson 1970a; Anderson 1976: ch. 1, 1977: ch. 2) make a more restrictive claim about the nature of syntactic representations than a constituency-based grammar (wherein all constituents are of an equal status), and they do so without recourse to the interpretative apparatus introduced into such a grammar by X' theory, for instance. The collection of nodes and lines in (2.4) represents a proper tree: there is a unique non-dependent node and all other nodes have only one governor; and projectivity is preserved — lines (dependency and association) meet only at nodes. To the extent that these restrictions are met by (some) languages and/or some levels of representation they are analogous to conditions that are similarly appropriate in the case of constituency-based grammars. Certainly, they seem to be unmarked, and, as such, appropriate (with qualifications we shall encounter below) to the syntactic structure of English (at some level(s)). I shall assume their appropriateness in the comparisons with phonological and morphological structure which follow. The constructions in (2.4) are also all unary (if terminal) or binary: a word has at most one dependent. The appropriateness of this restriction at different levels remains controversial, and we return to the question below. Notice here, however, as a side issue, that the potential to allow

20

2. Dependency in phonology and morphology

for non-binary constructions does not distinguish dependency grammars from the "categorial" grammar proposed by Bartsch and Vennemann (1972), as implied by Borsley (1979): the notion of an operand with multiple operators is quite a viable one, and must, if and where desirable, be explicitly ruled out, as with multiple dependents. Indeed, the imposition of binarity on "categorial" grammars is in part responsible for the introduction of the very problems associated with the multiplication of categories which Borsley also alludes to (1979: 12 — 13), such that e.g. the category "verb" disappears from the grammar, given, for instance, the different combinatorial possibilities of "intransitive", "transitive" and "distransitive" verbs.

2.2. Subjunction and the head of the sentence Further consideration of the nature of the head of the sentence introduces another structural property which we shall find to be replicated in phonological representations. Further discussion is rather obviously required, indeed, in the light of sentences like (2.2) above, which appear to lack a head, at least in the terms we have considered so far. This observation, together with other (but, I think, minor) considerations, has prompted the proposal of non-syntactic elements as sentential heads, such as Robinson's (1970 a) "Type" (to which is attributed a variety of manifestations including "the shape of the tense-carrying morphemes, the word order, and the intonation contour", p. 265) or specifically the tense or agreement marker (cf. e.g. Vater 1975). I adopt here, however, as anticipated in chapter 1, the strong and natural position that the head of any syntactic construction must be a word, the word being the minimal unit of the syntax. This is motivated by the distinct character of the principles governing supra-word structure vs. morphological structure: see further section 2.3 below. Thus an element such as tense of "Infi" (e. g. Chomsky 1981: §2.1), which is not a syntactic unit but a property of syntactic units, of words, is not eligible for head-hood in the syntax, or indeed for any status therein independent of the word with which it is associated. Notice too that it is not clear that the tense or agreement element is an obligatory part of every sentence: it is arguable that even in non-past finite clauses in English there is no formal tense element and that in them the past tense element is simply absent; and that "generic" clauses like Cats love cream involve no temporal deixis at all (Anderson 1973 c).

2.2. Subjunction and the head of the sentence

21

But, then, what word in a sentence like (2.2) is available and appropriate for sentential head-hood? Both the subject noun and the verb define other constructions. Nor are there syntactic motivations for proposing a distinctive status in this respect for subject as opposed to other nouns: "categorial" systems which can be interpreted as according such a status to subject nouns (such as that outlined by Lyons 1968: §6.3) again introduce the multiplication-of-categories problem alluded to above; "noun" disappears as a category from the grammar in favour of "(subject) noun","object noun" etc., which constitute separate categories. (In a sense such a system — as well as that of e. g. Bartsch and Vennemann 1972 — is "functional" rather than "categorial": see further section 5.7 below.) This inappropriateness of the subject noun as some sort of sentential head is increased in a grammar (such as that argued for below) in which subjecthood is derivative. On the other hand, Robinson (1967), for instance, suggests that the verb is the head of the sentence; but this is on the basis of representations which lack a VP constituent. To the extent that VP is syntactically well motivated in some languages, at least, it preempts the sentence as the construction whose head the verb is, given that dual head-hood for the verb would violate the principle of uniqueness. Robinson also suggests that the "auxiliary" in sentences like (2.1) modifies the "main" verb (cf. too Matthews 1981: 62 — 64, 88). Now this seems just (if we ignore the head of VP problem), on the grounds that the "auxiliary" is optional but not the "main" verb (if we discount ellipsis). But such a description is warranted only if "auxiliaries" and "main" verbs are categorially distinct. The weight of evidence is against such an proposition, however: see e. g. Anderson (1976: ch. 2), for a discussion based on the assumptions of dependency grammar; and cf. more recently Warner (1985), within the framework of Generalised Phrase Structure Grammar, for a review of some of the arguments. Notice, for instance, that the assignment of "auxiliaries" to a distinct dependent category vis-ä-vis "main" verbs introduces a violation of the rectional principle, whereby determination of morphological categories by rection (as opposed to concord) goes from governor to dependent. Thus, for example, prepositions assign morphological case to their dependent nouns; verbs assign (e. g. the subjunctive) mood to subordinate verbs (cf. again Anderson 1976: particularly ch. 2; also Anderson 1979 a, 1986 c). "Auxiliaries" determine the morphological category (infinitive, past participle, etc.) of the verb that follows in construction with them; this is problematical if they also depend on this verb. Let us take it, then, that "auxiliaries" belong to the category verb

22

2. Dependency in phonology and morphology

(and see further chapter 5 below). This means that we can maintain the notion that the head of the sentence is the verb, even in the case of will in (2.1). But it returns us to the problem of assigning a distinct head to VPs: in (2.1) the successive verbs are apparently heads of distinct constructions, sentence and VP, respectively; and in (2) we have a single candidate for the head of both constructions. I suggest that this is indeed the case: verb is the head of both the VP and the sentence, and a single token of the category can be simultaneously the head of both (as in [2.2]). This is possible if we reinterpret the uniqueness requirement as referring not to heads but to constructions as a whole. This is appropriate anyway. The purpose of requiring that each construction type have a head which is unique to it is to ensure distinctiveness of the construction type. But construction types may be kept distinct in other ways; in particular in terms of the internal precedence relations. Notice in the present instance that VP and sentence in English differ in their direction of modification: the VP has right dependents, the sentence head takes its dependent subject to the left. (I am assuming that circumstantials like the final PP in Melissa went to Rome on Tuesday are "extra-sentential", or, more exactly, extra-clausal; on their analysis see further chapters 3 and 4.) VP and sentence have the same category as head but differ in terms of which side of that head dependents appear on. Thus, we should substitute V for X in (2.3) and in the tree of (2.4). And an appropriate representation for (2.2) is then (2.5), in which V is associated with two nodes in the tree, one associated with the head of VP, the other of the sentence. The two nodes are equivalent in precedence but one is dependent on the other: it can be said to be subjoined to the other, whereas each of the other nodes in (2.5) is adjoined to its governor. ο

(2.5) ο

ο Ό

,ο

ο

ο

ο

Α\

Α

very

old

Ν

V

ladies travel

Ρ

Ν\

Ν

to

his concerts

2.2. Subjunction and the head of the sentence

23

If, as suggested in chapter 3 below, VP is also a derivative constituent, and categories may not be introduced derivatively, the distinction between VP and sentence cannot involve a categorial difference but rather must invoke some other distinctive property. Thus, evidence for a non-basic status for VP is also evidence for the interpretation of the relationship between sentence and VP embodied in (2.5). This relationship brings with it some rather interesting predictions: the distinction can develop only on the basis of some consistent distinction other than categoriality of the head. Thus evidence for VP as a constituent is firmest and most widespread in languages and constructions in which subject and object (etc.) appear on opposite sides of the verb, as in English. The syntax of Presentday English might be interpreted as going to some lengths to preserve this distinctive property. Inversion, for instance, is largely limited to that subcategory of verb traditionally labelled "auxiliary", thus allowing the "main" verb to precede its object or other argument. The main exception involves verbs which typically and in case of inversion do lack a following distinct non-subject argument, as in (2.6): (2.6)

There goes my last cigar

(cf. Anderson and Ewen in 1987: §2.1.5; and, on the historical development of the VP node in English, DeArmond 1984). Such a treatment of VP and sentence also requires that the head convention be generalised such that under subjunction reference to V is to be interpreted as involving the largest construction compatible with the other elements mentioned in the rule. So that a regularity involving "V" refers to sentence only if no constituents of the sentence are mentioned therein; whereas if only the subject is also mentioned "V", is interpreted as VP; but this too is excluded if, say, an object is invoked, in which case "V" refers to the word that is head alone. We might modify the convention, roughly, as follows: The head convention: Any regularity mentioning category X is to be interpreted as applying to the maximal construction headed by X which does not include other elements mentioned in the formulation of the regularity

Such an extension is motivated with respect to other constructions also. The question of head-hood in the sentence, is, indeed, as posed here, one instance of a major problem of expressibility that Matthews (1981: 84—88) raises in relation to dependency grammars (vs. constituency): "cases where dependents ... stand in two separate constructions" (1981:

24

2. Dependency in phonology and morphology

87). But these are unproblematical (in this respect) if uniqueness is interpreted as I have suggested. Other problems noted by Matthews (such as the characterisation of circumstantials and the expression of grammatical functions) are addressed at various points in the chapters which follow (and see too Anderson 1976). The resolution suggested below of the question posed by the discontinuity of certain constructions involves a proposal that also tries to confront the problem with "standard" transformational treatments of discontinuity raised by Matthews (1981: 92—93), a proposal delineated in Anderson 1977: ch. 1: linearity is introduced derivately. But this is to anticipate too much of a journey we have still to travel. Let us rather at this point merely formulate some of our preliminary conclusions concerning the character of syntactic structure. I am suggesting that syntactic representations are constructed out of pairs of unlabelled nodes and categories, where the categories are each associated with a particular word, and the nodes are connected in such a way as to constitute a directed graph (where the direction is imposed by the dependency relation) with a single root and in which every arc originates in a unique node — the single mother condition (cf. Anderson 1979 b). Other properties are restricted as to the level of representation at which they are appropriate. For instance, as just indicated, I shall argue below (in chapter 3) that linearity is introduced derivatively; it is not a property of initial or basic structures. Thus projectivity also comes into question only derivatively. And particular restrictions characteristic of basic structures may correspondingly be relaxed upon the introduction of linearity, as I shall suggest in what follows is true of the single mother condition. A body of recent work in phonology has been concerned to show that these properties (and crucially the dependency relation), as well as some more particular ones, are replicated in the phonology, in conformity with the structural analogy assumption; and I shall attempt a review of some of this work (in dependency phonology) in sections 2.4 — 2.5 below. However, firstly it behoves us to give some further consideration to the status of morphology and the character of morphological structure, particularly in the context of my departure (as stated in section 2.1 and anticipated in chapter 1) from some common assumptions in this area, such as are incorporated in work in the traditions of Pike and Halliday.

2.3.

Morphological

structure

25

2.3. Morphological structure The Pikean and Hallidayan absorption of the morpheme-word relation into the grammatical hierarchy, or scale of rank, to which the word/ phrase/etc. relations are assigned is consistent with an attitude to morphological structure prevalent until rather recently in post-Saussurean linguistics. As I have illustrated elsewhere (Anderson 1980 c: §1), this attitude emerges rather clearly from a consideration of the responses to the third question which participants in the 6th International Congress of Linguists were asked to comment on. The question was: "Peut-on poser une definition universellement valable des domaines respectifs de la morphologie et de la syntaxe?" (Lejeune 1949: 261). Some respondents simply denied any validity to the traditional distinction between sentence structure and word structure (thus Hoenigswald's blunt "No" (1949: 281), sometimes suggesting alternative (but perhaps analogically appropriate) areas of application for the terms (e.g. Diderichsen 1949: 279). With the abandonment of the "traditional" distinction, phenomena which would traditionally have been considered at least in part as belonging to word structure are reassigned to syntax (the "word", if it figures at all, displays another layer of syntactic constituency — see e. g. Harris 1946) or of the (morpho-)phonology (the "word" is a domain for [morpho-]phonemic processes). Matthews (1972) provides extensive discussion of this tradition, among whose heirs are Pike and Halliday — as well as Chomsky. In a few responses the traditional distinction was held to be valid but limited in its applicability to different languages (e.g. Wils 1949: 302). But in this case a universal definition is not precluded: even if, say, the distinctiveness of morphology cannot be maintained for some languages, these languages can be held to simply fail to meet the universal conditions for having a morphology. A language can be said to have a morphology if the principles governing sentence structure are significantly different from and minimally interactive with those governing word structure; the latter does not differ, for example, purely by virtue of placement low on the putative grammatical hierarchy. This condition pre-supposes "sentence" and "word", but is not thereby rendered circular: the crucial aspect of the condition is the establishment of a "breaking-point" in the set of structural principles which coincides with those units which constitute the heads of syntactic constructions, i.e. words. Likewise, my above dismissal of the tense element in English as a putative head in syntax on the grounds of its morphological status does not introduce a circularity:

26

2. Dependency in phonology and morphology

as well as its obligatory status in the sentence being doubtful, it enters into the structure of a unit which is itself the head of syntactic constructions, and its placement therein does not follow from any syntactic principles. In general, the placement of morphological units (prefixes, suffixes, ...) is not determined by syntactic generalisations (though there may be typological correlations between e. g. particular word order types and particular types of morphological structure). Conversely, phrases in the syntax are projections of words and their categories, irrespective of whether or not they are morphologically simplex (pig) or complex but unaffixed {breathe) or bear an affix which signals a change of major class (piggish) or not (piglet). Nor do other syntactic generalisations invoke morphological structure as such. We need to distinguish here between the categories given morphological expression and the morphological means of expression, what I am calling morphological structure proper: the former are determined by the syntax and lexicon, the latter are introduced by the rules of the morphology, though many instances of morphological structure may (also) be lexicalised. Thus surface case categories are determined by the syntax, as well as, in languages like Old English, by the lexicon — Anderson 1985 b. In Old English, a particular case category may be manifested morphologically (in cumulation with other categories) by different affixes or by root modification, as with the (singular) datives in (2.7): (2.7)

hunde (nominative hund) fet (nom/oi) suna (nom sunu)

Again, none of this morphological variation is relevant to the syntactic categorisation of the word. We are making a distinction, then, between what I shall call word structure, which specifies the set of lexico-syntactic categories appropriate to a particular word form, and morphological structure, which expresses how these combinations of categories are manifested. I am proposing the adoption of a version of the "word-and-paradigm" view of morphology advocated in recent years (to varying extents) by Robins (1959), Matthews (1970,1972,1974) and S. R. Anderson (1977 a), in particular, and adopted in e.g. Anderson 1984a, 1985a. On such a view, the rules of the morphology take the information provided by the syntax and lexicon concerning word class and morphological properties (number, tense, person, etc.) and subject the root to the particular morphological "processes"

2.3. Morphological

structure

27

(affixation, root modification) determined by these and the lexical morphological class (declension, etc.) of the root. Such a characterisation is appropriate both to inflectional and to derivational morphology, though in the case of the latter, typically a much larger array of morphological classes is necessary (given e.g. the range of processes associated with English abstract nouns (addition of ness, ity, etc.), and much of the morphological structure is lexicalised. (2.8)

Word structure:

Lexical item: Morphological structure:

class a masculine

class b masculine

dative singular

dative singular

Ν

Ν

hund 1 {{hund}e}

fo:t 1 {{fe:t}}

We can illustrate the character of word and morphological structure as in (2.8) (taking as examples the first two forms in [2.7]. The upper two morphological categories in (2.8) are lexical, the lower ones not; the morphological component adds the structure in the lower line, wherein { } enclose a root, }} a suffix (and {{ a prefix), and {{ }} indicates a modified root (on this notation cf. e.g. Colman 1985, 1987, 1991: ch. 2). Two morphological rules are involved: one adds a particular suffix, the other mutates the vowel. The most specific morphological rules are equivalent to part of a lexical entry; they apply to only one item. Some lexical items have a defective distribution; they are associable with only some combinations of the morphological categories available to their word class: in this respect, as is familiar, go in Present-day English is suppletive with went in sharing the full set of categories associable with verbs. This restrictive view of morphological structure permits the resolution of some of the kinds of discrepancy that have recently arisen in proposals concerning the assignment of "heads" to morphological constructions. Anderson (1980 c), for instance, suggests that since the root is the only obligatory part of a word, it is, in accordance with the characterisation of heads appropriate elsewhere, and as required by the structural analogy assumption, the head of the morphological construction associated with

28

2. Dependency in phonology and morphology

ο

(2.9)

ο

\

ο

ο

hund

e

fe:t

the word. That is, the bracketings in (2.8) are equivalent to dependency trees of the form of the respective representations in (2.9), the first involving adjunction, the latter subjunction. However, Williams (1981) and others have argued that the head of a word is that element which determines the major category of the word, just as the head of a syntactic construction is the element which determines the category of the construction as a whole (as embodied in X' representations of syntactic structure — see, however, on this Zwicky 1985 b). It is clear that adoption of both these criteria will lead to widespread conflict in the assignment of morphological heads: goodness, to take a simple example, will be assigned either the root or the category-determining affix as its head. Also, deployment of the second criterion (that of category determination) means that the head of a word will sometimes be an affix, sometimes a base (cf. e.g. Hoekstra et al. 1980): many affixes (such as the prefix un- in English) do not determine the class of the word to which they attach. But, I would suggest, the application of the category-determination criterion is simply inappropriate with respect to morphological structure proper, which is unlabelled. The morphological structure of goodness will simply take the form of level (b) in (2.10), wherein the structure in (b), notably the (adjunctive) dependency relation between root and affix, is (2.10) a.

abstract class χ Ν A

b. ο c.

good

ness

2.3. Morphological

structure

29

assigned by the rules of the morphological component; the morphological structure of (b) introduces no new categorial information: the dependency stemma is unlabelled, and status as root or affix is expressed by the dependency relation itself. Since morphemes, unlike words, are not assigned to syntactic categories (and it is inappropriate that they should be, in that they are not syntactic elements), the question of which morpheme in (b), for example, determines (as opposed to "signals") the major category of the word does not arise. Morphological structure is analogous to syntactic, in deploying the dependency relation (and association and precedence); but it differs in introducing no distinctive alphabet — hence its "inter-planar" status. The (skeletal) word structure in (2.10 a), as derivational, incorporates two category labels; moreover, they instantiate a labelled dependency, specifically a subjunction: Ν governs Α. Ν designates the syntactic class of the word as a whole; A merely the class of the base when it functions as an independent word. Ν "preponderates over" A. I shall argue in the section which follows that the interpretation of labelled dependencies as expressing category preponderance is also appropriate to the phonology. In chapter 4, however, it will also be suggested (following e. g. Anderson 1984 a) that (at least some of) these word structure dependencies are syntactically derivative, and specifically that the dependencies of word structure derive from the pre-lexical syntactic representations. I leave further discussion of word structure until then, except to note that Anderson (1984 a: ch. 5) argues further that word structure also shows labelled adjunctions, specifically in the case of compounds, so that in e. g. drug deaths the first element depends on the second; in section 2.5 it is suggested that this too finds an analogy in the phonology. The inappropriate assignment of morphological head-hood to suffixes which was discussed above arises from a failure to "de-syntacticise" the characterisation of morphology. The de-syntacticisation of morphology in transformational grammar has followed a long and crooked path or rather paths, one of them leading to the "over-kill" of "lexical grammars". Even more striking in this regard than the gradual emergence öf "lexical derivational morphology" (as witnessed in Chomsky 1970; Halle 1973; Jackendoff 1976; Aronoff 1976; etc.) is the tortuous history therein of inflexional morphology. In grammars of the fifties and early sixties the internal structure of words is described almost universally by syntactic rules (i. e. by rules formally indistinguishable from and interspersed with the rules of sentence structure). Klima (1964), for instance, introduces both nominal and verbal inflexions by phrase structure rules (consider

30

2. Dependency in phonology and morphology

e.g. rules 13, 18 and 19 in his appendix), and the latter are subject to transformations ("tense attachment"). Chomsky (1965: ch. 4, § 2.2) goes some way towards recognising the distinctiveness of inflexional morphology. There it is proposed that the inflexional categories associated with nouns in e.g. German be represented as a feature matrix, either dominated immediately by N, with the shape of the word (including the inflexion) being determined by phonological rules, or (footnote 30) associated specifically with an inflexional "Ending", each noun appearing in the lexicon as "Stem + Ending". In neither case is the placement of the inflexion provided for by syntactic rules. However, in transformational descriptions of that period and later, the verb morphology of e. g. English continues to be specified by a combination of phrase structure and transformational rules. Partially exceptional in this regard is the description provided in Jacobs and Rosenbaum's introductory textbook of English syntax (1968), wherein inflexional categories (but also some others which are realised independently in the syntax — e. g. on the article) are represented as feature matrices immediately dominated by the appropriate lexical category. The morphemes realising these categories are introduced by a new class of operations called "segment transformations". Since these "segmentations" do not interact in any significant way with other transformational processes, it is but a short step to the recognition of a distinct (sub-)component of rules of morphology such as I have suggested above. And this is essentially the position of e. g. Kiefer (1970 a, b), who argues for a distinct morphological component on rather similar grounds to those introduced above. On the other hand, Chomsky (1981) still makes appeal to "Infi" (typically realised morphologically) as an independent syntactic element. The precise domain of morphology remains somewhat uncertain. Kiefer, for instance, would allow for the placement of the article in English by a morphological rule : contrast the treatment in chapter 5 below. We await, for example, a delimitation of the character of morphological rules as well as detailed demonstrations of particular instances of non-interaction between putative morphological and syntactic regularities. But an exploration of these areas should proceed on the basis of a properly restrictive theory of morphological structure; the framework I have sketched out here does not seem to me unpromising in this respect. It is, in particular, in conformity with the structural analogy assumption; indeed, morphological structure proper, which deploys only unlabelled dependencies, introduces no new structural properties over those appropriate to the syntax. Word structure, on the other hand, which is partly

2.4. Phonological

structure: suprasegmental

31

determined by the syntax, involves, on the interpretation offered above, an enrichment of the system of representation to allow for labelled dependencies. As indicated, we shall encounter an analogue of this in our treatment of phonological structure.

2.4. Phonological structure: suprasegmental Since the mid seventies (beginning with Anderson and Jones 1974, 1977) a range of work on different aspects of phonology has either been devoted to showing the plausibility of the assumption that the dependency relation is crucial to the characterisation of phonological structure (both sequential and segmental) or it has taken this assumption as its startingpoint. I shall therefore largely restrict myself to indicating some of the detailed analogies that in part follow from the assumption. Specifically it has been argued (by e.g. Anderson 1986a; Anderson and Durand 1986; Anderson and Ewen 1987: ch. 3; Ewen 1986) that the unlabelled dependency trees appropriate to the characterisation of syntactic structure also express crucial structural properties to be associated with sequences of phonological segments; moreover, that such representations of suprasegmental structure display the unlabelled subjunctions whose applicability to syntax was proposed in section 2.2 (cf. [2.5] above) and to morphology in section 2.3 (cf. [2.9] and [10]). Further, that (infra)segmental structure is characterised by the labelled dependencies proposed in section 2.3 above as appropriate to word structure (Anderson 1980; Ewen 1977; Anderson and Ewen 1987: e.g. ch. 3; and many of the contributions to Anderson and Ewen 1980; Durand 1986; Anderson and Durand 1987; etc.), including the adjunctions which Anderson (1984 a: ch. 5) attributes to compounds (Anderson and Durand 1986: §3.7; Anderson and Ewen 1987: § 3.6). Let us turn firstly to suprasegmental structure. What must be shown with respect to suprasegmental structure is once again that the constructions appropriate thereto are all headed. Admittedly, the boundaries and even the existence of phonological constructions like the syllable have been on the whole even more controversial than corresponding aspects of syntactic structure. However, given the confines of the present section, I take as my startingpoint the assumption, for example, that the syllable is the appropriate domain both for the statement of basic phonotactic constraints and for the delimitation of various phonological processes (for discussion within a dependency framework and some references, see Anderson 1986 a; Anderson and Ewen 1987:

32

2. Dependency in phonology and morphology

ch. 2). We can briefly illustrate the distributional role of the syllable with reference to jhj in English, which is syllable-initial only (as in hysterical, mayhem, history), and may be even more restricted (cf. e.g. Anderson 1986, 1987 b; Anderson et al. 1985); or with respect to the distribution of (superficially) lax vowels, which may not appear finally in a stressed syllable (bias, knee, */'Ce-/). Given that the syllable is well-motivated, it is clear that it is a headmodifier construction. The syllable is characterised by the presence of a syllabic element, which is atomic and obligatory. A word like attendant contains three syllables and thus three syllables, the first of which consists (overtly) of the syllabic alone. Hockett (1955) distinguishes between syllables in languages in which the onset is obligatory and those where it is not: only in the latter is the vowel accorded a higher hierarchical status ("headhood" in the terms discussed here). But this is again to confuse unique obligatoriness with headhood (cf. chapter 1 above). Observe further that the final two syllables of attendant constitute a foot, where I take the foot to be the basic unit of timing, stretching from the beginning of one stressed syllable to the beginning of the next (Abercrombie 1967; Lehiste 1977); in some languages, those which are "syllable-timed", most syllables are also feet (cf. Bloomfield's 1933: 125 concept or "reinforced" syllabic in French; also Selkirk 1978; for some objections, Lodge 1987). The foot is also the domain for various other phonological regularities (cf. again, in a dependency framework, Anderson 1986 a; Anderson and Ewen 1987: ch. 2). Amongst other things, the foot appears to be the maximal domain for ambi-dependency, specifically ambi-syllabicity: segments are not shared across foot boundaries. Thus, whereas the jhj in abbot is ambisyllabic, and therefore the preceding lax vowel is not final in a stressed syllable and so is in conformity with the generalisation formulated above, that in abbut belongs entirely to the second, stressed syllable (which initiates a foot), and the preceding vowel, as final in an unstressed non-word-final syllable, is therefore eligible for reduction. Ambisyllabicity introduces a relaxation of one of the principles governing the representation of syntactic, and, by analogy, phonological structure formulated in sections 2.1—2.2 above: /b/ in abbot, for instance, has two mothers. Notice, however, that projectivity is still ensured, given that jhj is at the margin of both syllables; we can still maintain that double-motherhood must be compatible with projectivity. To the extent that ambisyllabicity is well-motivated (for some discussion see Anderson and Ewen 1987: §§ 2.3, 2.5), the structural analogy assumption leads us

2.4. Phonological

structure: suprasegmental

33

to expect replication in syntax: I suggest this is the case in section 4.3 below. The head of the foot constituted by the final two syllables in attendant is the stressed syllabic which is also the head of the second syllable. Again, what characterises the foot is the presence of a stressed syllabic, or ictus, which is atomic and obligatory. Thus, circumvention, for example, contains four syllables and therefore four syllables, and two stressed syllables (two ictus) and therefore two feet, made up of the former two and the latter two syllables, respectively. The foot is also a headed construction. In both attendant and circumvention the final ictus is also the head of the word, or group head, or tonic. We return below to the significance of the term "group head"; it involves another (intra-phonological in this case) analogy. Here I observe that the tonic is the locus of the tonic movement associated with the word spoken in isolation, the locus of "primary stress". The tonic too is obligatory and atomic. But a word may consist of only one foot, and a foot of only one syllable. We can thus represent the relevant aspects of the suprasegmental structure of each word by the dependency trees in (2.11), such that each syllabic is assigned a node, with the intervening segments being dependents of the appropriate syllabic(s) (unrepresented as yet), each ictus a further node (with appropriate dependent syllables), and each tonic the root node (with dependent ictus). Such structures parallel the unlabelled adjunctions and subjunctions appropriate to syntactic (and morphologi(2.11) a.

c

r

c

u

m

v

e

n

t

e

n

d

a

ο

ο

b.

0

a

t

t

n

t

η

34

2. Dependency in phonology and morphology

cal) representations. The head of the first foot in (b) is a "silent stress" or "silent ictus" (cf. e.g. Abercrombie 1965: ch. 3; and for phonological motivation Anderson 1986 a: § 14), which in continuous speech is realised either as such (if the initiation of the word begins an utterance foot — see below) or by the last ictus of the preceding word, as in Kiss the nice attendant. Analogous here in the syntax is perhaps the structure involving the copula in e.g. Sophie is a ballerina, which occupies a semantically empty verbal position (cf. chapter 5 below). If we extend the tree proposed in (2.11 a) in such a way as to recognise the rhyme as a constituent (cf. e.g. Fudge 1969; Lass 1983; Anderson 1986 a), with nucleus as head, we get (2.12). (2.12) also includes an indication that whereas the nucleus of the rhyme is right-modified, the syllabic takes its modifier(s) to the left. Observe that the ictus is in turn again right-modified, but the tonic again switches to left-modification. Given this pattern of reversal of modification (cf. sentence and VP), and given that each construction is obligatory in a fixed hierarchical relationship (group contains foot contains syllable contains rhyme), it is clear that despite the fact that a single segment can be successively head of each construction, the construction types remain determinate. "Prosodic categories" such as those envisaged by e. g. Selkirk (1980, 1981) are thus unnecessary. Suprasegmental structure as such is unlabelled.

ο

;\

O

:\

O

c>

c i r c u m v e n t i o n This conclusion remains tenable even when we recognise, for example, that feet may be both complex and reiterated hierarchically. A word like Monica contains a foot consisting of three syllables, as represented in (2.13), such that a complex foot, or superfoot, contains another (sub-)foot. Exclusion of the final syllable from the sub-foot correlates with various phenomena. Notice, for instance, that whereas a foot-medial /k/ in English is normally globalised and only weakly aspirated, as in placket, this is not true of the /k/ in Monica, which initiates a syllable which does not uniquely form a foot with the preceding syllable.

2.4. Phonological

structure: suprasegmental

35

(2.13)

M

o

n

i

c

a

A foot may also in certain circumstances be subordinated directly to another, as in (2.14). Even in nouns in English a final tense syllabic is normally an ictus, and thus tonic in the absence of a preceding (nonsilent) ictus, as in degree; contrast pedant, with non-tense final syllabic. Thus, the representation in (2.14), rather than something like (2.13), is appropriate here. (2.14)

Group Foot 2 Foot ο

Syllable

ο

ρ e d i g

r

e

e

Neither of these extra layers of structure threatens the determinacy of construction type, given the obligatory status of rhyme, syllable, foot and group, and their alternating directions of modification: these are unambiguously optional extensions of the foot layer in the hierarchy. The optional super-foot and F 2 constructions remain determinately feet: a foot is a right-modified construction whose modifiers are syllables or feet and which is a modifier of a tonic or ictus. And a super-foot differs from F 2 in lacking an ictus modifier and from a foot proper in containing more than two syllables. Alternative accounts of general rules which will assign such word structures are formulated in Anderson (1986 a) and Anderson and Ewen (1987: ch. 3). My concern here, however, is simply to illustrate that the structural properties associated with phonological word structure are in

36

2. Dependency in phonology and morphology

principle adequately and economically expressed by unlabelled dependency trees incorporating, crucially, subjunctions. Notice too that the dependency relations proposed here also express relative prominence directly in terms of the unlabelled configurations attributed to words. Prominence is the analogue in phonetic content of predicability in the semantic. Each head is more prominent than its modifier: the nucleus than its coda, the syllabic than its onset, the ictus than its coda, the tonic than its onset. The notation thus allows us to dispense with auxiliary symbols like W(eak) and S(trong) (as utilised by e. g. Liberman and Prince 1977), which, in not being differentiated (except by interpretative convention) from category labels (Syllable, etc.), are moreover inappropriate for the expression of relational notions such as relative prominence (cf. here Ewen 1986). It seems to me that it is significant that we are enabled to do so as a concomitant of the adoption of a restrictive theory of phonological structure, embodying the requirement that all constructions are headed and configurationally defined. It is also in part this requirement that limits the phonological hierarchy or "rank scale" to four units. Rhyme and foot are distinguished from syllable and word by direction of modification; word and foot are distinguished from syllable and rhyme by requiring that their (adjoined) modifiers also necessarily be heads: reiteration of layers does not produce new types; rather, as we saw in the case of the foot, variants of the four, and specifically the upper two construction types. At this juncture we can introduce another analogy, this time within the phonology itself. The suprasegmental structures we have been looking at are associated with words, and they are lexical, erected on the basis of information derived from the lexicon. I use "lexical" here in its extended sense to include not merely information which as idiosyncratic is proper to lexical entries but also structure which is added by rule to the content of individual entries, including particularly morphological structures (to the extent that these are not lexicalised and thus already included in entries). Lexical suprasegmental structures are assigned to words on the basis of their segmental characterisation (see below) and morphological information. Acordingly, the assignment of such structures is insensitive to non-lexical factors. The phonological structures appropriate to utterances are assigned on the basis of the interaction of these lexical structures with syntactic and informational (or "communicative") structure and factors of rhythm and tempo. However, the utterance structures assigned are analogous to those we have above associated with words: the same hierarchy of constructions is involved such that again nucleus, syllabic,

2.4. Phonological

structure: suprasegmental

37

ictus and tonic can be distinguished. Let us briefly consider something of the pattern of word-utterance associations and the resulting utterance structures. The suggested associations are crude and tentative; I want merely to illustrate the kinds of factors involved and, primarily, the character of utterance suprasegmental structure. Provided that the tempo is not too fast, each lexical syllabic will normally be associated with an utterance syllabic. But typically a lexical ictus will be associated with an utterance ictus only in appropriate rhythmic conditions: e. g. a lexical ictus immediately preceding the tonic will usually not be footed in utterances, as shown in (2.15). (2.15)

/Fred's mijasma

where / marks the beginning of an utterance foot: /mai-/, though arguably a lexical ictus, is not footed in the utterance but rather depends on the preceding ictus. Moreover, tonics associated with minor categories (pronouns, prepositions, etc.) are not normally footed in an utterance, unless they are associated with placement of the utterance tonic (in being "contrastive", say). (We return in chapter 5 to the notion "minor category".) Otherwise, lexical tonics are associated with an utterance ictus at least: (2.16)

/ Old j ladies / come to his / concerts

(on the basis once more of a slowish tempo). Lexical tonics are associated with utterance group heads only if they are final in the utterance tone group. Group structures are assigned on the basis of syntactic and informational factors. Thus, typically a lexical tonic is also an utterance tonic if it is final in a syntactic phrase which is not an immediate constituent of another. So, the utterance in (2.17): (2.17)

/ Old / ladies // come to his / concerts //

contains two utterance groups, whose terminations are indicated by //, in accordance with the syntactic structure in (2.18): (2.18)

[[Old ladies] [come [to [his concerts]]]]

in which only the lexical ictus in ladies and concerts are final in a phrase which is not an immediate constituent of another, but rather of the clause. We can distinguish the clause from phrases as a construction both of whose dependents (N and V) are obligatory and necessarily themselves heads of other constructions. This gives us the basis for distinguishing a

38

2. Dependency in phonology and morphology

(2.19) ο

/ Iο ο I οl\ο ο ο

ο :

ο

ο :

Utterance structure

Ο Ο

Lexical structure

I Ι\: ο

ο ο

ο ο come

to

his concerts

old ladies three-unit "rank-scale": clause, phrase, word (morpheme being a morphological unit). See further chapter 5. Utterance tone groups correspond approximately to Halliday's (1967) "tone groups", except that the notation of (2.17) recognises the "pretonic" as a separate group; Ladd's (1986) "tone group" is thus a closer approximation. A series of group heads is subordinated to the last tonic, a G 2 head, constituing together a unit of the dimensions of Ladd's "major phrase", where the boundaries are determined by information structure and set off by an "audible break". The tone contour associated with each group is aligned (prosodically — see section 5.3 below) with the available utterance ictus in the fashion informally indicated by Ladd (1986: § 1.3). We can thus characterise the lexical structures attributable to the words in (2.17) and their utterance projections as in (2.19), (where the identity of the intonation contour is ignored). To and his, as belonging to minor categories, are not footed in the utterance. Otherwise, each lexical tonic is associated with an utterance ictus, and the first syllables in ladies and concerts are associated also with utterance tonics, with the former subordinated to the latter, which thus constitutes a G 2 head. Considerations of informational focus may result in tonicity being assigned to a non-final lexical tonic, with the consequence that following lexical tonics are subordinated as utterance ictus to this tonic, which is thus an F 2 head as well as the group head (cf. the lexical configuration in [2.14] above). The interplay of factors of tempo and information structure, in particular, with the representations provided by the lexicon

2.4. Phonological

structure: suprasegmental

39

is rather intricate: for alternative proposals concerning this see e.g. Gussenhoven (1983, 1984) and Ladd (1980). But, as I have indicated, the precise character of the rules involved is once again not my concern here. Rather, I have tried to illustrate the appropriateness, in principle, of a dependency notation for the expression of suprasegmental structure, at the utterance as well as the lexical level. I have also not investigated here the relationship between utterance phonological structure and what Selkirk (1986) terms "derived phonological domains", which are not defined phonologically but are syntactically derived domains for the application of phonological processes; given their status and character, these latter, if independently motivated, do not impinge on our conclusions concerning the intrinsic structure of phonological representations. One concern of this section has been to show that basically the same hierarchy of constructions is involved at these two levels. On the other hand, the postulation of these two levels of suprasegmental structure, linked by principles of association, eliminates the need for "transformations" of phonological structure. On this view, something like "iambic reversal" (thirteen linguists vs. chapter thirteen — cf. e.g. Kiparsky 1979; Giegerich 1985: §4.3) involves not a change to phonological structure but an alternative mapping between the sequence of lexical representations and the associated utterance structure, an alternative which is contextually conditioned (cf. Anderson 1986 a: §17). We have here, I suggest, an appropriate balance between modularisation and analogy. The two levels are distinguished by domain and derivational priority, as well as, perhaps, by the restriction of extensive "recursiveness" to utterance structures (on this recursiveness cf. again Ladd 1986); layering of tone groups in the lexical representation depends rather directly upon the recursiveness of morphological structure, specifically that associated with compounding (cf. Anderson 1986 a: § 15). The distinctiveness of the two levels may also be revealed in the observation that whereas the binarity assumption (every head has at most one adjoinee) seems to be well motivated for the phonological structure of the word, this is not at all clearly the case with utterances, as is apparent from the representation in (2.19) above, if appropriate. It is not clear, in particular, in this instance, if the superfoot as a construction (cf. [2.13] above) — as opposed to polysyllabic feet — is necessary to the characterisation of utterances structure. If this is so, then, given the structural analogy assumption, we must enquire why it should be. Perhaps what is operative here is lexicality: it is in those components concerned with word structure (lexical supra-

40

2. Dependency in phonology and morphology

segmental phonology and morphology) that evidence for binarity of constructions is strongest; in syntax, as in utterance phonology, the evidence is lacking — indeed, as we shall see in the following chapters, binarity is in instances like the "dative" construction simply inappropriate. I have also tried to make a case for prominence as the substantive content of head-hood in suprasegmental phonological structure: the dependency relation can be interpreted as expressing relative prominence. We can extend this notion into the internal structure of the syllable (see e.g. Anderson and Jones 1974, 1977; Anderson and Ewen 1980a, 1987: ch. 3; Anderson 1987 b), so that dependencies (and sequence) internal to the rhyme are dictated by the inherent sonority of the segment types involved. In a syllable such as that in blend the head of the rhyme (represented by e) is more prominent than any of the elements of the coda, and the same element, as head of the syllable, similarly outranks the segments of the onset; and within the onset and coda the segment nearer to the syllabic/nucleus is the more prominent, on the basis of inherent sonority. If we extend dependency relations within the syllable in accordance with inherent sonority, then a characterisation like (2.20) suggests itself. Given the frequently observed phenomenon that syllables tend to decrease in sonority towards their margins, (2.20) describes the typical syllable shape, such that, apart from the syllable-rhyme distinction, which (like the sentence-VP distinction) may not be universal, syllable structure is a simple inverse-V-shaped projection of the sonority of the component segments. (I take up the characterisation of inherent sonority in the section which follows.) We should note at this point, however, that the head-hood of j\j and jwj in (2.20) with respect to jbj and jdj respectively does not seem to be supported by appeal to the criteria discussed in sections 2.1—2.2 above. ο

(2.20)

ο b

I

e

η

d

2.4. Phonological

structure:

suprasegmental

41

Both of the elements in each construction are apparently atomic, and neither is obviously "more obligatory" than the other. For this reason and others, and despite arguments for the appropiateness of such sonority-based structures to the characterisation of a range of other phenomena (cf. e.g. Anderson and Jones 1974: § 3, 1977; Jones 1976; Ewen 1978, 1980 a: ch. 11), Anderson (1986 a) proposes a rather different interpretation of onset structure, which bases head-hood on relative consonantality (with voiceless plosives as the optimal consonants — see section 2.5 below); though expressed within a different notational system, the account of syllable structure given by Cairns and Feinstein (1982) is not dissimilar. However, since in either case syllable structure is a dependency tree projected from the sequence of segments that comprise the syllable, this controversy need not detain us here. For the purposes of the immediately following discussion I shall assume a government/sonority correlation. The syllable structure of individual languages shows violations of the principle that sonority decreases towards the edge of syllables (even if hypermetrical or "extrametrical" — cf. Kiparsky 1981; Hayes 1982; Anderson 1986a: §5 — segments are ignored). However, some of the "violations" are so common as to suggest something systemactic, as in the case of initial /s/ + plosive clusters; any theory of syllable structure has a responsibility to account for such systematic aberrance. I do not attempt such a theory here; see, however, Anderson (1987 c) and cf. Browman and Goldstein (1986). Instead, I merely want to point out that we have some support for the "dependency reversal" attributed by the notation to such clusters (cf. e. g. Ewen 1980 b, 1982 b), on the assumption that dependency within the syllable is related to sonority, so that (2.21) is appropriate. This is manifested in various unique properties, such as the well-known restrictions on alliteration in early Germanic verse

42

2. Dependency in phonology and morphology

(Kurylowicz 1971). Normally, each tonic-syllable-initial consonant alliterates only with itself, and any following consonant can be ignored; with /st-/ etc. alliteration is further restricted to only with /st-/. Alliteration is thus with the construction headed by the first consonant: /s-/ is the head of the /st-/ construction in (2.21), whereas that headed by /b/ in (20) is a one member construction, as is the case with the /s-/ in snow, for example. Phonetically, too, the /s-/ of /s/ + plosive clusters is typically associated with a distinct chest pulse (Catford 1977: 90). The assumption that dependency relations within the syllable match relative sonority leads to further predictions concerning the structure of onsets, for example. Thus, strip will be assigned the dependency relations represented in (2.22), such that /t/ is simultaneously dependent on /s/ and /r/, and the entire onset forms a construction subordinate to /r/. The proposal of such a representation is supported by the nature of the restrictions holding in English between segments within the syllable: the position occupied by jtj is involved both in relation to a preceding /s/ (*/ft-/, */sf-/, */sd-/, etc.) and with respect to a following /r/ (*/tl-/, */sr/, etc.) But such constraints cannot be reduced to pairwise restrictions between adjacent segments. For example, although in English both /st-/ and /tw-/ are viable onsets (stink, twerp), the combination /stw-/ is not. Rather, we might say that such restrictions hold between elements whose associated nodes uniquely share a construction (cf. Anderson 1986 a on the "neutralisation condition"), as in the present instances. Thus, (pace Clements and Keyser 1983) the evidence for onset-syllabic restrictions in a language like English is insubstantial, as one would expect, given that they usually do not uniquely share a construction, in view of the obligatory status in English and the potential complexity of the rhyme as part of the syllable. An alternative formulation brings out more clearly the analogy with the syntax: as with strict subcategorisation in syntax, an element enters into restrictions only with modifiers of the lowest node it ο

(2.22)

ο ο s

t

r

Ρ

2.5. Phonological

structure: segmental

43

is associated with. Thus, the vowel in (2.22) is not restricted with respect to the onset; but nucleus-coda restrictions are evidenced by, for instance, the failure of lax /υ/ and the velar nasal to combine; and, similarly, within the coda we find restrictions such as */-lg/ parallel to the intra-onset constraints already noted.

2.5. Phonological structure: segmental In the preceding section it was suggested that the assignment of dependency relations within the syllable is determined by inherent sonority; and if the correlations pre-supposed above are correct, any theory of syllable structure (as recognised already by e.g. Sweet 1877, 1906) must relate inherent sonority at least to linearity within the syllable. Despite particular violations, sonority seems to provide a less problematical basis for syllable structure than e. g. Saussure's (1916: ch. 2) theory of "degres d'aperture", which presents a number of interpretative and operational difficulties. And such sonority or "strength" hierarchies have indeed been invoked in relation to a number of domains (for references see Anderson and Ewen 1987: §§4.3 — 4.5). And whatever the problems in specifying phonetic correlates for sonority (cf. e.g. Ohala and Kawasaki 1984: §5), there exists enough agreement (based on phonological phenomena from a number of languages) about their general profile and the ranking of segment types imposed thereby to require that any phonological notation provide an independent characterisation — i. e. one that can be motivated on other grounds also. In attempting to characterise inherent sonority we must now broach the question of the internal structure of segments. It is clear that phonologically relative sonority is a dimension with several hierarchically ordered values: vowels outrank liquids outrank fricatives outrank plosives, etc. This is acknowledged even by the leading advocates of binary feature systems (e. g. Jakobson, Fant and Halle 1952; Jakobson and Halle 1956). But to the expression of such hierarchical phenomena a binary feature notation is particularly ill-adapted. Any hierarchisation is external to the set of features and the relationships defined thereby. We must impose an apparently arbitrary (as far as the notation is concerned) ranking on features, such that, for example, [ — consonantal] > [ + sonorant] > [ +continuant] > ... (cf. e.g. Saltarelli 1973; Anderson 1980 a). On the other hand, binary features provide appropriate bifurcations of classes of segments. The set of [+consonantal] segments, for instance,

44

2. Dependency

in phonology

and

morphology

constitutes a natural class; there are recurrent regularities that invoke just such a grouping: for example, no [+consonantal] segment is an ictus in English. A multivalued (and hierarchical) sonority feature (of the character of some of the features proposed by Ladefoged 1971) does not provide for this, i. e. bifurcations of the set of segments differentiated in terms of relative sonority; subsets of these that do not belong to the same sonority set are not characterised as constituting natural classes (cf. Anderson 1980 a; Anderson and Ewen 1987: ch. 1). This is true, for instance, of Selkirk's (1984) "sonority indices", which replace the "major class" features of Chomsky and Halle (1988): why certain sections of the sonority hierarchy constitute systematically recurrent groupings while others do not remains uncaptured. Both of these aspects of segmental structure, the hierarchical and the bifurcatory, are allowed for by a notation based in part on labelled subjunction paths, such as I suggested in previous sections was appropriate for the characterisation of (morpho-syntactic) word structure: we have here another analogy, concerning the organisation of the substantive alphabets of the two planes. I pursue the analogy further with respect to the syntax in ch. 5. Let us at this point consider in a little detail the role of labelled subjunctions in the phonology. We can define the sonority hierarchy in terms of the combinations of a pair of simplex or unary feature, or components (as they have usually been called in writings on dependency phonology — on simplex features in general see e.g. Sanders 1972): viz. C, roughly Jakobson's [+consonantal], involving energy reduction, presence of a major obstruction in the vocal tract; and V, roughly [ +vocalic], involving a sound source which optimally is periodic. Vowels can be characterised as showing V but no C, (lax) voiceless plosives C but no V. These classes constitute the endpoints of the sonority hierarchy. Other sound types are intermediate between these two extremes, and they are characterised by copresence of V and C in varying proportions. This variability is allowed for by the character of the dependency relations involved. Thus, either feature may preponderate; interpreted in terms of dependency, either may be the governor, as shown in (2.23). (2.23 a) characterises sonorant consonants, which combine vocal cord vibration as their unique sound source with suppression due to vocal tract obstruction; and (b) characterises (2.23) a.

V I c

b.

C I ν

2.5. Phonological structure: segmental

45

voiced plosives, to whose basically suppressive nature is added vocal cord vibration. V and C may also be mutually dependent, which segment type we can represent as {|V:C|}, where : indicates mutual dependency and {| |} encloses a segment uniquely characterised (as far as the categorial specification is concerned — see below) by the presence of the feature combination contained therein. Vowels are {|V|} and voiced plosives {|C;V|}, where ; indicates (unilateral) government. {|IV:C|} is a voiceless fricative, which show a more marked formant structure than plosives but some energy reduction. (2.24)

V:C I V

Further possibilities are provided for by allowing replication of the same features, with a possible upper limit of two each. Thus, voiced fricatives can be represented as in (2.24), where the V (unilaterally) dependent on V:C is associated, as with the dependent V in the case of voiced plosives (2.23 b), with the presence of vocal cord vibration. With obstruents, voice is "additive" (subjoined V); with sonorants, it is "inherent" ("voiceless sonorants" are more complex to characterise — Anderson and Ewen 1987: § 5.2). And we can differentiate between liquids and nasals as in (2.25), in that liquids (2.25 a) are more vowel-like than nasals (b) in lacking total obstruction of the vocal tract (and nasal formants). On other combinations of V and C see e.g. Ewen (1980a); Anderson and Ewen 1987: ch. 4. (2.25) a.

V I V:C

b.

V I C

These representations enable us to define a terms of relative preponderance of V, as shown from left to right through table 1 V becomes being the sole feature present, through having

hierarchy of sonority in in table 2.1. As we move less preponderant, from a subjoined V and C, a

Table 2.1. A partial sonority hierarchy V

V

vowel

V

1 V:C

I1 c

liquid

nasal

|

V:C

I1

V:C

C 1 1 V

C

vs fric

vd plos

vs plos

V vd fric

46

2. Dependency in phonology and morphology

subjoined C alone, a mutually dependent C, etc., to being absent. These configurations thus express directly the sonority hierarchy, which underlies a number of phenomena, such as, as we have seen, unmarked syllable structure, and also processes of lenition and fortition. Lenition involves movement of a segment to the left in the hierarchy in table 2.1; fortition, movement to the right. Again, what are involved are hierarchical phenomena intractible to characterisation in terms of binary features. For exemplification of these phenomena see again Ewen (1980 a: §6.4); Anderson and Ewen (1987: ch. 4). I provide here only a token illustration. In V-full environments (e. g. between vowels, sonorants or even merely voiced segments) consonants tend to weaken, i. e. become more vowellike. This can involve within a single language system what in terms of binary features are several distinct changes. But what characterises them in terms of the framework described here is movement towards {|V|}. Some of the major developments from Latin to Gallo-Roman are illustrated in table 2.2. (On these changes and the evidence for them see e. g. Pope 1934: particularly chs. VI —VII.) These developments in a common environment, and many others, testify to the equivalence of what are, in terms of binary features, quite distinct processes (voicing, fricativisation, sonorantisation, etc.): all involve an increase in the preponderance of V in the representation of the segment concerned. Table 2.2. Some lenitions in Gallo-Roman Latin

Late Latin

faba ripa regina

b - ß Ρ J-"J

Gallo-Roman

b - ß 1

French feve rive reine

—

Such representations as are incorporated in table 2.1 also enable us to provide for appropriate bifurcations of the set of segments, as illustrated in table 2.3, where { } enclose a segment characterised by the combination of features contained therein but not necessarily it alone (cf. the {| |} notation introduced above). Thus, the set of obstruents contains plosives Table 2.3. Some natural classes {V;} {C;V} {V:C;} {C;} {C}

= = = = =

continuant segments voiced obstruents fricatives obstruents consonants

2.5. Phonological

structure:

segmental

47

and fricatives, in which, whatever else, C governs (possibly mutually, and possibly the identity element). A single system of representation, based on labelled subjunctions expressing categorial preponderance, allows for both of the aspects of segment classification discussed above: i. e. the hierarchical and the bifurcatory. Furthermore, the relative complexity of the segment representations correlates with the markedness of the segment type. Thus, vowels and voiceless plosives are least complex (one feature each). This is in accord with their distribution throughout languages, and the staging of their acquisition and loss, as well as with a wide range of phonological phenomena, including e.g. the widespread status of voiceless (unaspirated) plosives as neutralisation targets. Other types involve increased complexity; and they in turn are ranked in complexity in terms of the number of features present. Voiced fricatives, for instance, are more complex than both voiceless fricatives and voiced plosives, whose representations they in a sense combine. This correlates both with their distribution throughout different languages (systems with voiced fricatives tend to have both voiceless fricatives and voiced plosives also) and with the staging of their acquisition and loss (cf. further section 7.1). The characterisation of this need not have recourse to ad hoc notational extensions such as are involved in systems of "marking conventions" (cf. Lass and Anderson 1975: App. IV; Lass 1975; Anderson 1980 a). For discussions of different phenomena to whose descriptions such representations are relevant, see e.g. Anderson and Jones (1974); Ewen (1978, 1980 a: ch. 6); Davenport and Staun (1980); 0 Dochartaigh (1980); Lass (1984: ch. 11); Staun (1983); Anderson (1985 c); Anderson and Ewen (1987: ch. 4). Elaborations and alternative conceptions of these categorial features are offered in e. g. Anderson and Durand (1986); Davenport and Staun (1986); Ewen (1986); Lodge (1986); van der Hulst (1989). Combinations of F a n d C characterise the "major classes" of segments, "major" in that it is these classes that are relevant to the erection of syllable structure. But other features are clearly necessary to allow for other variables of segment structure. Notably, "place of articulation" must be specified. Again a small number of (unary) features which combine in different preponderances (patterns of dependency) is appropriate here. Moreover, these "place" components do not interact individually in the same way with the "major class" features. We can thus recognise at least two autonomous groupings of features, or "gestures" (Lass and Anderson 1975: App. III; Lass 1976: ch. 6 — and for further elaboration of these ideas, see Anderson and Ewen 1987; Durand 1987;

48

2. Dependency in phonology and morphology

as well as the works referred to immediately above, and others, particularly following Clements 1985, devoted to "feature hierarchies"): a categorial ("major class") and a locational or articulatory gesture. Chapter 5 below suggests an analogous organisation for the features which constitute the alphabet of the syntax. I do not pursue here the suggestions for more extensive hierarchisation put forward in various of the works referred to in the immediately preceding (but see chapter 6 below), though this promises to be a fruitful area for the exploration of further analogies. We do return to a brief consideration of the features relevant to the modelling of the vowel space; for more extensive discussion see Anderson (1980a); Anderson and Ewen (1980a, 1981, 1987: ch. 6); Pelt (1980); Staun (1980); Lass (1984: ch. 11); Anderson and Durand (1986); Ewen and van der Hulst (1987, 1988); van der Hulst (1989); Anderson (in press a). But again, for the purposes of the present discussion, I maintain a rather conservative view of these, one which ignores many points of substance and organisation. Part of the characterisation of segment structure involves labelled subjunctions, as in (non-phonological) word structure (cf. section 2.3 above). As I have noted, Anderson (1984 a: particularly ch. 5) claims that word structure also displays labelled adjunctions specifically in the case of compounds, which are associated with at least two category labels, one labelling a node governing that labelled by the other, as illustrated in the (simplified) word structure suggested there for sunrise·, cf. (2.26). I conclude this section with a consideration of the kind of evidence that supports the positing of labelled adjuncts in segmental structure also. This is appropriate in the case of segments within which there is a change in the set of features and in which one set is more prominent — as has been argued to be appropriate with affricates and pre- or post-nasalised stops (cf. Ewen 1980 b, 1982 b; Anderson 1986 a; Anderson and Ewen 1987: §§3.6.3.-3.6.4, 7.3): For other relevant discussion see e.g. S. R. Anderson (1974, 1976); Feinstein (1979). We can illustrate the sort of motivations involved from the behaviour of "short diphthongs", i. e. diphthongs which are paired phonologically (2.26) Ν

V

sun

rise

2.5. Phonological

structure: segmental

49

with short monophthongs or are part of a system not bifurcated in terms of length (all vowels are at the contrastive level monomoric). I shall suggest that Old English instantiates the former type of system; the latter has been claimed to be manifested by e.g. Modern Scots and Scottish standard English (Lass 1974; Ewen 1977 - but cf. Anderson 1988 c). Let us look at the Old English system. Despite a recent period of some dissension, the traditional view that the digraph spellings in forms like eald and heorte represent diphthongs remains the basis for the most plausible account of their synchronic status, genesis and subsequent development. I shall not re-open that debate here: for a brief review of the controversy see Lass and Anderson (1975: ch. Ill, § 2); and for some recent contributions, Keyser and O'Neil (1983) and Lass (1983). I take as my startingpoint the assumption that the Old English diphthongs developed as diagrammed, for the low one, in (2.27). The short diphthong of (2.27 a) develops from Germanic [a] via [ae] ("First Fronting" or "Anglo-Frisian Brightening" — Lass and Anderson 1975: ch. II) as a result of various context-conditioned pre-Old English processes, as do some instances of the long diphthong (those in [b]) from the corresponding long vowel in Germanic. However, some instances of the long diphthong represent the major descendant of the Germanic diphthong at the left of (c). Thus, the diphthongs in (a) and (b) develop in similar circumstances; and the latter falls together with the "original" diphthong of (c), consistent with a diphthongal interpretation of all three sets of spellings. (2.27)

Germanic

Old English spelling

a.

a —> ae —> aea

eald, heard

b.

a: —> ae: —*• ae:a

neah, near

c.

au —• ae:a

leaf, beam

The long diphthong, of whatever source, develops subsequently, other things being equal, as a long vowel; and, as we've seen, both sources are long (the Germanic diphthongs pattern with the long monophthongs). The short diphthongs of (a) has its source in a short vowel, and develops subsequently as such, other things being equal (though in this case, in particular, they often aren't). Moreover, the distribution of the (a) diphthong in Old English is that of a short vowel: for instance, it cannot occur finally in a stressed syllable (on this restriction see Colman 1983:

50

2. Dependency in phonology and morphology

§ IV, 1986). And its role in morphophonological alternations is that of a short vowel. Consider, for example, a Mercian form such as fearu "journey", the nominative singular of a feminine ό-stem, with a diphthong due to the operation of "Back Umlaut" (Lass and Anderson 1975: ch. Ill, § 7). The nominative -u with verbs of this class and the nominative and accusative singular -u of w-systems are normally dropped in Old English after a "heavy" stem. A stem is heavy if it contains a long vowel, monophthongal or diphthongal, or if it ends in two consonants, as illustrated in (2.28): (2.28)

gäd "goad", leah "open country", wund "wound"

-U is retained after "light" stems, in which a short vowel is followed by only one consonant, as in (2.29): (2.29)

lufu "love", scolu "troop"

(cf. e.g. Campbell 1959: §§ 585 — 568). However the morphophonological regularity is formulated (see e. g. Anderson and Ewen 1987: § 3.6.4), it is clear that it will have to group fearu with the forms in (2.29) rather than those in (2.28). That is, the short diphthong constitutes in this respect a single (short) vowel segment. This conclusion is confirmed by the behaviour of such diphthongs with respect to other morphophonological regularities (cf. again Keyser and O'Neil 1983; Lass 1983). However, these segments are internally complex; they change from front to back in the course of their production. Moreover, their subsequent development, parallel to that of the long diphthongs, suggests that they are falling diphthongs; the first (front) element is more prominent (Lass and Anderson 1975: ch. Ill, § 8). We can characterise the short diphthongs as both parallel to the long diphthongs in internal structure, i.e. as falling diphthongs displaying analogous internal restrictions (including both elements of the diphthong being at the same height, or "diphthong height harmony" — Lass and Anderson 1975: ch. Ill, §5) and as nevertheless mono-segmental, in terms of the representations proposed in (2.30), where ce and a abbreviate the relevant articulatory representations (see further below) and {|V, V|} (two K's in simple combination, with no dependency relation) indicates a tense vowel, associated underlyingly with two nodes in the suprasegmental structure as constituing a complex nucleus, which contribute weight to the syllable lacking in the case of short vowels unsupported by a complex coda. The segmental dependecies {ce —> a) in the case of the diphthongs are derivative, noncontrastive. (For some doubts, however, concerning the appropriateness

2.6. Dependency

(2.30)

ο

ο

ο

ο

ο

{|V|}

ce

{|V|}

{|V,V|}

ο

{|V,V|}

preservation

51

Nuclear structure (suprasegmental)

Categorial gesture

ce

Articulatory a

a

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

and universality of the dependency relations in [b], [c] and [d], cf. Lass 1987.) Notice in particular with respect to these representations that an appropriate characterisation of the status and structure of short diphthongs requires the positing of a labelled adjunction; short diphthongs are phonological compounds. The existence of such is in accord with the structural analogy assumption.

2.6. Dependency preservation I have striven to offer independent motivations for invoking the dependency relation in the expression of structural properties within the various domains we have considered. And its recurrence in parallel roles satisfies the requirements of the structural analogy assumption. I shall not here extend the scope of the discussion in this respect, i. e. in terms of further domains. But it is perhaps noting that dependency relations may also be appropriate to the tonological gesture. Anderson and Ewen (1987: § 7.5) attribute to this gesture the features i (high) and u (low) (also associated with the articulatory gesture: see below), which in characterising more complex systems may be combined, possibly with one preponderating over, or governing the other (to give, say, high mid vs. low mid tone). More than one tone feature may be associated with a particular tonic; and Beckman and Pierrehumbert (1986), for instance, argue strongly that one of the features may be dominant: they distinguish, for instance, between sequences such as L* -I- Η and L + H*, where L is "low tone" and Η is "high", and wherein the star indicates the "metrically strong"

52

2. Dependency in phonology and morphology

element. Once again, the dependency realtion can provide an appropriate characterisation of "metrical strength" or "prominence", with the starred feature as head, such that tonological sequences also display labelled adjunctions: in the above instances, {u} —> and {i} and {u} Ρ —* Ν dependency relations of the syntactic structure, while removing precedence differences: V remains root and so determines the categorial status of the derived form, while its realisation is that associated with the lowest category, the N. The dependency preservation condition requires this of any shift of level. And it also, as we would expect, appears to hold true of shifts from suprasegmental to segmental structure in phonology. I have argued that the dependency relation is appropriate to both suprasegmental and infrasegmental structure: thus, relative prominence of a segment is equated structurally with relative preponderance of a feature. The dependency preservation condition demands that, other things being equal, a change in segmentality, say, from (long) diphthong to monophthong, should where possible maintain the particular dependency relations involved. In section 2.5 I outlined a proposal concerning the content of the categorial gesture whereby the features V and C could be variously combined, including in particular the possibility of one feature preponderating over and thus governing other. The same basic structural properties are exhibited by combinations of the features of the articulatory gesture, though the features are more numerous, it would appear. Here I consider only three features relevant to (among other things) the characterisation of the vowel space: i, palatality (roughly Jakobson's acuteness and sharpness), u, peripherality (roughly, gravity and flatness) and a, lowness, or (more generally) sonority (roughly, compactness) — a is the articulatory analogous of V in the categorial gesture. In characterising vowel quality distinctions these can appear alone or in simple combination or, if in combination, with alternative preponderances. (2.33)

i

u e

(2.34)

ο

{|i|}

{|u|} {|i;a|}

{|u;a|} {|a;i|}

{|a;u|} {|a|}

We can represent the articulatory gestures of a hypothetical vowel system such as that in (2.33) as in (2.34). This characterises appropriate

2.6. Dependency

preservation

55

dimensions, like that of height: the higher the vowel, the less preponderant is a. The height dimension as such is unexpressed in binary feature frameworks; hierarchical phenomena like "chain shifts" (such as the English vowel shift) cannot be appropriately expressed (cf. Anderson 1980 a; Anderson and Ewen 1987: ch. 1; and see further section 7.1 below). In particular, phenomena like the vowel shift emerge as no more simple to express in a binary notation than spurious shifts involving features that, unlike [high] and [low], are genuinely orthogonal (Saltarelli 1973). The notation of (2.34) also allows for bifurcations ("natural classes"): the set of mid vowels is {a, r~a} i.e. a combination of a and a feature other than a, a specification that is simpler than that for any individual mid vowel, in dispensing with the dependency relation (and on the quite natural assumption that the negative operator is cost-free). The representation of this is recalcitrant to formulation in terms of a multivalued feature of vowel height (cf. the preceding works; also Anderson and Jones 1977; Ewen 1980 a: ch. 11). Notice too that the mid vowels are intrinsically more complex (marked) than the peripheral ones, as seems to be appropriate; again, no additional notational apparatus (such as "marking conventions") need be invoked. Consider now a (long) falling diphthong [ai], representable as in (2.35). If monophthongisation occurs, then the dependency preservation condition requires that the segmental result will be (2.36), i.e. [ε(:)], long or (2.35) ο

{|V,V|} Μ (2.36)

{|i|}

{|V(,V)|>

{a;i} short, rather than [e(:)] (or [a(:)] or [i(:)] or whatever), if there is a highmid vs. low-mid contrast in the language. The suprasegmental dependency relation in (2.35) involving the nodes realised respectively as {|a|} and {|i|}

56

2. Dependency in phonology and morphology

is preserved intra-segmentally in (2.36) as {a;i}. If the stage of the language represented by (2.36) continues to show contrastive vowel-length, then the suprasegmental configuration in (2.35) will also be maintained under monophthongisation. Otherwise, the configuration in (2.36) will be associated with a single suprasegmental node. Monophthongisation of a short diphthong would involve only substitution of a segment-internal subjunction for a segment-internal adjunction (cf. [2.30 b] above); but again dependency relations are preserved, where possible. The history of French displays a number of such monophthongisations, illustrated in (2.37). The forms in (2.37 d) show long monophthong outputs, given the establishment of contrastive length by c. 1100 (de Chene 1979). If Gallo-Roman lacked contrastive length, then (2.37 b), for instance, shows only a segment-internal historical subjunction. But in each case particular dependency relations are maintained. Late Latin:

/ai/

•Ν

saepe

b.

Gallo-Roman:

/au/·

Ν

aurum

c.

Old French:

/ai/

•Μ

mais, fait

d.

Middle French:

/ai/

•/ε:/

vrai

/au/·

Μ

vaudrai

(2.37) a.

Parallel to these developments in French is the monophthongisation of the Middle English (falling) diphtongs /ai/ and /au/, displayed in (2.38). (/ε:/ subsequently shifts to /e:/.) It might be argued, for example, that /ai/ develops to /ε:/ in early Modern English via intermediate stages including [ei] (Dobson 1957: 765 — 768), and the development is thus simply assimilatory. However, the evidence for such a stage is slight. Moreover, even if it can be shown that such relations are attested, they continue to represent phonological /ai/: in the absence of /ei/ φ /εί/ φ /ai/ contrasts, the optimal representation of any falling diphthong with non-high non-round first element and non-low front second is /ai/. We should not confuse system and system change with (change in) possible implementations; at the phonological level I suggest the change is as described above. (2.38)

late Middle English:

/ai/

/ε:/

day

/au/ —• jo:/

law

2.6. Dependency preservation

57

In all these instances, then, dependency relations are preserved under monophthongisation, in accordance with the dependency preservation condition, thus supporting the equation of relative prominence with relative preponderance as instantiations of the dependency relation, as well as illustrating another instance of analogy, given the parallel equation of (word-external) syntactic with word-internal structure.

Chapter 3 Contrast in syntax

In this chapter we develop a further large-scale analogy, concerning a different aspect of linguistic structure, viz. the distinction between constrastive and redundant, familiar from the tradition of research on phonology. At the same time I argue that pursuit of this analogy in the syntax uncovers support for the view concerning the organisation of syntax that has come to be called "case grammar", particularly the tradition defined by chapter 1 of Anderson (1977). (For a less parochial view see, for example, Cook 1989.) Let me begin then with a brief characterisation of what I intend by the term "case grammar". I shall then go on to deploy an analogy, that of contrastivity, which helps to provide a resolution for a long-recognised problem in this tradition of syntactic research, a resolution which coincides with the predictions of an independent hypothesis concerning the domain of "semantic case". Finally, sections 3.4—3.5, I argue that considerations of contrastivity in syntax favour initial structures which are of the character hypothesised by case grammarians, i. e. in which semantic functions are specified and from which information concerning grammatical relations — or the configurations whereby they may be defined — are absent.

3.1. Constraining case grammar As with most, if not all, appellations of the form "X grammar", case grammar, while embodying a rather specific hypothesis concerning the nature of grammar — specifically, in this instance, concerning the internal organisation of the syntax and its interface with semantics — leaves other aspects relatively underdetermined. However, one thing I shall argue here is that the interaction of the case grammar hypothesis with other, analogically motivated constraints renders these other aspects less extensive than might at first seem to be the case. I formulate what I take to be particular to case grammar as: The case grammar hypothesis: Semantic functions or case relations (CRs) are (a) syntactically primitive and (b) as relations uniquely basic to the syntax

Point (a) involves a claim concerning the syntax-semantics interface: at least these semantically characterised elements are available to the syntax,

60

3. Contrast

in syntax

and are not definable therein; point (b) embodies a claim that other structural relations, labelled or unlabelled, have a "derivative" status. Overall, the hypothesis entails an enrichment of the syntactic representations introduced in chapter 2, but renders much of what is contained in them derivative. Moreover, I shall argue below (particularly in chapter 5) that CRs, as notional (semantically defined) elements, are not uncharacteristic of basic syntax. The unpacking of (b) in terms of consequences for the structure of the grammar obviously depends on how "basic" and "derivative" are interpreted. Here I interpret "derivative" in a familiar if not uncontroversial sense: syntax is a set of rules and constraints relating adjacent pairs within a sequence of representations; basic elements are present in the initial representation in the sequence, derivative are not. The initial representation contains only primitive elements, including relations (the CRs). Derivative elements may be primitive, as in the case of the linearity relation, which is only partly derivable from e. g. the nature of the CRs in a particular representation (they also reflect informations structure), or they may be defined in terms of configurations of basic elements, as perhaps with grammatical relations (GRs), which can be defined as neutralisations or diversifications of CRs (cf. e.g. Anderson 1977: §3.6, 1979c, d, 1984b, 1988a; and below). I assume further that only basic elements are accessible by the lexicon; individual lexical entries cannot contain reference to syntactically derivative elements, and the lexical rules which relate entries cannot invoke them (but see further chapter 4). At this point I do not want to dwell on these consequences of the case grammar hypothesis. They are for the most part well-documented elsewhere, from the earliest publications by Fillmore (especially 1968 a, b, 1969) and others (e.g. Anderson 1968, 1971 a) up to more recent manifestations like Anderson (1984 a); and in what follows I shall be returning to them in more detail in an attempt to show that they are compatible with other independently motivated constraints. That is, I shall subsequently be interpreting the title of this section, perhaps perversely, in an "active" sense, in explicating the role of the case grammar hypothesis as an interactive constraint on the character of syntactic representations, derivations and lexical entries and rules. I do not accept that the loss of "autonomy" for the syntax consequent upon the acceptance of the case grammar hypothesis renders grammatical theory less restrictive: exclusion of semantic elements from the syntax is bought at the expense of a complication of the statement of interface relationships as well as of an obscuring of the basis for syntactic and lexical generalisations. A "syn-

3.2. Contrast

and the case relations

61

tactic autonomy" thesis does not constitute an appropriate modularisation: the substantive alphabet of syntax is notional. However, that is to anticipate the following discussion, particularly that in chapter 5. What I want to signpost more immediately is that I shall be focussing later in this chapter on the (syntactic and lexical) generalisations permitted by the case grammar hypothesis, in attempting to demonstrate the mutually supportive convergence of case grammar with other syntactic constraints. But my startingpoint here involves according a more orthodox "passive" interpretation to the title of this section. I want to confront the problem of constraining in particular the set of CRs, of appropriately limiting the domain of the notion "semantic case". This problem is typically raised in relation to case grammar, and appropriately so, given that the claim embodied in the above formulation for the syntactic relevance of CRs accords them a more prominent role than otherwise in the grammar as a whole (as is, of course, suggested by the label for the framework); but it also confronts any other framework which invokes such entities (under whatever guise — "semantic functions", "θ-roles", etc.), even if only in the semantics, or the lexicon. In attempting to appropriately constrain case grammar in this way I shall invoke certain principles whose deployment here illustrate a particular analogy. Indeed, since I have already argued elsewhere in some detail (notably in Anderson 1977: § 2.6) for the relevance of these principles to the establishment of the set of CRs, my interest in returning to them here is principally in their status as illustrating the appropriateness of this particular analogy (and of the notion of analogy in general), one which is crucial to our subsequent discussion of the active constraining role of case grammar. Our immediate concern, then, is with the application of the principles of contrast and complementary to the constraining of the set of CRs.

3.2. Contrast and the case relations Fillmore (1971) elaborates upon various criteria proposed in earlier papers (such as Fillmore 1968 a) whose role was to determine the number and character of the CRs which should be attributed to a particular predicate. One principle, "the one-instance-per-clause-principle", involves "the assumption that there is in a single clause at most one noun phrase ... serving a given case role" (1971: 38): the NPs associated with a particular predicate must "contrast" with respect to their CRs. The formulation of Fillmore's other principles of "contrast" (1971: § 3) is not

62

3. Contrast

in syntax

so clear. Instead, we are presented, for instance, with an assumption that in the case of a particular predicate the set of CRs associated with a specific syntactic position will prove to have some sort of "natural" limit, so that the set he proposes for the subjects in (3.1): (3.1) a. b. c. d.

I am warm (Experiencer) This jacket is warm (Instrument) Summer is warm (Time) The room is warm (Location)

is not indefinitely extensible; and an expectation that, similarly, the semantic functions appropriate to different predicates can be related to a common set of CRs. It is uncertain how these assumptions are to be interpreted operationally, however. Fillmore does propose potential criteria based on eligibility for conjoining and being compared, such that the coordination in (3.2): (3.2)

John and the movie both became very sad near the end

is allegedly "unhappy" because of the divergent CRs (Experiencer vs. Instrument) associated with the conjuncts. Now, some of the criticisms of these criteria that have been offered in the past are not necessarily well-founded (cf. on such e. g. Anderson 1977: § 1.6), but as case criteria they remain vulnerable to the fact that not all sources of "unhappiness" with e. g. NP-coordinations are attributable to a clash of CRs but rather to a range of other semantico-pragmatic factors — unless one is willing to contemplate a drastic and unprincipled dilution of the notion of CR in order to accommodate these. Thus, for instance, the unusualness of the coordinations in (3.3) and the like: (3.3) a. b.

London and this room are warm Fred changed gear and the rear tyre

is not to be attributed to clash of CRs, given the customarily assumed and motivated approximate cardinality and semantic range of the set of CRs. More transparently applicable to the identification of instances of the same CR is Fillmore's principle of "complementarity", of which he says: "Sometimes we find in different sentences semantic functions which in detail are partly alike and partly different, their differences being systematically relatable to differences in the semantic properties of the lexical material they are in construction with" (1971: 41). So, for example, it is unnecessary to distinguish the semantic functions ("dedicatee" vs. "goal") associated with the two to-phrases in (3.4):

3.2. Contrast and the case relations

(3.4)

a. b.

63

Francis dedicated the book to his parents Francis sent the book to his parents

as distinct CRs (despite e. g. differences in restrictions on the NP, such that that in [a] is, amongst other things, typically "humanoid"), given that these differences can be systematically attributed to the semantic character of (in this case) the predicate, and that the two functions share a semantic core. In the present instance, this is confirmed by application of Fillmore's one-instance-per-clause principle, if it is the case that no predicate takes both a "dedicatee" and a "goal" (participant — see below) argument. We can extrapolate from Fillmore's discussion (though, as will [have] become apparent, at some remove) a Principle of CR distinctiveness, whereby the CRs appropriate to a particular language may be established: Principle of CR distinctiveness: Putative CRs are distinct iff they are contrastive, where contrastiveness is established on the basis of: (a) possession of distinct independent semantic properties (paradigmatic contrast) and (b) potentiality for distinguishing as to their function otherwise identical arguments of a single predicate (syntagmatic contrast)

The alternative arguments in (3.1 a), (b) and (c) realise distinct CRs, in satisfying both (a) and (b) of this principle, as emerges from the fact that (1.1a) can also bear the interpretations primarly associated with (b) and (c), and that there exist predicates (e. g. frigid) which normally reject one or more of the possibilities ascribed to (3.1). The distinctiveness of (3.1 c) and (d) is less certain, given that their subjects differ in terms of a semantic property associated with the character of the N P rather than the semantic function. "Dedicatee" and "goal", as illustrated in (3.4), are never in paradigmatic contrast; the semantic distinction between the two /o-phrases is associated with the lexical meaning of the predicate. Nor are they ever in syntagmatic contrast: they are not used to attribute different functions to two co-present arguments of a single predicate. Nor are the two alternative w-phrases in (3.5): (3.5)

Amaryllis died in Dresden/1785

or the/or-phrases in (3.6) distinct in CR: (3.6)

The marble rolled for two metres/two

seconds

since, apart from anything else, the semantic distinction between the phrases can be attributed (as with (3.1 c/d)) to the character of the NPs included in them: the different functions are complementary. Similarly,

64

3. Contrast

in syntax

the CR realised by to in (3.4) is not in contrast qua CR with that realised as into in (3.7): (3.7)

Francis sent the book into limbo

since the semantic distinction is associated with the dimensionality imputed to the reference object rather than with its semantic function (cf. Anderson 1977: § 2.4): they are both goals. The importance of part (a) of the principle of CR distinctiveness is particularly apparent from sentences like (3.8): (3.8)

The man I love is the man at the bar

wherein the two NPs do not differ in independent semantic function but rather pragmatically (which of them is seen as the "startingpoint" for the presentation of the information embodied in the utterance), and thus do not differ in CR (cf. Anderson 1977: §1.5.1). Similarly (though also differently, as we shall see), the two w-phrases in (3.9) do not differ in CR: (3.9)

In Corstorphine one keeps one's car in a lock-up

There is no (paradigmatic or) syntagmatic contrast. In so far as Fillmore's one-instance-per-clause principle is satisfied by some CRs (even, in a sense we shall examine below, by those in [3.9]), this is not guaranteed by the principle of CR distinctiveness (witness [3.8]), even though the latter can be seen as forming the basis for distinguishing the set of CRs appropriate to a particular language. Rather, an independent substantive principle is involved, one (again) we shall return to below. Clearly, too, we need to examine more closely the independent semantic functions that CRs perform, both in relation to the application of the principle of CR distinctiveness and in relation to the universal characterisation of case. The principle of CR distinctiveness, for example, does not in itself preclude the possibility that we might find languages to differ in the set of CRs that are appropriate to them, although the sets are established on the basis of this principle. However, before pursuing this, I want to relate what we have so far established to our general theme, to its status as a structural analogy. Fillmore indirectly acknowledges the ancestry of the terms "contrast" and "complementarity": "Those of you who are over forty will be familiar with these terms" (1971: 41). But he does not pursue the consequences of his use of this terminology. I suggest that its appropriateness both in relation to the discrimination of CRs and in its original domain is not

3.2. Contrast and the case relations

65

merely a convenience. It is rather a reflection of one manifestation of structural analogy. Let us recall here the notions of level and plane introduced in chapter 1. Levels of representation belong to the same plane if they are constructed out of the same alphabet of substantive elements. Thus, though (contrastive) phonological representations and phonetic differ in part in their principles of organisations, they belong to the same plane: they are constructed on the basis of an alphabet of phonetic features or components. Whereas syntactic structures invoke a distinct alphabet, and therefore belong to a distinct plane. The structural analogy assumption severely restricts potential structural differences between levels, including planar differences. Thus certain structural properties are unique to the syntax, vis-a-vis the phonological plane, by virtue of the interpretative status of the latter in relation to the former. And similarly there are structural differences between the (contrastive) phonological level and the phonetic which follow from the existence of the same relationship. The syntax is the locus for the expression of the recursively denumerable character of the set of sentences constituting a language. The phonological level is lexical; the phonetic structure of utterances is an interpretation of such lexical representations and of syntactic and informational structure (cf. e.g. Anderson 1986a; Anderson and Ewen 1987: part III; and recall the discussion of chapter 2 above). According to the structural analogy assumption, plane- or level-particular structural properties which do not follow from such relationships, or from differences in the character of the alphabets are not permitted. In terms of the structural analogy assumption, then, the deployment of the term "contrast" in the formulation of the principle of CR distinctiveness is not merely a possibly helpful expository act but rather involves recognition of a particular analogy: CRs, like phonemes, are contrastive units, and the principle of CR distinctiveness is a syntactic analogue to the commutation test in phonology, which differs from the principle of CR distinctiveness only in its substantive reference (in part determined by the plane). Compare here e.g. Lass (1984: §2.3): "... any pair of phonemes ... are contrastive: their function is to separate entities". In the discussion which follows I shall formulate and apply the contrastiveness criterion of which the principle of CR distinctiveness and commutation are local manifestations, to a range of structural properties in order to determine their status as basic or derived; basic elements are contrastive. At this point, however, let us proceed a little further with

66

3. Contrast in syntax

our attempt to constrain the notion "semantic case", with the aid of some further analogies. I return, first of all, to Fillmore's one-instance-per-clause criterion for CRs. In form this is an analogue of the preference within phonology for non-repetition of a phoneme within the same onset or rhyme (or even syllable, given the typically "expressive" status of exceptions such as boob and the like — Fudge 1970); though, given the planar difference, the motivations are different in substance: maximising of distinctiveness of adjacent segments in the phonological representation (on this cf. e.g. Ohala and Kawasaki 1984: § 5), semantic coherence in the syntactic. Above I noted two classes of exceptions to the syntactic criterion, represented respectively by examples (3.8) and (3.9). (3.8) I take to instantiate what is universally an absolute exception (analogous to the occurrence of geminates within a single syllable), involving a particular CR (to which we return below). (3.9) introduces other analogies still. Let us draw a distinction between participant and circumstantial arguments, again on the basis of contrast, in this case of predicate-type: presence of a particular set of arguments identifies a predicate type which constrasts with other types by virtue of the conjunction of CRs associated with its participants. I shall refer to this as strict-subcategorisational contrast: participants are relevant to the subcategorisation of the predicate (see further below); circumstantials are either available with any predicate (compatible with selectional restrictions), as with the first locative in (3.9), or with any predicate characterised by the presence of a particular participant (as with instrumentale, which are permitted to any agentive predicate, though the type of instrumental may vary — cf. e. g. Anderson 1977: § 2.6.2). Circumstantials emerge when we apply to the establishment of predicate types on the basis of the CRs they are associated with a test of "commutation with zero". If the presence of a particular argument, ah fails to establish a new subclass of predicate distinguished by its requiring an argument bearing the CR borne by a„ then a, is circumstantial. Instrumentals do not distinguish a new subclass, nor does the first argument in (3.9). Even the establishment of a subclass on the basis of requiring a specific argument type does not motivate a distinct CR if the argument type is in fact distinguished by a semantic property independent of those associated with CRs. This, of course, depends on our definition of the domain of CRs (see further below, section 3.3); but independence is also revealed if the semantic distinction involved cuts across the assignment of CRs.

3.2. Contrast and the case relations

67

For instance, the fact that some predicates normally reject the first type of/or-phrase in (3.6 b), as in (3.10): (3.10)

The concert lasted for (?) two miles/two hours

does not motivate a distinction in CR here. We need the time/place distinction independently, as (3.11) illustrates: (3.11)

(?) Two milesI two hours elapsed

Arguments of different CR types participate in the same distinction. In terms of the framework to be introduced below (based on Anderson 1977), the relevant phrases in (3.11) are abs(olutive), those in (3.10) simultaneously loc(ative) and abl(ative), i.e. "paths". The time/place distinction is independent of semantic functions, as expressed by the CRs. Circumstantials are appropriately represented as "extra-clausal", as embodied in the dependency stemma in (3.12), wherein the verb is successively head: of the VP, with the abs and first loc elements as modifiers; of the clause, with the erg(ative) element as modifier; and of the sentence as a whole, with the second loc as modifier. (The character of the CR labels is not at issue at this point, nor the variation between subjunction [erg and abs in 3.12] and adjunction [loc].) In parsing, however, a predicate such as keep assigns only three CRs, those whose arguments form, together with the predicate, the construction which has as its head the second highest node in (3.12); it has no role in assigning a CR to the final phrase, which is induced by the preposition only. I assume that, in parsing, this case phrase is attached to the preceding clause by application ο

(3.12)

ο

ο ο

ο

ο

ο

erg Ν

V

abs

loc

Ν

loc

Ν

Ν

one keeps one's car in a lock-up in winter

68

3. Contrast

in syntax

of a stray argument convention, which is the analogue of the stray segment convention in phonology (e.g. Kiparsky 1981; Hayes 1982; Anderson 1986 a), as operative in deriving (3.13), where / is successively head of the rhyme, with modifier d; of the syllable, with modifier w; and of the "super-syllable" formed by adding the "extra-metrical" th to the syllable. (This involves a rather different interpretation of the results of stray segment adjunction from that suggested by Anderson 1986 a — see, however, e. g. Giegerich 1986; Anderson 1988 b.) We also find pre-clausal stray arguments, as in (3.9). If pre-syllabic stray segments are not attested, then an explanation for the asymmetry is to be sought in the relationship between the planes or substantive differences between them. It is possible, however, that the initials /s/ of three-consonant onsets in English (/str-/ etc.) discussed in section 2.4 above should be so regarded. (3.13) /O / I / I

: :

°

:

:

ο

·

w i d th Normally, a post-syllabic segment looks for a preceding more sonorous segment to depend on, in conformity with the role of the sonority hierarchy in syllable structure. So that the final ρ in limp will attach itself to the preceding m (e.g. Anderson 1986a; §§5 — 7). With th this is frustrated, and the stray segment convention comes into play. Similarly, in parsing, each argument in a sentence looks for a head whose valency, defined basically in terms of CRs (see below), it is compatible with. This is frustrated in (3.9) and (3.12), which are superjoined to the closest clause head in conformity with the stray argument convention. Whereas in, say (3.14): (3.14)

One keeps one's car in a lock-up in Corstorphine

the preferred strategy (whatever its precise character — cf. e. g. Kimball 1975; Wanner 1980; Crain and Steedman 1982) is to attach the final loc to the immediately preceding N, given the semantic compatibility of the two Ns involved. The convention for stray elements introduces in both its manifestations essentially a default option.

3.2. Contrast and the case relations

69

Anderson (1977: § 2.6) argues that a number of putative CRs advocated in the literature, in the main on the basis of English data, are either in complementary distribution with other CRs or, in being subcategorisationally non-contrastive, are circumstantial variants of participant CRs. No more than four participant CRs — abs(olutive), erg(ative), loc(ative) and abl(ative) — are contrastive; and circumstantials can also be described in terms of the same set (see further section 4.3). As concerns complementarity, consider with respect to the set of participant CRs the putative distinction between "experiencer" and "beneficiary" proposed by e.g. Cook (1972) and Somers (1982). These are in complementary distribution: for instance, experiential verbs like know and like take "experiencer" subjects, whereas ownership verbs take a "beneficiary". (I return below to the status of the putative CR realised as either "experiencer" or "beneficiary", henceforth referred to as "experiencer".) On the other hand, a circumstantial variant of the participant loc in a lock-up in (14) is illustrated by the following loc. In neither such case are we motivated to introduce a distinction in (participant) CRs. Moreover, once the "extra-clausal" status of circumstantials is recognised, this conclusion concerning the set of CRs is compatible with the one-instance-clause constraint, except in the case of abs (as illustrated in [3.8] above), which is special in other ways too (cf. below, section 3.4). Just as extra-metrical segments may violate the sonority hierarchy, so extra-clausal arguments may introduce a violation of the one-instanceper-clause constraint. I shall not repeat here in any detail the demonstration, on the basis of contrastiveness, of the limits of the set of CRs attempted in Anderson (1977). There it is argued that only a very small number of CRs can be motivated contrastively (CRs whose character we turn to in the next section). Here I have tried to illustrate the role of contrastiveness in eliminating some putative CRs only, but to suggest thereby that in principle the set can be appropriately so constrained. Instead, in what follows, I want to pursue another aspect of what has been our main theme in this section, the role of structural analogy in constraining (in another respect) the basis for a case grammar. We have left rather imprecise the semantic domain of the CRs. This must be remedied if we are to proceed further in constraining case grammar. In so doing, however, we shall return to consequences of the principle of CR distinctiveness which converge with the predictions of the substantive hypothesis concerning case which I shall propose in the following section, a hypothesis intended to satisfy another trans-planar analogy.

70

3. Contrast

in syntax

3.3. Case relations as a universal alphabet Say it is correct, on the basis of the principle of CR distinctiveness, to associate only four CRs with English; say we find the same to be true of other languages. Nothing in the principle of CR distinctiveness leads us to expect this. Similarly, in phonology commutation in itself does not lead us to expect recurrence of phoneme types. Rather, an independent substantive hypothesis intervenes: the universal phonetic alphabet guarantees that recurrences can be identified in terms of a fixed set of phonetic dimensions. Certain substantive distinctions may not be utilised contrastively (or even in realisation) in a particular language; but the alphabet imposes an absolute constraint on available dimensions. It also specifies the nature of each dimension and its relationship with others. In the framework of dependency phonology these dimensions and their interrelationships are expressed by the basic components or features (such as V "vocalic" or i "palatal"), the dependency relations into which they may enter and the gestures (or sub-segments) into which they may be grouped (cf. the discussion in chapter 2.5 above). The set of semantic elements appropriate to the description of language, even those which are grammatically relevant, is obviously much greater. But it is plausible to assume that the CRs belong to some universal subset of such (and see chapter 5 for more general discussion). It is therefore in principle possible, and indeed a requirement of any theory of language, to establish the semantic domain occupied by the CRs and their individual characterisations within it. Ironically perhaps, the appropriateness of this analogy is recognised in a negative way in the practice of representatives of the more ascetic varieties of structuralism. Just as many phonemicists were resistant to the idea of phonological universals, particularly the notion of a universal substantive alphabet, so (for example) in his account of the Hungarian case system Antal (1961: 20 — 23) rejects, in much the same terms, the idea that there might be a universal set of CRs. For some critical discussion see Korponay (1986: 25 — 27); I do not consider this position further, in that it leads to no hypothesis of any interest in either domain. I take it that the CRs constitute a universal alphabet of linguistic elements which, together with the distinction between participant and circumstantial, denote the mode of participation of potential referents in the perceived situation expressed by a sentence; more precisely, in the case of participants, since the range of participants is established by the semantic type of the predicate,the CRs themselves simply identify which

3.3. Case relations as a universal alphabet

71

participant is which (Anderson 1977: §2.2; and see further below). But we can characterise the domain more precisely than this, and at the same time come closer to explaining the cardinality of the set of CRs established on the casis of the principle of CR distinctiveness. This characterisation is provided by the localist hypothesis, whose history is briefly charted by Anderson (1977: § 2.4) and Miller (1985) (see too particularly Hjelmslev 1935; Lyons 1977: §15.7; Anderson 1987 a). Briefly, the strong version of this view limits the set of CRs to those which are defined by the semantic components required to express participation in situations involving simplex location or direction; the use of them to express concrete location and direction, as in (3.15): (3.15) a. b.

Hans is in Berlin The lift fell from the eighth to the third floor

merely constituting one, albeit privileged, manifestation. Concrete spatial expressions have a special status: they are, for instance, more highly differentiated in terms of dimensionality. But other, abstract situations are also conceptualised in these spatial terms; The CRs provide what Anderson (1984 c), 1987 a) calls "suppletive metaphors" (rather than the merely "supplementary" metaphors of rhetoric), i. e. metaphors for which there is no "literal" equivalent. Abstract domains are structured linguistically by space-based metaphor, including its egocentric orientation (manifested in deixis). Thus, most obviously, the expression of time relations as well as aspectual bears witness to such a spatial (and deictic) metaphor in terms both of the structure of inferences based on these expressions and of their lexical realisation (Anderson 1972, 1973 a; Miller 1972; Jessen 1975; Comrie 1976: particularly App. B.l). The pervasiveness of such metaphor outside the CR domain is also well documented (see e.g. Lakoff and Johnson 1980; Lakoff 1983). The localist hypothesis makes available not only a restrictive specification of the domain of CRs but also one that, along with other linguistic phenomena, can be said to instantiate more general cognitive principles (cf. e. g. Miller and JohnsonLaird 1976). We would note too that though the spatial interpretation of abstract domains is systematic it is not always determinate: alternative spatialisations are available, and languages may vary in which they choose. For example, "possession" may be conceptualised as "location of the possessed object at/with the possessor" (Ce livre est ä lui) or vice versa (as in the "negative" He is without a home). The basis for what preferences may be observed awaits investigation.

72

3. Contrast in syntax

Table 3.1. The intrinsic content of the CRs CRs

abs

erg

source

loc

abl

place

place source

The particular articulation of the localist hypothesis that is proposed in Anderson (1977) and elsewhere involves a classification of the four CRs by two simplex features or components, as shown in table 3.1. Only the two CRs on the right include a place feature: in a clause also containing an abs (which is unmarked and obligatory) a loc argument introduces the place assigned to the abs (as [3.15 a]); loc and abl arguments together in the same clause specify initial and terminal locations for the abs (as in [15 b]); abl without loc specifies the extraction of the abs from some place, or (more abstractly) group (it is "partitive": cf. e. g. Anderson 1973 b, 1974; Lyons 1977: § 15.7; ch. 5 below). Erg does not associate abs with a place, or disassociate it therefrom. It is a source which does not introduce a place; in labelling the argument of a predicate it introduces the source of the situation as a whole — or, with actional predicates, and in a terminology which explicitly recognises what it contributes to this, the "source of the action" (as illustrated by the subjects in (3.4), (7), (12) and (14) above; and see further again Lyons 1977: § 15.7). "Place" and "source" specify the dimensions relevant to the set of CRs; and table 3.1 specifies the combinations which characterise the individual CRs. The localist hypothesis imposes a very restrictive alphabet on the domain of semantic case; other putative distinctions are either non-contrastive or attributable to a distinct domain obeying different restrictions, as with distinctions appropriate to the dimensionality domain ("inessive", "superessive", etc.). Perhaps the most striking omission from table 3.1, as compared with the usual sets of CRs that have been proposed, is that of "experiencer" (or the partially overlapping "dative"). Anderson (1977: §2.6.3 — see also 1984 d) argues that "experiencers" are not in subcategorisational syntagmatic contrast with locatives, consistent with this exclusion. However, as we have observed, (3.1 a) does seem to show paradigmatic contrast: the subject can be either "experiencer", abl (Fillmore's "instrumental" — cf. [3.1b]) or loc (cf. [1 c/d]). Moreover, "experiencer" contrasts with erg: the subject of a verb like feel may be either, whereas other verbs normally require one or the other. However, "experiencer" also shares properties with both loc and erg.

3.3. Case relations as a universal alphabet

73

Anderson (1977: §2.7.2) points out, for instance, that the semantic relationship between the (static) loc in (3.16 a.i) and its directional counterpart in (ii): (3.16) a. i. ii. b. i. ii.

There is fog in London Fog has spread from Brighton to London The professor knows Modern Greek The professor has learnt Modern Greek from a native speaker

is paralleled by the relationship between the subject "experiencer" in (b.i) and its directional congener in (ii) (the so-called "dative" — see further chapter 4 (below). The implicational relations holding between (i) and (ii) are in common (cf. here also Lyons 1968: 398; Anderson 1977: § 2.3.2), including the fact that the directionals in (ii) both involve extension rather than displacement: crudely, it is not implied that the entity denoted by the abs argument has ceased also to be located at the source as well as at the goal (cf. e. g. walk or sell, which as directional predicates normally involve displacement, with the implication that the abs entity ceases to be located at the source location). "Experiencer" and erg, however, also share semantic properties, such as a preference for "humanoid" arguments, arguments which can be regarded as displaying human-like characteristics. This is associated with further selectional restrictions, such that, for example, only erg or "experiencer" arguments (as found with the subjects of send and know in (3.4b) and (3.16 b. i), respectively) can be modified by adverbials like secretly, "animate" or "human" status for the argument is not enough, so that such an adverbial is normally rejected by the subject of e. g. die, which is an (animate) abs (cf. again Anderson 1984 c, 1987 a — and see further the discussion of (4.21) in section 4.2 below), or indeed by the abs subject of any verb which happens to denote a human. Given the range of behaviour sampled here, "experiencer" can be denied CR status not by virtue of being a variant of some other, but by being a combination of two independently motivated CRs, namely erg and loc: the subject of know in (3.16) is erg + loc: it introduces the locus of the "experience", the situation type involved, and the potential controller of the situation. Cf. here Givon (1984: 88): "most commonly the dative is a conscious goal of the transaction". Only when erg is not combined with loc does it introduce specifically the source of an action; but potential controllers in general are as such modifiable by secretly. This proposal concerning "experiencers" involves, of course, a violation of another of Fillmore's constraints (one perhaps also espoused by Chomsky 1981: e.g. §2.2), whereby each argument contracts only one

74

3. Contrast

in syntax

CR. However, the abandonment of this particular constraint is motivated not merely by the need to account for the properties that "experiencer" share with erg and loc but also in a number of other instances. Consider, for instance, a verb like walk. We have already noted that in introducing the entity that undergoes displacement its subject is abs: only abs arguments are located. But clearly this subject is usually also the source of the action; it is also erg: walk takes an argument that is erg + abs. (See further Jackendoff 1976, as well as the works already referred to; and cf. the contortions indulged in by Somers (1982: 249 — 252) in attempting to avoid this conclusion.) Moreover, the relaxation of the constraint is more than compensated for by the increased restrictiveness achieved elsewhere in the characterisation of the status of CRs. Notice too that on such an analysis of "experiencers" and "datives" they emerge, appropriately, as more complex (erg + loc) and thus more "marked" than (transitive) "agentives"; apart from this being appropriate with regard to the localist hypothesis, such a status is reflected in the generally more restricted distribution of such arguments. Pre-nominal "experiencers" in English nominalisations, for example, are less generally acceptable that pre-nominal "agentives": contrast I deplore Fred's perversionj*knowledge of the result with I deplore (the fact) that Fred perverted/knew the result — and cf. again Anderson (1987 a). Similarly, in diachrony, in languages which acquire subject-marking, "experiencers" lag behind "agents" in the process of acquisition (Anderson 1984d — and see, as well as section 4.3 below, Anderson 1988 a on Old English "impersonals", in particular). The relevant works mentioned in the immediately preceding paragraphs involve attemps to demonstrate the viability of the restrictive hypothesis embodied in table 3.1 in relation to the functions appropriate to a number of domains of varying abstractness (tense, aspect, existential status, negation, quantification, cognition, etc.). It is only in pursuing and refining such a substantive hypothesis that we can arrive at a suitable constrained theory of CRs (or "θ-roles" or whatever) and thus of case grammar, based on an alphabet which warrants analogical comparison with the phonetic, and which accounts for the recurrence throughout languages of a small set of CRs compatible with the principle of CR distinctiveness. I suggest on the basis of the work referred to that, in principle, the view of CRs offered here has been shown to be compatible with independent constraints imposed by, among other things, the structural analogy assumption. Let us now examine in the light of structural analogy other aspects, or consequences of the case grammar hypothesis presented above, aspects which again interpret contrastiveness.

3.4. Contrast and the case grammar

hypothesis

75

3.4. Contrast and the case grammar hypothesis The two-fold claim embodied in the case grammar hypothesis formulated in section 3.1 makes the prior assumption that CRs are relevant to the syntax. If they are not, then part (1) is simply irrevelant; however, evidence for (b) is also evidence for the syntactic relevance of the CRs. In this section we consider to what extent CRs can be said to be basic, in the sense (again) of section 3.1 above, where I also now interpret basic as contrastive, non-redundant: it is precisely the role of syntactic derivations to specify those syntactic relations (labelled and unlabelled) that are noncontrastive. Let us firstly consider the status of the CRs relative to other (labelled and unlabelled) relations: which are contrastive? We can partially express contrastiveness in terms of what syntactic information is required by lexical entries, given that lexical insertion is derivationally initial — or cyclic, if the cycle obeys the conditions suggested in chapter 4 below. Let us continue to assume here that the lexicon has access to initial structures only. So we can formulate contrastiveness as: The (lexical) contrastiveness criterion: Independent properties are contrastive in a particular domain if they are potentially determined therein by individual lexical items rather than by rule Thus, in terms of the criterion, participant CRs are contrastive by virtue of being required by a particular predicate; circumstantial CRs are contrastive by virtue of being selected by their particular constituents, as with the final PP in (3.12). Thus the circumstantial in (12), repeated here as (3.17 a), contrasts with (b) in CRs, however else: (3.17) a. b.

One keeps one's car in a lock-up in winter One keeps one's car in a lock-up from October (till March)

in involving directionality rather than location (see further chapter 4, however, for a more explicit articulation of the status of circumstantials). The respective domains in which participants and circumstantials contrast are distinct. The above formulation defines, more precisely, "lexically relevant" contrastivity: it distinguishes properties which are potentially idiosyncratic to particular lexical items from those which are derivable from the contrastive properties. Clearly, there are properties which belong to neither set, properties which are "non-lexically" contrastive, such as some word order variations (in the syntax) and some intonational parameters

76

3. Contrast in syntax

(in the phonology). These are determined rather by informational (including illocutionary) structure, outwith individual lexical specifications or the redundancies based on them. (As such, as observed, they [apart from anything else] render the notion "lexical grammar" non-viable.) However, here I am restricting my attention to the distinction between properties in a particular domain which are lexically contrastive (as defined above) and those which are redundant. (On the role of "informational" factors see e.g. Firbas 1979; Halliday 1967/1968; Kirkwood 1973; Svoboda 1981). A typical (non-case grammar) lexical entry for a verb like crumble might include the strict subcategorisation frame of (3.18): (3.18)

+[_(NP)]

wherein it is specified that the verb optionally takes as an argument a NP to its right (as well as an obligatory subject to its right, for which (in being outside VP) it is not subcategorised). However, such a characterisation is not contrastive. In particular, the linearity relationship is not contrastive: crumble does not contrast with verbs that take a NP to their left; linear position of the NP argument is non-distinctive: Indeed all (other) daughters of VP follow the verb; and thus linearity with respect to V is redundant and can be specified derivately. But VP itself is also redundant; of the participant arguments of the verb, VP excludes only the subject. Now, this conclusion (that VP is redundant) is problematical as long as subject is characterised configurationally: the configurational definition of subject depends on the priority of VP as a constituent (as e.g. in Chomsky 1965: ch. 2). However even if we ignore the fact that the universality of VP and of such configurational definitions of subject etc. are in doubt (cf. e.g. Anderson 1977: § 1.2, 1984b) — as is now generally recognised — invocation of CRs allow us to define subject in a way that is universally applicable in those languages and constructions which invoke such a notion (Anderson 1979 c, d), in terms of the hierarchy presented below. If this is so, then all of the information contained in or implied by (3.18) (apart from the optionality of the argument) is redundant: subject is derivative of the set of CRs associated with the verb; VP is derivative with respect to the assignment of subjecthood; linearity is derivative of subjecthood and inclusion within VP; even the fact that the non-subjective argument of the verb is a NP is redundant — this is the unmarked possibility with (non-subjective) abs. We can replace (3.18) with (3.19): (3.19)

abs (erg)

3.4. Contrast and the case grammar

hypothesis

77

where abs and erg are unordered, and —• here is simply "takes as an argument/dependent". Notice, however, that (3.19) does not replace simply (3.18); it replaces some sort of combination of (3.18) and (3.19), and a statement of the relationship between them ("argument structure"), since the CRs associated with a verb have to be specified anyway (cf. for example the characterisations offered in Bresnan ed. 1982) — they cannot, for instance, be derived from a subcategorisation frame such as (3.18), given e.g. that not all subjects are erg. What case grammar suggests, however, is that the reverse is the case. The viability of this final conclusion depends on the appropriateness of a subject selection hierarchy, such as are suggested (on the basis of different proposals concerning the set of participant CRs) by Fillmore (1968 a, 1971) and Anderson (1977: §2.8.2, 1979 c), and as in embodied in table 3.2 below. The existence of such a hierarchy is well-supported; e. g. "agents" invariably outrank other arguments in the same clause in the selection of the subject (provided we assume a two-clause analysis of e.g. English passives — see chapter 4.1 below). Anderson (1977) claims that this determinateness is characteristic of the hierarchy as a whole, and indeed it is this that characterises subject-forming systems. But this conclusion depends, of course, on how adequately individual case-assignments can be motivated. And Fillmore (1968 a) concedes that there may be exceptions to the hierarchy. But this in itself is not damaging to the hierarchy hypothesis, provided that the exceptions are not widespread, such that we have a generalised indeterminacy. Consider, for instance, the notorious likejplease pair in English. Kirkwood (1973) and Anderson (1977: §2.1.5) assign distinct arrays of CRs to these. Say, however, that such an analysis is rejected, and like and please are assigned the same "case frame". Provided that one of them is an exception to the norm, all that such a situation entails is that the exceptional verb must be marked as, in this instance, projecting out of the hierarchy the CR that one would expect to be assigned subjecthood; its place is then taken by the next highest participant. Subject selection remains orderly with respect to the hierarchy. Table 3.2 presents a version of the hierarchy, based on the analysis of Anderson (1977: § 3.5.8), together with some exemplification. » in table 3.2 is to be interpreted as "outranks as potential subject"; and "case" is a variable over all the CRs. Thus, in (a) the lone abs is selected as subject; in (b) and (c) abs is preferred over the locational arguments; in (d) and (e) the erg is preferred, as it is in (f), though here the erg is combined with loc; in (g), the abs + loc argument (the bun), as longer expansion of

78

3. Contrast in syntax

"abs(+case)'\ has priority, in terms of the normal conventions, over the simple abs ( 0 /{ , V} —* V, —* V

(i. e. only one V may appear in a categorial gesture if two other vowels are right-dependents of that V). The forms in (4.2) are eligible for (4.4) by virtue of its applying at the appropriate point in a derived environment: the combination of morphemes whereby the structural description in (4.4) is satisfied is introduced on the cycle of application. Those in (4.3), of course, fail to meet this description. But (4.4) also fails with morphologically simplex forms that do meet the structural description, such as those in (4.5): (4.5)

nightingale, ivory, stevedore, Oberon

These, then, are are not idiosyncratic exceptions to (4.4) but forms whose failure to undergo the structure-changing rule is predicted by the strict cycle condition, given their morphological structure. To the extent that the role of the strict cycle condition or the like is well-established in relation to the phonology, we would expect, in terms of the structural analogy assumption, that cyclic rules in the syntax should obey an analogous condition. Let us say that they do. The case grammar hypothesis predicts that there cannot be a rule of the character of the unaccusative: it changes the grammatical relations assigned in the cyclic clause; in terms of case grammar these are not available at this point. Within a case grammar framework grammatical relations can be changed within the cycle only indirectly, via raising, whereby, for example, the subordinate subject in (3.29) above is assigned the abs relation in the

4.1. The unaccusative

hypothesis

and the strict cycle condition

95

main clause and derivatively, as a consequence, objecthood in that clause. An unaccusative rule is also incompatible with syntactic implementation of the strict cycle condition. In order to establish this, let us now consider the syntactic analogue of application of this condition in phonology. I assume, consistently with the predictions of structural analogy, that the strict cycle condition applies as it stands to the syntax, save that (in order to generalise over both planes, given the planar differences in alphabet) we must substitute "elements" for "morphemes" in (b.i.) and drop the reference to "phonological" from (b.ii). Let us refer to this generalised formulation as the strict cycle condition'. With reference to the syntax, the strict cycle condition' prohibits cyclic application of rules that apply within simple clauses. I am also assuming that only the maximal constructions headed by V (and containing only participants — but see further below), i.e. clauses, introduce a new application of the cycle — but the question of NP as a cyclic node is, anyway, not relevant here. Only rules which invoke elements from both the cyclic clause and a subordinate or necessarily the output of such a rule are in conformity with the strict cycle condition'. Again the qualification is in order, that the strict cycle condition' does not apply in the case of structure-building as opposed to structure-changing rules. Thus, as is desirable, the rules which, in terms of the case grammar proposals made in chapter 3 above, erect dependency structures can apply within simple clauses; just as suprasegmental dependencies in the phonology are erected with respect to simplex forms. Raising, however, is a structure-changing rule (whether conceived of in relational or configurational/sequential terms); and it is cyclic. It is therefore subject to the strict cycle condition'. The strict cycle condition' is satisfied in its case, given that the combination of elements on the left hand side of (3.30) above becomes available only on the cycle associated with the upper V. Contrast this with a putative rule of "indirect object advancement" or "dative (movement)", whereby, crudely, the superficial relational or configurational structure of (4.6 a) is derived from a source more immediately represented in (b): (4.6) a. b.

Sophie sold Jonathan a tutu Sophie sold a tutu to Jonathan

(or vice versa!). Such a rule would be structure-changing: grammatical relations are reassigned either directly or via a change in position. It would also be cyclic: it feeds passive:

96

(4.7)

4. Cyclicity

in syntax

Jonathan was sold a tutu by Sophie

and thus, indirectly, raising: (4.8)

Jonathan seems to have been sold a tutu by Sophie

But dative violates the strict cycle condition'; it does not apply in a derived environment. It should therefore not be introduced as such into the syntax. This conclusion holds whether we regard dative as an independent rule or as a manifestation of a more general schema (such as "Move-α"); in either case the application of such a rule in the derivation of (4.6 a) is illegitimate. It is therefore unsurprising that a number of independent objections have been raised to the positing of dative, both in relation to the syntax of English and as a putative universal (cf. e. g. Green 1974; Oehrle 1975, 1983; Anderson 1977: §§ 2.7-2.8, 1978 a; Faltz 1978; Böhm 1986). The generalisations which Whitney (1982,1983) relates to a movement analysis of "datives" are equally accessible to the decompositional analysis of Anderson 1977: ch. 2, 1978: see further section 4.3 below. The illegitimacy of dative is also predicted by the case grammar hypothesis: since grammatical relations and linearity arise only derivatively there can't be a rule which realigns objecthood assignments or the relative position of objects within a single clause. In the light of independent evidence, including that which motivates the strict cycle condition, the case grammar hypothesis imposes, in this instance, an appropriate constraint on the character of syntactic rules. And we can generalise this conclusion to all clause-bound rules which change grammatical relations or position (including all the "advancements" of "relational grammar"); such putative rules, all illegitimate with respect to the strict cycle condition', are incompatible with the case grammar hypothesis. This particular analogy provides striking confirmation of the appropriateness of the hypothesis. Passive too, if conceived in such terms, cannot be maintained as a syntactic rule. This is not necessarily to deny that a sentence like (4.7) involves what one might call a "passive construction". But a passive construction is exactly that: a construction, consisting of one verb (sold in [4.7]) subordinate to another (was). (4.7) contains two clauses, such that relational or positional differences between the passive and the corresponding active can be mediated by cyclic syntactic rules applying in a derived environment. Anderson (1977: § 3.3 — cf. too 1972) suggests that the rule involved is raising — in conformity with the position that

4.1. The unaccusative

hypothesis

and the strict cycle condition

97

raising is the only cyclic structure-changing rule. It is therefore inaccurate of Perlmutter (1984: 30) to describe the proposals made in this area by that work as being (along with Fillmore 1968 a; Anderson 1971; Dik 1978; Starosta 1978) equivalent "to the monostratal theory in that they posit subjecthood and objecthood at only one level (essentially the final level of the bistratal theory)". In the present context, we can provisionally say that "passive" involves the raising of the (residually) highest argument on the subject selection hierarchy on condition that the highest argument, the subject, is, in this instance, projected out as a candidate for raising. This is indicated schematically in (4.9): (4.9)

Raising controlled by a passive verb: V —• abs —> V —* case; —> N ; , —• casej —> Nj => V —• abs —> Nj, —• V —• case; —• Nj

where casej is the argument highest on the subject selection hierarchy of section 3 and casej is the next highest. That is, (4.9) collapses with (3.30) if case; in the latter is taken to be simply the highest accessible argument in the hierarchy, which is the subject in the unmarked case, but where, as in the passive construction, the highest argument of all, the subject, may be projected out. So that in (4.10 a) the abs in the lower clause, rather than the subject erg, is raised: (4.10) a. b. c. d.

Melissa has been kissed by hundreds This bed has been slept in by hundreds That item is included in the report That is known by/to everyone

whereas in (4.10 b) the loc NP is preferred over the subjective erg + abs, and in (4.10 c) the abs is preferred over the subjective abs + loc. The prepositions reflect the CRs of the projected-out subjects: by for erg( + ), in etc. for loc( + ); the erg + loc in (d) is either by or to. The passive construction provides a strategy for maintaining the subject-forming character of a system in situations where the subject choice determined by the hierarchy is at odds with the requirements of information structure. Of course, some combinations of CRs are more susceptible to passive than others (cf. e. g. Davison 1980); but again susceptibility is related precisely to the array of CRs and other semantic factors (cf. particularly Granger 1983). For instance, prototypical passives involve subordinate erg clauses. There are other factors still that an adequate account of passive constructions should allow for (cf. e. g., within a case grammar framework, Anderson 1972, 1977; ch. 2; Böhm 1982) and which

98

4. Cyclicity

in syntax

would, indeed, require extensions to the analysis sketched out here; but these do not affect our conclusion concerning the status of the passive rule. See further, however, section 5.5 below. I have tried to indicate, briefly, that the case grammar hypothesis is not incompatible with the positing of "passive" constructions. On the other hand, given the strict cycle condition', there can be no mono-clausal passive rule, whether conceived of as independent (as in much early work in transformational grammar or in Perlmutter and Postal 1983 a) or as a particular manifestation of "Move-α". This is again as predicted by the case grammar hypothesis, which permits the kind of derivation outlined in the immediately preceding paragraph but does not allow reference to grammatical relations (or "configurationality") in the cyclic clause. What is of particular significance in the present context is that, clearly, the same conclusion holds with respect to any rule of the character of the unaccusative. It too reassigns grammatical relations within a single clause. Say that fall is an unaccusative predicate: the derivation of clauses containing it, such as (4.11): (4.11)

Snow fell for days

will involve either directly, within a single clause, substituting the initial objecthood of (in this instance) snow with (derived) subjecthood, or moving this NP out of VP into the (empty) subject slot in the same clause. Neither interpretation is legitimate in terms of the strict cycle condition'; nor are they permitted by the case grammar hypothesis. Thus, the subject of intransitive crumble (cf. [3.23]) or of intransitive change (cf. ([3.26]) cannot be an initial object, independently of the predictions of the case grammar hypothesis. Nor can the subject of seem (cf. [3.28]) go through a stage at which it is an object. The rule assigning subjecthood in these instances is incompatible with the strict cycle condition' (even though in the case of seem this particular application of the rule does conform with it, in that unaccusative is fed by passive — an argument for unaccusative based solely on raising would be circular). The conclusion of section 3.5 above still stands, therefore: the lexical and syntactic evidence supports the position that, as predicted by the case grammar hypothesis, neither grammatical relations nor configurational information is available initially, and thus to the cyclic clause and to the lexicon. Together, in this respect, the case grammar hypothesis and the strict cycle condition provide, in principle, an appropriately restrictive theory of syntax and its interaction with the lexicon. But let us now pursue a little

4.2. Subject and the strict cycle condition

99

bit further some further consequences of the analogy with phonology in this area of cyclicity.

4.2. Subject and the strict cycle condition Anderson (1977: ch. 3) suggests that the subject-formation in English, as opposed to the "semi-subject-formation" characteristic of some other languages (cf. too Böhm 1983), is structure-changing: subject-formation substitutes a derived relation for the CR of the argument selected as subject. In the light of the strict cycle condition' this is illegitimate, if subject-formation is cyclic — as seems to be appropriate, since it apparently feeds raising (as exemplified in [3.28] and [3.29] and formulated in [3.30]); subject-formation does not apply in derived contexts, but assigns subjecthood to one of the arguments of a particular predicate. Given the appropriateness of the strict cycle condition', cyclic subject-formation must be in general structure-building rather than structure-changing; it adds subjecthood to the relational specification of the argument concerned. This conclusion is supported by the analysis of "passive" constructions proposed in section 4.1. "Passive", in these terms, involves the raising of a non-subject (specifically the argument next below on the hierarchy), leaving the subject of the lower clause behind. This subject is marked by the preposition appropriate to its CR specification (by for erg( + ), in, etc. for loc(+)). Accordingly, assignment of subjecthood cannot have obliterated these CR assignments; subject-formation must be structure-building. However, typically in English and other languages, the CRs of subjects are not reflected superficially; it was partly this which motivated the original distinction between semi-subject-formation (as manifested in so-called "ergative" languages and others) and the "full" subject-formation of English and the like: languages with semi-subjectformation permit superficial reference to the CR of the subject. The resolution of this paradox leads us to another analogy. Post-cyclic phonological rules, it is generally agreed, are not subject to the strict cycle condition. This in itself is not helpful in the present context, given the cyclicity of subject-formation. But let us, as just anticipated, make a further analogy. Kiparsky (1985) and others have provided evidence that in a particular language the same phonological rule may apply both cyclically and post-cyclically, with the consequence that it will, of course, be subject to different constraints at these different levels: cf. e.g. Kiparsky (1984, 1985: § 1.3) on w-epenthesis in Icelandic.

100

4. Cyclicity

in syntax

We must assume, in terms of structural analogy, that the same is potentially true of a syntactic rule. Say subject-formation is such a rule. Say too that in English subjectformation can then apply both cyclically and post-cyclically: the cyclic application is not structure-changing, and so access to CRs remains available to cyclic rules and post-cyclic rules (including, as we shall see, post-cyclic subject-formation); but post-cyclic application brings along neutralisation of the CRs attributed to the subject. A "morphologically ergative" language like Basque gives evidence of cyclic subject-formation (in so far as raising victims are subjects — cf. Pullum 1980), but lacks post-cyclic subject-formation (as reflected by the morphology, including concord). A "syntactically ergative" language like Dyirbal lacks both in the major construction types (cf. Dixon 1972; Anderson 1979 c — and, on types of "ergativity", Dixon 1979). The "impersonal" constructions of Italian and the like (cf. Perlmutter 1983 a) lack cyclic subject-formation (and so the relevant argument fails to raise), but involve post-cyclic assignment of subjecthood, as manifested by control of verb concord by the appropriate argument (see further Anderson 1988a). We might represent the possibilities as in table 4.1. Table 4.1. Types of subject-forming systems Cyclic

Post-cyclic

—

—

+

—

—

+

+ +

Example Dyirbal Basque Italian impersonals English

The appropriateness of recognising distinct cyclic and post-cyclic applications of subject-formation is apparent, even in relation to the syntax of English alone, from constructions in which there is a discrepancy between the two assignments, as in (4.12): (4.12)

There are two philosophers in the room

wherein there is cyclic subject, and thus is eligible for raising: (4.13)

There seem to be two philosophers in the room

and occupies pre-verbal position (and is, eventually, eligible for "inversion" — Are there...?), and the post-cyclic subject is two philosophers, which controls concord on the verb — i.e. that finite verb to which it is most immediately subordinate (are in [4.12], seem in [4.13]) (given that

4.2. Subject and the strict cycle condition

101

operation of raising deprives a verb of finiteness — see further section 5.5 below). Such an account of concord determination fits naturally with the suggestion made in section 5.3 that concord constitutes a "prosodic" phenomenon: number spreads to the most immediately superordinate finite verb. Case-marking and concord are thus also post-cyclic. (4.12) contains two subjects, then, one a "dummy" assigned subjecthood cyclically by default ("normal" subject selection fails), the other showing the neutralisation associated with post-cyclic assignment. In this way we can recognise formally what underlies the traditional uncertainties concerning the analysis of such sentences, specifically concerning the assignment of subjecthood (cf. e.g. Jespersen 1924: 154—155). That a single rule is involved, applying under different conditions cyclically and post-cyclically, is supported by the fact that the same hierarchy is appealed to in both cases; it is only because in certain constructions particular CRs, or the whole set, may be projected out of subject selection that discrepancies of the character of that associated with (4.12) can arise. Further support for the positing of a non-structure-changing character for cyclic subject formation derives from a consideration of the grammar of extra-clausal predicates, or "attributives" (Halliday 1967/8) — more precisely (in Halliday's terminology) "extensive attributives". Halliday (1967: § 3) distinguishes between "intensive attributives" such as those in (4.14): (4.14) a. i. ii. b. i. ii.

The box looked heavy He found the box heavy It went bad He turned it bad

(respectively "depictive" and "resultative"), in which the (adjectival) "attributive" is obligatory, the "resultative extensive attributives" of (4.15): (4.15) a. b.

He climbed high He stood the table straight

and the "depictive extensive attributives" of (4.16): (4.16) a. b.

She lay drowsy He drinks his coffee black

Within the confines of the present discussion, I am unable to give attention to other dimensions of Halliday's subtle classification of "attributives". Indeed, I shall confine my attention to the class exemplified in (4.16); what I shall be proposing extends to that exemplified in (4.15), but the

102

4. Cyclicity

in syntax

"resultative" aspect introduces considerations not germane to our concerns here. What is of interest for us at this point is that the final predicates in the examples of (4.16) are circumstantial with respect to the clause headed by the preceding finite verb; they are extra-clausal with respect to these verbs; in parsing, they constitute "stray predicates". Furthermore, the "missing argument" associated with these circumstantial predicates is identical to a participant in the clause. In this they are distinguished from "manner adverbials", which have the whole clause as their scope and focus on the "process" denoted rather than on a particular participant, thus appearing in "theme-predicated" structures such as (4.17 a): (4.17) a. b.

It was very quickly that he drank his coffee *It was very hot that he drank his coffee

(Halliday 1967: 64), unlike the "attributive" in (b). Halliday also points to the peripheral status of -ly derivatives of items like colour words as reflecting the fact that they express "inherently participant qualities". Such attributives are also distinguished, but in a different way, from "subject-oriented" adverbials, such as that in (4.18): (4.18) a. b.

Martha was unwittingly deprived of a fortune Martha unwittingly deprived herself of a fortune

where it appears to be possible to identify the identical participant in terms of its grammatical relation, with the subsidiary reading for (4.18 a) whereby the "unwitting" is attributed to the (here omitted) "agent" being dependent on the fact that this too is a cyclic subject (passed over by the passive version of raising — cf. [4.9] above). Identity in such instances must be established at the earliest cyclically, given that subjecthood is assigned in the cycle. However, the "missing" argument in (4.16) corresponds in each instance to an abs, whether, in accordance with the subject selection hierarchy, it is assigned subjecthood or not: for illustration see again Halliday (1967: § 3). The abs may also be erg, as in He plunged headlong. The difference in selection of the identical participant in (4.16 a) and (b) is not simply a question of distance from the stray predicate. Even if another argument intervenes, as in (4.19 a): (4.19) a. b. c.

He returned to his wife furious He left his wife penniless *He ate the food furious

4.2. Subject and the strict cycle condition

103

the extra-clausal predicate is still associated with the initial abs, whereas (b) reveals that the presence of two abs participants (he is abs + erg, his wife is abs+abl) leads to ambiguity. (The interpretation with his wife corresponding to the "missing" argument is not necessarily "resultative" — as in He rendered his wife penniless.) The "missing" argument in all these cases is identical to a participant abs. The non-abs subject of (4.19 c) is therefore not suitable as the identical participant; the sentence is viable only with a "pause" before furious. (We should, however, note a rather different pattern with e. g. "humanoid-oriented" participant-manner attributives like nude, as illustrated by He takes his coffee nude [as opposed to black] — for some relevant discussion see e.g. Williams 1980; Horn 1986: 917 — 920.) As a consequence, however these predicates are introduced (see further section 4.3 below), provided that (as extra-clausal) they are not in the same cyclic domain as the finite verb, and given that identity is in this instance too established cyclically, the nature of the CRs associated with the participants in the clauses in (4.16) and (4.19) must remain available after the cyclic rules (including subject formation) have applied to those clauses. The same conclusion holds with respect to "agent-oriented" adverbials such as that in (4.20): (4.20) a. b. c.

Hal deliberately misled him He was deliberately misled by Hal *He deliberately died

and to "erg-oriented" adverbials (cf. section 3.3 above) like that in (4.21): (4.21) a. b. c.

Theodoric secretly knew/loved the plan Theorodic secretly destroyed the plan *He secretly died

In each instance the participant identical to the "missing" argument of the extra-clausal predicate (adverb) is identified by its CR assignment: with deliberately the participant must be a non-place erg ("agent"); with secretly it must be erg (thus either "agent" or "experiencer"). The anomalous examples in (c), which can be rescued only by imposing exceptional interpretations on the clauses concerned, both lack a participant specified appropriately as to its CR(s). (Denoting animates is not enough.) Again, if identity is established cyclically (which would be the most general formulation, given that it must be so established in the case of "subjectoriented" adverbials — and see again section 4.3), the CRs must remain available after the relevant application of subject formation. For a similar

104

4. Cyclicity

in syntax

conclusion based on a discussion of constraints on reflexivisation in "clause union" causatives, see Böhm (1982: § 3.2). I do not pursue here further consequences of this analogy, involving the possibility that the same rule may apply both cyclically and postcyclically, in that these are of sufficient significance, it seems to me, to warrant extensive treatment elsewhere. However, it is perhaps worthwhile indicating here that the recognition of its appropriateness opens up, for instance, the possibility of regarding as the post-cyclic congener of the only well-established cyclic structure-changing rule, i. e. raising, the apparently rather dissimilar rule of "w/i-movement", in so far as differences can be related to cyclicity or not of application. Consider e. g. the lack of lexical exceptions to w/j-movement, its not being restricted to subjects, its unbounded character, the fuzziness of the set of potential victims; which are not implausible syntactic analogues of the properties associated with post-cyclic phonological rules. But, as I have indicated, that's another story, previewed further in Anderson (1987 a).

4.3. Cyclicity and the pre-lexical base In the preceding discussion we have assumed that the lexicon has access to syntactically initial structures only; conversely, syntactic derivations are built on the basis of the contrastive information provided by the lexicon. This is a suitably restrictive assumption. For instance, it enables us, in conjunction with the case grammar hypothesis, to explain why lexical regularities (such as -able formation) ignore grammatical relations and linearity/configurationality, which are in terms of that hypothesis syntactically derivative. However, other considerations, neglected thus far in the discussion, suggest that lexical insertion is not initial, but rather cyclic. Such an assumption allows us to maintain the appropriate restrictions associated with initial insertion (grammatical relations etc. are still not acccessible by the lexicon); and it also provides for phenomena that are difficult to reconcile with the latter. Let us take as our startingpoint some questions that arise rather immediately out of the preceding proposals, particularly those put forward in section 3.2. Consider again the structure suggested in (3.12) for One keeps one's car in a lock-up in winter. How are such circumstantials as the final loc therein to be generated (as opposed to assigned a head in parsing), given their extra-clausal status? Their presence, as we have seen, is not required by the predicate that is the nucleus of the clause:

4.3. Cyclicity and the pre-lexical base

105

the internal structure of the clause is simply a projection of the valency of its predicate (cf. e. g. Anderson 1977: ch. 2, 1987 a). We could certainly allow, as an extension to all clauses, a range of circumstantials; such that any clause head can be associated with a varying set of superordinate headships, each of them introducing as a dependent a circumstantial of some sort. However, in that case, how do we characterise the fact (if indeed it is so — as claimed in section 3.2 above) that circumstantials are to be described in terms of the same set of CRs as the participants, i.e. (combinations of) just the set given in table 1 of chapter 3? Such a hypothesis (as in the case of the same restriction on participants) remains desirably vulnerable to the establishment of phenomena that are resistant to any such analysis; and it is certainly preferable to proposing the motley and apparently indeterminate range of circumstantials commonly entertained. To be sure, it is possible to recognise a wide range of circumstantial types (cf. e.g. the discussion of "adjuncts" in Quirk et al. 1971: ch. 8). But, particularly in the light of the localist hypothesis, these are to be classified not in terms of a battery of different circumstantial CRs but rather in terms of the semantic domains in which the relations (i. e. the same relations as we have attributed to participants) can be said to hold. Thus, for example, "causes" are abstract sources and "purposes" abstract goals rather than involving categorially distinct relational types. I maintain, then, the generalised localist theory that the CRs of table 1 of chapter 3 exhaust the set of semantic functions, participant and circumstantial, and I suggest that this offers a maximally restrictive proposal with some initial plausibility. Say, then, the restriction is accepted. It does not follow as such from our account of the status of circumstantials as essentially unstructured extensions of the clause. An account which might satisfy this requirement begins to emerge if we observe that the structure in (3.12), repeated here as (4.21), represents a minor deformation of one that would be more suitable for semantic interpretation, namely that in (4.22). Much of the information in both (3.12/4.21) and (4.22) (such as the "VP" node and linearity within the clause headed by keeps) is derivative, and need not therefore be included in an initial representation (cf. e.g. [3.21]). But let us focus at this point on where they differ. We have introduced into (4.22) in place of the highest node in (3.12) two labelled nodes which indicate that the clause (like any other abs in a locational predication) has a location (the circumstantial loc) predicated (V) of it. That is, the circumstantial participates in the same kind of structural relations as the other arguments, except that the "external" syntactic nodes are labelled, rather than deriv-

106

4. Cyclicity

in syntax

ing their categorial identity from the lexical items in the clause. I return to this difference in a moment. Observe firstly, however, that (4.22) is not only semantically more transparent; it also, if generalised, embodies formally a claim that circumstantials enter into the same structural

4.3. Cyclicity

and the pre-lexical

base

107

relations as participants: they are introduced as parts of predications. The relations associated with circumstantials are thus subject to the same restrictions as are those appropriate to participants: in particular, there is no reason to anticipate that circumstantials will introduce a distinct set of CRs. Consider the implications of this for the parsing of such a sentence: whereas the items inside the keep-clause induce only syntactic nodes and dependencies between them where the category of these nodes is constant (and they are thus unlabelled) — those associated with keeps below abs are all V — the circumstantial, which falls outside the valency of this verb, induces not only a non-distinct node above loc but also a superordinate V node to which the keep-verb is attached via abs. (Here the analogy is perhaps with those "prosodies", or "autosegments", which label the otherwise bare nodes of phonological suprasegmental structure (cf. e. g. Anderson et al. 1985; Anderson and Durand 1986; but see also chapter 5 below).) (3.12) is therefore at most only an intermediate stage in the parsing of the sentence; (4.22) is a more appropriate syntactic output to parsing, in this respect. Obviously, the viability of this suggestion concerning parsing depends upon such "over-the-top" attachments being determinate with respect to well-defined circumstantial types. Many circumstantials follow the pattern discussed here for (4.22); let me also briefly illustrate the other major pattern. While some types of circumstantial are generally available to different clause types, others, such as "instrumentals", presuppose the presence of a particular type — in this instance, "agentive"; and they are associated semantically specifically with the "agentive" argument. We can formalise this restriction by suggesting that "instrumentals" and the like induce a "super-clause" containing not just the basic clause as an argument but also an argument identical in reference to the type required in the basic clause. Specifically, for "instrumentals", we have a representation like (4.23). With, as in the case of simple abs arguments of "holistic" verbs like load (see [4.35] below) which are denied "object" position, marks an abs which does not bear a grammatical relation. The abs-hood of "instrumentals" also perhaps underlies their availability for passivisation in the absence of a participant abs {This spoon has been eaten with cf. again Davison 1980), despite their being circumstantial. Notice that on such an interpretation "instrumentals" do not introduce a distinct kind of CR unique to circumstantials; it is thus in conformity with the strongest assumption concerning the set of CRs, that both participants and circum-

108

4. Cyclicity

in syntax

V

(4.23) erg

ο

abs, loc ο ο

ο

ο ο

erg

V

abs

abs

Ν

Ν Seymour

sliced the salami with a knife

stantials are limited to the set prescribed in table 1 of chapter 3, the localist set. How are such structures to be generated, given that some predicates (like the topmost V in [4.22] and [4.23]) are lexically empty? Much of the derivation is relatively straightforward, on condition that both Vs are cyclic nodes: each initial V is such, I assume. Take as our startingpoint a dependency tree whose nodes are labelled with categories and where certain nodes are each associated with a lexical item. In the absence of lexicalisation of the topmost V, the path of subjoined nodes realised ultimately as the verb keeps or sliced is subjoined to that V. In the case of (4.22), with suppression of labels on upper, pre-lexical nodes (and suppression of any such nodes which do not branch), this gives (3.13). (4.23) (and perhaps [4.22]) also involves raising — in its "equi" variant (in the case of [4.23]), given the identity of the two Ν nodes involved, so that the target is not abs but erg (cf. Anderson 1977: particularly § 3.4; Böhm 1982: §3.1; and see further section 4.4 below). If the identity requirements imposed by the circumstantials in (4.20) and (4.21) are similarly allowed for via the "equi" variant of raising, and given that the raisee is also required to be an agent in the case of instrumentale, then this provides rather more specific and general support for suggesting that the CR identity of arguments remains available after the application of cyclic subject formation (cf. section 4.2). Whether lexicalisation of a prediate takes place or not is partly determined by the character of the arguments of that predicate. Thus, whereas

4.3. Cyclicity and the pre-lexical base

109

the sentential argument in (4.22) is not associated with lexicalisation of the higher V, the nominal abs in (4.24) requires lexicalisation: (4.24)

February is in winter

(Given that tense-marking and person-number-marking are derivative [cf. e.g. Anderson 1972, 1973a, and see further chapter 5 below], the predicates are not differentiated at this point in this respect.) And the V corresponding to the highest one in (4.23) in the structure underlying (4.25): (4.25)

Seymour used a knife to slice the salami

is lexicalised on the basis of the lower clause being introduced by a loc rather than an abs + loc, as in (4.23); the abs a knife therefore becomes "object", since it is no longer outranked on the subject selection hierarchy by a abs + loc argument (cf. table 3.2 in section 3.3 above). In either case lexicalisation could take place with respect to initial structures, which certainly is in conformity with the other generalisations we have considered here. But so too is cyclic lexicalisation. And certain other considerations, indeed, favour the latter proposition. Since, once more, this has been argued elsewhere (see particularly Anderson 1968, 1977: ch. 2, 1984 a: ch. 4), I shall illustrate this only in relation to one familiar area of exemplification. The interpretation of the relevant phenomena depends on the availability of syntactically derivative subjunction paths such as that initiated by the topmost V in (4.23). Return to examples like (4.6 a), "dative" sentences. They might appear to show a further violation of the one-instance-per-clause constraint, in that the second, "dative" NP is arguably erg + loc: such a clause is the "causative" equivalent of "ownership" clauses like (4.26): (4.26)

Jonathan owns a tutu

parallel with other "abstract" pairs like tell/teach vs. know; the subject of the "ownership" verbs is also erg + loc, and both it and the "dative" NP of (4.6 a) etc. show the expected preference for human referents; and such clauses enter into the expected semantic relationships for locational/ directional pairs, as illustrated by (3.16). But the subject of (4.6a) is clearly also erg, as the "source of the action". The CR assignments of the two NPs are not identical, but both are associated with erg (erg + loc vs. erg). Must we further weaken the one-instance-per-clause constraint to allow two NPs in the same clause to be erg, provided one is associated with a further CR? Or should we, despite the evidence pointed to in

110

4. Cyclicity

in syntax

section 3.3 above, reconsider our identification of "experiences" and, by extension, "datives" with erg+loc? I suggest neither (undesirable) strategy is appropriate. But notice now that subjects and "datives" apparently share further properties (see e.g. Anderson 1978a). The "extraction" of the wh-form from the complex nominal illustrated in (4.27): (4.27) a. b. c.

the girl who(m) George liked the picture of the girl who(m) George sold a picture of to John the girl who(m) George took a fancy to the picture of

(though "prepositional" examples, e. g. [c], are more awkward) is especially resisted if the victim is a subject: (4.28) a. b.

*the girl who(m) the picture of outraged George *the girl who(m) the picture of disappeared

But the potential "dative" victims are also resistant: (4.29)

*the girl who(m) George gave the picture of a kiss

However, this shared property cannot be attributed to the presence of erg: the subject in (4.28 b), for example, is not erg. Conversely, "extraction" of each is permitted to subjects: (4.30) a. b.

The girls each embraced George several times The pictures each disappeared several times

and to "datives": (4.31)

George gave the girls each a kiss several times

but not otherwise: (4.32) a. b. c.

*George abandoned the girls each several times *George gave presents each to a girl several times * Wine flowed from the taps each into a bottle

Again, the subject need not be erg (4.30 b). This is once more a property (however it and the previous one are to be characterised) shared by subjects and "datives" independently of whether or not erg is involved. A single suggestion resolves the problem of the one-instance-per-clause violation and accounts for the "subject-like" properties of "datives": sentences like (4.6 a) are clausally complex (see again Anderson 1977: ch. 2, 1977; and cf. more recently Larsson 1988); in terms of the categories involved, they are initially as in (the unsequenced) (4.33), where Ni is

4.3. Cyclicity

(4.33)

/

V, erg ./V

erg Ν

\

N2

base

111

abs V2 erg loc abs abl

erg loc abs

and the pre-lexical

\

abs

Ν

realised as Sophie, N 2 as Jonathan and N 3 as a tutu; and Vi is a "causative" (with erg and sentential abs arguments) and V2 is "experiential" directional (with one overt argument that is erg + loc + abs, another that is simply abs). The "dative" NP thus originates as the former. As such, it is assigned cyclic subjecthood in the lower clause: (4.6 a) contains two cyclic subjects (but only one post-cyclic); and it is this which accounts for the range of phenomena illustrated in (4.27 — 4.32), which pick out cyclic subjects. Its origin in the lower clause also, obviously, avoids the extending of the violation of the one-instance-per-clause beyond abs (cf. section 3.2 above). The "dative" is also abs; this accounts for the "holistic" character of (4.34 a): (4.34) a. b.

A native speaker taught the professor Modern Greek A native speaker taught Modern Greek to the professor

compared with (b); only in the former is it guaranteed that "the professor" learnt the language. (Cf. here Green 1974: § 4.B; Anderson 1977: § 2.7.3.) The role of abs in the characterisation of the "holisticness" of (4.35 a) vs. (b): (4.35) a. b.

Sophie loaded the cart with tutus Sophie loaded tutus onto the cart

112

4. Cyclicity

in syntax

in which the cart is respectively abs + loc and loc, is discussed in Anderson (1975, 1977; §1.8): the process denoted by the verb is interpreted as exhausting the relevant dimensions of a loc which is simultaneously abs. The loc in (4.34 a) is simultaneously abs; the /o-phrase is not abs, and not "holistic". And (4.6 b), (4.34 b) and the like also lack subject-formation in the lower clause: neither NP is picked out by the subject properties illustrated in (4.27-4.32). The subjecthood of the "dative" in (4.34 b) remains available to whand eacÄ-extraction. Thus, as suggested in Anderson (1979 b), raising here does not suppress the dependency of the "dative" NP on the lower V and thus the subject relation it bears to that V. But it also acquires "objecthood" in the upper clause by virtue of raising. This retention of subjecthood is in accord with the dependency preservation condition of Böhm (1982), Anderson (1985 a, 1986 a, etc.), which requires that dependency relations are preserved throughout derivations unless they become incompatible with other well-formedness conditions on structure, such as projectivity: recall the discussion in section 2.6 above. Simultaneous objecthood in the upper clause and subjecthood in the lower is possible without violation of projectivity and other positional requirements on subject and object only in languages of particular (word order) types. This accounts for the typological restrictedness of the distribution of "raising to object" (Horn 1985): crudely, for a language to show such raising, the position of the raised NP (as determined by the post-cyclic serialisation of arguments of the same predicate — cf. e.g. Anderson 1977: § 3.6) must be compatible in the language with both subjecthood in the lower and objecthood in the upper clause, as in English (4.36), which, of course, in e. g. suppressing CRs, is otherwise much simplified. ο

(4.36) ο

c

ο

ο ο

Ν

V

Ν

V

Ν

I expected Harry to like figs

4.3. Cyclicity

and the pre-lexical

base

113

But if (4.33) is an appropriate characterisation of the initial structure associated with (4.6 a) the verb sell and the like realise two distinct initial Vs. We have already deployed the notion of derivative subjoining of one node to another when the upper node is unlexicalised: recall the derivations suggested for (4.22) and (4.23). The same can apply with respect to the upper V in (4.33) and the sub-path terminated by the lower V. But in that case the path which defines the subcategorisational potential of sell arises only after this subjoining. Subjoining is part of the cyclic serialisation; it represents failure to serialise. It is only at this point that sell can be associated with a single place in structure with respect to which its strict-subcategorisational potential can be defined — as in (4.37), (4.37)

V, erg, /V I V, erg, loc, abl (abs)

where the optional abs allows for the distinction between (4.6 a) and (b). The configuration for sell thus arises in the course of the cyclic rules: sell is inserted on the cycle which applies to the superordinate V in (4.33): (4.33) is an unlexicalised initial structure. Again, upon lexical insertion, non-lexical nodes can be unlabelled, with CR-labelling being absorbed, where appropriate, by Ns; giving (along with VP development, etc. and the elimination of pre-terminal non-branching nodes) the representation in (4.38) (which ignores, of course, the internal structure of the Ns).

erg

V,erg./V

abs, etc

abs

Ν

V, erg, loc, abl (abs)

Ν

Ν

Sophie

sold

Jonathan

a tutu

Such derivations, if appropriate, provide us with a motivation for distinguishing between basic or initial representations and lexicalised basic structures, which arise cyclically. This does not seriously undermine the contrastiveness criterion of section 3.4 above; the only non-basic property to which lexicalisation need refer is presence vs. absence of subjunction

114

4. Cyclicity in syntax

(conversely, head-modifier linearisation or its absence). And we can thus, otherwise, continue to identify the contrastive in syntax (outside what is required by information structure) with what must be lexically stipulated, and the derivative with what can be provided by general rules formulated in terms of the syntactically basic and derivatives thereof. On the other hand, Anderson (1984 a: particularly ch. 7), for instance, argues that such derivations are not untypical; the most adequate expression of the subcategorisational potential of many predicates presupposes the pre-lexical application of cyclic syntactic rules such as subject formation and raising. This is a fortiori the case with overt derivatives and even "conversions" of the type of the verb hammer discussed from a diachronic perspective in section 2.6 above. What I am now suggesting is that the basic structure of sentences containing such a verb (whatever idiosyncrasies may also be associated with it) shares synchronically the same configuration of categories as is appropriate to (2.32), containing the corresponding noun in an appropriate function. Many overtly related forms merely signal pre-lexical structure in terms of the derivational process and by virtue of a shared root; distinct lexical items which share (parts of) pre-lexical structure (such as walk and foot — Anderson 1968) are "derivationally suppletive". The positing of a pre-lexical role for syntax (supposing this to include subject formation) is not in conflict with the observations made in chapter 3 concerning the absence of reference by lexical regularities to grammatical relations: it is only if, exceptionally, an independent argument (such as Jonathan in [4.38]) preserves its subjecthood, that prelexical subject formation will be visible at the point of lexical insertion (and even then this is irrelevant to lexical insertion). Accordingly, to the extent that compounds (such as -er formations) show restrictions based on derivative properties such as linearity, configurationality or grammatical relations (Roeper and Siegel 1978; Bauer 1983: § 6.6.2), this too can be attributed to cyclicity (cf. Anderson 1984 a: § 6.1). Notice too that cyclic lexical insertion also provides an explanation for the apparent discrepancy between the argument structure of lexical items (the set of external arguments for which they are subcategorised) and the range of arguments that can be "incorporated into" a lexical item (as in the derivation just proposed for verbs like hammer, which "incorporate" an "instrumental"). Argument structure includes only participants, arguments in the same clause at the point of lexical insertion. Thus a verb like strike is inserted in conformity with an argument structure realised by the lower clause in (2.32), repeated here; whereas

4.3. Cyclicity and the pre-lexical base

115

(2.32)

Fred

with

hammer

insertion of the verb hammer awaits the creation of the appropriate subjunction path, represented in (the again repeated) (2.31), created on the cycle which follows, within whose domain is an argument (the "instrumental" abs) which is circumstantial with respect to the lower clause and thus to any verb inserted on the previous cycle. On this resolution of the "locality problem" in derivational relationships see further Anderson (1984 a); such a resolution is not available in lexically based theories of syntax, in so far as it depends upon location of the lexicon-syntax interface within the cyclic application of syntactic rules. (2.31)

Ν α

Fred hammered

nails

in

116

4. Cyclicity

in syntax

Syntax as well as phonology is thus only partly lexically determined; and in its case the non-lexical determination is not imposed by information structure or some other linguistic component. The "mirror-image" analogy (pre-lexical syntax vs. post-lexical phonology) is associated with the (interpretative) relationship between the planes and the role of the lexicon in providing for the non-systematic aspect of this. Before we return in chapter 5 to the pursuit of further analogies, involving the organisation and character of the substantive categories of the two planes, a further issue arising from the discussions of chapters 3 and 4 remains to be resolved.

4.4. Further remarks on control At this point we are in a position to return to the "control problem" briefly discussed at the end of section 3.5 above. There I suggested that the controller of "equi", when obligatory, is an erg, as illustrated in (3.31) repeated here as (4.39): (4.39) a. b. c.

Dolly wanted to be born again Dolly tried to convert Eloise Dolly remembered to take the application form

Such a suggestion (control by erg) seemed to be applicable to a wider range of phenomena than other proposals alluded to (invoking structural or grammatical relations). But problems of determinacy arose with certain constructions, those of (3.32), with promise vs. persuade, which appeared to offer alternative erg arguments as potential controllers. It was suggested that selection might be attributed to a hierarchisation of potential controllers (3.34). But these sentences also introduced the kind of problem I have tried to resolve in relation to sell and the like in terms of the recognition of pre-lexical application of syntactic rules. In the present case, the same solution also contributes to an alternative resolution of the indeterminacy problem. We return to this in a moment. Let us begin by looking rather more closely at the character of the controllers in (4.39). Dolly in (b) is a straightforward "agentive", i. e. a simple erg; whereas in (a) and (c) we have "experiencers". Only in (b) is the subject the source of an action, usually "voluntary". However, (a) and (c), I suggest, also differ between themselves in the function invoked, a difference which is reflected in their syntax. Want and the like also appear in constructions such as (4.40):

4.4. Further remarks on control

(4.40)

117

Dolly wanted (for) Eloise to be born again

For I take to be a "goal" marker here, as it is in marking arguments of other "abstract" verbs and nouns: long for, hatred for, etc. Dolly in (4.39 a) and (4.40) is thus a "source", the source of the "want"; it is erg + abl. Dolly in (4.39 c), as the location of the memory, is erg + loc; and remember and the like do not appear in constructions of the type of (4.40), but rather, in some cases, in raising constructions: (4.41) a. b.

Dolly knew to leave Hilary alone Dolly knew Hilary to be a recusant

(4.41 b) involves raising, and Hilary is thus available for passivisation, unlike Eloise in (4.40), even in the "reduced" version without for. (4.42) a. b.

Hilary was known to be a recusant * Eloise was wanted to be born again

(4.40) thus shows neither equi nor raising: Eloise is at no stage an argument of want. However, all of (4.39), though differing in the precise function associated with their subjects, show equi controlled by an erg; also by a subject — but erg, as part of a generalisation concerning control, is at least more restrictive. Further, (3.32 a), repeated here as (4.43): (4.43)

Manfred persuaded Detlev to come to the aid of the party

also shows control by an erg argument; the Detlev argument is, for instance, preferably "humanoid". Some such verbs also appear in the sell construction of (4.6 a) above: (4.44) a. b.

Manfred told Detlev to come to the aid of the party Manfred told Detlev the news

with respect to which I have argued that the "dative" argument is an erg + loc. In this instance we can once again reconcile the apparent copresence in (4.44 b) of both an erg (Manfred) and an erg + loc (Detlev) in the same clause by associating the latter initially with a subordinate predication, its presence in the main clause being due to the operation of (pre-lexical) raising. If the same (complex) derivation is appropriate to (4.44 a) and (4.43) also, then not only is the co-presence of erg and erg + loc allowed for, but also (provided that control is determined cyclically) the predication immediately above the infinitive in these sentences will contain only one erg argument {Detlev). That is, control is decided

118

4. Cyclicity in syntax

with respect to the schematic configuration in (4.45), where the two upper Vs are ultimately realised as persuade etc. (which are thus "complex" in the same way as sell — cf. [4.37] above) and the lowest V is, for example, come in (4.43/4.44 a); the highest V is causative, the second is of the character of want. If selection of controller is cyclic (and in this instance precedes lexicalisation of the upper Vs), it is determinate after all: the subject of the lowest V is controlled by the erg + abl argument in the immediately superordinate clause, which on the next cycle is in turn raised into the uppermost clause. (4.45) erg

V subject Such an account extends to verbs of the scream type, discussed by Perlmutter (1971: ch. 1, § 1) and Postal (1970: 471 -472), for instance: (4.46)

Manfred screamed to Hartmut to stop

provided that to Hartmut is an erg+loc argument like that in (4.37 b) above. If this is appropriate, then appeal to CRs is now even more clearly to be preferred to the invoking of grammatical relations: in terms of the latter, the controller is either subject (as in [4.39]) or "direct object" (?) (as in [4.43]) or "indirect object" marked with to (as in [4.46]); in all these instances the cyclic controller is an erg. This is in accord with the case grammar hypothesis whereby grammatical relations are derivative only. There remains, however, the promise type of (3.32 b), repeated here as (4.47): (4.47)

Manfred promised Detlev to come to the aid of the party

in which, in contrast with (4.43), control is not exercised by the "experiencer" Detlev but rather by the "agentive" subject. Now, as has often been observed, and as noted in section 3.5, the Detlev argument with promise is optional:

4.4. Further remarks on control

(4.48)

119

Manfred promised to come to the aid of the party

and the situation with (4.47) is accounted for if optional arguments are excluded from exercising control, as proposed there. Problematical here are perhaps (4.49): (4.49) a. b.

Detlev got to leave Manfred got Detlev to leave

involving an optionally transitive verb. Certainly, there are again at least as problematical for an account in terms of grammatical relations, in that with the same verb control switches between subject and object (cf. Jackendoff 1972: § 5.11). But the crucial CR associated with the controller arguably remains constant: Detlev in both of (4.49) is erg, with (a) being relationally analogous to Detlev receive permission to leave and (b) again involving a complex verb whose derivation involves raising of an erg argument orginating in the intermediate predication and controlling equi in the lowest. (4.49) shows not an optional argument but an optional superordinate causative predication. Also unproblematical in this particular respect is the alternation in (4.50): (4.50) a. b.

Manfred screamed to be allowed to leave Manfred screamed for Detlev to be allowed to leave

(cf. e.g. Shaw 1974) with optional Detlev, in that (b), like (4.40), does not show equi. However, what about the alternation between (4.46) and (4.50 a), with optional to Hartmuü Unlike with promise, the optional argument exercises control. Scream is additionally associated with a constraint forbidding control by the "agentive" of a lower "agentive" (even though it requires complementation by an "agentive" verb): (4.51)

* Manfred screamed to stop

(cf. Permutter's 1971: ch. 1, § 1 "unlike subject" constraint). But it is not clear that this is sufficient to account for the difference with respect to promise in the acceptability of an "optional" controller. Let us look more carefully at the derivation of promise-sentences. Firstly, I revise the formulation of raising given above as (3.30) (in section 3.5), to include the operation of equi: (4.51)

Raising': V Nj/!,) —* case, —> V —• case2 —• N i/2 => V case3/2 -> N i/2 , V

120

4. Cyclicity

in syntax

where: (a) case2 is selected in accordance with the subject hierarchy, and (b) case3 = erg in the presence of < ), otherwise (c) = case, = abs and case2 = subject < ) in (4.51) introduces a controller (and thus "equi"), which by (b) is erg: by application of equi the argument in the lower predication identified by (a) is given this erg role in the upper one. In the absence of < ) (i. e. in "raising"), the argument in the lower predication identified by (a) is assigned the case of the lower V (casei = abs) in the upper predication. Application of (4.51) under (c) allows for the raisings described by (3.30), including their restriction to predications embedded under abs and also the identification of the victim with the subject of the lower predication rather than simply the hierarchically highest argument. I am assuming, on the other hand, that the equi victim is not necessarily a subject. In the absence of an overt subject the next highest argument is eligible, as in (4.52): (4.52)

Dietrich is difficult to please

(cf. Lasnik and Fiengo 1974). The assumption concerning the limitation of raising to subjects does raise a problem with regard to the analysis of passives suggested in section 4.1 above, where the derivation of passives was considered to involve the raising of the next-to-highest argument in the hierarchy: cf. (4.9). (In section 5.6 below, however, I shall argue on other grounds that passives rather involve application of equi.) As before, (4.51) substitutes something like (4.53 b) for (a): (4.53) a. b.

Vi —• abs —» V2 —• erg + loc —> N,, —• abs —> N2 V, abs N,, V2 abs N2

in the derivation of Harry (N,) seems (V,) to know (V2) everything (N2), in accordance with option (c) of (4.51). But it also now allows for the substitution of (4.54 b) for (a): (4.54) a. b.

Vi —*• erg + abl —• Nj/i, —• loc —• V2 —> erg + loc —• Ni/2, —• abs —> N 3 V, —• erg+abl + loc —• Ni/2, —• V2 —• abs —• N3

in the derivation of Harry (Ν;) wants (V,) to learn (V2) everything (N), under option (b).

4.4. Further remarks on control

121

The presence of erg in the upper predication is not sufficient to trigger the (b) option: expect, for instance, takes an erg+loc argument but appears in raising constructions; and know appears in either (cf. [4.41] above). In the absence of a semantic characterisation of the distinction, such verbs must apparently simply be marked lexically as to their availability for (b), (c) or both. Further research is certainly needed here, perhaps along the lines of Postal (1970) and Anderson (1977: § 3.4). However, given cyclic lexical insertion, the lexical discrimination between raising and equi verbs need not be attributed to an arbitrary diacritic: notice that at the point of lexical insertion raising verbs will have an extra abs argument (compared with equi verbs), provided by raising; it is this which distinguishes them from equi verbs. See further sections 5.5 below. Return now to promise. This is a communication verb. Thus, like teach or tell, it is an "abstract" causative directional analogous to sell or give, and so complex in the way that sell is. But it is also complex in the way that persuade is, specifically in involving a want/intend predication of the character of the intermediate one in (4.45). That is, promise involves at least the initial structure represented schematically in (4.55), where promise realises the three upper Vs, and the lowest one would be, say, come in (4.47); the highest predication is causative, the next directional, the next of the want jintend type; the erg+loc argument corresponds to Detlev, and the subject of the lowest V to Manfred. The derivation proceeds as follows: at the point at which equi applies in relation to the subject of the lowest {come) clause, the erg+abl argument {Manfred) is determi-

(4.55)

erg abl

loc

V subject

122

4. Cyclicity

in syntax

nately the controller. It in turn is available for raising into the directional predication which contains the erg + loc argument {Detlev)·, and the latter (as erg+loc) assumes subjecthood therein in preference to the former (which as a consequence of raising is abs+erg + abl). The erg + loc argument is raised into the causative predication, whose abs argument, made available by raising, must be filled — cf. Anderson (in press b) on predicate satisfaction); leaving the abs + erg + abl as hierarchically highest in its clause and thus eligible for equi controlled by the erg of the causative predication. We can attribute to persuade a similar configuration to that in (4.55), except that Detlev is associated with the lowest V, and Manfred with the highest, and so not in a position to exercise control of the lowest V. That is, promise and persuage differ as to those arguments which are specified lexically (and not derived via raising and equi): with promise the erg + loc argument, with persuade the (simple) erg. The scream of (4.46) is similar to persuade in its lexical requirements (but differs in that the erg + loc is not also abs — as it would be in the case of persuade, to allow for its "holistic" character — cf. [4.33]); in (4.50 a) the loc argument is lexically unspecified. Thus, in general, in terms of the interaction of raising and equi, controller selection is always determinate; and appeal need not be made to the controller hierarchy or its problematical optionally subclause. A controller is an erg that is not abs. The plausibility of this depends upon raising being limited to subordinate subjects, whereas equi affects only the highest argument on the hierarchy: it is this which determines the selection of victims in the directional predication in the derivation of promise sentences. This again requires wider testing, but it at least provides an alternative, potentially principled approach to the persuadejpromise controller selection alternation, one that is compatible with other observations concerning raising and equi. The account of equi given here extends to instances like (4.23) discussed in section 4.3 above, in which, since the controller is associated with a circumstantial, control is exercised on the cycle following lexicalisation of the main verb. The derivation introduces nothing new; it involves, apart from equi, subjunction of the nodes associated with the main verb to the circumstantial V — as in the derivation of all circumstantials. Clearly, however, the same mechanism, equi, is not appropriate to the derivation of sentences containing circumstantials like drowsy or black in (4.16) above, repeated here:

4.4. Further remarks on control

(4.16) a. b.

123

She lay drowsy He drinks his coffee black

in that, apart from anything else, their "missing argument" is in these cases to be identified with the abs in the clause. These may, indeed, be instances where something like Dowty's (1985) "M-analysis" of control is appropriate. The analyses I have suggested above are "R-analyses": in each case the infinitive is supplied with an argument which is raised into the superordinate clause. This seems to be appropriate, given e.g. the reference to the hierarchy embodied in (4.51); in the derivation proposed for promise two references to the hierarchy (with respect to different arguments) are made in a single cycle. Under my interpretation of an "M-analysis", on the other hand, the circumstantial predicates in (4.16) are simply linked directly by coreference to the appropriate argument in the clause (in this case the abs).

Chapter 5 Syntactic categories

One strand in linguistic research has been concerned to emphasise the syntactic relevance of semantic functions ("case relations", "θ-roles") such as "agent", "location" ... This concern has been manifested latterly within frameworks whose views on other aspects of linguistic structure vary widely, ranging from e. g. those associated with "functional grammar" (Dik 1978, etc.) to some developments within the Chomskyan tradition (cf. again Culicover and Wilkins 1986; Ruzicka 1985; Watts 1986; and a growing body of more recent work, such as Belletti and Rizzi 1988; Brekke 1988). The preceding two chapters explored the strongest manifestation of this "attitude", wherein many other aspects of structure (syntactic and lexical) are claimed to be subordinate to, or predictable from, information cocerning semantic function. However, what characterises all these proposals is an acknowledgment of the role in the syntax of elements whose cross-linguistic identification depends on semantic, or notional, criteria: for instance, whatever recurrent syntactic (or lexical) properties "agents" may be associated with, their identification as such depends on prototypical instances of the set of putative "agents" in various languages fulfilling the semantic function of "source of the action". Section 3.3 above draws an analogy here between CRs and phonological elements: the members of the universal set of elements out of which phonological representations are constructed are distinguished phonetically, by their possession or lack of certain phonetic properties, or features; likewise, the universal alphabet of CRs is defined and distinguished in terms of combinations of notional features, as in table 1 of chapter 3, replicated here as 5.1, wherein the CRs comprise the set argued for in chapter 3 and other places, and they are characterised by possession or lack of the simplex notional features, place and source, which may be relevant to other categories than case. Table 5.1. The intrinsic content of the CRs CRs

abs

erg

source

loc

abl

place

place source

126

5. Syntactic

categories

Indeed, it is my concern in this chapter to re-emphasise that these case grammar proposals belong within a tradition whose concern is with the set of syntactic categories as a whole, namely the tradition of "notional grammar": the case grammar hypothesis of section 3.1 is merely a local manifestation of a general assumption concerning syntactic categories, viz. that the basic categories are notional and that non-notional classifications are derivative of these, are grammaticalisations, in the wide sense, like the subject relation with respect to the CRs. Let us spell this out a little more carefully, before carrying even further the analogy with phonology.

5.1. The nature of syntactic categories The cross-linguistic identification of word-classes in general, not just of members of the set of CRs, depends on notional criteria. As is familiar to every beginning linguistics student, syntactic classes established on distributional grounds cannot be equated with notional classes such as are comprised, for instance, of those words which denote and can be used to make reference to "people, places or things". But the equation of classes across languages invokes the words characterised in such notional terms as the prototypical members of particular syntactic classes. (Cf. here e. g. Lyons 1966, 1968: § 7.6.1,1977: § 11,3; Hopper and Thompson 1984; Schachter 1985; Magnusson and Persson 1986; Anderson 1989 b, in press b.) We use the label "noun" for that class of words in a language which is typically referential (either in itself or as part of a construction ["noun phrase"]), and this class will contain as prototypical members those words characterised notionally as above. We label "verb" that class which is typically predicative or situation-defining and whose prototypical members denote "processes" (including "actions"). There is no simple distributional characteristic of "noun-hood". Within a richly articulated syntactic theory there will be universal abstract "properties" attributable to noun and verb; but these do not define or give substance to the notion "noun" or "verb", but rather constitute theorems with respect to which status as noun or verb is axiomatic. They follow from the notional characteristic of noun or verb. Say, for instance, we have some universal definition of (syntactic) subjecthood; and let us lay aside the difficulties in arriving at such (cf. e.g. Keenan 1976; Johnson 1977), and recognise the possiblity that some languages may simply fail to meet the universal definition (universal definitions may not be universally

5.1. The nature of syntactic categories

127

applicable — cf. section 2.3; also Anderson 1980 c). It will universally be the case that nouns belong to the set of syntactic entities that function as subjects. But this is predictable from the essentially referential nature of nouns: referential entities are prototypical arguments and subjects are (however defined) a special argument type. (This is particularly clear given the definition of subject suggested in the preceding, whereby those arguments constituting subjects are selected in accordance with a hierarchy of CRs, each argument being primitively associated with a CR but not presence or absence of subjecthood.) I therefore consider unwarranted Williams' (1983) denial of a semantic basis for syntactic categories; indeed, the most that his argument can be taken to show is that certain semantic distinctions perhaps do not have syntactic consequences. What I am suggesting rather conforms to an inversion of Jackendoffs (1983: ch. 1) "grammatical constraint", whereby "one should prefer a semantic theory that explains otherwise arbitrary generalizations about the syntax and the lexicon" (1983: 34), which mutually constrains the syntax and the semantics. Consider again our analogy with phonological representation. As with noun and verb there are distributional (in this case, phonotactic) universale associated with status as consonant or vowel (cf. e.g. Greenberg 1978). However, segment types are defined not distributionally, but rather by their internal phonetic characteristics, their phonetic features; and the feature composition determines phonotactic potential. This is well illustrated by the role of the "sonority hierarchy", defined in terms of the feature composition of segment types (specifically the content of the categorial gesture — cf. section 2.5, and see further below), in determining universal aspects of syllable structure and a range of other phenomena. This is not to deny that features are relativistic and their interpretation system-dependent (if the difficulties noted by e. g. Pike [1943: particularly ch. V] are to be avoided); but they have a substantive basis. Representations on both planes (of phonology and syntax) are constructed out of universal substantive, interpreted alphabets. This is just one aspect of the analogy of structural principles which I have dubbed the structural analogy assumption. Thus, again, the particular analogies I have been drawing so far in this chapter are not simply expository conveniences but are demanded by that assumption. Our presentation of the internal structure of the CRs in table 1 has already assumed the existence of notional features analogous to the phonetic features which characterise phonological segments. Let us now carry the analogy a little further forward. As illustrated in chapter 2,

128

5. Syntactic

categories

within the notational system of dependency phonology segments are characterised by the presence and absence of simplex features, grouped (perhaps hierarchically) into subsegments or gestures and possibly, within gestures, related by dependency (rather than simple co-occurrence). Thus, we might represent a contrastive unit such as English jgj as in (5.1): (5.1)

{C;V} {l,u}

where the braces enclose gestures, the first being the categorial, in which the segment is specified as a voiced stop, and the second the articulatory specification for a velar. (Here the association between gestures is expressed simply by vertical alignment.) Recall that C, V, / und u are simplex features: C is the feature of "consonantality" (energy reduction), V that of "vocalicness" (harmonic energy), I is "linguality" and u is "gravity". The semi-colon, as before, indicates that in this segment type C predominates over (governs) V\ recall that in the representation for a voiceless fricative ({V:C}) the two features are mutually dependent and in that for a sonorant consonant ({V;C}) the preponderance is reversed; a voiceless stop lacks the V altogether, and a vowel lacks C. Table 5.2. A partial sonority hierarchy V

V

V

V:C

V:C

I

vowel

V:C

C

1 V

liquid

nasal

vd fric

C

C

I

1 V vs fric

vd plos

vs plos

I replicate here as table 5.2 the sample of categorial representations given in table 1 in section 2.5 above. These representations impose a hierarchy on the various segment types in terms of the relative proportions of V and C present, from presence of V and absence of C to the converse. It is this categorial ("sonority") hierarchy which determines basic syllable phonotactics. Notice again that the representations are of varying complexity: the vowels and voiceless stops are inherently simpler than the other types. This correlates with their "less marked" status, in terms of distribution throughout languages, for example. Similarly, / and u in (1) are simply combined; I alone would be a dentialveolar, u alone a labial, both appropriately, it would appear, less complex (cf. Anderson and Ewen 1981, 1987: §6.7). The case features deployed in table 5.1 are not obviously the syntactic analogues of categorial features in the phonology; in characterising CRs

5.1. The nature of syntactic

categories

129

they (and other features, to do with dimensionality, orientation and the like — distinguishing e. g. the locationals inj on, before j after — cf. Anderson 1977: ch. 2) are associated with a single word class, a class for which one might use the term "functor", frequently realised as an adposition (as in the preceding instances) but also frequently cumulated with the noun word class (as in [3.12] or [4.22] above): they themselves are subcategorial features. The category functor may also be realised as a sentential subordinator or complementiser, as deployed in the representations in e. g. section 4.4 (and cf. Anderson 1971 b and much subsequent work; more recently, Emonds 1985: chs. 6 and 7). The categorial features of the syntax distinguish word classes: analogous to C and V we might introduce a referential feature Ν and a predicative one P, such that we can characterise names and pronouns as categorially {N}, verbs as {P}. This correlates with their semantic functions, argument vs. predicate, and with their universality (cf. again Hopper and Thompson 1984; Schachter 1985: §§ 1.1-1.2): they are the most simple to specify (like vowel and voiceless stop in the phonology). I assume too the (analogous) strong position that Ν and Ρ exhaust the notional categorial features: other "classes" are distinguished by combination of these two (as with C and V) or, like the different CRs, are subcategories of classes so distinguished (as by the articulatory gesture in phonology). Adjectives are more complexly specified, in being both referential, as in (5.2 a): (5.2) a. b.

Large dogs frighten John John is large

wherein large invokes some subset of the set of dogs (or, less generally, as constituting arguments in e. g. the poor or the beautiful) and predicative, as in (5.2 b). That is, categorially they are perhaps {P,N} (but see further below). For the reason just invoked I thus do not, pace Lyons (1968: § 7.6.4), regard the association between adjectives and N, or nouns, as purely "superficial" — indeed, the sharing of "superficial" (morphological) properties could be taken as a reflexion of a "deeper" affinity, rather than simply arbitrary. They are classified as sharing a property with both nouns and verbs (cf. e.g. Anderson 1973a; Jackendoff 1977), and as being inherently more complex than either. They are thus as a class perhaps not universally distinguished (cf. Hopper and Thompson 1984; Schachter 1985: § 1.3; and, on the ontological basis for the ambivalence of adjectives, Lyons 1977: § 11.3); and what would be adjectives in one

130

5. Syntactic

categories

language may figure in another only as a subclass of one of the major categories. Functors are associated with neither Ν nor P; they are categorially unspecified, as neither referential nor predicative. I take it that this is what underlies their frequent cumulation (absence of overt expression). With functors, I have emphasised their distributional unity: adpositional, or co-verbal, when not cumulated. But clearly the case features are, as we have seen, crucial to the distribution of particular functor phrases within larger constructions, like the clause: in section 5.7 we take up the problem posed in this regard by the relegation of the case features to the subcategorisational gesture. At this point, let us return to the characterisation of the positively specified syntactic classes. The situation of nouns clearly requires a little further consideration, once we move outside the prototypical case of names. For common nouns can also be predicative, as in (5.3): (5.3) a. b.

This is meat This is a cow

unlike names, which even in copula sentences are arguments rather than predicates, as is evidenced by the equivalence of predicational structure of (5.4 a) and (b), whatever the distinction(s) in information structure involved: (5.4) a. b.

The go-between is Jonathan Jonathan is the go-between

(recall the discussion of [3.8] in section 3.2 — 3.3 above). (5.4) are equative; they contain two abs arguments, whereas the second noun (phrase) in the examples of (5.3) is predicative. But predicative structures involving nouns display a subset of the same internal possibilities as noun arguments: thus This is a very large cow of dubious origin, etc., though they do not include referential definites as in (5.4 b); crucially, predicative nouns remain potential noun phrases. We might, then, revising out notation slightly, distinguish adjectives and common nouns as {P;N} and {N;P} respectively. The semi-colon again indicates the presence of a dependency relation between the features in the (in this instance, syntactic) categorial gesture, such that with adjectives Ρ predominates over N, whereas with common nouns the reverse is the case. Again the preponderances of features specify, as well as relative relatedness smong classes, a hierarchy with names at one end and verbs at the other. (Section 5.5 suggests a final modification to the hierarchy,

5.1. The nature of syntactic

categories

131

one which restores adjectives to a central position.) Notice too that with the addition of complex categories (such as I have proposed as characterising derived classes such as nominalisations), such that in the word structure a noun specification, for example, can govern that for a verb, the hierarchy can be considerably extended, in such a way as to give promise of providing, for instance, for the "squishy" phenomena described by Ross (1973). That is, notions such as (relative) "nouniness" can be characterised in the say way as (relative) sonority. I shall not pursue this aspect here: see, however, chapter 6, and (for a fuller discussion) Anderson 1989 b; in press b. The mere presence of Ρ in a categorial gesture allows predicative position; but those predicates which also are associated with Ν typically are more restricted — for example, in their valency (the range of [participant] arguments available to them), or, in many languages, the requirement, when they are predicative, of a superordinate (simple) predicate, or copula, as in (5.2 b), giving eventually representations abbreviated as in (5.5). (But see further sections 5.4 — 5.5 on the "verbal copula" — which, however, at least remains distinct in its distribution and realisation from the "adjectival/nominal".) Above (in section 2.4) I suggested that this "empty P" might be considered as the syntactic analogue of the "empty ictus" of phonological structure: in each case a head is required to be present as a consequence of a well-formedness condition on structure rather than on account of the intrinsic (contrastive) content of the basic categories. (5.5) Ο

Ο

:

:

ο

Ν

Ρ

Ρ;Ν

John

is

large

We can further associate with the specification {N;P} for common nouns a redundancy of the form of (5.6): (5.6)

{N;P} => {N}

which allows referential positions to common nouns (but not predicative position to names etc.).

132

5. Syntactic

categories

Return now to the referential function of adjectives. Like nouns they establish potentially referential sets, as in (5.2 a) or (5.7): (5.7)

Frances adores large pigs

but as part of the structure of an argument, i. e. as "attributives", as in (5.7), they specifically introduce a subset, or subpart (with "mass" nouns — see below); in the case of (5.6), of the set of pigs. I follow the proposals put forward in Anderson (1976: ch. 4 — and see too 1979 a) in expresing this inherently partitive character of attributive adjectives as (5.8): (5.8)

{N} {abl}

i. e. adjectives are "names" which are characterised by a subcategorisation feature (like those proposed for verbs in section 3.4 — though here we have introduced a gestural notation; see further secton 5.5 on verbs) as taking an argument specifying the source from which the subset denoted by the adjective is extracted. Such a characterisation rests in this instance on the assumption that a noun phrase such as the second in (5.7) has attributed to it a syntactic structure such as that in (5.9) wherein large is the head and pigs realises a dependent characterised as a functor-argument complex: the functor governs the {N} but is not distinct in sequence from it; the {N} is subjoined rather than adjoined. In other languages such a functor is given distinct expression (Anderson 1976: ch. 4), either in the morphology of the word which realises the complex or as an independent word (adposition); and in other circumstances in English the partitive functor is expressed by of (see further section 5.2 below). As we have seen, such complexes characterise a variety of "derived" categories, such as "adverbs" of different types (cf. Anderson 1971 c) and nominalisations, as well as subclases involving functors and other closed class items such (5.9) ο {Ν} {abl}

{abl} {N}

large

pigs

5.1. The nature of syntactic

categories

133

as some we shall discuss below (and cf. here the extensive discussion in Thrane 1977). If an overall representation such as (5.9) is acceptable, then we can associate with adjectives the redundancy in (5.10): (5.10)

{P;N} => {N} {abl}

Again, the converse does not hold: there are items characterisable as in (5.8) which are not also predicative — such as those in the late president, our beloved leader, etc. (cf. e.g. Levi 1973). The notation we have developed provides a basis for the notion of "rank" often attributed to syntactic representations (cf. chapter 1 above), though perhaps not in the terms envisaged by the proponents of such a concept. For syntactic structure is constructed out of layerings of predicate-functor-argument structures: so distinct types are involved, though stages in the above chain can be "skipped", such that predicates may be arguments of predicates, and, as in (5.9), arguments of arguments. Zwicky (1985 b), for example, finds analyses of the noun phrase of the kind presented in (5.9) (cf. too Hudson 1984, and other more recent developments) "odd" but provides no principled basis for so describing them; I suggest that they are not so much "odd" as (at that time) "unfamiliar". Many more familiar analyses are more "odd" in the sense of lacking motivation. Let us, however, attempt to render the proposal being made at least more familiar by pursuing its consequences in the section which follows. We shall, indeed, extend the analysis to include other "noun modifiers" as governors of "noun phrases"; and we shall find this to be supported by the subcategorisational relationships involved as well as by phenomena such as rection (cf. again Anderson 1976: ch. 4). Let me first register one possible modification to the account of noun phrase structure I have adopted here on the basis of Anderson 1976: ch. 4. Given the characterisation of the CRs proposed in table 5.1, the partitive character of some {N}'s might best be captured in terms of the CR erg rather than abl, simple source rather than source + place. Erg with verbs introduces the "source of the action situation", with nouns the "class source", the set from which the subset denoted by the {N} is drawn. On the other hand, part of the syntax of non-derived nouns is a reduced capacity to take different argument types. It may be, indeed, that nouns need be subcategorised for only source (partitive), place ("inalienable possessor") or non-place non-source (appositive): i. e. there are no complex combinations of these features, or of the CRs they define. This

134

5. Syntactic

categories

presumes, for instance, that the agentive phrase in e.g. the fresco by Gozzoli is not a complement of fresco·, nor is the abl in the woman from Warsaw a complement of woman. In this case, the partitive is, in a sense, a neutralisation of abl and erg, being a source functor in contrast only with a non-source and place. Since, however, I do not pursue here the character of the non-partitive arguments of {N}'s, nothing vital hangs on the choice of label for our present purposes. Partitives are sources of some sort. In the section which immediately follows we shall be looking in some detail at the structure of (particularly partitive) NPs and subcategories of {N}, as an illustration, in a particular area, of some of the consequences of adopting a notionally-based syntactic classification, on analogy with the phonetic classifications of the phonology. Section 5.3 then introduces a further analogy arising from a consideration of the data surveyed in section 5.2.

5.2. Subcategories of noun Adjectives are not the only type of {N} to which subcategorisation by abl (or erg, or source), as introducing a referential (sub-)set, is appropriate. However, let us note firstly that some labels for a referential (sub-)set signal that the identification of the (possibly one-member) set is contextdependent in some way (textually, deictically...), as opposed to being identifiable as part of "background" knowledge; this is the case with personal pronouns. Let us associate these {N} forms with a notional diacritic {χ}

is inapplicable, and it must therefore be marked " — (5.89)". We thus in this respect have a situation rather typical of subcategories, one that is on the other hand difficult to reconcile with the positing of hierarchised categories such as "Aux" and "Modal". I note in passing that the history of modal be merits detailed investigation in relation to the evolution of a class of modals. Observe, for

164

5. Syntactic

categories

instance, that Moll Flanders is able to say "... for I had obtained the favour, by the help of money, nothing being to be done in that place without it" and "... we have a long piece of work to do, if I should be to relate, or you to hear, my unfortunate history". Return now to the status of the various non-finite forms. Let us say that non-finites are derivatively {P;N}: the categorisation is available to all verbs except modals. Perfect have, however, requires that its non-finite verbal argument have a form otherwise associated with (morphologically) derived adjectives. We can distinguish such participles as non-finites, but primarily verbal rather than adjectival (cf. Anderson 1989 b, in press b), as {P;{P:N}}, i. e with a verbal specification governing an adjectival one. The taking of such an argument it shares with non-perfect have and some other (erg) verbs: (5.90) a. b. c.

Did you have it reconditioned? I saw him beaten He wants the pig killed

I here assume that such verbs as those in (5.90) are lexically marked as permitting or requiring such a form (though this may, indeed, reflect some underlying semantic generalisation). However, what these verbs require, or permit, is a "passive" verbal argument: the omitted argument of the embedded form is the second on the hierarchy (with relegation of erg, if present, into a post-verbal position marked by by)\ and the verb form itself is appropriate. (Some of them also take an adjective, i. e. a form that is lexically {P:N}, derived or not: Do you have it ready?, I saw him naked/bewildered.) But such a characterisation does not seem to be appropriate to the perfect have construction, where despite the form of the verb, any hierarchically second argument is post-verbal, and there may, indeed, be none: (5.91) a. b.

Lois has kidnapped Arabella Arabella has disappeared

And the "subject" of have seems to be identical to that of the embedded verb, and not restricted to erg. (The subject of have in [5.90 a] is either erg+loc or simple erg.) Perfect have, then, presumably shows raising rather than equi. The non-perfect have which does not take a verbal argument is also not erg: (5.92)

The table has seven legs

5.6 Subcategories

of the verb II: auxiliaries

165

Have thus shows a simple erg ("agentive") subject (5.90 a), an erg-l-loc (e.g. Do you have it ready/finished) or an abs + loc (5.92). We can thus specify have as in (5.93): (5.93)

{V} {erg/abs,loc}

I suggest that perfect have is a grammaticalised variant of (5.93) introduced derivatively above verbs which bear a subordinate past tense reference (cf. Anderson 1972: §§XV —XVI). The participle with perfect have differs from that required in (5.90) in bearing a past reference and in not being passive (cf. Anderson to appear). We can, thus, associate with (5.91 b), for example, a pre-raising structure of the character of (5.94), wherein Arabella realises the lowest abs,

and the lower V is a past participle (again a categorisation available to any non-modal verb). (Here and in what remains of this section, "V" is an abbreviation for a categorial specification in which Ρ is not governed.) This superordinate configuration will allow for the fact that progressive be does not take perfect have as an argument, in that while this be is often "unhappy" with loc subjects in general (*Fred is knowing Arabella, IFred is loving Arabella), it particularly resists abs + loc subjects: (5.95) a. b.

*The table is having five legs *The book is containing lots of garbage

This property progressive be shares with other members of the notional class of Aktionsart verbs that take the -ing form: *This book began/ continued!finished containing lots of garbage, *The rubbish began/continued/finished/ was having disintegrated. Further, it is clear that if have does indeed introduce a "secondary" (past) tense this is particularly inappropriate with verbs which are concerned with the "temporal contour" of an event at a particular point in time (Anderson 1972, 1973 a; Jessen 1975).

166

5. Syntactic

categories

Progressive be takes a form identical to that associated with the verbal noun, and distinguishable from it, as more verbal (cf. again Anderson 1989 b, in press b), as {P;{N;P}}, with a noun specification dependent on a verbal. Anderson (1973 a, etc.) argues that this argument is specifically locative (cf. too section 3.3 above); but this refinement need not concern us in the present context. It is perhaps worth pointing out, though, that this it shares with the Aktionsart verbs and with "perception verbs", which also take -ing complements (as well as infinitives). In the case of the latter the alternation with nominal locatives is particularly transparent: She sawjdiscovered/filmed him taking a bath vs. She saw/discovered/ filmed him in the bath. This perhaps provides some additional support for the analysis of progressive aspect as locational; but the syntactic analysis of such constructions is fraught with problems (cf. e. g. Akmajian 1977; Gee 1977; Kopytko 1986). We should observe too that -ing in Present-day English also marks a class of derived adjectives: lexically {P:N}. However these are characterised, they are specifically associated, as predicatives, with causativeexperiential verbs like surprise, shock etc.: (5.96)

That was (very) shocking, surprising,...

whereas verbal nouns show at least the same degree of generality as progressive -ing forms. Attributively we also find -ing forms based on intransitives: (5.97)

She was hit by falling/flying/...

glass

But these are clearly {{N}{abl}} derivatives (cf. section 5.2). Some (other) verbs take an -ing adjective argument like that in (5.96): (5.98)

I consider that (very) shocking, surprising,...

just as they take other lexical adjectives. Other verbs, as we have seen, take an -ing argument that is a verbal noun: (5.99)

Babsie saw/heard/felt him climbing into bed

not restricted as in (5.98) to causative-experientials. (And some verbs — e. g. find — allow either.) Progressive be appears to belong with the latter group, in imposing a derivative {P;{N;P}} specification on the verb embedded under it. (See, however, Anderson to appear, for a rather different interpretation.) But as "intransitive", it shows raising into "subject position" of the embedded subject in (5.100).

5.6 Subcategories

of the verb II: auxiliaries

167

V

(5.100)

loc

abs

{P;(N;P)}

/

subject The raisee is realised as Beatrice in (5.101): (5.101)

Beatrice is coming again

whereas the raised subject occupies superordinate object position in (5.99). Let us return now to the characterisation of passives (recall section 4.2 above). The get form in (5.102): (5.102)

Fred got killed at last

like the (other) main verbs in (5.90) involves an erg subject (here erg + loc — cf. Fred got himself killed, with [not necessarily intentional] "agent"); it thus belongs to the class of erg(loc) verbs that require or permit that a verb embedded under them be a passive {P;{P:N}}. Passive be is not restricted semantically to erg subjects. But, like these other verbs, it appears to exhibit control by an erg( + loc) subject of the argument second on the subject selection hierarchy (cf., on this latter aspect, the formulation in [4.9]). I suggest, therefore, that passive be is again a grammaticalised verb, with erg + loc subject, introduced above predications in which the subject is being projected out of availability to rules which are normally subject-referring, where this projecting out is not required or allowed by the presence of a superordinate verb like want, but is "contextfree". (For a slightly more elaborate analysis whereby this "context-free" aspect of the projecting out of subjects under passivisation is eliminated, see Anderson 1972: § II, 1977: § 3.3.) The {P;{P:N}} form of the verb is a reflexion of this projecting out, except, in Present-day English, in the case of perfect have, where it is associated rather with past reference and with the presence of a superordinate verb which has a abs + loc subject. The superordinate be predication associated with non-verbal predicates and with the "passive" construction is thus not an initial (notionally motivated) element but introduced in the syntax above the appropriate configurations. (And such an analysis is perhaps, as indicated earlier, also appropriate to perfect have, introduced in the presence of a particular tense configuration.) This, together with other observations we have

168

5. Syntactic

categories

made, means that restrictions on possible sequences of auxiliaries need not as such be stipulated in the syntax. The existence of such restrictions (and the difficulties associated with semantic accounts of them — cf. e.g. Akmajian et al. 1979: 18 — 20; Gazdar etal. 1982: 918-919; Warner 1985: note 2) has been adduced in the past as motivation for the categorial distinctiveness of the auxiliaries and evidence against a "main verb" analysis (as argued for in the tradition associated with Ross 1969). However, language-particular expansions of AUX and VP such as are proposed for Present-day English by Lightfoot (1979: §2.1) and others, apart from invoking categories for which there is no motivation in initial structure, are incompatible with a restrictive theory of syntactic categories — and, for e. g. Lightfoot (1979: 84), require the positing of an offensive "hopping" operation ("have-be Raising"). And it is inappropriate, within such a restrictive framework, to attribute idiosyncrasies of distribution, rather than the major patterns, to category differences. Warner (1985) relates the restrictions on auxiliary distribution to the interaction of syntactic features which ultimately have a morphological basis (which renders them appropriately restricted). And his formulation (the "Auxiliary Condition") makes crucial reference to the feature [+AUX], here χ. But I suspect that (even though his account is compatible with a verb status for the auxiliaries) this is to somewhat overstate the "insulation" of the auxiliaries in this respect, in that the restrictions can be seen to be instantiations or extensions of constraints operative more generally in syntax. For instance, the prototypical passive be, in terms of what I have been suggesting here, is introducing only above predications of the appropriate character (crucially containing an erg and one other argument), one not associated with any of the other auxiliaries. Modals, on the other hand, in lacking a non-finite paradigm, cannot function as arguments of the other auxiliaries (and other modals), which take non-finite arguments. Be and the Aktionsart verbs, as we have seen (recall the discussion of [5.95] above), reject -ing forms of verbs like perfect have. Whereas sequences of verbal -ing forms are in general disfavoured in the syntax (e.g. Pullum 1974), the constraint is simply, and naturally, less frangible in the case of sequences of verbs belonging to the grammaticalised subcategory χ: *beingjhaving being. I suggest finally among the auxiliaries that the do predicate of "dosupport" ("periphrastic do") is also, like passive be, a grammaticalised auxiliary without notional basis and introduced derivatively in a supe-

5.6 Subcategories

of the verb II: auxiliaries

169

rordinate predication; it is specifically a "verbal copula"; introduced above (at least) non-auxiliary verbs, as in (5.103): (5.103)

Did Flo go to bed?

which realises (5.104), with Flo being raised to ultimately become subject of the upper V, manifested as do, and inverted with it. But it is superjoined (as the governor in a subjunction relation) to that verb (and thus itself unlexicalised) — cf. the discussion of the parsing of circumstantials in section 4.3 — if there is a superordinate auxiliary present:

Flo go to bed (5.105)

Has Flo gone to bed?

giving (5.106). However, the "verbal copula" is may also be (optionally) lexicalised if the verb subordinate to do is itself unlexicalised:

has (5.107)

Flo

gone

bed

She may have (done)

More generally put, the do predicate not superjoined only if it cannot share a verb phrase with its subordinate verb, as in (5.103) (or (5.107),

170

5. Syntactic

categories

which lacks a subordinate verb), which contrasts in this respect with (5.105/5.106) and (5.108): (5.108)

Flo went to bed

There is some evidence that do is also required by auxiliary (as well as non-auxiliary) verbs, though the conditions for superjoining are more extensive. We do find do with emphatic and negative be in imperatives {Do be good; Don't be silly; Dojdon't be misled by their appearance), and (perhaps more marginally) with perfect have {Do I don't have left by the time we arrive). We can now, at last, return to the status of the to which occurs with infinitives. Pullum (1981 b, 1982) has argued for a verbal status for this to. To, like periphrastic do, is associated with immediately pre-verbal position; and it is specifically pre-infinitival. We can allow for this, in the context of the preceding discussion, if to is the infinitive form of (periphrastic) do, which itself takes an accompanying infinitive. Usually this infinitive form is not superjoined and is realised as to. But certain verbs, including the "regular" modals, require this. Some transitive verbs also take the ίο-less infinitive, and they too fall into particular notional classes, such as the lexically least complex causative verbs of (5.109): (5.109)

Patsie made/let Dermott leave

and the perception verbs of (5.110): (5.110)

Sadie saw/heard/felt/smelt Dermott come in

With these, indeed, superjunction is ruled out if they are de-transitivised by passivisation {Dermott was made/seen to repent). However, again, whatever exceptions must be defined, we have notionally natural classes involved. One consequence of the proposals concerning non-finite forms put forward in this section in particular is that the categorial hierarchy is considerably extended, to include non-lexical categories associated with the class of verbs, categories, like {P;{N;P}}, involving second-order dependencies. We pursue the consequences of such hierarchical representations for constraining syntactic change in chapter 7 below. But let us note at this point that such an extension makes even clearer the analogy with the categorial hierarchy of the phonology, repeated here in the form given above (table 5.2). Compare here the syntactic categories of table 5.6, where, as in table 5.2, unilateral dependency is indicated, for clarity, by a vertical, except in the case of dependent P;N. The tables are not relationally identical: in part, at least, this is a reflection of the fact that

5.7. Coda on categorisation

171

Table 5.2. A partial sonority hierarchy V

vowel

V

V

V:C

V:C

c

V

liquid

nasal

vd fric

I 1

ιI

I1

V:C

C

I1

C

V vs fric

vd plos

vs plos

P:N

Ν

Ν

Table 5.6. A partial predicational hierarchy Ρ

finite

Ρ

Ρ

Ρ: Ν

Ν; Ρ

Ν

gerund

infinitive

I1

participle

Ρ

I1

I1

I1

Ρ adjective

noun

name

the hierarchies are both partial, and both reflect the small sample of phenomena we have surveyed, almost entirely limited to English, and not fully explored here even in relation to it. (Cf. for instance, the more extensive discussions of some aspects, including the status of infinitives, in Anderson 1989 b, 1990, in press b, to appear; and see further section 7.4 below.) But the relationship, and the discrepancies, between the two is a research area that promises interesting problems. Nevertheless, the similarities are striking, particularly given that the representations are motivated internally to the individual planes. In the representations in each table the relative preponderances of the two features gradually invert, establishing parallel hierarchies which are reflected, in the phonology, in syllabification constraints and e.g. in processes of lenition and fortition; in the syntax, in clause structure, and in the gradient phenomena embodied in e.g. Ross's (1973) "squishes". They also both embody an inherent measure of complexity, of "markedness"; and, as they stand, do not set an upper bound on the set of categories universally available, rather than simply ranking them in "markedness". Perhaps, however, a parallel upper bound can be established; it may be, indeed, that we need recourse to no more than secondorder dependencies such as are included in the tables — at least, at a contrastive level.

5.7. Coda on categorisation Thus far I have more or less silently consigned the case features to the sub-categorisational gesture. However, even without the prompting of the initial discussion in this chapter, it will have struck the less than

172

5. Syntactic

categories

somnolent reader that this is scarcely appropriate, given that these features are rather crucial to defining the distribution of the elements to which they are assigned; in no way are they associated with minor or simply "defective" distributional properties — as, say, the μ feature discussed in the immediately preceding section. This is precisely the burden of chapters 3 and 4 above. Now if we transfer the case specification to the categorial gesture, apart from this being in itself appropriate, it also has some interesting consequences for our notion of syntactic category; and it raises some final, intriguing questions concerning the application of structural analogy. Which is why I have delayed until now a consideration of the status of the case features. Above (cf. [5.63]), we attributed to a verb like crumble the syntactic specification {{V}{(erg)}}. Suppose we remove the gestural boundary, so that both V and (erg) are assigned to the categorial gesture (leaving χ, μ and the like as subcategorial): what now is the relationship between these formerly categorial and subcategorial features? Together, the new arrangement of features specifies that crumble is a verb that takes the array of CRs allowed for by the conjunction of features "(erg)" — i. e. an abs and an (optional) erg — to form a construction of which it is the head. We might represent this as: (5.111)

{V/(erg)}

where elements to the right of / indicate the argument structure that must be satisfied if crumble is to be the well-formed head of a predication (and "V" is an abbreviation for |P|). Similarly, seem might be categorially: (5.112)

{V/abs,{P;N}}

(cf. [5.67] above, modified in accordance with redundancy [5.76]), and know: (5.113)

{V/erg,loc((abs),{P;N})}

(cf. [5.68] similarly modified). Likewise, a functor like on might be characterised categorially as within the first bracket in (5.114): (5.114)

{/N;P} {loc}

i.e. it is neither Ρ nor N; it is a functor, as defined in section 5.1 above, with the case feature loc being subcategorisational only in this instance). And it combines with a category containing the configuration N;P:

5.7. Coda on categorisation

(5.115)

173

...on the 15 th of Julyj on seeing Freddy

to form a construction of which it is the head. Compare e. g. since, which also takes a sentential, as well as nominal, argument: ...since Tuesday/ Freddy left. This again supposes the unity of a class comprising adpositions and (other) subordinators, as what I am calling functors. What I have very briefly sketched out is, if you like, the very beginnings of the lexical base for a "categorial case grammar", with the categorial specifications including both a value, e. g. "V", and a valency, e. g. "erg". A question that now arises is: is this type of complex categorial specification replicated on the phonological plane? Certainly, we need to specify that, say, j\j in English does not form a coda with /g/; and such could be formulated in terms of the above notation. But such restrictions involve appeal to more than one gesture, and the gestural distinction is very wellmotivated. Moreover, such restrictions are essentially "fine tuning"; the major distributional pattern for a segment is given by the rules which project syllable structure from phonological categorial gestures; individual vowels, for instance, need not be marked as to the category-types they take as arguments. Presumably, the apparent absence of an analogous motivation for representations such as (5.111—5.114) in the phonology is associated with the lack of an individual lexical status for segments (and their [limited] cardinality), which follows from the relationship between the planes, via the lexicon, and with the difference in planar substance and our structuring of the two substances: there is an asymmetry in the degree of articulation appropriate in each case. What is extra is the differentiation of clause types provided by the set of case features, and the associated functor category. But the structural analogy assumption requires that we now go on and make this proposed basis for the apparent planar discrepancy explicit — or discover that we've (or at least I've) missed an analogy. The discrepancy between planes is, however, lessened by the observation that the slash in (5.111—5.114) can be considered to be (merely) another instance of the dependency relation: these categorial representations are labelled subjunctions. But they do, apparently, introduce an extra layer of subjunctions into syntactic categorial gestures compared with phonological: in addition to combinations of Ρ and N, analogous to the V and C of the phonology, such combinations are in turn related in dependency (contrast [5.111] and [5.114]) to the case features. However, in that case, Ρ and Ν constitute a sub-grouping within the categorial gesture, a sub-gesture, related by dependency to the casual sub-gesture, as shown in the categorial specification of (5.116):

174

5. Syntactic

(5.116)

categories

{{P:N};{erg,loc}}

as the representation for, say, an adjective — {P:N} in what we might call the contentive sub-gesture — like proud in (5.117): (5.117)

Bob is proud of his backstroke

Bob being erg + loc and of his backstroke abs. We might thus offer a fairly full specification for all of the character of (5.118). (5.118) (5.119)

{{{|N|};{abl{(-sg}}}{a}} |N| I abl 1 s { g}

α

Contentive Casual

f Categorial J

Subcategorial

or — perhaps more transparently — (5.119). On such an interpretation, "functors" might then be characterised not by absence of Ρ and Ν (as suggested in section 5.1 above) but by reversal of the (dependency) relation between the contentive and casual sub-gestures, with (5.114) interpreted categorially as (5.120): (5.120)

{{loc};{N;P}}

thus removing a discrepancy between the syntactic and phonological planes (presence of a universally empty category). But, further, we have now introduced into the syntax an articulation within gestures already proposed as appropriate to the phonology, viz. a gestural hierarchy within which the sub-gestures may be related by dependency (cf. Ewen 1980 a; Anderson and Ewen 1980, 1987). Anderson and Ewen (1987: § II), for instance, propose that the categorial gesture consists of the two sub-gestures of phonation, including V and C, and initiation, including a feature of glottal opening, O, and (other) features to do with the characterisation of airstream mechanisms; and they argue (1987: ch. 5) that these sub-gestures may enter into dependency relations with each other. Thus (section 5.1), the opposition between "voiceless", "voiced" and "creaky" stops in Hausa might be characterised (in terms of the composition of the categorial gesture) as in (5.121):

5.7. Coda ort categorisation

(5.121)

{{0};{|C|}} /ρ/ ("voiceless")

{{0}:{|C|}} /b/ ("voiced")

175

{{|C|};{0}} /b/ ("creaky")

given that the set can be hierarchised in terms of the degree of glottal opening, with /p/ showing maximum. If (5.121) represents an appropriate characterisation (see e.g. Davenport and Staun 1986 and Lodge 1987 for alternative conceptions of this area), we again find analogical structures within the two planes, in this case involving the internal organisation of gestures. On the other hand, apart from the fact that not all languages utilise such phonological intersub-gestural dependencies, the role of those in (5.121) seems to be rather different from that attributable to the analogous specifications in the syntactic plane, wherein the dependent sub-gesture encodes the argument structure of the category. Is this indeed a residual inter-planar distinction, ascribable to the factors mentioned above, or does the analogy extend further?

Chapter 6 Features, words and segments

In this chapter I am concerned to draw together and pursue a little some of the analogies we have observed concerning the basic atoms of linguistic representations, the features, and their relationship to the basic syntagmatic units of syntax and phonology, respectively the word and the segment. We shall not investigate further in themselves the analogies involving the syntagmatic structures erected on the basis of these units. It thus serves as something of a partial conclusion to what has preceded; but it is also a prelude to the discussion of the restricting of changes in the categories defined by feature combinations which is the topic of the final chapter, as well as a locus for some more analogical speculations. Representations are constructed out of configurations of features, configurations structured by linearity, dependency and association; the features have substantive content, semantic or phonetic; and the planes of syntax and phonology are distinguished by which of these substantive alphabets (semantic or phonetic) is basic to representations in that plane. Features are primarily associated with segment or word units, characterised as nodes in a dependency tree (the nodes upon which the trees of suprasegmental/syntactic structure are erected). But they may be associated with such nodes not qua basic units but as governors of a particular erected construction. These are the prosodic associations discussed in section 5.3, to which we turn in a monent. Let us recall first of all that much of suprasegmental/syntactic structure is constructed on the basis of the lexical specification of the basic units; other determinants are a limited set of parametric settings (e.g. headfirst vs. head-last), pragmatic signalling (topicalisation, etc.), and (with the phonology) morphosyntactic information. Relations of association, linearity and dependency outside the basic units are strikingly analogous, but also analogous in being in both planes largely derived, and possibly installed without mutation (structure-change — see Anderson in press b). Perhaps the status of linearity in this respect is least recognised: so that, for example, the order of segments is typically given lexically, despite the lack of generality that this entails (cf. again Anderson 1987 b). This is in spite of traditions, such as the Firthian, in which the non-contrastive status of most linearisation is given recognition; cf. e.g. Firth (1957

178

6. Features, words and segments

[1948]), who also alludes (p. 127, note 2) to Joos (1948): "In Japanese, if we neglect the geminates and the syllabic nasal, there is no structural significance in the order of phones in the typical syllable ka. The typical syllable consists of a consonant (or zero) and a vowel, and these are always uttered in the order CV, but this order is of no consequence above the phonetic level." But, also, many more particular associations are also non-contrastive than is generally recognised. In section 5.31 suggested that the feature pi was derivatively associated with the word with dominant Ν superordinate to all the words in a particular NP, its spread being limited by opaque elements. Thus in the monotonic (here left-headed) (6.1): (6.1)

[one [of [those [large [pigs]]]]]

pi spreads from pigs to be associated with the node heading the phrase those large pigs, but is blocked from spreading further by the inherent number of one. Compare here (5.36). Large is transparent to the spread: pi "passes through" it but is not marked on it. So too with kind in the colloquial (6.2 a): (6.2) a. b.

those kind of pigs those kinds of pigs

unlike in the more formal pl-sensitive (b). Perhaps, however, we should differentiate pi more carefully as what Anderson, Ewen and Staun (1985) term "extrasegmental": i. e. initially it is associated with the construction as a whole prior to particular nodeassociation rather than being a lexical property of any particular word. This would accord with the fact that typically it is not lexically determined; its selection is "free". In this respect, it would contrast with the feature of grammatical gender that spreads from the noun in examples like Old English (6.3): (6.3)

pat that/the:NEUT

gode good.NEUTER

cild child:NEUTER

where the feature "neut(er)" is clearly lexically associated with the noun. While there appear to be instances in the phonology where a prosodic feature spreads from a particular segment, manifesting "true harmony", Anderson, Ewen and Staun (1985) argue for cases where a feature is more appropriately thought of as being associated initially with a morpheme or word as a whole. Cf. the discussion of Khalkha Mongolian in section 5.3, or of Nez Perce «-harmony by Anderson and Durand (1988 b).

6. Features, words and segments

179

We can also associate extrasegmental α-harmony with the phonology of Dama (Hottentot), as described by Cruttenden (to appear). Cruttenden notes the following restrictions as appropriate to divocalic root sequences: (6.4) a. b. c. d. e.

the first vowel is juj, /o/ or /a/ the second is /u/, joj, /a/, /e/ or jij initial juj can be followed by only juj or /i/ initial /o/ can be followed by only joj or /e/ initial /a/ can be followed by any vowel

These can be allowed for if we assume that an initial vowel is, in terms of articulatory features, segmentally {u} or {a}, a following vowel is {i}, {u} or { } (unspecified), and that roots may or may not be associated with a prosodic a which in combination with segmental u and i yields {u,a} ( = joj) and {i,a} ( = /e/) respectively, as shown in table 6.1, where the second last possibility is discarded by general principle as preserving an empty articulatory gesture. Again, the important point is that the initial status of a particular feature is extrasegmental. Plurality association in English would constitute a syntactic analogy to such phonological phenomena: a feature not associated with a particular word. Table 6.1.

Dama harmony

Segmental

{u} + « {U} + {u} {U} + « {U} + {U} {a} + {i} {a} + {u} {a} + {i} {a} + {u} {a} + { } {a} + { }

Prosodic

= =

Μ + Ν Μ + /u/ /ο/ + /e/ /ο/ + /ο/ Μ +Ν Ν + Μ Ν +Μ /a/ + /Ο/

=

Μ +

—

—

—

=

a a —

= = =

-

a a

deviant

—

a

Ν

Anderson (1986 b, 1987 b: §2) argues further that the entire content of particular segments may be derived from outside, including initially extrasegmental features. Thus, the categorial content of j h j in (6.5): (6.5) a. b. c.

hysterical Sahara history, jojoba

180

6. Features, words and segments

is extrasegmental, and associated only derivatively with word-initial (6.6 a) or foot-initial (b) or word-and-foot-initial (c) empty onsets created by the rules assigning the syllable structure headed by the following vowel, from which the onset also derives its articulatory characterisation. The positioning within the word of these features is not contrastive, not lexically distinctive. This, as we have observed, it shares with dependency relations, and much else of linearity and association, as well as many occurrences of features. The extreme case of the last is where the features for a particular segment or gesture are initially completely absent, i.e. where we have non-specification, as with one of the segment types in (6.5). Before pursuing this, however, let us turn to syntactic analogies to the case of English /h/. The features of person and number on finite verbs in English are spread from their cyclic subject; but the feature "past", realised on the verb in (6.6) etc.: (6.6)

Bert cooked the canary

as again non-lexical, is arguably a prosody of the clause as a whole, only derivatively in English associated with the finite head (Anderson 1965); this association is non-contrastive. Now, usually that head will be associated initially with other features, as in (6.6). But the finite head of (6.7) and the like: (6.7)

Bert didn't cook the canary

is a verb specified only as taking a (non-io) infinitive; and it is introduced specifically to occupy the derivatively introduced verb position governing main verbs (recall [5.104] in section 5.6) and susceptible of being associated with tense; this position arises only derivatively, and the association of the tense feature is derivative also. A more complete analogy is perhaps provided by the auxiliaries of Basque, illustrated by da/zen in (6.8): (6.8) a. b. c. d.

Ethorri da "He/she has arrived" Ethorri zen "He/she had arrived" Ethortzen da "He/she leaves/is arriving" Ethortzen zen "He/she left/was arriving"

6. Features, words and segments

181

where tense is signalled primarily by the auxiliary, with the varying character of the non-finite main verb contributing to the overall tense/ aspect interpretation, and person/number is also carried by the auxiliary - cf.: (6.9)

Ethortzen niz "I arrive/am arriving"

The vast majority of Basque verbs appear only in non-finite forms, and an auxiliary is introduced derivatively to construct finite clauses (and some other constructions). The position occupied by the auxiliary is derivationally non-initial, and its (tense/person/number) content is derived. (On these constructions, see further Saltarelli 1988: § 1.2.1.) Perhaps a more precise structural analogy to the syntactic copula is the epenthetic vowel, inserted as a syllabic nucleus (as the copula is clausal head) to satisfy structural requirements — again, not in itself contrastive, lexical. And a structurally truer analogue to the /h/ of English are expletive elements inserted to occupy empty subject positions created by the rules of the syntax, such as there or it in English. Anderson (in press a), following Kuipers (1960), presents a rather extreme case of vowel-epethesis, that attributed to Karbardian, whereby all vowels are epenthetic; we come back to some considerations relating to this below. But let us now return to another, related property of phonological representations introduced by the analysis of Dama vocalism sketched out above, and presented in (6.5). One segment type in (6.5) was described as initially unspecified: that is, all of the articulatory specification is introduced derivatively. Association of articulatory material with that segment is non-contrastive, even though the vowel is lexical (not epenthetic). The possibility of empty gestures (and segments) arises from the notation itself: one of the set of sets of elements included in {X1} X2, X3, ...} is the empty set, { }. Considerations of contrastivity also lead to the postulation of such. And Anderson and Ewen (1981) and Anderson and Durand (1988 a, b), for instance, have argued, with respect to a number of different systems, for the descriptive advantages which flow from the assumption of such a possibility. (Cf. the similar concerns of "underspecification theory", e.g. Archangeli 1988.) Anderson and Ewen (1981) select denti-alveolars (coronals) as unspecified in English on grounds of markedness as well as for descriptive motivations. (Cf. here e.g. Avery and Rice 1989.) But Anderson and Durand (1988 a, b) argue that, particularly in asymmetrical systems, the unspecified vowel in a language (sub-)system may be selected (by universal

182

(6.10)

6. Features, words and segments

/if {i} /e/ {i,a}

Μ {u} /a/ {a}

principle) on the basis of the particular "shape" of the system. Thus, for Latvian, with the vowel system of (6.10), the "isolated" vowel /u/ is selected as unspecified; and Anderson and Durand (1988 a) try to show that this characterisation has advantages for a description of the phonology of the language. In chapter 5 above, adpositions or, more generally, functors had attributed to them universally an empty categorial gesture (though recall the alternative of section 5.7). What is also of interest, however, is whether one can attribute to the syntax languageparticular (though principled) selections for non-specifications of the kind discussed with respect to phonology by Anderson and Durand (1988 a, b). The area awaits detailed investigation. But let me at least suggest what an analogue might look like. In terms of the English auxiliary system, the "simple form" in (6.11) can be characterised as non-past, non-modal, non-progressive, non-perfect, non-passive: (6.11)

Eddie shoots

It may be interpreted as either habitual (iterative) or not; but it is contrastively unspecified. And this accords with, for instance, its role as the "default" form, realised in neutralisations such as that in the subordinate clause in (6.12):

The unspecified form in (Western Austronesian) Chamorro, such as that in (6.13), on the other hand, is simply non-progressive: (6.13)

Malagu yu'nigap run I yesterday

(Chung and Timberlake 1985: §§ 1.3, 2.4); and both the progressive and it can (in appropriate circumstances) be interpreted as past or not, habitual or not. Different interpretive possibilities are available to these unspecified forms, perhaps to be associated with the structure of the systems to which they belong. In chapter 5 also it was suggested, at the other extreme of combinatorial complexity, that both the syntactic and the phonological categorial

6. Features, words and segments

183

gestures may involve not merely dependency but second order-dependency relations, of the character displayed in some of the representations in tables 5.2 and 5.6, replicated here as tables 6.2 and 6.3, respectively. Table 6.2. A partial sonority hierarchy V

V I

1 V:C vowel

liquid

V 1 1

V:C

V:C

C 1 1 V

C

vs fric

vd plos

vs plos

P:N

Ν

Ν

I

c

1 V

nasal

vd fric

Table 6.3. A partial predicational hierarchy Ρ

finite

Ρ

Ρ

Ρ

I

I

I

1 P:N

1 N;P

1 Ν

participle

gerund

infinitive

I

1 Ρ adjective

noun

name

Amongst other things, these representations, as indicated, define hierarchies, as well as allowing for the expression of natural classes. In the phonology, in the present instance, these representations express the notion sonority hierarchy, as discussed in section 2.5 in relation to unmarked syllable structure and to processes of lenition/fortition. Anderson (1989 b, in press b) argues that such hierarchical phenomena are also characteristic of syntax. Notable amongst these are the "squishes" discussed by Ross (1973) alluded to in section 5.1 above. In section 7.5 I shall argue that we can distinguish at least three types of "verbal noun" in English, the gerund, the deverbal noun and an intermediate "action nominal", exemplified respectively in (6.14): (6.14) a. b. c.

Fred's destroying the table Fred's destruction of the table Fred's destroying of the table

with "nouniness" decreasing from gerund to deverbal noun, as indicated in the representations in (6.15 a —b): (6.15) a. b. c.

(P;(N;P)} {(N;P);P} {P:(N;P)}

such that either the verbal (P) or the nominal (N;P) property predominates, with (c), involving mutual dependency, again intermediate between

184

6. Features, words and segments

them. Relative preponderance can be calculated by a simple computation whereby the elements in a ; relation are assigned the proportion "3:1", and those in a : relation are equal. So that, for instance, with the gerund, the inner relation involves "3N:1P", but that combination is in a "1:3" proportion with the outer P; so that, overall, we have "12P:(3N:1P)", i. e. "13P;3N", i.e. a high preponderance of P. The verbal noun of (6.15b) has "(9N:3P):4P" = "7P:9N", with a slight preponderance of N. With (c) we have "4P:(3N;1P)" = "5P:3N", with Ρ again preponderating. (See further section 7.4 below.) The representations in (6.15) are largely based on the extent to which syntactic properties are shared with categories higher or lower on the predicational hierarchy defined by table 6.2, such that e.g.: only the example in (6.14 a) shows an unmarked object, characteristic of verbs; whereas only (b) allows adjectival modification of the head {Fred's wanton destruction of the table, etc.). But they also correlate rather well with the degrees of acceptability exhibited by sentences (discussed by Ross 1973) containing the different constructions and elements that are diagnostically verb-selecting, as in (6.16): (6.16) a. b. c. d.

That he does not prepare dinner is good for her health ?His not preparing dinner is good for her health *His not preparing of dinner is good for her health **His not preparation of dinner is good for her health

with the "cringe factor" (or asterisk count) increasing as "nouniness" increases. I am suggesting that such acceptability gradings correlate with a hierarchy that it is one of the tasks of syntactic representation to characterise. It is possible too that we can describe language-systems as a whole as being more or less "nominal". As observed above, Basque verbs, with a few exceptions, appear only in non-finite forms, forms that are not optimally verbal: recall (6.8 — 6.9). This extends to the expression of what in many languages involves a modal auxiliary, as in (6.17): (6.17)

Joan behar luke Go:INFIN need he/she-has-it:CONDITIONAL ("He/she ought to go")

Basque is relatively "nominal". English is less so; but main verbs are restricted in their occurrence in finite positions, as a consequence of their failure to exhibit the NICE properties (recall section 5.6, and see also particularly Anderson 1990). Old English and many other languages are

6. Features, words and segments

185

less "nominal" still, in lexically allowing free access to finite position for verbs in general. Analogously, perhaps, languages may be more or less "consonantal". Kabardian, it is generally agreed, exhibits at most only two or three contrastive vowels (Comrie 1981: 206 — 207). Kuipers (1960) argues further that even the occurrence of vocality is predictable (cf. too Anderson in press a): vowels are absent from initial representations. In either case, it is clear that the consonantal system predominates lexically; Kabardian has a large set of contrastive consonants, exhibited, after Kuipers (1960: 18), in table 6.4. Kabardian and the other North-west Caucasian languages are more "consonantal" than most. With Basque and Kabardian (on Kuipers' analysis), it may be that the finite verbs and vowels are respectively non-contrastive, and are simply not present as such in initial structures; at most, in terms of contrastivity, they are not well represented lexically. However, languages with modest consonant systems are not necessarily rich in vowels (witness Hawaiian, though the vocalic system is doubled Table 6.4. The Kabardian consonant system (from Kuipers 1960: 18) voiceless plos. fric. labial

Ρ

r stop dental < 1 affric.

t

voiced plos. fric.

f

b

V

d s

glottalic plos. fric.

nasal

Ρ'

m

f

t* η

ζ

c

c

3

(alveolar)

r

pal.-alveolar

§

ζ

alv.-palatal

s

ζ

lateral

1

1

pal.-velar

trill

^

uvular -1 P' a ' n (lab.

k' k°

x' x°

q q°

X x°

g' g°

g°

h

pharyngal ι

s'

X

Ί'

k" k'°

g

q

q'°

>

(h) Y

>

V

}

V ?

r plain laryngal < pal. (. lab.

h j (=h') w ( = h°)

186

6. Features, words and segments

once vowel length is taken into account); other factors (e. g. morphemelength or clustering) may supervene, factors some of which may be planeparticular. One therefore has to be cautious about local apparent analogies in the structure of systems, or at least about their extension. But a mistaken or partial analogy may at least be fruitful even in the demonstration of its inappropriateness or partiality. With the introduction of the notion of cluster, we are on the verge of another possible analogy the domain of whose appropriateness is uncertain. Kabardian, with its large system of consonants, shows little clustering of consonants (this is partly why vowel position is predictable — on Kuipers' analysis). Likewise, Dama, with a similarly large system of consonants of considerable internal complexity, including a large subset of clicks, eschews clusters (Cruttenden to appear). Again, this does not mean that small consonant systems necessarily display extensive clustering; there may once more be other factors of "compensation". Is there, however, a syntactic analogy to the correlation exhibited by Kabardian and Dama? In order to proceed further in this inquiry, let us recall some of what emerges from our precious discussions of the complexity of units. In the present chapter we have so far considered the analogy of the internal structure of the syntagmatic units of the phonology and syntax with respect to how the basic elements combine, with and without a stipulation of dependency. This is displayed in tables 6.2 and 6.3 above. In chapter 2 we established another analogy in internal structure: the possibility of unit-internal (labelled) adjunctions. Thus, in section 2.5, I suggested that the word structure of compounds, such as that in (2.26), repeated here as (6.18), is parallelled by phonological compounds such as "short diphthongs" or affricates such as that in (6.19), (where "a" (6.18)

(6.19)

Ν Ν

V

sun

rise

{C} {V:C}

6. Features, words and segments

187

stands for the articulatory specification), for, say, /ts/. There are various respects in which the internal complexities of word and segment are analogous. However, it is perhaps only with syntactic configurations involving functors that there is an obvious parallel to the phonological correlation between high consonant complexity and low clustering, and then rather trivially. Thus, languages with extensive superjunction of functors (giving case systems) show less reliance on independent functors (adpositions). W h a t would be more significant would be a correlation between word class complexity and construction formation. Thus, for instance, Greek, with no infinitive, shows finite subordinates with a wide range of predicate-types which in other languages require or prefer or at least allow a non-finite: (6.20) a.

b.

Πρέπει να δοχιμάσεις Must:III,SG S U B O R D I N A T O R you-try: SUBJUNCTIVE Θέλει να αχούσει He/she-wants SUBR. he/she-hear: SUBJUNCTIVE

το κρασί the wine τη μουσική the music

Again, the correlation is a rather trivial one, and of a slightly different character from what is involved with the phonological phenomena. But the search for more significant correlations could well be of considerable interest. The present short chapter has focussed on analogies involving the basic units of the syntax and phonology, some of them even more speculative than those introduced earlier. I have, however, tried to restrict myself to analogies that are in principle testable given present knowledge, though most of the testing, certainly, remains to be done. I have also not inquired, recognising the prematurity of this, into the basis of the analogical principle, the extent to which it derives from more than the wielding of Occam's instrument. To what extent, for instance, can we regard syntactic structure as a whole as derivative of phonological, as an extensive suppletive metaphor? The aim of the chapter, and that of the book as a whole, has also been unbalanced in its pursuit of analogies, but deliberately so, partly as a corrective to recent excesses of stratification and anomalism, but also in an attempt to demonstrate some of the light that adoption of the structural analogy assumption might throw on apparently diverse phenomena, and, indeed, the interest in discovering

188

6. Features, words and segments

where analogies are wanting. A research programme of some interest emerges as we try to determine whether in particular instances this is the case, and, if so, whether the lack of analogy can be related to the overall architecture of the grammar, and particularly the relationship between the two planes and the relation of both of them to the lexicon.

Chapter 7 Categories of change

7.1. Introduction Linguistic theory circumscribes linguistic variation and thus linguistic change: potential changes (ones that might be contemplated pre-theoretically) are, in the first place, either impossible, as infringing universale of language, or possible. Assessing the likelihood of possible changes, potentiality for recurrence, is apparently more complex, however. Many recurrent changes involve minimal incremental or decremental modification, such that the change involves a local increase or decrease in what is allowed within a particular language, where locality is defined by linguistic theory. But it has been claimed that the histories of languages can also experience "major restructurings". Such, for instance, would apparently be involved in the innovation of a category "modal" in the history of English, as proposed by Lightfoot (1974, 1979: ch. 3); recall section 5.4 above. It is important, however, to distinguish two aspects of restructuring: a) certain items are assigned to a new category lexically; b) a category may thereby be innovated. With respect to the latter, syntactic and phonological notations such as those described in the preceding provide a metric for category innovation, an evaluation of how radical a category innovation might be. In the bulk of what follows I consider various changes in the syntax of English, some of them with quite widespread repercussions (and including the history of the "modals"), which nevertheless can be related to local, minimal modifications to the syntax of English: I suggest that these are preferred, most likely. I am concerned specifically with "categorial" (including sub-categorial) changes, with respect to which it might further be suggested that "radical restructuring", conceived as arbitrary category innovation, is even impossible, excluded by syntactic theory; if such changes can be restricted to the minimal modifications outlined and exemplified below, then we can put a firm bound to the notion possible change in categorisation. The establishment of this depends on the adoption of a restrictive theory of syntax such as has been developed within the variant of notional grammar advocated here, analogous to the theory of phonetic categories proposed within phonology.

190

7. Categories of change

Table 7.1. Syntactic categories Ρ finite verbs

P;N non-finites

P:N adjectives

N;P Ν common nouns names

Table 7.2. Some second-order combinations P;(P:N) participles

(P:N);P deverbal adjectives

As we have seen, notional grammar provides for each language a set of notionally defined categories out of which syntactic representations are built in accordance with particular parameter settings appropriate to that language. A hierarchy of categories is established by the inherent complexity of the representations they require: some categories are more basic, require fewer (notional) features. In terms of the framework developed in the preceding chapter, (finite) verbs and (proper) names can be simply characterised, respectively, as {P}, i. e. as (categorially) predicative, and as {N}, nominal, and functors (adpositions) as { }, categorially unspecified; while other categories, such as adjectives, are identifed by combinations of the two features, and are thereby more complex, less basic. Combinations may be simple, symmetrical, or asymmetrical. Some basic possibilities, involving asymmetrical and symmetrical combination, are recalled in table 7.1, derived from table 4 of chapter 5; but {P;N} is here taken to characterise non-finites as a whole (see further sections 7.3 and 7.4 below). With non-finite verbs Ρ governs, preponderates over, N; with common, as opposed to proper, nouns, the preponderance is reversed; with adjectives, the two properties are mutually preponderant. As we have seen, further, more complex categories can be provided for by second order combinations, such as are illustrated in table 7.2, and exemplified in (7.1): (7.1)

a. b.

Sheila has been forgotten by Bruce (participle) Sheila is a forgotten woman (deverbal adjective)

In table (7.2) the second order representations are composed of the same elements, P, the "finite verb property", and P:N, the "adjectival property", but the preponderance, or direction of dependency, of "finite-verb-ness" and "adjectiveness" is reversed between the two. Participles are more verb-like than deverbal adjectives. Such a notional theory of categories allows for languages to vary in the number of categorial distinctions made: these are recognized on the

7.1. Introduction

191

basis of the distributional and morphological characteristics of the language concerned, and identified on notional grounds. The minimal system seems to be {P} vs. {N} vs. { } (Anderson 1990, in press b). Languages may also vary in the categories that are contrastive — given lexical status, associated with distinct lexical classes: thus, many languages have distinct finite and non-finite verb classes, or one class that can be both and one that is only non-finite (with distinctive finites often being called "auxiliaries" — section 5.6 and chapter 6), while others allow all verbs to occur in both finite and non-finite positions and/or to show both finite and non-finite morphology. Not all the categories appropriate to the syntax of a language will be recognized as classes. Also, though a lexical class will contain as prototypical members items satisfying the notional requirements of the category, there are likely to be items which are distributionally appropriate but notionally less so. Thus, some nouns ("relational nouns") — such as friend in English — are perhaps as much situation-defining as entity-defining. The theory provides a restricted alphabet out of which any categorial representation must be constructed, and the representations themselves provide an inherent measure of complexity. The complexity measure imposes a hierarchy on representations, and on language systems. Systems can be ranked in terms of the complexity of the representations they invoke. It is a natural property of such a hierarchy of systems that the set of representations invoked by any systen be continuous and minimalist, at a contrastive level. We require that the presence in a system of a complex representation presupposes the independent presence in the same system of the components out of which it is constructed (e.g. adjectives presuppose verbs and names). Inter-language variation in categories invoked is not randomly distributed. Let us refer to this property of systems of categories as "category continuity", roughly formulated as in (7.2): (7.2) a. b.

Category continuity With respect to a particular language system: A category {A,B} presupposes categories {A} and {B} Combinations {A;B} and {A:B} presuppose combination {B;A}

where A and Β are variables over (possibly unitary) feature combinations, and , is neutral among simple combination, asymmetrical combination and symmetrical (mutually dependent) combination. When simple categorial possibilities are exhausted, a further (dependent) instance of a component may be introduced (as illustrated below).

192

7. Categories of change

Category continuity is manifested in various empirical domains. Compare here the discussion by Anderson and Ewen (1987: §4.2) of the relationship between (categorial) phonological representations (structured in the same way as syntactic categories) and the "structural laws" of Jakobson (1968). We turn later in this section to a consideration of the application of the category continuity assumption to a recent study of phonological development. But most of what follows is devoted to its role in (restricting) historical change. The naturalness of such a requirement at a lexical level follows from the assumption of contrastivity: that initial, lexically distinctive categorial representations are minimally distinct. Additional categorial distinctiveness (to allow for detailed distributional properties) may be attributed to a class by lexical redundancy or by the rules building syntactic or phonological structure, but these distinctions are non-contrastive — and they too are constrained by (7.2), as we shall see below. Such considerations circumscribe the ways in which categories can be innovated, the kind of category that can evolve, given the input system. Let us assume, for the moment, a system with two features only (say, C and Κ or Ν and P), and a minimal system for any language of {C} vs. {V} and {N} vs. {P}. Given also the universal hierarchical scheme of categories, constrained by (7.2), category change can be limited to three cases: i) minimal incremental change; ii) minimal decremental change; iii) lexical realignment. (i) involves differentiation (over time) of a category by minimal addition in accordance with (7.2) — either of a new combination of already existing categorial components or of asymmetric combinations where only simple combination was present or of a symmetric combination on the basis of pre-existing asymmetricals, or, as a default, of a second instance of a component, (ii) involves conflation of two categories along the same dimensions as invoked in (i). We can represent these possibilities, schematically, as in (7.3 a) and (b) respectively: (7.3) a.

b.

{Α} {Β} => {Α} {Β} {A.B} {A.B} => {A;B} {B;A} {A;B} {B;A} => {A;B} {B;A} {A:B} {A:B} {A:B} {(A:B);A}/{A;(B:A} {A} {B} {A.B} => {A} {B} {A;B} {B;A} => {A.B} {A;B} {B:A} {A:B} => {A;B} {B;A} {A:B} {(A:B;A}/{A;(B:A} {A:B}

7.1. introduction

193

where . indicates simple combination (no dependency) and (7.3 a) illustrates minimal system increments and (b) minimal decrements, as allowed by (7.2) above. The third possibility for category change (iii: lexical realignment) involves a change in the relationship between categories and lexical classes: a categorial distinction may be given lexical recognition — it comes to be associated with distinct classes of lexical items — or it may lose such differentiation. If such developments are associated with a continuity condition like (7.2), then we can envisage as permissible the possibilities in (7.4), with once again (minimal) differentiation (7.4 a) vs. conflation (b), and with the relationship between A and Β (themselves possibly complex) being governed by (7.2). Where (before differentiation, and after conflation) a single class is associated with more than one distributional category, one categorial possibility will be provided for by redundancy. (7.4)

a.

categories

{A}_

classes b.

categories classes

{B}

{X} {A}

{B}

X

Y

{A}

{Β}

X.

χ2

{A}

{Β}

Χ',γ These various developments are also subject to prototypicality requirements: so that in the syntax the lexical classes involved must satisfy the requirement that they contain prototypical members notionally appropriate to the category they are associated with. Thus, the prototypical members of Xi and X 2 in (7.4 a) must conform to the notional characteristics of A and Β respectively; and category differentiation must likewise be notionally natural. In the latter sections of this chapter I shall attempt to illustrate from the history of English syntax the legitimate developments allowed by (7.2). In the preceding we have focussed on the strictly categorial, rather than sub-categorial. It is clear, however, that the same continuity requirements can and should be associated with subcategorial representations, both in the syntax and the phonology (articulation). Some of the phonological illustrations offered in section 7.2 make this assumption, as will emerge from the discussion which follows. Before proceeding to a consideration of the historical change, however, let me illustrate the relevance of category continuity to the determination

194

7. Categories of change

of the order of acquisition of categories, in this case with respect to the phonology. (I believe that the acquisition of syntactic categories is similarly constrained; but a demonstration of this would take us into such controversial areas that a detailed separate treatment is warranted.) Again, I do not attempt to survey the extensive literature in this area, but take one important study as a basis. Dinnsen et al. (to appear) describe the results of the treatment of 34 functionally misarticulating English-speaking children (ages 3;4 to 6;8). They establish a typology of the children's pre-treatment phonological systems, which they assign to five levels based on implicational relationships. Thus, for instance, the second, Β level, shows contrasts among the "non-vowels" between voiceless and voiced plosives, nasals and glides; level A shows a distinction between plosives, nasals and glides only — there is no voice contrast among the obstruents. A system showing such a contrast will also show all the contrasts exhibited by the A system: possession of the Β contrasts implies possession of the A. And so on through C —E: C shows a contrast between plosives and "fricatives, affricates or both" in addition to the other contrasts associated with B; D adds a contrastive possibility among sonorants; Ε a distinction between laterals and liquids and strident and non-strident fricatives. Changes in the children's systems, as a result of treatment or not, conformed to the hierarchy, so that acquisition (and sometimes loss) of contrasts did not create systems violating the implicational relationship embodied in the level-ordering. Some changes are what Dinnsen et al. describe as "levelinternal"; they involve gain or loss of contrasts in the articulatory gesture, and are not relevant to the typology. Table 7.3 displays the Dinnsen et al. levels along with proposed categorial representations of the character discussed here (largely based on Anderson and Ewen 1987). The transitions between levels almost entirely conform to the category continuity assumption. Level A consists only of simple combinations of C and V, with glides, as non-syllabic vowels opposed to obstruents, with the (voiced) nasals constituting a simple combination of the two properties. Voicing and nasality are separated off only at level B, at which asymmetrical relations are introduced: cf. the second possibility in (7.3 a). At level C mutual dependency is introduced, allowing for fricatives (cf. possibility [c] in [7.3]). Another, apparently simultaneous, addition is the inclusion of a second V feature, providing for voiced fricatives. The addition of this Fis admittedly spread across levels C and D, in that it also allows for the nasal/liquid contrast

7.1. Introduction

195

Table 7.3. Levels of elaboration of the phonological system Level A

vless plos C

nasal c,v

glide V

Level Β

vless plos C

ved plos C;V

nasal V;C

Level C

vless pi C

Level D

vs pi C

vless fric CM

ved pi C;V vd pi C;V

vs fr C:V

glide V ved fric (C:V),V

vd fr C:V

nas V;C

1 V Level Ε

vs pi C

vd pi C;V

strd C:V

vs fr C:V

glide V

nasal V;C liquid V

gld V

1 CM

vd fr C:V

nas V;C

lat V

liq

I

I

I

V I

C

V

C:V

C:V

gld

V

I

c v(les)s = voiceless, v(e)d = voiced pl(os) = plosive, fr(ic) = fricative nas = nasal, lat = lateral, gld = glide strd = strident (fricative)

at the latter level, though this can be interpreted as following from introduction of dependency. At any rate, progress from Β to D involves two minimal increments; moreover, it may be the case in general that addition of A to {A:B} rather than {A;B} (cf. the last possibility in [7.3 a]) is the unmarked option. Ε is differentiated from D by addition of a dependent C, to give strident fricatives and laterals, which are more consonantal than mellow fricatives and non-lateral liquids, respectively. As noted, there is not quite an exact match between Dinnsen et al.'s level-ordering and minimal incrementation. And there remain a number of uncertainties: for example, apart from providing the information that level C includes "fricatives, affricates or both", Dinnsen et al. do not specify the place of differentation of affricates ({C;(C:V)}). Moreover, category continuity does not dictate the order in which the second V and C are added. Nevertheless, it seems to me that there is a striking correlation between the results of this empirical study and the requirements of category continuity.

196

7. Categories of change

12. Phonological recategorisation The sections which follow are concerned with the role of category continuity in constraining syntactic change. At this point, let me spell out in the historical domain the phonological analogy on which these considerations concerning syntactic change are based. With respect to the phonology, categorial continuity allows for the familiar development in the (pre-)history of English illustrated in (7.5). (7.5)

Pre-I-umlaut {u} {i} => Μ W

Post-I-Umlaut {u} {i} {i,u} [u] [i] [y]

A category of high front rounded vowels (amongst others) is innovated in certain (/-Umlaut) environments, a category represented by the y in cyning, for instance, where previously there was a distinction between front unrounded and back rounded only (e.g. Lass and Anderson 1975: ch. IV, § 2; in terms of dependency phonology, Anderson and Jones 1974; Anderson 1980 a). We have a paradigm case of the first possibility illustrated in (7.3 a). The subsequent loss of such a vowel, as occurs in most varieties of Old English, illustrates the first possibility in (7.3 b). Likewise, whereas in Old English one can distinguish the three long vowel articulatory categories involving a and u in (7.6), (7.6)

{u} [u:] hus "house"

{a,u} [o:] boc "book"

{a} [a:] ham "home"

in Southern Middle English there develops a differentiation involving combinations of a and u occasioned by the introduction of a new category as a result of Middle English Open Syllable Lengthening (see e. g. Jones 1989: § 3.2), as shown in (7.7). (7.7)

{u} [u:] hous

{u;a} [o:] book

{a;u} [o:] hoom

{a} [a:] bake

This development illustrates the second possibility in (7.3 a). Initially, the new, fourth value in (7.7) is not lexical/contrastive: [a:] is a variant of /a/ in the "Open Syllable" environment. With the loss of this environment, we have lexical realignment: all four vowels in (7.7) are contrastive, on the establishment of a new lexical class, those items

7.2. Phonological

recategorisation

197

containing /a:/, formerly belonging to the class of /a/-containing items. This latter development illustrates the possibility allowed for by (7.4 a) above, as governed by (7.2). A further illustration is provided by the development of English fricatives. We can associate with Old English all of the categories of dentialveolar consonant shown in (7.8), but the [s/z] distinction is not contrastive; voicing is context-determined, with [z] appearing (within certain morphosyntactic domains) between voiced segments only (e. g. Anderson 1985 c). (7.8)

{C} [t] top "tooth"

{C;V} [d] don "(to) do"

{C:V} [s] sop "true"

{(C:V);V} Μ huses "house's"

{V;C} [n] ban "bone"

{V;(V:C)} [1] land "land"

It is only later, as a result of various developments, that these (fricative) categories acquire a contrastive distribution, that the voice opposition becomes lexical in these cases: so Present-day English sip/zip. It is only after the Old English period that the opposition between {(C:V);V} and {V;(C:V)} need be invoked lexically; for Old English, liquids can be simply {V.(C:V)} at the lexical level. This development illustrates the second type of (7.3 a). If a particular gesture can come to contain features that are not necessarily present in the universal minimal system we can recognise a fourth possibility for (minimal) categorial change (incremental or decremental): addition or loss of a single feature. The former may be illustrated by the history of what Wells (1982: §3.1.7) refers to as "the FOOTSTRUT split", involving addition of a feature in the articulatory gesture. In the early Modern development of most varieties of English, the short high back vowel developed a variant realisation, probably allophonically, after labials. This is indicated in (7.9). (7.9)

r {u}

{u} => I j I {u,9} {|V|}

[ω]

full

[γ]

CUt

A new sub-phonemic category is developed by the (minimal) addition of d, the reduction/centralisation feature. Complementarity comes to be aborted, however, and lexical realignment (split) takes place in the seventeenth century, evidenced by Present-day pairs such as put/putt, with the realisation of the a-variant now lowered to [ a ] . Anderson (1988 c, in

198

7. Categories of change

press c, d) interprets Present-day / λ / as the lexically unspecified short vowel, on the basis of its asymmetrical place in the system. A chain of realignments, and a minimal decrement, is exemplified by the overall effects of the Great Vowel Shift in standard English. (What follows is illustrative only: for fuller accounts, see Anderson 1980 a, in press c, d.) We can represent the main gross overall results of the shift as in table 7.4, which ignores various details and variations in the development attested for the period in question (notably the fates of other diphthongs than those included in the table). On the "geminate" notation for long vowels see e.g. Lass and Anderson (1975: ch. VI); Lass (1976: part I); the presence of two vowel symbols in the segmental notation of the table indicates in dependency notation a categorial gesture with two Vs - recall (2.30). Table 7.4.

Effects of the Great Vowel Shift

Middle English

Early Modern English

Modern English

Long Non-Grave Vowels

In/

/ee/

/»/ /"/

Μ

/ee/

/aa/ /ai /

Μ Μ

/ai/ ß/ /ϋ / /ei/ /ei/ /ei/

(white) (sweet) (stream) (break) (name) (day)

Long Grave Vowels

/uu I

Μ

Μ Μ

/uu/ /οο/

/au/

Μ

/au/ (house) /uu/ (mood) /ou/ (home) /oo/ (law)

In the development to early Modern English, each of the non-high monophthongs shows a minimal increase in chromaticity: those which already contain the vowel colour u (the grave vowels) minimally increase its proportion relative to (sonority, non-colour) a; the others increase their (colour) i proportion minimally. Thus, for the non-grave vowels we have the developments shown in (7.10). (7.10)

{i;a} (/ee/) =>{i} (/ii/) (sweet) {a;i} (/εε/) =>{i;a} (/ee/) (stream, {a} (/aa/) =>{a;i} (/ee/)(name)

break)

7.2. Phonological

recategorisation

199

In each case, the absorption of one unit of colour is interpreted as shifting the segment concerned one stage further up the hierarchy of chromaticity defined by the system. The high vowels are already maximally chromatic; they undergo minimal dechromatisation. In table 7.4 this is interpreted as involving the addition of the reduction feature d to their first element (mora). Eventually, these develop to the optimal diphthongs shown as Modern English in table 7.4, via the minimal changes, illustrated for white, in (7.11): (7.11)

{i} {i} => 0,9} {i} => {3} {i} => {9,a} {i} => {a} {i}

An alternative strategy is addition of a rather than a to the first mora (/«/ => /ei/ => /ai/). Middle English /aa/, /ai/ and most /εε/ show a further minimal development, to /ee/ in the case of the first two (as in name and day) and to /ii/ (stream) in the last case, with a few items with Middle English /εε/ (such as break) failing this and thus falling together withe development of Middle English /aa/ and /ai/, as /ee/. This /ee/, and jooj from Middle English /oo/, subsequently undergo diphthongisation: the second mora undergoes the minimal changes of loss of the a feature. This gives the Modern English representations for name, day, break and home shown in table 7.4. The Middle English diphthongs /ai/ and /au/ (associated with day and law, respectively), together with raising due to the Great Vowel Shift (=> /ει/, /ou/), also undergo monophthongisation, loss of the i or u of the second mora. The former falls together with Middle English /aa/, and undergoes the development described in the previous paragraph. These later developments involve splits and mergers; but each stage instantiates minimal change in the articulatory specifications. Anderson (to appear b) argues that even the pattern of splits and mergers associated with the non-grave vowels involves overall only one-step changes, given an intepretation of the Middle English system as including an unspecified vowel (/εε/). However that may be, overall we have a massive lexical realignment, but, again, the category changes are minimal. This is typical of "chain shifts". The preceding brief account of changes in phonological category in English are schematic only, and depend for their validation on reference to previous work. What I turn to now are syntactic changes which I shall argue conform to the same restrictive view of possible categorial change, constrained by the continuity requirement of (7.2) above. In sections 7.4 — 7.6, I shall attempt to review the available evidence in some detail,

200

7. Categories of change

given the novelty of the categorial evolutions proposed. We are concerned with developments associated with the "auxiliary" system of English. Again I shall suggest that these involve increments, decrements and realignments that are in conformity with (7.2).

7.3. Realignment: modals Let us consider, yet again, the evolution of the English modals, against the background of such a framework for category change as has been outlined. As observed in section 5.6, much controversy surrounds the characterisation of this evolution: controversy concerning the dating of changes, concerning the lexical items involved, concerning, above all, the nature of the changes themselves. Lightfoot (1974, 1979: ch. 3) saw the early Modern English innovation of a contrastive category associated with items that had previously been (irregular) verbs; Plank (1984), too, though critical of many aspects of the Lightfoot scenario (see also Warner 1983), espouses a categorial change of such a character; its nature is reinterpreted by Roberts (1985). Anderson (1976: ch. 2) argues that modals remain categorially verbs, distinguished as a sub-class thereof principally by their lack of a non-finite paradigm. Others (e. g. Goossens 1987; Brinton 1988: §3.2) appear to take the view that modals are already categorially distinct (or somehow on the way to being so) in Old English, in (for Brinton) already belonging to the category AUX. See too Denison (1988). Much in this (briefly outlined) partial history of modal studies is obscured by uncertainty or disagreement — implicit and explicit — as to what constitutes categoriality, as well as by the interplay of two distinct, though related, developments, that associated with the modals as such and that involving auxiliarihood in general. Warner (1990) provides perhaps the most careful study of the categoriality of the modals. He suggests (1990: 540) that "what develops in Early Modern English (or slightly before) isn't so much a class of modals as a wider class of auxiliary, containing a group of modals". This seems to me crucial to an understanding of the modals story. As modals these items continue to manifest in Present-day English a sub-part of the distributional and morphological potential of verbs: they lack (in most varieties of English) potential for occurrence in non-finite positions and the associated morphology, and they lack the non-past third person singular inflexion of other verbs (including other auxiliaries), as recalled in (7.12) for may (and exemplified more fully in Huddleston 1980, for example):

7.3. Realignment:

(7.12) a. b. c. d. e. f.

modals

201

*Brenda will may leave *Brenda is maying leave *Brenda has might leave *Brenda's maying leave came to his attention *For Brenda to may leave surprises him *Brenda mays leave

(Compare here [5.60, 5.86]) But as modals these items do not exhibit a distinctive (non-verbal) distribution; they are characterised by a subset of verbal properties. Since the early Modern English or late Medieval period the modals constitute a relatively well defined sub-class of verbs (including therein for the moment auxiliaries and main verbs); in this respect, the conclusion (noted above) reached by Anderson (1976) is appropriate. Further, attempts to motivate the status of syntactic, rather than simply notional, (sub-)class for modals at earlier periods are unconvincing (for detailed discussion see Anderson 1991): either the distinctive properties invoked do not uniquely characterise modals (e. g. "transparency" with respect to argument structure, which is a property of subject-raising verbs) or they are semantic (e. g. desemanticisation, periphrastic status — Anderson 1989 c). Uses of some of the prototypical modals have for some time shown the notional characteristics (including those just mentioned — notably the use of modals as subjunctive periphrases) that one might associate with a syntactic (sub-)class of modal. Recall the discussion of sceolde in section 5.6; see too Anderson (1991). Compare too e. g. Mitchell's (1985: § 1014) cautious discussion of magan as a subjunctive periphrasis, some of the "uses" of sceolde discussed by Visser (1973: §§ 1483 — 561), and Denison's (1988: § 3.1) discussion of will. But while it might be plausible to attribute to sceolde (or magan or willan) a periphrastic use, such that it exhibits a simple (semantic) opposition with respect to the "simple form", a distinction which may be otherwise marked morphologically (cf. the discussion of grammaticalisation in section 5.4), this does not require that the governing element in the periphrasis belong to a distinct syntactic (sub-)class. It is not until the late-to-post-medieval period that the modals exhibit distributional coherence, and thus syntactic status. With respect to the set of auxiliaries and main verbs as a whole, as I have indicated, the distributional and morphological characteristics of the modals warrant only sub-class status. But the post-medieval situation is more complex than this. The modals are excluded from non-finite

202

7. Categories of change

positions; but main verbs are in turn excluded from finite position in the so-called NICE contexts (cf. again Huddleston 1980), as illustrated by the familiar alternation of (7.13): (7.13) a. b.

Jeremy trembled Did Jeremy tremble

Only non-modal auxiliaries {be, have, and perhaps do) show a comprehensive verbal distribution. Not much is explained by attributing the development of these restrictions to the innovation of the categories "modal" and "auxiliary", previously absent from the syntax of English: modals as such do not warrant categorial status, and the proposed innovation of a distinct category "auxiliary" suggests an unwarranted discontinuity in the syntactic categories of English and their distribution. (I reject as incoherent the view [cf. Steele etal.: 1981] that Old English possessed a syntactic category AUX whose primary manifestation was morphological only.) Such innovations, moreover, are excluded by the restrictive notional theory of category change outlined above. Old English verbs obey the lexical redundancy in (7.14): (7.14)

{P} => & {P;N}

i.e. those items categorised as finites are also non-finite. Old English verbs are contrastively {P}; (7.14) allows the class the full distributional range required by the syntax and morphology. In Old English, perhaps only mot and sceal, among verbs commonly used, are exceptions to (7.14). Whereas in Present-day English the class of modals as a whole (i. e. those verbs that lack a non-past third singular inflexion — section 5.6) is exceptional — if this redundancy were to be true of Present-day as well. But, as we have observed, the distribution of main verbs as finites is severely limited; only auxiliaries can occur as finite in certain environments. This suggests some kind of categorial differentiation at a lexical, contrastive level, specifically a realignment of these various items with respect to the categories finite and non-finite. Anderson (1990) proposes that whereas the categories {P} and {P;N} are still appropriate to Presentday English, their lexical alignments have indeed changed. The association for Old English is simply as in (7.15), with (7.14) allowing a non-finite potentiality for all verbs (with possible lexical exceptions). (7.15)

{P} verbs

7.3. Realignment:

modals

203

But in Present-day English we have rather (7.16), with lexical differentiation in terms of distinct categorial representations for subsets of the former class of verbs (cf. scenario [a] in [7.13] above). (7.16)

{Ρ}

{P} & {P;N}

{P;N}

verbs! = modals

verbs2 = auxiliaries (non-modal)

verbs 3 - main verbs

In Present-day English, modals are finite only; other auxiliaries are both finite and non-finite; main verbs are basically non-finite. There is not a simple division into auxiliary and main, such as one might attribute to Basque, for example (cf. chapter 6). Modals in English are defective auxiliaries, in lacking non-finite forms. And main verbs, though basically non-finite (as, for the major system, in Basque), have a restricted potential for finiteness, limited to certain syntactic conditions. Concerning this, as anticipated in section 5.6, Anderson (1990) argues that main verbs may achieve finite status derivatively, in the course of building syntactic structure, specifically only when the rules of linearisation permit a main verb to be amalgamated (realised simultaneously) with an empty governing finite verb otherwise realised (when non-adjacent) as do, as in (7.13 a) vs. (b). Main verbs may be syntactically {P} & {P;N}; but their capacity to function as {P}, as in (7.13 a), is syntactically determined, not lexically distinctive: they are finite only when the finite and non-finite verb positions can coincide, as they do in (7.13 a) but not (b). If this is just, then the history of modals, and of the other auxiliaries in this respect, exhibits no category change — certainly not a major restructuring of the syntax — but rather a change in the alignment of lexical classes with categories that have remained constant throughout the history of English, a realignment that is minimal, in accordance with continuity: lexical classes are established by minimal extension of {P} and with respect to categories shared (via [7.14]) by the members of the classes at an earlier stage. And the realignments also seem to be notionally appropriate, with the class showing most preponderant Ρ (the modals) having as prototypical members items (the epistemics) whose major role is situation-defining.

204

7. Categories of change

7.4. Conflation: infinitives Let us now turn to an instance of category-conflation. In table 7.1 I characterised non-finites as simply {P;N}. But table 7.2 introduced a distinctive representation for participles, viz. {P;(P:N)}; and we can in like manner, as mentioned in chapter 6, distinguish gerunds (vs. deverbal nouns) as {P;(N;P)} (vs. {(N;P);P) for deverbal nouns), with the verb property dominant over the nominal (recall the discussion of [6.15]; and see further Anderson 1989 a, b). Finally, the infinitive, as most highly verbal, involves a combination of Ρ with P;N; but since, in Present-day English, at least, it is not apparently to be distinguished from a category with a different proportion of these (cf. gerunds vs. deverbal nouns), the representation {P.(P;N)} will suffice. We can thus distinguish the three non-finite categories appropriate to Present-day English as in (7.17), with infinitives as the least marked non-finite. (7.17)

P.(P;N) infinitives

P;(P:N) participles

P;(N;P) gerunds

The hierarchisation which emerges from these representations, with gerunds as most "noun-like", accords with the semantic distinctions that have been attributed to, for instance, the infinitive/gerund distinction (cf. e.g. Bolinger 1968). These representations are non-lexical, allowed for by lexical redundancy (7.18): (7.18)

{P;N} => {P.(P;N)} & {P;(P:N)} & {P;(N;P)}

and the lexical representations for verbs in (7.16) can stand as such. However, verbs that take verbal arguments will be subcategorised for the particular kind of (verbal) argument they take, rather than as simply taking, say, S' or VP, or the like (cf. section 5.5). Deverbal adjectives and deverbal nominals will be specified lexically as in (7.19), (7.19)

P.(P:N) deverbal As (e. g. neglectful)

P.(N;P) deverbal Ns (e. g. neglect)

and specified redundantly as in (7.20 a) and (b), respectively: (7.20) a. b.

{P.(P:N)} => {(P:N);P} {P.(N;P)} => {(N;P);P}

7.4. Conflation:

infinitives

205

as a consequence of (7.18), to preserve (derivative) distinctiveness, and in accordance with (7.2). The Present-day English infinitive exhibits reduced verbality compared with finite forms. Typically, it does not represent a situation independently; it is an argument of another verb, a participant argument in (7.21): (7.21) a. b.

To please Ermintrude was his passion His passion was to please Ermintrude

or of an adjective or noun: (7.22) a. b.

He is eager to please Ermintrude his impulse to please Ermintrude

An infinitive may also be a circumstantial argument (an adjunct), particularly in expressions of purpose, like (7.23): (7.23)

Florence did it to please Ermintrude

Typically, too, the infinitive is (overtly) subjectless (as in the above examples), though the status of the pre-infinitival expressions in e.g. (7.24): (7.24) a. b.

For Ermintrude to like Florence would be surprising No-one expects Ermintrude to like Florence

is controversial. On the other hand, the infinitive, like other non-finites, as is again familiar, retains the (verbal) capacity to take an unmarked (bare) object. Consider: (7.25) a. b. c. d.

Pam suspects Bobby Pam seems to suspect Bobby Pam is suspicious of Bobby Pam's suspicions of Bobby

Only items with preponderant Ρ allow an unmarked object. Also, despite the to, infinitives do not combine non-zeugmatically with prepositional phrases — and (7.26 a) is thus strange: (7.26) a. b.

*Andy is prone to lethargy and (to) fall asleep Andy worked both for pleasure and to fund his trip to Tahiti

but it may coordinate, as in (7.26 b), as a purpose circumstantial. The infinitive also rejects all the appurtenances of adjectival or nominal constructions (modification by very, articles, possessive inflexion, etc.).

206

7. Categories of change

However: ...the Anglo-Saxon had two infinitives: (1) the uninfected, or simple, infinitive in -an ..., which in origin is the petrified nominative-accusative case of a neuter verbal noun; and (2) the inflected, or gerundial, or prepositional, infinitive, made up of the preposition to plus the dative case of a verbal noun ending in -anne (-enne ...)• (Callaway 1913: 2) The uninflected infinitive is recessive, and is eventually superseded by the io-form which descends f r o m to + inflected infinitive, except after modals and some other verbs. The picture in Old English is already thus not clearcut. And things are complicated by the fact that e. g. the uninflected infinitive, if it is coordinated with an inflected infinitive, can occur in syntactic situations which are otherwise unexpected. But certain trends suggesting functional differentiation and thus categorial distinctiveness for the two infinitives emerge from a consideration of their attested distribution. Neither infinitive occurs uncontroversially as subject in Old English (Mitchell 1985: §§ 1537 — 1539), but either may occur as (non-subjective) complement (participant argument) to the verb: (7.27) a. b.

Da begann se wer dreorig wepan "Then began the m a n sad to-weep" ... and begunnon da to wyrcenne "... and they-began then to w o r k "

(Mitchell 1985: § 1549). Callaway (1913: 6 0 - 7 1 ) attempts a functional differentiation based on whether the governing verb otherwise takes an accusative object (uninflected infinitive) or a non-accusative (inflected infinitive) or both (either), though there is a number of exceptions to such a generalisation. But this does at least perhaps suggest that the uninflected infinitive was more directly associated with the governing verb, more verbal. And this is confirmed by the prevalence of the uninflected infinitive with the ancestors of the modals (except agan and beonj wesan), some of which had already established a periphrastic use (cf. Anderson 1989 c, 1991). Verbal periphrases are in minimal (semantic) opposition with the "simple form". I suggest that, not unnaturally, given such a status for periphrases, the dependent element in a periphrasis is necessarily verbal (with preponderant P). If this is so, then the respective availability and non-availability of the uninflected and inflected infinitives as the dependent element in a modal periphrasis supports the positing of a categorial difference between the two infinitives involving a difference in the preponderance of P.

7.4. Conflation:

infinitives

207

Whereas, too, the uninflected form (particularly in verse) is commonly used to mark purpose after verbs of motion (Mitchell 1985: §§ 1554, 2942): (7.28)

He eode eft sittan siddan mid his degnum "He went then to-sit afterwards with his nobles"

otherwise (especially in prose) the inflected infinitive is much more common in expressions of purpose (Callaway 1913: 146). Contrariwise, while an uninflected infinitive accompanying a finite intransitive verb of rest or motion can frequently be interpreted as indicating "simultaneity" (van der Gaaf 1934), as in (7.29 a): (7.29) a. b.

And pa par com fleogan drihtnes angel "And then there came to-fly (the) angel of-the-lord" ... and gad secende pat an pe him losode "... and goes seeking the one that to-him got-lost"

- cf. the "participial" construction in (b) - Mitchell (1985: § § 9 6 7 968) remains "unconvinced" that alleged instances of this involving the inflected infinitive do not involve purpose — and thus non-simultaneity. With examples like (7.28), on the other hand, it seems to me that the element of purpose is debatable. Again, the uninflected infinitive is preferred for the more "integrated", more "periphrasis"-like, construction. So, too, the inflected infinitive is the natural choice for the so-called "absolute" use (Callaway 1913: 169): (7.30)

Fordam unriht is to wide mannum gemane J unlaga leof, J, radost is to cwedenne, Godes laga lade j lara forsawene "Thus sin is too widely prevalent in men and (the) unlawful dear, and, (it) is fastest to say, God's laws hateful and (his) teachings despised"

(Mitchell 1985: § 960). With governing noun or adjective, rather than verb, the inflected infinitive is the norm, as illustrated in (7.31 a) and (b), respectively: (7.31) a.

b.

He geceas him timan to acennenne on menniscnysse, to drowigenne,... "He chose for-him the time to take on human-form, to suffer,..." Dis fers is swide deoplic eow to understandenne "This verse is very profound (for) you to understand"

208

7. Categories of change

(Mitchell 1985: § 926). And, perhaps most strikingly, we find predominantly the inflected infinitive coordinated or apposed with to + noun phrase, as in (7.32 a), and even with other prepositional phrases (b): (7.32) a.

b.

... hcefde opene eagan to forhcefednysse, to celmesdagum to dancigenne Gode "...he-had open eyes to temperance, for alms-days to thank God" Ne lufode he woruldrice cehta for his neode ana, ac to dcelenne eallum wcedliendum "Not loved he worldly possessions for his pleasure alone, but to share it with all (the) poor"

(Mitchell 1985: §965 and § 1158, respectively), though Mitchell (§2946) also draws our attention to coordinations involving the uninflected infinitive expressing purpose. Mitchell (1985: § 965) notes further the alternation between (7.33 a), with verbal noun, and (b), with inflected infinitive: (7.33) a. b.

da leafe ... pcere bodunge "the permission for preaching" leafe to bodianne "permission to preach"

in the translation of Gregory's Dialogue. Morphologically and syntactically, the Old English inflected infinitive is clearly more nominal than the uninflected, though it is restricted to occurrence (as nominal) with to as a preposition. (The various functions of the two infinitives are conveniently tabulated in Mitchell 1985: § 791.) Lightfoot (1979: § 4.2) argues that the Middle English infinitive construction was a NP. Much of the evidence he adduces, as he himself in part admits, is inconclusive, and crucially it involves invented examples. One of the two most obviously nominal properties of the to-infinitive, its inflexion, is already non-contrastive in the Old English period. But the Middle English infinitive does occur as the object of prepositions, as Lightfoot documents (1979: 192 — 193), which is evidence of some nominality, at least. Whatever the intervening history, the prepositional character of Present-day English infinitival to is much less apparent; and in purpose phrases it is frequently supported with in order.... There is indeed some controversy concerning its categorial status (recall section 5.6 above). The nominality of the Present-day infinitive is much less

7.5. Differentiation

I: gerund

209

apparent than that of the Old English inflected infinitive. But its potential for distribution as an argument is much wider than that typical of the Old English uninflected infinitive. We can, in the light of this, perhaps differentiate between the two Old English infinitives, in terms of the theory of categories outlined here, as in (7.34): (7.34)

P;(P;N) uninflected

(P;N);P inflected

i.e. as parallel to the distinction in Present-day English between gerund and derived nominal. And the residual higher degree of nominality in Middle English of the inflected infinitive is reflected perhaps in its ability to be the object of a preposition. The Present-day form — categorially {P.(P;N)} — is a conflation of these which retains a high proportion of P; on the basis of the metric suggested by Anderson (1990, in press b, to appear — recall too the brief discussion in chapter 6), we have: (7.35)

A;B = 3:1 Α.Β = 2:2 therefore: P;N = 3P:1N P;(P;N) = 3P:1(3P:1N) = 12P:(3P:1N) = 15P:1N (P;N);P = 3(3P:1N):1P = (9P:3N):4P = 13P:3N P.(P;N) = 2P:2(3P:1N) = 8P:(6P:2N) = 14P:2N = 7P:1N

which simply spells out, in terms of the metric, the overall preponderances to be read off from the categorial notation. (Step 3 in [7.35] involves multiplying each side of the outer equation by 4, and adjusting the inner values where necessary to add up to the outer value assigned to the combination.) The history of the English infinitives involves overall a minimal categorial decrement.

7.5. Differentiation I: gerund In other verbal subsystems, English seems to have shown minimal increments, and though the dating of these is sometimes contentious (an issue I shall not pursue here), such a change can certainly be associated with our next case. As briefly discussed in chapter 6, a distinction in Present-day English between deverbal nouns and gerund is well-motivated, as exemplified by (7.36):

210

7. Categories

(7.36) a. b.

of change

John's desertion of Mary John's deserting Mary

-ing, of course, marks not only the gerund, but also the "present participle" and deverbal adjectives (recall section 5.6), as well as a large number of (particularly) "factitive" deverbal nouns, such as dwelling, calling ("profession"), swelling, etc. (e.g. Marchand 1969: §4.48). These last are clearly lexical, as is the deverbal noun in (7.36 a); its categorial representation ({P.(N;P)}) is lexically contrastive. And deverbal nouns display the properties of lexicality (as discussed by Anderson 1984 a, for example): lexical idiosyncrasy ("derivational gaps" — derived forms without bases {dereliction), bases with no derivative of a particular type), and semantic idiosyncrasy ("non-compositionality" — revolution, in the sense of "successful uprising"), as well as derivational formations independent of the base verb (misgivings). By (7.20 b), the deverbal noun is redundantly (7.37 a): (7.37) a. b.

(N;P);P P;(N;P)

(again in response to [7.18]), distinguished from the non-lexical gerund (b) by the relative preponderance of the verbal and nominal categorial components. Its greater nominality is reflected, for instance, in its failure to take an unmarked object, as in (7.36 a), its capacity for adjectival rather than adverbial modification: (7.38) a. b.

John's cruelj*cruelly desertion of Mary John's * cruel/cruelly deserting Mary

its absence from verbal periphrases parallel to (7.39): (7.39)

John's having deserted Mary

and by its rejection of a preceding argument such as that in (7.40): (7.40)

John deserting Mary

(see further Anderson 1989 b). We can even distinguish for Present-day English, as again noted in chapter 6, an intermediate category, exemplified in (7.41): (7.41)

John's deserting of Mary

— a so-called "action nominal in -ing". It takes a prepositional object, is not associated with structures such as (7.39) and (7.40), and rejects

7.5. Differentiation

I: gerund

211

adverbial modification, but is less happy with adjectival modification than the derived nominal: (7.42)

John's Ί* cruel/* cruelly deserting of Mary

It also shares with the derived nominal the variant in (7.43): (7.43) a. b. c.

The desertion of Mary (by John) *The deserting Mary (by John) The deserting of Mary (by John)

but it is less happy with that in (7.44): (7.44) a. b.

Tuesday's rejection of the offer ?*Tuesday's rejecting of the offer

(Note, however, e. g., Ε. M. Forster's — or, rather, Charlotte Bartlett's — We all have our little foibles, and mine is the promptly settling of accounts (A Room With a View, ch. 14), which combines the, adverbial modification, and a complement marked with of.) The formation is highly productive and is perhaps not lexical. This suggests that, as anticipated in chapter 6, a derived representation involving mutual dependency: (7.45)

P:(N;P)

might be appropriate for such "action nominals". No such differentiation is apparent in Old English. The deverbal noun in -ungj-ing is apparently productive, but shows lexical idiosyncrasies (cf. e.g. Kastovsky 1985: §3.2.10). It also seems to be less commonly used than the Present-day -wg-form, though this impression, as others, may reflect the limitations of our corpus: -ung is much more frequent in certain styles, such as that of iElfric's Homilies. It displays typical nominal inflexion (though with some idiosyncrasies — Campbell 1959: § 589 (8)), and nominal modification and "external" syntax, as illustrated by the following examples from ^ l f r i c ' s Homily on the Parable of the Vineyard: (7.46) a. b. c.

...his apostolas on mycelre twynunge wceron "...his apostles in much doubt were" ...pees ecan lifes teolunge "... the eternal life's work" ... ealle da geleaffullan geladunge "... all the faithful congregations"

Like the Present-day -wg-form it can be "factitive" rather than "actional", as perhaps in (7.46 c) or with wununge in (7.47):

212

(7.47)

7. Categories of change

...hi on Abrahames wununge buton pinungum for heora godnysse wunedon "... they in Abraham's dwelling without torments on account of their goodness dwelt"

What would be verbal subjects and objects typically appear as genitives: (7.48)

... toeacan pees landes sceawunge "... besides for observing (of) the country"

(from a well-known passage in the Alfredian translation of Orosius). See too Anderson 1985 b, where is also documented the alternation between -ung form and other derived nouns (with accompanying genitives of varied semantic role) in another well-known passage from the translation of Bede's account of the life of Caedmon. The case-frame (semantic roles) of the base verb is apparently preserved with -ung forms, and may be made overt: (7.49)

Ac biddad eow pingunge cet pyssum unscceddigum martyrum "But we-ask from-you intercession for these innocent martyrs"

(from jElfric's Homily on the Holy Innocents). But this is also true of other deverbal noun formations {-ness, etc.). And with them and with the -ung-form we lack the syntactic stigmata of verb-hood associated with the modern gerund (Jack 1988: 17, 3 7 - 4 0 ) . There seems to be no motivation for attributing to Old English a distinction between gerund and deverbal noun; a syntactic category with preponderant verbality is a later development. Callaway's (1929) suggested Old English examples of such are unconvincing (Mustanoja 1960: 568 — 569). Donner (1986) concludes that the gerund is infrequent even in late Middle English; but Jack (1988) argues that, nevertheless, the category is established in the Middle English period. Its belated establishment is perhaps further evidenced by the comparatively late proliferation of the verb + gerund complement construction {He anticipated returning late, etc. — Visser 1973: ch. 12, § 1). The -ung-ϊοτνα in Old English can be characterised lexically as in (7.50): (7.50)

P.(N;P)

as with the deverbal nominals of Present-day English; but there is no derivative contrast between a P-preponderant and and a N;P-preponderant category (and perhaps one, as noted above, where they are mutually

7.6. Differentiation

II: participles

213

dependent). The development to Present-day English involves a minimal increment in the range of categories required by the syntax — or increments, if we are to allow for the "action nominal" of (7.40). Indeed, the role of this construction in the evolution of these changes is worthy of more extensive investigation (cf. e. g. Nehls 1974: § 4). Jack (1988) further argues that a major (but not the only) motivation for the development of the gerund is the restricted distribution as arguments of the infinitive(s), especially failure to be governed by prepositions (cf. here the brief discussion in section 7.4 above of the evolution of the modern infinitive). The gerund provides a category that is sufficiently nominal to occur in such positions.

7.6. Differentiation II: participles The status of participles/deverbal adjectives in Old English is less clear, and is particularly problematical in the absence of informants — as emerges strikingly from a number of Mitchell's (1985) discussions. In Present-day English it seems appropriate to distinguish categorially between participles and derived adjectives as in table 7.2 above, viz. as (P;(P:N)} vs. {(P:N);P}. The latter are lexically {P.(P:N)}, expanded by (7.20 a) to differentiate them from the participles, a non-contrastive possibility given by (7.18). We can differentiate syntactically between the two categories, even when there is identity of morphological expression, as illustrated by (7.51): (7.51) a. b.

Meryl is (*very) frightening Billy-Jo Meryl is (very) frightening to Billy-Jo

wherein the participle in (a) takes an unmarked object and the derived adjective does not, but, unlike the participle, allows modification by very. Semantically, (7.51 a) is "dynamic" (preserving the "dynamism" of the "simple" verb); (b) is "static". The form in (7.51 b) displays (adjectival) derivational properties not established with respect to the base verb — e. g. the possibility of unfrightening — even though un- can also occur in Present-day English as a verbal prefix (undo, etc.). Deverbal adjectives are clearly lexical, characterised by semantic idiosyncrasy — cf. e. g. (very) stunning — and by lexical idiosyncrasy (e.g. absence of a base — that for uplifting, for instance, is scarcely current). These latter properties are, however, particularly difficult to assess in the absence of informants, somewhat limiting our capacity to chronicle their history.

214

7. Categories of change

We apparently need to distinguish between three participles in Presentday English; while all being categorisable as {P;(P:N)}, these have distinct secondary properties. The past participles in (7.52 a): (7.52) a. b.

Moriarty has eaten the cheese Moriarty is eating the cheese

is differentiated from the present participle in (b) by (whatever else) being associated with a (unspecified) past time reference secondary to the time reference of the finite verb (section 5.6), as shown in (7.53). (7.53)

P;(P:N)

P;(P:N)

past The derived adjectives in (7.54): (7.54) a. b.

His face is swollen His eyes are exciting

are differentiated in the same way, except, of course, that with the past derived adjective the tense reference is attached to a categorially subordinate element: cf. (7.55). (7.55)

(P:N);P

(P:N);P

past The temporal reference is intra-lexical, and thus less prominent in the overall interpretation. Accordingly, although the past-time reference of the past participle is normally indefinite (*His face has swollen last Tuesday), and this restriction is suppressed when the governing have is non-finite (so His face must have swollen last Tuesday), this is not the case with the adjective {* His face is/must be swollen last Tuesday), whose past-time reference is less accessible syntactically. (In English the distinction is also signalled by the shape of the copula.) The passive participle is characterised by offering up as subject of its governing verb not the argument highest on the subject-selection hierarchy but the next, as evidenced by the passive structure in (7.56): (7.56) a. b.

The ducklings are killed by the farmer This bed is slept in by hundreds

That is, the be associated with the passive participle is a raising verb whose victim is not the argument of the lower verb which would be the

7.6. Differentiation

II: participles

215

subject in the corresponding active but the next most accessible argument (section 5.6) : the agents in (7.56) are ignored as raisees and instead the neutral (theme, absolutive) of (a) and the locative noun phrase of (b) are raised. The passive participle is not associated with a past time reference, unlike the past participle, with which it is formally identical — and unlike the corresponding periphrasis in Latin. We can perhaps then characterise the English passive participle simply as in (7.57), where pass, syntactically, is an instruction to project out the highest argument in the subject selection hierarchy, and, semantically, alters the unmarked topic slot. (7.57)

P;(P:N)

pass(ive) The corresponding derived adjectives, however, do have a past reference as well as the property of projecting out the primary subject-claimant, as illustrated by (7.58a-c): (7.58) a. b. c. d.

Her She She Her

face is (un-J washed always leaves (un-) washed keeps her face (un-) washed face is washed every night by her mother

Contrast the syntactic passive in (7.58 d). We might characterise such adjectives, for present purposes, as in (7.59). (7.59)

(P:N);P past pass

But it seems likely that the derivational pattern with the adjectives simply reflects a general absence of reference to subjects in the lexicon (Anderson 1984, 1986): the derivational relations in (7.54 a), and (7.58 a) are based on the semantic function absolutive (theme), again involving the "ergative" relation of Lyons (1968: 352): recall sections 3.5 and 4.1. The passive is a syntactic extension of this pattern, adapted to a domain in which subject rather than absolutive is (derivatively) pivotal. I do not pursue this here, however, nor the possibility that further, intermediate categories may have to be recognised (e.g. Granger 1983). Each of these participle/derived adjective distinctions is arguably an innovation, though precise dating is, as always, difficult. The analysis of the so-called "present participle" is also controversial (cf. the account

216

7. Categories of change

given here with the analysis proposed in section 5.6 above, for instance). I shall focus in what follows on constructions involving what Mitchell (1985: §23) and others refer to as the "second participle", given the formal identity in Old as well as Present-day English between the passive and past participles): see further on the "present participle", however, Anderson (to appear: § 3). As I have indicated, the status of the participle/deverbal adjective distinction in Old English is unclear, and possibly different in the different cases, at least as far as can be determined by the available evidence. There is perhaps least evidence for the development in Old English of a participle/derived adjective distinction in the case of the past participle/adjective of intransitive verbs governed by beonjwesan "be". I shall not be concerned here with the complex and possibly intractable question of what distinctiion if any might be associated with the use of forms of beon rather than wesan, or with the similar, but much less frequent construction with weorpan as governor - Visser (1973: § 1897); Mitchell (1985: §§734—739). Indeed, in what follows I shall (given the appropriateness of the usual limitations apologia) focus on constructions with "be" and "have" as governor, while acknowledging that this renders our history only partial. Mustanoja (1960: 499 — 503), for example, considers that such constructions may represent in both Old and Middle English "perfect tenses" — i. e., in the terms used here, the governed form is a participle with past time reference. Clearly, however, the adjectival construction was (also) current (as Mustanoja acknowledges), and has persisted. And there are examples of beon/wesan (and other verbs) + participle/adjective which are difficult to interpret as non-adjectival (Mitchell 1985: § 741): participle/adjective forms with no attested base verb (cellod "formed like a boat/ keel", etc.), though often this may reflect the limits of our corpus, rather; participle/adjective forms coordinated with adjectives, as in (7.60 a): (7.60) a. b. c.

Nces his reaf hörig ne tosigen "His apparel was neither dirty nor worn-out" 7 se swipe gewundad wees "and he very wounded was" cymed him se dead impinged "comes to-him the death unexpected"

(where -en in [7.60 a] is the appropriate (strong) participle/adjective ending); participle/adjective forms with adjectival modification (7.60 b) or morphology (c) (from The Seafarer) (both with a weak participle/adjec-

7.6. Differentiation

II: participles

217

tive, ending in -d), in these cases of a transitive verb. Likewise, the idiosyncratic distribution of beonjwesan vs. habban + intransitive past participle/adjective is suggestive of a lexical category: although some generalisations are discernible {beonjwesan was "frequently used, especially, but by no means exclusively, with intransitive verbs relating to motion or change" — Visser 1973: § 1898), Visser's examples reveal much apparent exceptionality. We can attribute to Old English a past deverbal adjective, one which in attributive and nominal function seems to display the full range of relevant adjectival morphology (se foresprecena here "the aforementioned army", weak masculine nominative singular, etc.). But it is often unclear in constructions governed by beonjwesan how to draw a participle/adjective distinction, presumably parallel to that between the Present-day sentences in (7.61): (7.61) a. b.

His face is swollen His face has swollen

Characterisations of the distinction in terms like "state" vs. "the effect or result of an action" (Mustanoja 1960) are not very helpful, given that both possibilities involve, however they differ, a past action with present relevance. And attempts to associate the distinction with evidence of agreement or the lack of it have been unsuccessful (Mitchell 1985: § 727). The example in (7.62) shows plural agreement with the nominative: (7.62)

Sod lice hi sind fordfarene, dade ... "Truly they are passed on, those who ..."

(Mitchell 1985: §737). But in the singular there is no indication of agreement or otherwise, as in the examples of (7.60). It may well be that we have here a use of a category (past participle/ adjective of intransitives governed by beon/wesan) that only later splits. Later examples like Shakespeare's The enemy is pass'd the marsh or My life is run his compass and even earlier similar uses, such as (7.63 a), together with instances of a past participle/adjective with an adjectival complement, as in (7.63 b—c): (7.63) a. b. c.

Now is kyng Richard passyd the see Mi vleschs is iflured & bicumen al neowe Al the wode was waxen grene

(Visser 1973: § 1900), suggest the establishment of a verbal construction by the mid Middle English period. But the picture throughout is com-

218

7. Categories of change

plicated not only by the possible (interpretational) indeterminacy of beonj wesan + "second participle" between "intransitive perfect" and passive with verbs that can be either intransitive or transitive (Mitchell 1985: §735) but also by the fact that even in Old English past intransitive participle/adjectives can be governed by habban instead of beon/wesan. The motivations for selection of one or the other require still further investigation, and whether and what kind of semantic distinction might be involved; and I shall not pursue this here. N o r shall I discuss the alleged motivations for the preference of individual verbs in Old English (cf. Mitchell 1985: § 722) and after (e. g. Zimmermann (1973; Friden 1948; Ryden & Brorström 1987), whereby the have forms come to be the general perfect marker. The development of a past participle category seems to be most directly associated with, or at least most apparent in, the development of the Old English habban + past participle/adjective construction, to which we now turn. Once more, though, there are problems of dating. Mitchell sums up the problem of establishing the status of this construction as follows (1985: § 724): ... we need, I think, have little hesitation in accepting the orthodox view that in the original form of the periphrasis the participle was inflected and adjectival. That it is verbal in M[oder]nE[nglish] sentences like Ί have seen it again' is certain. Between the two there is, inevitably, a plethora of disputed examples.

In Present-day English perfect have is distinguished from have + a range of adjectival and verbal complements both positionally (cf. perfect have -I- participle [ + object/complement] vs. have + object + complement — as in [7.58 c] above), and by its strict adherence to the N I C E requirements (cf. Do you have it finished?). (On the latter see Visser 1973: §§2116 — 2122.) Neither of these is criterial in Old English. Old English shows both pre-participle/adjective and post-participle/adjective objects. But while there seem to be plausible examples of the adjectival construction with object in pre-participle/adjective position, as perhaps in (7.64) (Mitchell 1985: § 725). (7.64)

Se lace ... hcefd on his agnum nebbe opene wunde unlacode "The physician ... has on his own nose open wounds unhealed"

many examples suggest a participial use, even with the order object + participle/adjective:

7.6. Differentiation

(7.65)

II: participles

219

...and hcefde cer his ding dearfum gedcelede "... and he-had before his possessions with the needy divided"

(Mitchell 1985: § 726). Here there seems to be no question of a current "possessive" relation between subject and object, no motivation for interpreting gedceled as an "object predicative". The postulated source construction could be expected (for reasons not pursued here — see e.g. Anderson 1973a) to show concord between the adjective and the object to which it is predicative. Already in Old English the participle/adjective in such a construction is often and increasingly uninflected (though there are again doubtful examples where the expected inflexion would be null anyway — Mitchell 1985: §709). And the distinction inflected/uninflected also does not seem to coincide with the adjectival/participial division: the participle/adjectives in both (7.64) and (7.65), for instance, are inflected. Neither position nor concord coincides with the postulated categorial distinction. But despite the absence of clear correlates of expression, a participle/ adjective distinction appears to have been established by the Old English period, as illustrated by (7.65) and the like. And this, no doubt, (together with the ambiguities of the beon/wesan + "second participle" construction) encouraged the extension of the habban perfect to intransitives. Indeed, its extension to verbs with non-accusative objects (rarely, if at all, accompanied by concord), as in (7.66): (7.66)

Todceg ge habbad Gode gecwemed j eowere handa gehalgode "Today you have to-God pleased and your hands made-holy"

(Mitchell 1985: § 709), here coordinated with a participle with accusative object, strongly supports the postulation of a "perfect" with habban and a past participle. The conditions of use for the Old English perfect were no doubt different from those for the Present-day, as from the Latin, to go by Alfric's testimony (Mitchell: § 729), but it seems clear that in this case the participle/adjective split has already taken place by the Old English period. With habban + participle/adjective, this involves, as Mitchell (1985: § 728) points out, not merely, in terms of the present framework of categories, a (minimal) differentiation of {P.(P:N)} as {P;(P:N)} vs. {(P:N);P}, but also the suppression of the pass feature on the participle. This is accompanied by a weakening of the "stative/possessive" character of the governing verb. Since this is a recurrent change (as witness, for instance, developments in Romance — cf. e.g. Meillet 1924; Kurylowicz

220

7. Categories of change

1931; Benveniste 1968 — as well as elsewhere in Germanic), a principled explanation is called for. It may be that the development is simply in part a consequence of de-lexicalisation: given my remarks on the development of the passive at the beginning of this section, what is involved is a move out of a domain to which subject-formation is irrelevant, and abs is the pivotal relation, to one, the syntax, in which subject is derivatively pivotal. The preferred subject is agentive, in terms of the hierarchy for subject-selection; and Ikegami (1986: 381) thus regards the "dynamicization" of the construction as "a result of bringing into a clearer focus the implied notion of the agent presumed to have been responsible for the state referred to by the past participle". Further investigation of this scenario, and others, however, lies outside the scope of our present concerns. (On the complex of issues surrounding the development of "possessive" and "perfect" constructions, see further e. g. van Ginneken 1939; Allen 1964; Lyons 1968: § 8.4.6; Anderson 1973 e.) This brings us, in a way, to the construction in English in which the expected subject is discarded in favour of a hierarchically lower argument, the other construction involving the "second participle", the passive. The Present-day English passive is distinguished from the corresponding deverbal adjective not only categorially (relative preponderance of P) but in terms of the absence (vs. the presence) of a past time reference: recall (7.58a-c) vs. (d), distinguished as (7.59) vs. (7.57). Old English has a construction with beon/wesan or weorpan + the "second participle" of transitive verbs. The beon/wesan vs. weorpan distinction has been much discussed, traditionally in terms of "state" (beonj wesan) vs. "action" (iweorpan) — cf. e.g. Frary 1929. But Mitchell has shown that this simple equation is untenable (1985: §§786 — 801). Also, Jost (1909) associates beon with "abstract" (generic) sentences, with "concrete" use being limited to iterative, durative or future "states", while wesan is associated with arguments which have specific reference. Again, such a simple equation is difficult to maintain (Kilpiö 1989: § 2.8). I do not pursue this; but I would be cautious in rejecting totally hypotheses which at least account for certain clusterings in the uses of the different auxiliaries (cf. e.g. the range of these summarised in Kilpiö 1989: § 2.7). What is of particular interest in the present context, however, is Mitchell's claim that "it is clear that beonj wesan could express an action as well as a state" (1985: §796). This can be illustrated by (7.67) and many other examples: (7.67)

AZfter pcem Sempronius Craccus se consul for eft mid fierde angean Hannibal, 7 gefliemde weard, 7 his heres wees micel wal gestagen

7.6. Differentiation

II: participles

221

"After that S. Craccus the consul went then with an army against Hannibal, and was put to flight, and his army was with great slaughter struck down" (Mitchell 1985: § 795). Though we cannot equate (syntactic) passive with "action" and adjective with "state" (some passives, for instance, are formed with "statal" verbs: Berlin is/was divided by the Wall), ("dynamism"-preserving) examples such as (7.67) suggest the existence of a syntactic passive, governed by beon/wesan and with e. g. geslagen in (7.67) as participial (rather than adjectival). And this is confirmed by examples with expressed agents: (7.68)

peer beod pa sawla forgytene fram eallum pam hi cer cudon on eorpan "There are the souls forgotten by all those that they/them formerly knew on earth"

(Mitchell 1985: § 815). Ikegami once again explicitly associates the "dynamicization" of the governing verb with expression of agentivity: If we assume that the shift was triggered off by asking for the agent who did the act which resulted in the state in question ... and this brought about the dynamicization of the past participle, which then affected the main verb be, we have an exactly parallel process to the one we posited ... in our account of the perfect form. (1986: § 3.1) Moveover, as in Present-day English, the participle usually does not introduce a past time reference. Thus, in his Grammar ^ l f r i c equates the Old English non-past construction of beonjwesan + "second participle" with the Latin synthetic present passive: amor a te = ic eom gelufodfram de (Mitchell 1985: §768). Clearly, too, the adjectival construction is also current, and persists. Already in Old English, however, occurrence vs. non-occurrence of concord on the participle/adjective again does not serve to distinguish the two constructions (Mitchell 1985: §§ 757 — 765), nor do sequential considerations (Mitchell 1985: § 767). Concerning the former, indeed, Mitchell observes that: "In general ... it can be said that throughout the OE period the participle agrees with its referent as far as the inflexional system allows, except when it is feminine singular" (1985: § 760). (See too Kilpiö 1989: ch. 5.) But this should not present us from positing a distinction in Old English between (7.57) and (7.59), syntactic passive vs. "passive" deverbal adjective. Whatever split may have occurred predates Old English.

222

7. Categories

of change

However, the non-past of beonjwesan + "second participle" is used sufficiently frequently in Old English to gloss the Latin periphrastic perfect passive (rather than the present), and the past to gloss the pluperfect, as in (7.69): (7.69)

Nu is donne sio cexs aset on dane wyrttruman dees treowes "Now has-been then the axe applied to the root of the tree" Latin: lam securis ad radicem arboris posita est

to suggest an intermediate construction, a syntactic passive which retains the past specification on the participle, as the closest approximation to (one sense of) the Latin perfect passive (itself ambiguous between "pure perfect" and "historic perfect"). (For discussion see Mitchell 1985: §§769-776; Kilpiö 1989: §2.1.2.) Thus, Old English may have shown the three-way distinction shown in (7.70). (7.70) a.

P;(P:N) pass

b.

P;(P:N) pass past

c.

(P:N);P pass past

Visser (1973: §§ 1908 — 1913), for example, distinguishes between a "dynamic" passive, a "statal" passive and a deverbal adjective, corresponding to the distinctions made in (7.70). But the nature of the difference between the last two remains unclear. Even if once independent, the verbal past passive (characterised by the second representation in [7.70]) is now recessive, its domain being occupied by have been + "second participle". On this development see e.g. Jespersen (1932: 102), who points, for instance, to the replacement of the Authorised Version Blessed are those which are persecuted for righteousnesse sake by recent translations of the Greek perfect participle such as Happy are those that have been persecuted This change would again involve a minimal decrement: in this case, loss of a form class distinguished by a secondary category, past. However, the distinction between the second and third category, in particular, requires further investigation, as well as in relation to the "beperfect" discussed above. To sum up: the innovation of the passive, again, involves a minimal change, apparently a recent one in Old English, involving differentiation of the syntactic passive participle from adjectival constructions, by development of a contrast between specifications (b) and (c) in (7.70). (a), I hypothesise, develops from (b) by minimal (subcategorial) decrement; and all three categories may have been appropriate to Old English. In later English (b) disappears.

7.7. Conclusion

223

7.7. Conclusion Sections 7.3 — 7.6 are intended to illustrate the kinds of change of syntactic category that are compatible with a restrictive notional theory of categories constrained by the continuity assumption. My hypothesis is that categorial changes are limited to the minimal increments, decrements and realignments described as legitimate therein. The hypothesis is intended to hold whether a particular change is "indigenous" or "imported" (to the extent that this can be distinguished); and I have thus in the above eschewed the difficult debates over the role of "Latin influence" and the like (cf. e. g. Fischer 1990: ch. 4). The postulation of minimality in change, however, introduces, even perhaps, rather, explains, the difficulties in dating the changes: in the absence of native-speaker judgments, the tools available for us to discriminate appropriately are over-crude. I hope others can bring some refinement. But I also hope at least to have established the appropriateness of description in terms of minimal modifications to the system of categories, even where a particular change is apparently pre-textual. These sections have concentrated on categorial changes analogous to the categorial phonological ones sketched out in section 7.2. I have thus said almost nothing about other kinds of syntactic change. In terms of the framework deployed here, these fall into two groups (if we exclude intercomponent changes [such as morphologization]): (i) changes involving secondary categories, i. e. (sub)categories determined by features such as past and pass introduced above; and (ii) changes involving derived syntactic properties, such as syntagmaticity and linearity. The history of the passive, as discussed in the immediately preceding section, illustrates one change that would fall under (i): the posited development of the (a) passive participle from the (b) (in terms of the characterisations proposed in [7.70]). But further investigation awaits the development of a theory of secondary categories parallel to that deployed in the phonological discussion of section 7.2, including their interrelations and their relationships with the primary categories we have been concerned with here. By their very nature, however, as secondary categories not distinguishing word classes, these are unlikely in themselves to prove the locus of major changes, whatever their role in promoting particular categorial changes. And I assume they too are constrained by the continuity assumption of (7.2). Categorial (and subcategorial) change might then be limited to the minimal modifications allowed by the framework outlined initially. But

224

7. Categories of change

what of other changes: can they be bounded, or at least hierarchized in terms of likelihood for recurrence? The answers which might come from investigation of this depend in part on the relative independence of other syntactic properties from categoriality. Among the proporties included in (ii), since syntagmaticity (construction-formation), for instance, is determined by the valency and the value of individual items, there is apparently no scope for independent change in this domain. For instance, in Present-day English a modal will be specified as {P}; redundantly, such an item is subcategorised as requiring an infinitive, (P.(P;N)}, as argument; any verb, main or auxiliary (except modals) is given such a value by (7.16/7.18) above; a construction is formed when valency is satisfied by value, with the element exercising valency as head, the other as dependent — but also, by virtue of its own valency, potentially head of a further construction, as illustrated by the pattern of dependencies and associations in (7.71), where (as in section 5.7) "/X" specifies valency (that for disappear is ignored here), with the value for disappear again being supplied by (7.16/7.18). There is no scope for independent syntactic change in the constructions themselves.

{P/P. (P;N)}

{P. (P;N)/P;(P:N)}

;

;

may

have

past

{P;(P:N)} past

disappeared

However, in certain circumstances, second-order constructions may be erected. Above (section 3.4; following Anderson 1986 d, 1990, in press b), I argued that in Present-day English sentence and verb phrase are both verb-headed constructions differentiated as second-order vs. first and by the direction of modification, as in, say, (7.72), where, for convenience, second-order dependencies at both the syntactic and the lexical levels are indicated with a vertical; the valency of kill is satisfied jointly by John (erg) and Bill (abs); and a second-order construction has been erected

7.7. Conclusion

225

ο

(7.72) ο

ο ο

erg

Ρ

abs

Ν

P;N/erg, abs

Ν

past

John

killed

Bill

including as dependents just the subject and the verb. The CRs erg and abs are interpreted (following section 5.1) as secondary categories associated with the null class, { }, of functor, which is elsewhere realised as an adposition; here, as with the finite and non-finite categories realised as killed, governor and dependent are realised simultaneously. The positing of second-order constructions raises the possibility that languages might vary in whether or not such a second-order construction is erected; whether, in this case, a language makes a distinction between sentence and verb phrase. And, indeed, DeArmond (1984) has argued that English has innovated a (phrasal) category verb phrase, i.e. a distinction between a first- and second-order phrase governed by the verb. Whatever the strength of these arguments, it is clear, however, that the erection of a second-order phrase in such instances may depend on the word-order type of the language — or of some of the sentence-types therein (cf. again Horn 1985; Anderson in press b). That is, we might suggest in this case too, after all, that construction-erection — the existence of particular phrasal categories — is not an independent variable, and thus not subject to independent change. Basic word order, however, is partly independent of the valencies and values of individual items. Within a so-called consistent language (sub)system, modifiers occur consistently on the same side of their head in different construction types. But even among such systems, choice of side is variable — centripetal vs. centrifugal; and a language apparently may change in type. Despite a considerable volume of work in this area, particularly since the publication of Greenberg (1963), a restrictive account of the mechanisms of such change, and their relationship to "in-

226

7. Categories of change

consistencies" of serialisation, is still unavailable, though there have been a number of promising developments of late (cf. e. g. Hawkins 1990). Still less do we have an understanding of the availability of, and the possibilities for change with, what Anderson (in press b) calls "ectopic" modifications ("movements"), and of (and with) alternations in word order pattern in general. (Cf. e.g. Koopman 1990, on the difficulties of even establishing the range of variation at different periods.) This whole area is indeed one where we cannot ignore the interaction of the syntactic and morphological components (laid aside above), including transitional phenomena such as cliticisation (cf. e.g. van Kemenade 1987). Such considerations impel us again into areas where syntax/phonology analogies seem to fail: a) languages vary in their basic word order (but not to anything like that extent, say, in the order of elements within the syllable); b) languages display "movements" (or "ectopic placements") of syntactic elements but not obviously of phonological ones (a question raised at the conclusion of chapter 3). It may be that the proper analogy with variations in basic word order is variation in accent-placement (leftheaded vs. right-headed etc.). But the discrepancies between syntax and phonology here (as with the encoding of argument structure noted at the end of chapter 5) may on the whole be a reflection of the asymmetrical relation between the planes, such that word phonology, in particular, is interpretive of structures provided by the syntax and morphology, and of the linearisations imposed by them.

References

Abercrombie, David 1965 Studies in phonetics and linguistics. London: Oxford University Press. 1967 Elements of general phonetics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Abraham, Werner (ed.) 1978 Valence, semantic case, and grammatical relations. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Adamson, Sylvia et al. (eds.) 1990 Papers from the 5 th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Akmajian, Adrian 1977 "The complement structure of perception verbs in an autonomous syntax framework", in: Peter W. Culicover et al. (eds.), 427—460. Akmajian, Adrian —Susan Steele—Thomas Wasow 1979 "The category AUX in universal grammar", Linguistic Inquiry 10: 1 —64. Allan, W. Scott 1984 The role of the lexicon in syntactic change. [Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh. Allen, W. Sidney 1964 "Transitivity and possession", Language 40: 337 — 343. Anderson, John M. 1965 A grammar of the verb phrase in English. [Unpublished Dissertation for the Diploma in General Linguistics, University of Edinburgh.] 1968 "On the status of 'lexical formatives' ", Foundations of Language 4: 308 — 318. 1969 "A note on 'rank' and 'delicacy'", Journal of Linguistics 5: 129—135. 1971 a "Dependency and grammatical functions", Foundations of Language 7: 30 — 37. 1971b The grammar of case: Towards a localistic theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1971c "Outline of a proposal for the lexicalisation of complex structures", Studia Linguistica 15: 1—8. 1972 "Remarks on the hierarchy of quasi-predications", Revue roumaine de linguistique 17: 2 3 - 4 4 , 121-141, 193-202, 319-335. 1973 a An essay concerning aspect. The Hague: Mouton. 1973 b "Universal quantifiers", Lingua 31: 125 — 176. 1973 c "The ghost of times past", Foundations of Language 9: 481 —491. 1973 d "On existence and the perfect", Foundations of Language 10: 333 — 337. 1973e "Maximi Planudis in memoriam", in: Ferenc Kiefer—Nicolas Ruwet (eds.), 20-47. 1974a "Existential quantifiers", Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 15: 1—27. 1974 b "Concerning quantifiers and coordination". Linguistics Agency, University of Trier. 1975 "A non-argument for deep structure", York Papers in Linguistics 5: 87 — 96.

228

Bibliography

1976 1977 1978 a 1978 b 1979 a 1979 b 1979 c 1979 d 1980 a 1980 b 1980 c 1982 1984 a 1984 b 1984c 1984 d 1985 a

1985 b 1985 c 1986 a 1986 b 1986 c 1986 d 1987 a 1987 b 1987 c 1987 d

On serialisation in English syntax. (Ludwigsburg Studies in Language and Linguistics 1.) R. O. U. Strauch, Ludwigsburg. On case grammar: Prolegomena to a theory of grammatical relations. London: Croom Helm. "On the derivative status of grammatical relations", in: Werner Abraham (ed.), 661-694. Deep structure change? The history of the modals in English. [Unpublished MS, presented to the English Department, University of Lund.] "Serialisation, dependency and the syntax of possessives in Moru", Studia Linguistica 33: 1—25. "Syntax and the single mother", Journal of Linguistics 15: 167-187. "On being without a subject". Indiana University Linguistics Club. "Subjecthood", Hungarian Studies in English 12: 121 - 1 3 8 . "On the internal structure of phonological segments: evidence from English and its history", Folia Linguistica Historica 1: 165 — 191. "Anti-unaccusative, or: relational grammar is case grammar", Revue roumaine de linguistique 25: 193 — 225. "Towards dependency morphology: the structure of the Basque verb", in: John M. Anderson — Colin J. Ewen (eds.), 227 — 271. "Analysis and levels of linguistic description", in: Erina Siciliani — Rosangela Barone —Guy Aston (eds.), 3 — 26. Case grammar and the lexicon. University of Ulster: Occasional Papers in Linguistics and Language Learning, 10. "Objecthood", in: Frans Plank (ed.), 2 9 - 5 4 . "En tout cas", LAL1ES 3: 7 - 23. "The natural history of dative sentences", in: Norman F. Blake — Charles Jones (eds.), 241-278. "Structural analogy and dependency phonology", Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 19: 5 — 44. (Revised version in John M. Anderson — Jacques Durand [eds.], 15-48.) "The case system of Old English: a case for non-modularity", Studia Linguistica 39: 1—22. "The status of voiced fricatives in Old English", Folia Linguistica Historica 6. (Revised version in John M. Anderson — Norman Macleod [eds.], 95 — 112.) "Suprasegmental dependencies", in: Jacques Durand (ed.), 55 — 133. "The English prosody /h/", in: Dieter Kastovsky — Aleksander Szwedek (eds.), Vol. II, 799-810. "Old English morphology and the structure of noun phrases", Folia Linguistica Historica 7: 219-224. "Structural analogy and case grammar", Lingua 70: 79 — 129. "Case grammar and the localist hypothesis", in: Rene Dirven — Günter Radden (eds.), 103-121. "The limits of linearity", in: John M. Anderson — Jacques Durand (eds.), 169-190. "Gothic obstruents: The limits of reconstruction", in: Anna Giacalone Ramat —Onofrio Carruba — Giuliano Bernini (eds.), 1 — 11. "The tradition of structural analogy", in: Ross Steele —Terry Threadgold (eds.), 3 3 - 4 3 .

Bibliography 1988 a 1988 b 1988 c 1989 a

1989 b 1989 c

229

"The type of Old English impersonals", in: John M. Anderson — Norman Macleod (eds.), 1—32. "More on errors and syllable structure", Phonology 5: 157 — 159. "Segment structure and system geometry: a question of Scots economy", ΝELS 8: 2 2 - 3 7 . "Reflexions on notional grammar, with some remarks on its relevance to issues in the analysis of English and its history", in: Doug Arnold — Martin Atkinson — Jacques Durand — Claire Grover — Louisa Sadler (eds.), 13 — 36. "The localist basis for syntactic categories", in: Athanasios Kakouriotis (ed.), 7-32. "Periphrases and paradigms", in: Bengt Odenstedt — Gunnar Persson (eds.), 1-10.

1990

"On the status of auxiliaries in notional grammar", Journal of Linguistics 26: 241-262. 1991 "Should", in: Dieter Kastovsky (ed.), 1 1 - 3 0 . in press a "Kabardian disemvowelled, again", Studia Linguistica 45: 18—48. in press b "Notional grammar and the redundancy of syntax", Studies in Language 15: 301-33. in press c "Contrastivity and non-specification in a dependency phonology of English", Studia Anglica Posnaniensia. in press d "Exceptionality and non-specification in the history of English phonology", in: Matti Rissanen et al. (eds.). to appear "Parameters of syntactic change: A notional view", in: Charles Jones (ed.). Anderson, John M. (ed.) 1982 Language form and linguistic variation: Papers dedicated to Angus Mcintosh. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Anderson, John M. —Jacques Durand 1986 "Dependency phonology", in: Jacques Durand (ed.), 1 — 54. 1987 Introduction to John M. Anderson — Jacques Durand (eds.), 1 — 13. 1988 a "Underspecification and dependency phonology", in: Pier Marco Bertinetto — Michele Loporcaro (eds.), 3 — 36. 1988 b "Vowel harmony and non-specification in Nez Perce", in: Harry van der Hulst — Norval Smith (1988, eds.), Vol. II, 1 - 1 7 . Anderson, John M.—Jacques Durand (eds.) 1987 Explorations in dependency phonology. Dordrecht: Foris. Anderson, John M. —Colin J. Ewen 1980 "Introduction: a sketch of dependency phonology", in: John M. Anderson — Colin J. Ewen (eds.), 9 - 4 0 . 1981 "The representation of neutralisation in universal phonology", Phonologica 1980: 1 5 - 2 2 . 1987 Principles of dependency phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Anderson, John M. —Colin J. Ewen (eds.) 1980 Studies in dependency phonology. (Ludwigsburg Studies in Language and Linguistics 4.) R. O. U. Strauch, Ludwigsburg. Anderson, John M. —Colin J. Ewen —Jorgen Staun 1985 "Phonological structure: Segmental, suprasegmental and extrasegmental", Phonology Yearbook!·. 203-224.

230

Bibliography

Anderson, John M. —Charles Jones 1974 "Three theses concerning phonological representations", Journal of Linguistics 10: 1 - 2 6 .

1977 Phonological structure and the history of English. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Anderson, John M. —Charles Jones (eds.) 1974 Historical linguistics (2 vols.). Amsterdam: North Holland. Anderson, John M. —Norman Macleod (eds.) 1988 Edinburgh studies in the English language. Edinburgh: John Donald. Anderson, Stephen R. 1974 The organization of phonology. New York: Academic Press. 1976 "Nasal consonants and the internal structure of segments", Language 52: 326-344. 1977a "On the formal description of inflexion", Chicago Linguistic Society 13: 15 — 44. 1977 b Comments on Wasow 1977, in: Peter W. Culicover et al. (eds.), 361-371. 1985 "Inflexional morphology", in: Timothy Shopen (ed.), Vol. Ill, 150-201. Anderson, Stephen R. —Paul Kiparsky (eds.) 1973 A Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Antal, Laszlo 1961 A Magyar Esetrendszer. Budapest: Akademiai Kiado. Archangeli, Diana 1988 "Aspects of underspecification theory", Phonology 5: 183 — 207. Arnold, Doug —Martin Atkinson — Jacques Durand — Claire Grover—Louisa Sadler (eds.) 1989 Essays on grammatical theory and universal grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Aronoff, Mark 1976 Word formation in generative grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press. Aronoff, Mark —Richard T. Oehrle (eds.) 1984 Language sound structure. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press. Avery, Peter—Keren Rice 1989 "Segment structure and coronal underspecification", Phonology 6: 179 — 200. Bach, Emmon—Robert T. Harms (eds.) 1968 Universals in linguistic theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Bache, Carl 1980 The order of pre-modifying adjectives in Present-day English. Odense: Odense University Press. Bartsch, Renate —Theo Vennemann 1972 Semantic structures. Frankfurt am Main: Athenäum. Bauer, Laurie 1983 English word-formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Becker, A. L. 1967 A generative description of the English subject tagmeme. [Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan.] Beckman, Mary E.—Janet B. Pierrehumbert 1986 "Intonational structure in Japanese and English", Phonology Yearbook 3: 255-309. Belletti, Adriana — Luigi Rizzi 1988 "Psych verbs and θ-theory", Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6: 293 — 352.

Bibliography

231

Bertinetto, Pier Marco — Michele Loporcaro (eds.) 1988 Certaman phonologicum I: Papers from the 1987 Cortona Phonology Meeting. Turin: Rosenberg & Sellien Beukema, Frits —Peter Coopmans (eds.) 1987 Linguistics in the Netherlands 1987. Dordrecht: Foris. Black, Matthew—William A. Smalley (eds.) 1974 Language, culture, and religion: In honor of Eugene A. Nida. The Hague: Mouton. Blake, Norman F. —Charles Jones (eds.) 1984 English historical linguistics: Studies in development. (CECTAL Conference Papers Series 3.) Bloomfield, Leonard 1933 Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Böhm, Roger 1982 Topics in localist case grammar (with especial reference to English and German). [Unpublished D.Phil, thesis, New University of Ulster.] 1983 "Semi-subjects: evidence for split principals", Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 18: 117-153. 1986 "Indirect object advancement: from relational to case grammar (via Kalkatungu)", Australian Journal of Linguistics 6: 73 — 105. Bolinger, Dwight L. 1968 "Entailment and the meaning of structures", Glossa 2: 119 — 127. 1980 "Couple: An English dual", in: Sidney Greenbaum et al. (eds.), 3 0 - 4 0 . Borsley, Robert D. 1979 "Some remarks on heads", Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 11: 3 — 13. Brahmer, Mieczyslaw—Stanislaw Helsztynski—Julian Krzyzanowski (eds.) 1971 Studies in language and literature in honour of Margaret Schlauch. New York: Russell and Russell. Brekke, Richard K. 1988 "The experiencer constraint", Linguistic Inquiry 19: 169 — 180. Brend, Ruth M . - K e n n e t h L. Pike (eds.) 1976 Tagmemics, 2: Theoretical discussion. (Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs 2.) The Hague: Mouton. Bresnan, Joan 1982 "Control and complementation", Linguistic Inquiry 13: 343 — 434. Bresnan, Joan (ed.) 1982 The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge, Mass: M.I.T. Press. Brinton, Laurel 1988 The development of English aspectual systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bromberger, Sylvain — Morris Halle 1989 "Why phonology is different", Linguistic Inquiry 20: 51 - 7 0 . Browman, Catherine P. —Louis M. Goldstein 1986 "Towards an articulatory phonology", Phonology Yearbook 3: 219 — 252. Cairns, Charles E. 1988 "Phonotactics, markedness and lexical representation", Phonology 5: 209 — 236.

232

Bibliography

Cairns, Charles E. — Mark H. Feinstein 1982 "Markedness and the theory of syllable structure", Linguistic Inquiry 13: 193-225. Callaway, Morgan jr. 1913 The infinitive in Anglo-Saxon. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution of Washington. 1929 "Concerning the origin of the gerund in English", in: Kemp Malone —Martin B. Ruud (eds.), 32-49. Campbell, Alistair 1959 Old English grammar. London: Oxford University Press. Carrier-Duncan, Jill 1985 "Linking of thematic roles in derivational word formation", Linguistic Inquiry 16: 1 - 3 4 . Catford, J. C. 1977 Fundamental problems in phonetics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, de Chene, Brent 1979 "The historical phonology of vowel length". Indiana University Linguistics Club. Chomsky, Noam 1965 Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press. 1970 "Remarks on nominalization", in: Roderick A. Jacobs —Peter S. Rosenbaum (eds.), 184-221. 1973 "Conditions on transformations", in: Stephen R. Anderson —Paul Kiparsky (eds.), 232-286. 1981 Lectures on government and binding: The Pisa Lectures. Dordrecht: Foris. Chomsky, Noam — Morris Halle 1968 The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row, Christophersen, Paul 1939 The articles: A study of their theory and use in English. Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard. Chung, Sandra—Alan Timberlake 1985 "Tense, aspect and mood", in: Timothy Shopen (ed.), Vol. Ill, 202-258. Clements, G. N. 1980 "Vowel harmony in nonlinear generative phonology". Indiana University Linguistics Club. 1985 "The geometry of phonological features", Phonology Yearbook 2: 225 — 252. Clements, G. N. —S. J. Keyser 1983 CV phonology: A generative theory of the syllable. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press. Clements, G. N.—James McCloskey—Joan Maling—Annie Zaenen 1983 "String-vacuous rule application", Linguistic Inquiry 14: 1—17. Close, R. A. 1980 "Will in i/-clauses", in: Sidney Greenbaum et al. (eds.), 100-109. Colman, Fran 1983 "'Vocalisation' as nucleation", Studia Linguistica 37: 30—48. 1985 "On some morphological formatives in Old English", Folia Linguistica Historica 6: 267-283.

Bibliography 1986

233

"A cag to Old English syllable structure", in: Dieter Kastovsky—Aleksander Szwedek (eds.), Vol. I, 225-230. 1987 "The phonology and morphology of an Old English digraph: ie", in: John M. Anderson —Jacques Durand (eds.), 49 — 77. 1991 Money talks: Reconstructing Old English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Colman, Fran—John M. Anderson 1983 "Front umlaut", in: Mike Davenport et al. (eds.), 165-190. Comrie, Bernard 1976 Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1981 The languages of the Soviet Union. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cook, Walter A. 1972 "A case grammar matrix", Languages and Linguistics Working Papers 6: 15 — 47. 1989 Case grammar theory. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press. Coopmans, Peter—Aafke Hulk (eds.) 1988 Linguistics in the Netherlands 1988. Dordrecht: Foris. Crain, Stephen — Mark J. Steedman 1982 On not being led up the garden path: the use of context by the psychological parser. [Paper presented at the Sloan Conference on Modelling Human Parsing, University of Texas at Austin, March, 1981.] Crawford, John C. 1963 Totonpec Mixe phonotagmemics. Santa Ana: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Culicover, Peter W.—Thomas Wasow —Adrian Akmajian (eds.) 1977 Formal syntax. New York and London: Academic Press. Culicover, Peter W. — Wendy Wilkins 1986 "Control, PRO, and the projection principle", Language 62: 120-157. Dascal, Marcelo (ed.) 1983 Dialogue: An interdisciplinary approach. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Davenport, Mike — Erik Hansen — Hans Frede Nielsen (eds.) 1983 Current topics in English historical linguistics. Odense: Odense University Press. Davenport, Mike—Jergen Staun 1980 "A Grimm fairy tale med (mäske) en Rask slutning", in: John M. Anderson — Colin J. Ewen (eds.), 205 — 225. (Revised version in Folia Linguistica Historica 4 [1983]: 219-240.) 1986 "Sequence, segment and configuration: Two problems for dependency phonology", in: Jacques Durand (ed.), 135 — 159. Davison, Alice 1980 "Peculiar passives", Language 56: 42 — 66. DeArmond, Richard C. 1984 "On the development of the verb phrase node in English syntax", in: Norman F. Blake-Charles Jones (eds.), 205-226. Denison, David 1988 "Auxiliary + impersonal in Old English", Folia Linguistica Historica 9: 139 — 166.

Diderichsen, Paul 1949 Reponse a la question III, in: Michel Lejeune (ed.), 276—279.

234

Bibliography

Dik, Simon C. 1978 Functional grammar. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Dinnsen, Daniel Α. —Steven B. Chin —Mary Elbert to appear "On the lawfulness of change in phonetic inventories", Lingua. Dirven, Rene—Günter Radden (eds.) 1987 Concepts of case. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. Dixon, R. Μ. W. 1972 The Dyirbal language of North Queensland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1979 "Ergativity", Language 55: 5 5 - 1 3 8 . Donner, Morton 1986 "The gerund in Middle English", English Studies 67: 390-400. Dobson, Eric J. 1957 English pronunciation 1500 — 1700. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Dowty, David R. 1985 "On recent analyses of the semantics of control", Linguistics and Philosophy 8: 291-331. Dressier, Wolfgang U. 1985 Morphonology: The dynamics of derivation. Ann Arbor: Karoma. Durand, Jacques 1987 "On the phonological status of glides: the evidence from Malay", in : John M. Anderson—Jacques Durand (eds.), 139 — 166. Durand, Jacques (ed.) 1986 Dependency and non-linear phonology. London: Croom Helm. Eiert, Claes C. —I. Johansson —E. Strangert (eds.) 1984 Nordic prosody III. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell. Emonds, Joseph E. 1985 A unified theory of syntactic categories. Dordrecht: Foris. Ewen, Colin J. 1977 "Aitken's Law and the phonatory gesture in dependency phonology", Lingua 41: 307-329. 1978 "The phonology of the diminutive in Dutch: A dependency account", Lingua 45: 141-173. 1980 a Aspects of phonological structure, with particular reference to English and Dutch. [Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh.] 1980 b "Segment or sequence? Problems in the analysis of some consonantal phenomena", in: John M. Anderson — Colin J. Ewen (eds.), 157 — 204. 1982 a "The phonological representation of the Welsh mutations", in: John M. Anderson (ed.), 75 — 95. 1982 b "The internal structure of complex segments", in: Harry van der Hulst — Norval Smith (eds.) (1982), Vol. II, 27 - 6 7 . Ewen, Colin J. — Harry van der Hulst 1987 "Single-valued features and the distinction between [-F] and [0F]", in: Frits Beukema—Peter Coopmans (eds.), 51 —60. 1988 "[high], [low] and [back] or [I], [A] and [U]", in: Peter Coopmans - A a f k e Hulk (eds.), 4 9 - 5 8 . Faltz, Leonard M. 1978 "On indirect objects in universal grammar", Chicago Linguistic Society 14: 76-87.

Bibliography

235

Feinstein, Mark Η. 1979 "Prenasalization and syllable structure", Linguistic Inquiry 10: 245 — 278. Fillmore, Charles J. 1968 a "The case for case", in: Emmon Bach —Robert T. Harms (eds.), 1 — 88. 1968 b "Lexical entries for verbs", Foundations of Language 4: 373 — 393. 1969 "Types of lexical information", in: Ferenc Kiefer (ed.), 109 — 137. (Also in: Danny D. Steinberg—Leon A. Jacobovitz [eds.], 370 — 392.) 1971 "Some problems for case grammar", Monograph Series on Languages and Linguistics 24: 35 — 56. Firbas, Jan 1979 "A functional view of 'ordo naturalis'", Brno Studies in English 13. Fischer, Olga C. M. 1990 Syntactic change and causation: Developments in infinitival constructions in English. (Amsterdam Studies in Generative Grammar 2). Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam. Firth, J. R. 1957 "Sounds and prosodies", Papers in Linguistics 1934 — 1951: 121 — 138. London: Oxford University Press. [Reprinted from Transactions of the Philological Society, 1948.] Fisiak, Jacek (ed.) 1985 Historical semantics — Historical word-formation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Fodor, Jerry Α.—Jerrold J. Katz (eds.) 1964 The structure of language. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Frary, Louise G. 1929 Studies in the syntax of the Old English passive, with special reference to the use of Wesan and Weorpan. (Language Dissertation 5). Baltimore: Linguistic Society of America. Friden, Georg 1948 Studies on the tenses of the English verb from Chaucer to Shakespeare with special reference to the Late Sixteenth Century. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Fudge, Erik C. 1969 "Syllables", Journal of Linguistics 5: 253 - 283. 1970 "Phonological structure and 'expressiveness' ", Journal of Linguistics 6: 161 — 188.

Fujimura, Osamu (ed.) 1973 Three dimensions of linguistic theory. Tokyo: TEC. Fukui, N. 1986 A theory of category projection and its applications. [Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, M.I.T.] van der Gaaf, Willem 1934 "The connexion between Verbs of Rest (lie, sit and stand) and another Verb, viewed historically", English Studies 16: 81—99. Gazdar, Gerald —Ewan Klein — Geoffrey K. Pullum —Ivan Sag 1985 Generalized phrase structure grammar. London: Black well. Gazdar, Gerald —Geoffrey K. Pullum —Ivan Sag 1982 "Auxiliaries and related phenomena in a restrictive theory of grammar", Language 58: 591 - 6 3 8 .

236

Bibliography

Gee, James Paul 1977 Comments on the paper by Akmajian, in: Peter W. Culicover et al. (eds.), 461-481. Giegerich, Heinz J. 1985 Metrical phonology and phonological structure: German and English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1986 "A relational model of German syllable structure". Linguistics Agency, University of Trier. van Ginneken, Jacobus 1939 "Avoir et etre (du point de vue de la linguistique generale)", in: Melanges de linguistique offerts a Charles Bally, 83 — 92. Geneva: Georg. Givon, Talmy 1984 Syntax: A functional-typological approach, Vol. I. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Goldsmith, John 1985 "Vowel harmony in Khalkha Mongolian, Yaka, Finnish and Hungarian", Phonology Yearbook!·. 253 — 275. Goossens, Louis 1987 "The auxiliarisation of the English modals: A functional grammar view", in: Martin Harris —Paolo Ramat (eds.), 111 — 143. Goyvaerts, Didier (ed.) 1981 Phonology in the 1980s. Ghent: E. Story-Scientia. Goyvaerts, Didier —Geoffrey K. Pullum (eds.) 1975 Essays on the Sound Pattern of English. Ghent: E. Story-Scientia. Granger, Sylviane 1983 The Be 4- Past Participle construction in spoken English. Amsterdam: NorthHolland. Green, Georgia M. 1974 Semantics and syntactic regularity. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Greenbaum, Sidney—Geoffrey N. Leech —Jan Svartvik (eds.) 1980 Studies in English linguistics for Randolph Quirk. London: Longman. Greenberg, Joseph H. 1963 "Some universale of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements", in: Joseph H. Greenberg (1963, ed.), 73 — 113. 1978 "Some generalisations concerning final and initial consonant clusters", in: Joseph H. Greenberg (1978, ed.), 243-279. Greenberg, Joseph H. (ed.) 1963 Universals of language. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press. 1978 Universals of human language, Vol. II: Phonology. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Gussenhoven, Carlos 1983 "Focus, mode and the nucleus", Journal of Linguistics 19: 377—417. 1984 On the grammar and semantics of sentence accents. Dordrecht: Foris. Haegeman, Liliane 1986 "The present subjunctive in contemporary British English", Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 19: 61 — 74. Halle, Morris 1973 "Prolegomena to a theory of word formation", Linguistic Inquiry 4: 3 — 16.

Bibliography

237

Halliday, Μ. Α. Κ. "Categories of the theory of grammar", Word 17: 241—292. 1961 "The concept of rank: a reply", Journal of Linguistics 2: 110 — 118. 1966 1967 Intonation and grammar in British English. The Hague: Mouton. "Notes on transitivity and theme in English", Journal of Linguistics 3; 37 — 1967/8 81, 199-244; 4: 179-215. 1973 Explorations in the functions of language. London: Edward Arnold. Harris, Martin —Paolo Ramat (eds.) 1987 Historical development of auxiliaries. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Harris, Zellig S. "From morpheme to utterance", Language 22: 161 — 183. 1946 Hayes, Bruce 1982 "Extrametricality and English stress", Linguistic Inquiry 13: 227 — 276. Hays, David G. 1964 "Dependency theory: A formalism and some observations", Language 40: 511-525. Hjelmslev, Louis 1935 "La categorie des cas, I", Acta Jutlandica 7: i—xii, 1 — 184. 1937 "La syllabation en slave", in: Melanges Aleksander Belie, 315 — 324. Belgrade. 1938 "Essai d'une theorie des morphemes", Actes du quatrieme congres international de linguistes, 140 — 145. Copenhagen. [Reprinted in Hjelmslev (1959), 152 — 165.] 1939 "The syllable as a structural unit", Proceedings of the Illrd International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, 266 — 272. Ghent. 1948 "Le verbe et la phrase nominale", in: Melanges de philologie, de litterature et d'histoire anciennes offertsaJ. Marouzeau, 253—281. [Reprinted in Hjelmslev (1959), 165-191.] 1953 Prolegomena to a theory of language. Translated by Francis J. Whitfield from Omkring sprogteoriens grundlceggelse, Ejnar Munksgaard, Copenhagen, 1943. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. 1959 Essais linguistiques. (Travaux du cercle linguistique de Copenhague XII.) Hockett, Charles F. 1955 A manual of phonology. Baltimore: Waverley Press. 1958 A course in modern linguistics. New York: Macmillan. Hoekstra, Teun—Harry van der Hulst — Michael Moorgat 1980 Introduction to Teun Hoekstra et al. (eds.), 1 —48. Hoekstra, Teun — Harry van der Hulst — Michael Moorgat (eds.) 1980 Lexical grammar. Dordrecht: Foris. Hoenigswald, Henry M. 1949 Reponse ä la question III, in: Michel Lejeune (ed.), 281. Hofmann, Thomas R. 1969 "La transformation de remplacement du constituant 'passe' et ses rapports avec le systeme modal de l'anglais", Langages 14: 28 — 43. Hopper, Paul J. — Sandra A. Thompson 1984 "The discourse basis for lexical categories in universal grammar", Language 60: 703-752. Horn, George M. 1985 "Raising and complementation", Linguistics 23: 813-850.

238 1986

Bibliography

"The minimal distance principle revisited", in: Dieter Kastovsky—Aleksander Szwedek (eds.), Vol. II, 909-934. Horn, Laurence R. 1980 "Affixation and the unaccusative hypothesis", Chicago Linguistic Society 16: 134-146. Huddleston, Rodney D. 1980 "Criteria for auxiliaries and modals", in: Sidney Greenbaum et al. (eds.), 65 — 78. Hudson, Richard A. 1984 Word grammar. Oxford: Blackwell, van der Hulst, Harry 1989 "Atoms of segmental structure: Components, gestures and dependency", Phonology 6: 253-284. van der Hulst, Harry —Norval Smith (eds.) 1982 The structure of phonological representations (2 vols). Dordrecht: Foris. 1988 Features, segmental structure and harmony processes (2 vols). Dordrecht: Foris. Ikegami, Yoshihiko 1986 "The drift towards agentivity and the development of the perfective use of have + pp. in English", in: Dieter Kastovsky — Aleksander Szwedek (eds.), Vol.I, 381-386. Jack, George B. 1988 "The origins of the English gerund", NOWELE 12: 1 5 - 7 5 . Jackendoff, Ray S. 1972 Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press. 1975 "Morphological and semantic regularities in the lexicon", Language 51: 629 — 671. 1976 "Toward an explanatory semantic representation", Linguistic Inquiry 7: 89 — 150. 1977 X' syntax: A study of phrase structure. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press. 1983 Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press. 1987 "The status of thematic relations in linguistic theory", Linguistic Inquiry 18: 369-411. Jacobs, Roderick Α.—Peter S. Rosenbaum 1968 English transformational grammar. Waltham, Mass.: Ginn. Jacobs, Roderick Α. —Peter S. Rosenbaum (eds.) 1970 Readings in English transformational grammar. Waltham, Mass.: Ginn. Jakobson, Roman 1932 "Zur Struktur des russischen Verbums", in: Charisteria G. Mathesio, 74—84. Prague: Cercle Linguistique de Prague. 1935 "Beitrag zur allgemeinen Kasuslehre: Gesamtbedeutungen der russischen Kasus", Travaux du cercle linguistique de Prague 6: 240 — 283. 1968 Child language, aphasia and phonological universals. The Hague: Mouton. Jakobson, Roman —Gunnar Fant—Morris Halle 1952 Preliminaries to speech analysis. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press. Jakobson, Roman —Morris Halle 1956 Fundamentals of language. The Hague: Mouton.

Bibliography

239

Jespersen, Otto 1924 The philosophy of grammar. London: George Allen and Unwin. 1932 A Modem English grammar on historical principles, Vol. IV. London: Allen & Unwin. Jessen, Marilyn E. 1975 A semantic study of spatial and temporal expressions in English. [Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh.] Johnson, David E. 1977 "On Keenan's definition of 'subject of ", Linguistic Inquiry 8: 673 — 692. Jones, Charles 1976 "Some constraints on medial consonant clusters", Language 52: 121 — 130. 1989 A history of English phonology. London: Longman. Jones, Charles (ed.) to appear Historical linguistics: Problems and perspectives. London: Longman. Joos, Martin 1948 Acoustic phonetics. Supplement to Language 24, no. 2; Language Monograph 23. Washington, D.C.: Linguistic Society of America. Jost, Karl 1909 "'Beon' and 'Wesan': eine syntaktische Untersuchung", Anglistische Forschungen 26: 1 —141. Juul, Arne 1975 On concord of number in Modern English. (Publications of the Department of English, University of Copenhagen, 1.) Copenhagen: Nova. Kachru, Braj B. —Robert B. Lees —Yakov Malkiel —Angelina Pietrangeli — Sol Saporta (eds.) 1973 Issues in linguistics: Papers in honor of Henry and Renee Kahane. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Kaisse, Ellen — Patricia A. Shaw 1985 "On the theory of lexical phonology", Phonology Yearbook 2: 1—30. Kakouriotis, Athanasios (ed.) 1989 Second Symposium on English and Greek: Description and/or comparison of the two languages. Thessaloniki: School of English, Aristotle University. Kastovsky, Dieter 1985 "Deverbal nouns in Old and Modern English: From stem-formation to wordformation", in: Jacek Fisiak (ed.), 221—261. Kastovsky, Dieter (ed.) 1991 Historical English syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Kastovsky, Dieter—Aleksander Szwedek (eds.) 1986 Linguistics across historical and geographical boundaries (2 vols.). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Keenan, Edward L. 1976 "Towards a universal definition of 'subject'", in: Charles N. Li (ed.), 305 — 333. van Kemenade, Ans 1987 Syntactic case and morphological case in the history of English. Dordrecht: Foris. Keyser, S. J . - W a y n e O'Neil 1983 "Exceptions to high vowel deletion in the Vespasian Psalter and their explanation", in: Mike Davenport etal. (eds.), 137 — 164.

240

Bibliography

Kiefer, Ferenc 1970 a "Morphological processes in generative grammar: An outline of Swedish morphology (articles, pronouns, adjectives and nouns)", Acta Linguistica 20: 15-57. 1970 b Swedish morphology. Stockholm. Kiefer, Ferenc (ed.) 1969 Studies in syntax and semantics. Dordrecht: Reidel. Kiefer, Ferenc—Nicolas Ruwet (eds.) 1973 Generative grammar in Europe. Dordrecht: Reidel. Kilpiö, Matti 1989 Passive constructions in Old English translations from Latin, with special reference to the OE Bede and the Pastoral Care. Helsinki: Memoires de la societe neophilologique de Helsinki XLIX. Kimball, John P. 1975 "Seven principles of surface structure parsing", Cognition 2: 15—47. Kiparsky, Paul 1968 "How abstract is phonology?" Indiana University Linguistics Club. (Revised version published as § 1 of: "Phonological representations", in: Osamu Fujimura [1973, ed.], 1 - 1 3 6 . ) 1979 "Metrical structure assignment is cyclic", Linguistic Inquiry 10: 421 —441. 1981 "Remarks on the metrical structure of the syllable", Phonologica 1980: 245 — 256. 1982 "Lexical morphology and phonology", in: I.-S. Yang (ed.), 3 — 91. 1984 "On the lexical phonology of Icelandic", in: Claes C. Eiert —I. Johansson — E. Strangert (eds.), 135-164. 1985 "Some consequences of lexical phonology", Phonology Yearbook 2: 85 — 138. Kirkwood, Henry W. 1973 Theme and rheme in English and German. [Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh.] Klima, Edward S. 1964 "Negation in English", in: Jerry A. Fodor—Jerrold J. Katz (eds.), 246 — 323. Koopman, Willem F. 1990 Word order in Old English, with special reference to the verb phrase. (Amsterdam Studies in Generative Grammar 1.) Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam. Kopytko, Roman 1986 "Perception verb complements and diachronic syntax", Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 18: 131 — 138. Korponay, Bela 1986 Outlines of a Hungarian-English case grammar. Budapest: Tankönyvkiado. Kuipers, Aert H. 1960 Phoneme and morpheme in Karbardian. The Hague: Mouton. Kuno, Susumu 1976 "Subject-raising", in: Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.), 17 — 49. Kurylowicz, Jerzy 1931 "Les temps composes du roman", Prace Filologiczne 15: 448 — 435. 1948 a "Contribution a la theorie de la syllabe", Bulletin de la societe polonaise de linguistique 8: 80 - 1 1 4 .

Bibliography 1948 b

241

"Les structures fondamentales de la langue: groupe et proposition", Studia Philosophical: 203-209. 1949 "La notion de l'isomorphisme", in: Recherches structurales, 48 — 60. (Travaux du cercle linguistique de Copenhague V.) 1971 "A problem of Germanic alliteration", in: Mieczyslaw Brahmer — Stanislaw Helsztyfiski — Julian Krzyzanowski (eds.), 195 — 201. Ladd, D. Robert 1980 The structure of intonational meaning: Evidence from English. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 1986 "Intonational phrasing: The case for recursive prosodic structure", Phonology Yearbook 3: 311-340. Lakoff, George R. 1983 "Metaphor, folk theories and the possibilities of dialogue", in: Marcelo Dascal (ed.), 168-194. Lakoff, George R. —Mark Johnson 1980 Metaphors we live by. Chicago: 111.: Chicago University Press. Lamb, Sidney M. 1966 Outline of stratificational grammar. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. 1980 Discussion: "Louis Hjelmslev's position in genetic and typological linguistics", in: Torben Thrane et al. (eds.), 49 — 63. Larsson, Magnar 1988 "On the double object construction", Linguistic Inquiry 19: 339 — 391. Lasnik, Howard — Robert Fiengo 1974 "Complement object deletion", Linguistic Inquiry 5: 535 — 571. Lass, Roger 1974 "Linguistic orthogenesis? Scots vowel quantity and the English length conspiracy", in: John M. Anderson — Charles Jones (eds.), 311 — 352. 1975 "How intrinsic is content? Markedness, sound change, and 'family universals'", in: Didier Goyvaerts - Geoffrey K. Pullum (eds.), 475-504. 1976 English phonology and phonological theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1983 "Quantity, resolution, and syllable geometry", Folia Linguistica Historical·. 151-180. 1984 Phonology: An introduction to basic concepts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1987 "Intradiphthongal dependencies", in: John M. Anderson—Jacques Durand (eds.), 115-137. Lass, Roger—John M. Anderson 1975 Old English phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lehiste, Ilse 1977 "Isochrony reconsidered", Journal of Phonetics 5: 253 — 263. Lejeune, Michel (ed.) 1949 Actes du sixieme congres international des linguistes. Paris: Klincksieck. Levi, Judith N. 1973 "Where do all those other adjectives come from?", Chicago Linguistic Society 9: 332-345.

242

Bibliography

Li, Charles Ν. (ed.) 1976 Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press. Liberman, Mark —Alan Prince 1977 "On stress and linguistic rhythm", Linguistic Inquiry 8: 249 — 336. Lightfoot, David 1974 "The diachronic analysis of English modals", in: John M. Anderson — Charles Jones (eds.), Vol /, 219-250. 1979 Principles of diachronic syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lindelöf, Uno L. 1937 English verb-adverb groups converted into nouns. Helsinki: Academische Buchhandlung. Lodge, Ken 1986 "Allegro rules in colloquial Thai: some thoughts on process phonology", Journal of Linguistics 22: 331 — 54. 1987 "French phonology again: Deletion phenomena, syllable structure and other matters", in: John M. Anderson — Jacques Durand (eds.), 79 — 114. Lyons, John 1966 "Toward a 'notional' theory of the 'parts of speech'", Journal of Linguistics 2: 209-236. 1968 Introduction to theoretical linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1977 Semantics (2 vols.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lyons, John (ed.) 1970 New horizons in linguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Magnusson, Ulf — Gunnar Persson 1986 Facets, phases and foci: Studies in lexical relations in English. (Umeä Studies in the Humanities, 75.) Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell. Malone, Kemp —Martin B. Ruud (eds.) 1929 Studies in English philology in honor of Frederick Klaeber. Minneapolis: Minnesota University Press. Marchand, Hans 1969 The categories and types of Present-day English word-formation. (2nd edition.) München: Beck. Mascaro, Joan 1976 Catalan phonology and the phonological cycle. [Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, M.I.T.] Distributed by Indiana University Linguistics Club. Matthews, Peter H. 1967 Review of Chomsky 1965. Journal of Linguistics 3: 119 - 1 5 2 . 1970 "Recent developments in morphology", in: John Lyons (ed.), 96 — 114. 1972 Inflectional morphology: A theoretical study based on aspects of Latin verb conjugation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1974 Morphology: An introduction to the theory of word structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1981 Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Meillet, Antoine 1924 "Le developpement du verbe avoir", in: Antidoron: Festschrift J[akob] Wackernagel, 9 — 13. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Merlan, Francesca 1985 "Split intransitivity: Functional oppositions in intransitive inflection", in: Joanna Nichols — Anthony C. Woodbury (eds.), 324 — 362.

Bibliography

243

Miller, George Α. —Philip N. Johnson-Laird 1976 Language and perception. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Miller, James E. 1972 "Towards a generative semantic account of aspect in Russian", Journal of Linguistics 8: 217 — 236. 1985 Semantics and syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mitchell, Bruce 1985 Old English syntax, Vol. I. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mustanoja, Tauno 1960 A Middle English syntax, Vol. I. Helsinki: Memoires de la societe neophilologique de Helsinki XXXIX. Myers, Terry—John D. M. H. Laver—John M. Anderson (eds.) 1981 The cognitive representation of speech. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Nehls, Dietrich 1974 Synchron-diachrone Untersuchungen zur Expanded Form im Englischen. München: Hueber. Nichols, Johanna—Anthony C. Woodbury (eds.) 1985 Grammar inside and outside the clause. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nishigauchi, Taisuke 1984 "Control and the thematic domain", Language 60: 215 — 250. Odenstedt, Bengt —Gunnar Persson (eds.) 1989 Instead of flowers: Papers in honour of Mats Ryden. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell. 0 Dochartaigh, Cathair 1980 "Aspects of Celtic lenition", in: John M. Anderson — Colin J. Ewen (eds.), 103-137. Oehrle, Richard T. 1975 The grammatical status of the English dative alternation. [Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, M.I.T.] 1977 Comments on the paper by Selkirk, in: Peter W. Culicover et al. (eds.), 317 — 325. 1981 "The AUX in English", in: Susan Steele (ed.), 226-259. 1983 "The inaccessibility of the inner NP: Correlations and speculations", Linguistic analysis 12: 159 — 171. Ohala, John J. — Haruko Kawasaki 1984 "Prosodic phonology and phonetics", Phonology Yearbook 1: 113 — 127. Pelt, Joop 1980 "Vowel shift and open syllable lengthening: A lengthening conspiracy in Dutch", in: John M. Anderson — Colin J. Ewen (eds.), 61 — 101. Perlmutter, David M. 1971 Deep and surface structure constraints in syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 1978 "Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis", Berkeley Linguistic Society 4: 157-189. 1983 "Personal vs. impersonal constructions", Natural language and linguistic theory 1: 141-200.

244 1984

Bibliography

"On the inadequacy of some monostratal theories of passive", in: David M. Perlmutter — Carol G. Rosen (eds.), 3 — 37. Perlmutter, David M. (ed.) 1983 Studies in relational grammar, Vol. I. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Perlmutter, David M. — Paul M. Postal 1983 a "Toward a universal characterisation of passivization", in: David M. Perlmutter (ed.), 3 - 2 9 . 1983 b "The relational succession law", in: David M. Perlmutter (ed.), 30 — 80. 1984 "The 1-advancement exclusiveness law", in: David M. Perlmutter — Carol G. Rosen (eds.), 8 2 - 1 2 5 . Perlmutter, David M. —Carol G. Rosen (eds.) 1984 Studies in relational grammar, Vol. II. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Pike, Kenneth L. 1943 Phonetics. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. 1967 Language in relation to a unified theory of the structure of human behavior. (2nd edition.) The Hague: Mouton. (First edition 1954, 1955, 1960.) 1974 "Agreement types dispersed into a nine-cell spectrum", in: Matthew Black — William A. Smalley (eds.), 175-186. 1976 "Toward the development of tagmemic postulates", in: Ruth M. Brend — Kenneth L. Pike (eds.), 9 1 - 1 2 7 . Pike, Kenneth L. —Evelyn G. Pike 1977 Grammatical analysis. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics. 1983 Text and tagmeme. London: Frances Pinter. Pike, Kenneth L. — Eunice V. Pike 1947 "Immediate constituents of Mazateco syllables", International Journal of American Linguistics 13: 78 — 91. Plank, Frans 1984 "The modals story retold", Studies in Language 8: 305-364. Plank, Frans (ed.) 1984 Objects: Towards a theory of grammatical relations. New York and London: Academic Press. Pope, Mildred K. 1934 From Latin to Modern French, with special consideration of Anglo-Norman. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Postal, Paul M. 1970 "On coreferential complement subject deletion", Linguistic Inquiry 1: 439 — 500. 1974 On raising: One rule of English grammar and its theoretical implications. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press. Postal, Paul M . - G e o f f r e y K. Pullum 1988 "Expletive noun phrases in subcategorized positions", Linguistic Inquiry 19: 635-670. Pullum, Geoffrey K. 1974 "Restating doubl-ing", Glossa 8: 109-120. 1980 "Syntactic relations and linguistic universals", Transactions of the Philological Society 1980: 1 - 3 9 . 1981 a "Evidence against the AUX node in Luiseno and English", Linguistic Inquiry 12: 4 3 5 - 4 6 4 .

Bibliography 1981 b

245

"The category status of infinitival to", University of Washington Working Papers in Linguistics 6: 55 — 72. 1982 "Syncategorematicity and English infinitival to", Glossa 16: 181 —215. Pullum, Geoffrey K. —Deirdre Wilson 1977 "Autonomous syntax and the analysis of auxiliaries", Language 46: 259 — 285. Quirk, Randolph — Sidney Greenbaum — Geoffrey N. Leech —Jan Svartvik 1971 A Grammar of contemporary English. London: Longmans. Ramat, Anna Giacalone — Onofrio Carruba — Giuliano Bernini (eds.) 1987 Papers from the 7th International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Rialland, Annie—Redouane Djamouri 1984 "Harmonie vocalique, consonantique et structure de dependance dans le mot en mongol khalkha", Bulletin de la Societe Linguistique de Paris 79: 333 — 383. Rissanen, Matti—Ossi Ihalainen — Terttu Nevalainen — Irma Taavitsainen (eds.) 1992 History of Englishes. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Rizzi, Luigi 1986 "Null objects in Italian and the theory of pro", Linguistic Inquiry 17: 501 — 588. Roberts, Ian G. 1985 "Agreement parameters and the development of the English modal auxiliaries", Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3: 21 — 58. Robins, Robert H. 1959 "In defence of WP", Transactions of the Philological Society 1959: 116 - 1 4 4 . Robinson, Jane J. 1967 A dependency-based transformational grammar. (IBM Watson Research Center, Research Report RC-1889.) 1970 a "Dependency structures and transformational rules", Language 46: 259 — 285. 1970 b "Case, category and configuration", Journal of Linguistics 6: 57 — 80. Roeper, Thomas — Muffy E. A. Siegel 1978 "A lexical transformation for verbal compounds", Linguistic Inquiry 9: 199 — 260. Rosen, Carol G. 1984 "The interface between semantic roles and initial grammatical relations", in: David M. Perlmutter - Carol G. Rosen (eds.), 3 8 - 7 7 . Rosenberg, Marc S. 1975 "Generative vs. interpretive semantics: Review of Jackendoflf (1972)", Foundations of Language 12: 561 — 582. Rosenbaum, Peter S. 1970 "A principle governing deletion in English sentential complementation", in: Roderick A. Jacobs —Peter S. Rosenbaum (eds.), 20 — 29. Ross, John R. 1969 "Auxiliaries as main verbs", in: W.Todd (ed.), Studies in philosophical linguistics, Series I. Evanston, 111.: Great Expectations. 1973 "Nouniness", in: Osamu Fujimura (ed.), 137-257. Rudanko, Juhani 1989 Complementation and case grammar. Albany NY: State University of New York Press.

246

Bibliography

Ruzicka, Rudolf 1985 "Remarks on control", Linguistic Inquiry 14: 309 — 324. Ryden, Mats —Sverker Brorström 1987 The have/be variation with intransitives in English. (Stockholm Studies in English LXX.) Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell. Saltarelli, Mario 1973 "Orthogonality, naturalness, and the binary feature framework", in: Braj B. Kachru etal. (eds.), 798-807. 1988 Basque. London: Croom Helm. Sanders, Gerald 1972 "The simplex-feature hypothesis". Indiana University Linguistics Club. (Revised version: Glossa 8 [1974]: 141-192.) de Saussure, Ferdinand 1916 Cours de linguistique generale. Paris: Librairie Payot. Schachter, Paul 1985 a "Lexical Functional Grammar as a model of linguistic competence", Linguistics and Philosophy 8: 449 — 503. 1985 b "Parts-of-speech systems", in: Timothy Shopen (ed.), Vol. I, 3 — 61. Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1977 "Some remarks on noun phrase structure", in: Peter W. Culicover et al. (eds.), 285-316. 1978 "The French foot: On the status of 'mute' e", Studies in French Linguistics 1: 141-150. 1980 "The role of prosodic categories in English word stress", Linguistic Inquiry 11: 563-605. 1981 "On the nature of phonological representation", in: Terry Myers —John D. Μ. H. Laver-John M. Anderson (eds.), 379-388. 1984 "On the major class features and syllable theory", in: Mark Aronoff — Richard T. Oehrle (eds.), 107-136. 1986 "On derived domains in sentence phonology", Phonology Yearbook 3: 371 — 406. Shaw, Patricia A. 1974 Review of Perlmutter 1971. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 19: 209-216. Shibatani, Masayoshi (ed.) 1976 Japanese Generative Grammar. (Syntax and Semantics, vol. 5.) New York: Academic Press. Shopen, Tiimothy (ed.) 1985 Language Typology and Syntactic Description. Vols. I—III. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Siciliani, Erina — Rosangela Barone —Guy Aston (eds.) 1982 La lingua inglese nell'universitä. Bari: Adriatica Editrice. Siertsema, Berthe 1965 A Study of glossematics. (2nd edition.) The Hague: Martinus NijhofT. Somers, Harry L. 1982 "The use of verb features in arriving at a 'meaning representation'", Linguistics 20: 237 — 265. Starosta, Stanley S. 1978 "The one per sent solution", in: Werner Abraham (ed.), 459 — 576.

Bibliography

247

Staun, Jorgen 1980 "Retraction of Old English [asae] and the bifurcation of Danish [a]: A dependency characterisation", in: John M. Anderson — Colin J. Ewen (eds.), 41-60. 1983 "The Old English obstruent system and its history: A dependency account", Studia Linguistica 37: 9—29. Steele, Ross —Terry Threadgold (eds.) 1987 Language topics: Essays in honour of Michael Halliday. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Steele, Susan et al. 1981 An encyclopedia of AUX: A study in cross-linguistic equivalence. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press. Steinberg, Danny D. —Leon A. Jacobovitz (eds.) 1969 Semantics: An interdisciplinary reader. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Svoboda, Aloes 1981 Diatheme. Brno: Univerzita J. E. Purkyne. Sweet, Henry 1877 Handbook of phonetics. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1898 A New English grammar, Vol. II: Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1906 Primer of phonetics. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Tesniere, Lucien 1959 Elements de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Librairie Klincksieck. Thorne, James Peter 1972 "On the notion 'definite'", Foundations of Language 8: 562 — 568. 1982 "A note on the indefinite article", in: John M. Anderson (ed.), 475 — 484. Thrane, Torben 1980 Referential-semantic analysis: Aspects of a theory of linguistic reference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Thrane, Torben — Vibeke Winge — Lachlan Mackenzie — Una Canger—Niels Ege (eds.) 1980 Typology and genetics of language: Proceedings of the Rask — Hjelmslev Symposium. (Travaux du cercle linguistique de Copenhague XX.) Togeby, Knud 1951 Structure immanente de la langue frangaise. (Travaux du cercle linguistique de Copenhague VI.) Vater, Heinz 1975 "Toward a generative dependency theory", Lingua 36: 121 — 145. Visser, Fredericus T. 1969 An historical syntax of the English language, Vol. III.I. Leiden: E. J. Brill. 1973 An historical syntax of the English language, Vol. III.2. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Wanner, Eric 1980 "The ATN and the Sausage Machine: Which is balony?" Cognition 8: 2 0 9 225. Warner, Anthony R. 1983 Review of Lightfoot 1979. Journal of Linguistics 19: 187-209. 1985 "The structuring of English auxiliaries: A phrase structure grammar". Indiana University Linguistics Club.

248 1990

Bibliography

"Reworking the history of English auxiliaries", in: Sylvia Adamson et al. (eds.), 537-558. Wasow, Thomas 1977 "Transformations and the lexicon", in: Peter W. Culicover et al. (eds.), 327 — 360. Wasow, Thomas — Adrian Akmajian 1981 "The AUX in German and the history of English", in: Susan Steele (ed.), 260-302. Watts, Richard J. 1986 "Complementation and meaning", Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 18: 101 —129. Wells, John C. 1982 Accents of English (3 vols). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Whitney, Rosemary 1982 "The syntactic unity of wA-movement and complex NP shift", Linguistic Analysis 10: 299-319. 1983 "The place of dative movement in a generative theory", Linguistic Analysis 12: 315-322. Wilkins, Wendy (ed.) 1988 Thematic relations. (Syntax and Semantics, vol.21.) New York: Academic Press. Williams, Edwin S. 1980 "Predication", Linguistic Inquiry 11: 203 - 238. 1981 "On the notions 'lexically related' and 'head of a word'", Linguistic Inquiry 12: 2 4 5 - 2 7 4 . 1983 "Semantic vs. syntactic categories", Linguistics and Philosophy 6: 423—446. Wils, Joseph 1949 Reponse ä la question III, in: Michel Lejeune (ed.), 302. Wise, Mary R. 1971 Identification of participants in discourse: A study of form and meaning in Nomatsiguenga. Santa Ana: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Yang, I.-S. (ed.) 1982 Linguistics in the morning calm. Seoul: Hanshin. Zimmerman, R. 1973 "Structural change in the English auxiliary system: On the replacement of be by have", Folia Linguistica 6: 107 — 117. Zwicky, Arnold M. 1985 a Preface to Dressier 1985. 1985 b "Heads", Journal of Linguistics 21: 1—29.

Index

abl(ative) (CR) 69, passim able-adjective 82, 9 0 - 9 1 , 104 abs(olutive) (CR) 69, passim accent-placement 5, 226; see also iambic reversal, ictus, tonic action nominal 183-184, 210-211, 213 adjective 129-130, 132-133, 134, 138, 139-140, 142-143, 151, 155, 166, 190, 207; see also deverbal adjective strong vs. weak 139 — 140 adjunction see subjunction; also labelled adjunction advancement 90—98 adverb 102, 132 adverbial see circumstantial agent-oriented 103 erg-oriented 103 subject-oriented 102 — 103 affricate 4 8 , 1 8 6 - 1 8 7 agent(ive) (semantic function) 66, 72 — 73, 77, 8 6 - 8 7 , 8 9 , 1 0 3 , 1 0 7 - 1 0 8 , 1 0 9 , 1 1 6 122, 125, 153, 164-165, 220, 221 agent-oriented adverbial see adverbial agreement 20, 101, 100, 109, 142-146, 155, 217, 219, 221 Aktionsart 165, 168 alphabet (of substantive elements) 1, 43 — 57, 69, 70 — 74; see also category, notional grammar ambi-dependency 33 — 33, 112 ambisyllabicity 32 A-over-A convention 17 appositive 133 argument structure 77, 86, 114 article 136 - 1 3 7 , 138, 139, 148 - 1 5 0 definite 134, 135 indefinite 144, 1 4 6 - 1 4 8 articulatory feature: see feature aspiration 79 association 19, 177 — 181 attributive 132, 217 autosegment(al) 2; see also prosodic

AUX 159, 163, 168, 200, 202 auxiliary (verb) 2 1 - 2 2 , 150, 152, 1 5 8 171, 180-181, 182, 191, 2 0 0 - 2 0 3 auxiliary condition 168 basic: see derivative; also initial structure Basque 1 0 0 , 1 8 0 - 1 8 1 , 1 8 4 , 1 8 5 beneficiary (semantic function) 69 beware 156 Canadian diphthongs 9 case criteria 61—74 case grammar 59, passim case grammar hypothesis 59 — 61, 75 — 88, 94-98, 125-126 case relation 11, 59, 61, 171 —174, passim; see also thematic role catastrophic change 150 - 1 5 2 , 189, 200 categorial feature: see feature categorial grammar 20 category 44—48, 90, 125 — 175; see also lexical class acquisition of 194—195 change in 150 - 1 5 2 , 189, 200 - 224 conflation 89, 192-193, 196, 198 — 199, 204 - 209, 222, 223 differentiation 189, 192-193, 1 9 6 197, 209-222, 223 realignment 189, 192-193, 197-198, 2 0 0 - 2 0 3 , 223 category continuity 1 3 , 1 9 1 - 2 2 3 causative 104, 109-114, 118-122, 170 cause (semantic function) 105 chain shift 1 9 8 - 1 9 9 Chamorro 182 chest pulse 42 Chomskyan theory 7 - 1 0 , 25, 2 9 - 3 0 , 125 chromatic (vowel) 198 - 1 9 9 circumstantial 6 6 - 6 9 , 70, 75, 104-109, 114-115, 122-123, 146, 205 cliticisation 226 coda 43, 50 commutation 6, 65, 66

250

Index

complementarity principle 62 — 63, 64 c o m p l e m e n t e r 129 complexity measure 184, 193, 209 component see feature, simplex compound 48, 186 concord see agreement consonantality 185 — 187 constituency (construction-formation) 18, 22-24, 37-38, 224-225 binarity of 19 - 20, 39 - 40 contrast(ivity) 1,12, 59 - 81,88,113 - 1 1 4 , 171, 191, 1 9 2 - 1 9 3 , 200, 210 control 8 5 - 8 8 , 1 0 8 , 1 1 6 - 1 2 3 , 1 5 4 M-analysis of 123 controller hierarchy 8 6 - 8 7 , 1 1 9 - 1 2 0 , 122 conversion (morphological) 52 — 54,114 — 115, 138 copula 34, 130, 131, 1 4 2 - 1 4 3 , 149, 156, 168, 169, 181 CR = case relation CR distinctiveness principle 63 — 69 creak 1 7 4 - 1 7 5 cumulation 147 cyclicity Dama

12, 8 2 - 8 8 , 9 1 - 1 2 3 , 153 179, 186

dative (semantic function) see experiencer, goal dative sentence 109 — 113 movement 95 — 96 dedicatee (semantic function) 62 — 63 deixis 7 1 , 1 3 4 - 1 3 5 de-lexicalisation see grammaticalisation demonstrative 134, 136, 137, 138, 139 — 140 dependency phonology 3,11, 31 — 52, 54 — 57, 1 2 7 - 1 2 8 , 1 7 7 - 1 8 8 , 1 9 4 - 1 9 9 dependency preservation condition 52 — 57, 112 derivation(al) 1, 92, 1 4 1 - 1 4 6 , 1 5 5 - 1 5 6 derivative vs. basic 60 derived phonological domain 39 desemanticisation 53, 89, 148, 162, 201, 210, 213 deverbal adjective 166, 190, 2 0 4 - 2 0 5 , 213-222

deverbal noun 166, 1 8 3 - 1 8 4 , 2 0 4 - 2 0 5 , 208, 2 0 9 - 2 1 3 diphthong 48 - 51, 5 4 - 5 7 , 186 diphthong height harmony 50 directional sentence 72, 73, 111 — 113, 121-122

dual 148 Dyirbal 100 each-ex traction 110, 112 early Modern English 56, 197, 1 9 8 - 1 9 9 , 200-202 ectopic serialisation: see movement emic vs. etic 3, 4, 7 endocentricity vs. exocentricity 15 — 16 English, early Modern etc. see early Modern English etc. epen thesis 181 equative sentence 64, 130, 160 equi see control erg(ative) (CR) 69, passim ergative language 99 — 100 ergative verb 81, 98, 1 5 2 - 1 5 3 , 172, 215 erg-oriented adverbial see adverbial exceptional case marking 83 — 84 existential sentence 71, 100 — 101 experiencer (semantic function) 62, 69, 7 2 - 7 4 , 8 6 - 8 7 , 103, 1 0 9 - 1 1 3 , 116 — 122, 164 expressive formation 66 extensive (vs. intensive) attributive 101 — 102 factitive 2 1 0 , 2 1 1 - 2 1 2 feature 1 7 7 - 1 8 8 articulatory (locational) 47 — 51, 128, 160, 173, 179, 193 binary 43—44, 46, 55 categorial (phonological) 47 — 51, 126, 170-171, 194-199 categorial (syntactic) 129, passim hierarchy 48 major class 44, 47 multivalued and hierarchical 44, 55 reduction 136 — 139 simplex 44, passim subcategorial 129, 130, 1 3 4 - 1 4 0 , 193; see also category, gesture, prosodic

Index finite 101, 155, 158, 161, 168-170, 181, 184-185, 190, 2 0 0 - 2 0 3 Firthian theory 1 7 7 - 1 7 8 foot 32 foot 2 35 FOOT-STRUT split 1 9 7 - 1 9 8 fortition see lenition French 5, 32, 46, 56, 147 functional grammar 125 functor 129, 130, 155, 172 - 1 7 3 , 187, 190, 225 Gallo-Roman 46, 56 gender 142—143, 178; see also agreement generalised phrase structure grammar 21 generic 1 4 6 - 1 4 7 , 1 4 8 , 2 2 0 genus 1 4 5 - 1 4 6 , 1 4 7 Germanic 9 - 1 0 , 49 - 50, 219 - 220 alliteration in 41—42 gerund 1 8 3 - 1 8 4 , 2 0 4 , 2 0 9 - 2 1 3 gesture 4 7 - 4 8 , 128, 172-175; see also sub-gesture glossematics 4—6 glottal opening 174—175 goal (semantic function) 62 — 63, 105 governor: see head grammatical hierarchy: see rank grammatical relation 8 2 - 8 8 , 8 9 - 1 0 3 , 118 — 119; see also object, subject grammaticalisation 60, 146 — 152, 160 — 161, 162, 201, 215, 220 Great Vowel Shift 198 - 1 9 9 Greek 187, 222 Grimm's Law 9 — 10 / h / i n English 1 7 9 - 1 8 0 harmony 141 - 1 4 3 , 178 - 1 7 9 Hausa 1 7 4 - 1 7 5 Hawaiian 1 8 5 - 1 8 6 head 15, 27 — 29, passim head convention 17, 23 holistic 1 1 1 - 1 1 2 , 1 2 2 hopping 152, 168 Hungarian 70 iambic reversal Icelandic 99

5, 39

251

ictus 3 3 - 3 5 , 37 silent 34, 131 impersonal sentence 74, 100 incorporation 114—115; see also subjunction indirect object advancement see dative movement inferential 162 infinitival to 155, 163, 170 infinitive 155-158, 161, 163, 187, 2 0 4 209 absolute use of 207 inflected vs. uninfected 206 — 209 INFL 20, 30 information structure 38 — 39,76,78 initial structure 80, 89, 113; see also derivative (vs. basic) instrument(al) (semantic function) 62, 69, 107-108, 114-115 isomorphism 4 — 6; see also structural analogy Italian 100 i-Umlaut 196 Japanese Kabardian

83, 178 181,185-186

labelled adjunction 29, 4 8 - 5 1 , 52, 105 — 107, 186-187 labelled subjunction 2 8 - 2 9 , 44-48, 105-116, 132, 2 2 4 - 2 2 5 Latin 4 6 , 5 6 , 2 2 1 - 2 2 2 , 2 2 3 Latvian 182 lenition 46, 171, 183 levels 1, 65, passim lexical class (word class) 191, 210, 211 — 222 lexical contrastiveness criterion 75 — 78 lexical-functional grammar 85 — 86 lexical grammar 76 lexicalisation 108-116, 118, 153-155, 157, 1 6 9 - 1 7 0 lexical phonology 8 3 , 8 7 , 9 3 - 9 4 lexical rule 82, 91, 104, 114, 133, 157, 161, 163, 172 lexicon 10, 11, 12, 36, 60, 72, 80, 8 1 - 8 8 , 89, 9 0 - 9 1 , 104,113-115, 173, 188, 210, 215; see also subcategorisation

252

Index

linearity 7 6 - 8 1 , 82, 83, 86, 87, 88, 105, 112, 137-139, 177-181, 2 1 8 - 2 1 9 , 221, 223, 2 2 5 - 2 2 9 in phonology 88 localist hyothesis 7 1 - 7 4 , 8 9 - 9 0 , 105 location: see loc(ative), place loc(ative) (CR) 69, passim markedness 7, 47, 74, 126, 171, 181 metaphor, suppletive vs. supplementary 71, 187 metrical theory 2, 36 Middle English 56, 198-199, 2 0 8 - 2 0 9 , 212, 2 1 7 - 2 1 8 minimal distance principle 85 — 86 modal (verb) 150, 151-152, 157, 1 6 0 164, 168, 200-203, 224 modality 1 5 9 - 1 6 0 , 1 6 1 , 1 8 4 modularisation 1, 2—3, 8, 187 Mongolian, Khalkha 141 - 1 4 3 , 178 monophthongisation 54—57 morphological rule 161 morphological structure 26—31 morphologisation 223 morphology 11, 25 - 31, 39 - 40 as interplanar 6 — 7 move-α 8, 96, 98 movement 88, 104, 226; see also dative, hopping, passive, raising, unaccusative name 129, 130, 137, 138, 148, 190 negative-suffixation 159 Nez Perce 178 NICE properties 152, 159, 184 nominalisation 2 8 - 2 9 , 131, 132 based on verb 4- adverb 91 deverbal 91; see also deverbal noun nominality 184 — 185 non-specification 180 — 182 notional grammar 12, 61, 8 9 - 9 0 , 1 2 6 175, 189-193, 223 noun 126-127, 129,130,133-141, 142 — 148, 155, 207 collective 145 mass 143, 147; see also action nominal, deverbal noun, nominalisation

nouniness 183 — 184 nucleus 34,43 number 135, 139, 140-141, 143-146, 178 — 179; see also agreement numeral see quantifier object (grammatical relation) 79, 91—98, 112, 118, 205, 206, 210, 212, 213, 218, 219 indirect 118; see also dative movement Old English 4 9 - 5 0 , 74, 139-140, 1 4 2 143, 151, 162, 178, 184-185, 196-197, 200 - 202, 205 - 209, 211 - 212, 216 - 222 Mercian 50 one-instance-per-argument principle 73 — 74 one-instance-per-clause principle 61—62, 64, 109 onset 42—43 orthogonality 55 paradigmaticity 150, 162, 201, 206, 210 parsing 6 7 - 6 8 , 7 8 - 8 0 , 1 0 2 , 1 0 7 - 1 0 8 over-the-top 107 participant 66 - 69, 70 - 74, 75 - 81 participle 164-167, 190, 204, 207, 2 1 3 222 present 214, 2 1 5 - 2 1 6 second 216 — 222 partitive 7 2 , 1 3 2 , 1 3 3 - 1 4 0 , 1 4 5 , 1 4 7 passive 95-98,99,117,120,160,164,167, 170, 214-215, 218, 219, 220-222, 223 perception verb 166, 170 perfect 1 6 4 - 1 6 5 , 2 1 6 - 2 2 0 , 2 2 1 - 2 2 2 periphrastic see paradigmaticity periphrastic do 131, 149, 1 6 8 - 1 7 0 person 142 — 143; see also agreement phonological change 196 — 200 place (semantic function) 62, 67, 72, 89, 9 4 - 9 5 , 105-107 plane 1, 6, 10, 11, 65, 116, 171, 173-175, 187-188, 226 possessive 71, 133, 2 1 9 - 2 2 0 post-cyclic 9 9 - 1 0 1 , 104, 180 pre- and post-nasalised stops 48 precedence 18; see also linearity predicability 36, 190-191

Index prefix 27 prelexical 1 0 4 - 1 1 6 , 1 1 7 - 1 2 2 preterite-present (verb) 162 principle of "X": see "X" principle progressive 165 — 167 projectivity 19, 32, 52, 112 prominence 30, 40, 52 pronoun 129, 148 prosodic 3 4 , 1 4 1 - 1 4 6 , 1 7 7 - 1 8 1 extrasegmental 178 — 181 purpose (semantic function) 105, 205, 207, 208 quantifier 135-137, 138-139, 140-141, 144-146, 150-152 fractional 141 universal 135 — 136 raising 8 3 - 8 4 , 87, 9 0 - 9 2 , 9 5 - 9 8 , 104, 112, 117-122, 153-158, 166-167, 201 inverse 80 rank 7 , 3 6 , 3 7 - 3 8 , 1 3 3 rection 2 1 , 1 3 3 , 1 3 9 - 1 4 0 , 1 5 8 recursiveness 39 reduction see feature relational grammar 84, 89 — 98 relational succession law 84 rhyme 34 Romance 2 1 9 - 2 2 0 root 27 rule ordering Scots

9 — 10

49

segment 1 3 , 1 7 7 - 1 8 8 semantic function see case relation semi-subject 99 serialisation see linearity sibilant -f obstruent cluster 41 —42 single mother condition 24, 32 — 33 sonority 4 0 - 4 8 , 88, 127-128, 131, 1 7 0 171 sonority indices 44 source (semantic function) 72 — 73, 105, 133 squish 131, 171, 1 8 3 - 1 8 4 strata (relational grammar) 92, 96 — 97 stratificational grammar 6 stray argument convention 68 — 69

253

stray predicate 102, 1 2 2 - 1 2 3 stray segment convention 68 — 69 strength hierarchy see sonority strict cycle condition 93 strong vs. weak adjective see adjective structural analogy assumption 2 — 3, passim structural laws (Jakobsonian) 192 structure change 87 - 88, 93 - 1 2 3 subcategorisation 66 — 69,72 — 74,75 — 81, 112, 132-139, 152-171, 1 7 2 - 1 7 4 sub-gesture, casual (vs. contentive) 173 — 174 initiatory (vs. phonatory) 174—175 subject (grammatical relation) 74, 76 — 81, 85, 87, 9 1 - 1 2 3 , 126-127, 138, 1 4 2 144, 155, 156, 157, 164, 165, 180, 205, 206, 212, 220 VP-internal 81 subject-oriented adverbial see adverbial subject selection hierarchy 77 — 81, 82 — 84, 102, 120, 123, 164 subjunction (vs. adjunction) 20 — 24, 36, 112, 122, 138, 1 6 9 - 1 7 0 subjunctive 150, 158, 162, 187 subordinator 129, 173 suffix 27 superfoot 34—35 superjunction see subjunction suprasegmental structure 31—43, 50 — 51 syllabic 3 2 - 3 5 , 3 7 , 4 2 , 8 8 syllable 3 1 - 3 2 , 3 4 - 3 5 , 1 2 6 , 1 7 1 , 1 8 3 immediate constituents of 5, 34, 42 — 43 syllable-timed 32 syncretism 147 syntactic category see category syntactic structure as unlabelled 24, passim; see also circumstantial system vs. process 6 systemic grammar 7, 25 tagmeme 11 tagmemics 5, 7, 10 — 11, 25 tense (vowel) 50 tense and/or aspect 20, 71, 74, 109, 146, 149, 155, 159-160, 165, 180-181, 182, 214-215, 220, 2 2 1 - 2 2 2

254

Index

thematic role 61, 74, 83, 85 time (semantic function) 62, 67 tone group 33 — 35,38 — 39 tonic 3 3 , 3 7 - 3 8 , 1 4 1 - 1 4 3 tonological gesture 51—52 foMgA-movement 120 tree 19 trimodality of structure 4, 10 trisyllabic laxing/shortening 93 — 94 unaccusative hypothesis 90 — 98 underspecification see non-specification unergative 90 — 91 universal alignment hypothesis 89 unlike-subject constraint 119 used 1 5 1 - 1 5 2 , 1 6 3 utterance-level (phonology) 1, 36—40 vacuous movement 83 verb 126, 129-131, 143-144, 152-171, 190; see also auxiliary, copula, finite, gerund, infinitive, modal, participle

verbal noun see gerund, deverbal noun verb phrase (vs. sentence) 22—23, 76, 78 — 79, 105, 168, 2 2 4 - 2 2 5 Verner's Law 9 — 10 vowel space 5 4 - 5 5 , 1 9 8 - 1 9 9 weak vs. strong 36 wA-extraction 110, 112 wA-movement: see movement word 1 3 , 2 5 - 3 1 , 177-188 word and paradigm morphology 26 word class: see lexical class word-level (phonology) 1, 31—36, 39—40 word order see linearity word structure (morphological) 26 — 31 |> (wyn) viii X' theory

2, 15, 28