Grammatical Representation [Reprint 2020 ed.] 9783112328064, 9783112328057

Citation preview

Grammatical Representation

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

Other books in this 1.

2.

series:

WimZonneveld A Formal Theory of Exceptions Generative Phonology

Pieter Muysken Syntactic Developments in the Verb Phrase of Ecuadorian Quechua

3.

GeertBooij Dutch Morphology

4.

Henk van Riemsdijk A Case Study in Syntactic ness

5. Jan Koster Locality Principles 6.

in

Marked-

Syntax

13. Hagit Borer Parametric Syntax 14. Denis B o u c h a r d On the Content of Empty

Categories

Creole

AnnekeNeijt Gapping

8.

Christer Platzack The Semantic Interpretation Aspect and Aktionsarten Noam C h o m s k y Lectures on Government Binding

Binary

18. Sergio Scalise Generative Morphology 19. J o s e p h E. E m o n d s A Unified Theory of Categories

of

and

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

16. Richard S. Kayne Connectedness and Branching

17. Jerzy Rubach Cyclic and lexical Phonology: Structure of Polish

Syntax

Pieter Muysken (ed.) Generative Studies on Languages

11. Luigi Rizzi Issues in Italian

12. Osvaldo Jaeggli Topics in Romance

15. Hilda K o o p m a n The Syntax of Verbs

7.

9.

in

Syntactic

20. Gabriella H e r m o n Syntactic Modularity 21. J i n d r i c h T o m a n Studies on German

Grammar

the

J. Gueron/H.-G. Obenauer/ J.-Y. Pollock (eds.)

Grammatical Representation

¥

1985 FORIS PUBLICATIONS Dordrecht - Holland/Cinnaminson - U.S.A.

Published

by:

Foris Publications Holland P.O. Box 509 3300 A M Dordrecht, The Netherlands Sole distributor for the U.S.A. and

Canada:

Foris Publications U . S . A . P.O. Box C-50 Cinnaminson N.J. 08077 U.S.A.

CIP-data

ISBN 90 6765 115 X ( B o u n d ) ISBN 90 6765 116 8 (Paper) © 1984 Foris Publications - Dordrecht. N o part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including p h o t o c o p y , recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission from the copyright owner. Printed in the Netherlands by ICG Printing, Dordrecht.

Table of Contents

Preface 1. On Marked Pronominal Anaphors and Eskimo-pro Reineke Bok-Bennema

VII

1

2. French Relative Clauses with D O N T : A-Chains and Binding Principles D. Godard

19

3. Inalienable Possession, PRO-Inclusion and Lexical Chains J. Gueron

43

4. Linearisation and the Single-Segment Hypothesis Daniel Hirst

87

5. Principles of Particle Constructions Richard S. Kayne

101

6. Reflexives in Dutch Jan Koster

141

7. Connectedness and Island Constraints G. Longobardi

169

8. Syntactic Rules and Semantic Rules: Their Relation in W H Constructions Robert May

187

9. Empty Elements and Phonological Form Marina Nespor and Mauro Scorretti

203

10. Connectedness, Variables, and Stylistic Inversion in French Hans-Georg Obenauer

237

VI

Contents

11. Subject, Tense and Truth: Towards a Modular Approach to Binding Pierre Pica

259

12. On Case and the Syntax of Infinitives in French J.-Y. Pollock

293

13. Representation at the Level of Logical Form and the Definitiveness Effect Eric J. Reuland

327

Preface It has n o w been five years since C h o m s k y presented his Lectures on G o v e r n ment a n d Binding in Pisa. S o m e of the first articles inspired by the new theory were published in Levels of Syntactic Representation (1981). T h e articles grew out of talks presented at a R o u n d T a b l e held in Paris in D e c e m b e r 1979 a n d organized by J a n Koster a n d R o b e r t M a y . This was the starting point of what we would like t o think of as a tradition of w o r k i n g meetings a m o n g E u r o p e a n linguists. T h e last R o u n d T a b l e was held at t h e Université d ' A i x - M a r s e i l l e - I I in L u m i n y , F r a n c e , in J a n u a r y 1983. T h e articles in this v o l u m e were given in preliminary f o r m on that occasion. T a k i n g the G o v e r n m e n t - B i n d i n g theory as their f r a m e of reference, they a t t e m p t t o c o n t r i b u t e to the d e v e l o p m e n t of the theory t h r o u g h the s t u d y of linguistic materials a n d p r o b l e m s which have not been h i t h e r t o examined in t h a t f r a m e w o r k , if at all. As in the first volume, the theoretical p r o p o s a l s are based on the study of a variety of languages, here Italian, D u t c h , F r e n c h , English, G e r m a n , D a n i s h , a n d E s k i m o . Since its i n t r o d u c t i o n in Lectures on Government and Binding, the Binding theory h a s p r o v e d to be an extremely f r u i t f u l area of research. In this volume, Bok, K o s t e r , a n d Pica p r o p o s e extensions to the Binding T h e o r y to account f o r a n a p h o r s b o u n d outside their minimal governing category. A second i m p o r t a n t d o m a i n of study centers on the principles governing the c o n s t i t u t i o n of chains. T h e crucial role of chains with respect to Case theory, T h e t a theory, a n d Binding theory is explored by G o d a r d , G u é r o n , Pollock, a n d R e u l a n d . T h e p r o p e r t i e s of syntactic p a t h s are investigated by L o n g o b a r d i , M a y , a n d O b e n a u e r . K a y n e ' s article o n particles in English d r a w s crucially on his " u n a m b i g u o u s p a t h s " hypothesis first presented in Levels of Syntactic Representation. N e s p o r a n d Scorretti a r g u e in f a v o r of an a u t o n o m o u s prosodie c o m p o n e n t , a n d Hirst p r o p o s e s linearization c o n s t r a i n t s on initial c o n s o n a n t clusters. We would like to a c k n o w l e d g e financial s u p p o r t f o r the R o u n d Table f r o m the F r e n c h Ministère de la Recherche et de l'Industrie. W e also want to t h a n k the m e m b e r s of the organizing c o m m i t t e e f o r their w o r k , a n d in particular, Daniel C o u q u a u x , w i t h o u t w h o m the c o l l o q u i u m could not have t a k e n place in such pleasant s u r r o u n d i n g s . Jacqueline Guéron Université de Paris VIII Hans-Georg Obenauer C.N.R.S., Paris Jean-Yves Pollock Université de Paris XII

Chapter 1

On Marked Pronominal Anaphors and Eskimo pro Reineke Bok-Bennema State University of Groningen

The study of empty categories (ECs) plays a central role in the development of the theory of grammar. The fact that ECs are not accessible to direct perception constitutes a major challenge for linguists who try to discover their nature. Furthermore, and this is of great theoretical interest, they are not directly available to the language learner, so that it is highly probable that in their acquisition certain abstract, irinate, properties of the 'mental organ' we call universal grammar are involved. Eskimo languages possesses an EC which has a number of characteristics that make it distinct from other, better known, non-lexical expressions. This EC will be the topic of the present article. After presenting some basic facts of Eskimo in 1., I will introduce the EC under consideration in 2. and, finally, in 3. I will discuss how this EC relates to other kinds of expressions.

1. SOME BASIC FACTS OF ESKIMO SYNTAX

Probably most readers will be unfamiliar with basic Eskimo data. They will be introduced in this section, in which I have chosen to keep the text as concise as possible, adding more specific details in footnotes. When not indicated otherwise, my examples are taken over or adapted from Reed et al. (1977), who deal with Yup'ik Eskimo. 1 ' 2 The sentences in (1) and (2) contain almost all the essential facts that I want to discuss here. (1)

a. Arnaq yurar-tuq worn a n - 0 dance-3sgIND(icative) "The woman is dancing" b. Yurartuq "She/he is dancing"

NP1

AGR 1

V

pro 1

AGR 1

V

*I wish to thank Anneke Groos and Claire Lefebvre for discussion of the issues presented here and Jacqueline Gueron and Henk van Riemsdijk for their comments on an earlier version of this article.

2

Reineke

(2)

NP1 a. Angutem tangrr-aa arnaq man-gen see-3sg3sgIND woman-?) "The man sees the woman" pro 1 b. Tangrraa arnaq "He/she sees the woman" NP* c. Angutem tangrraa "The man sees him/her/it" pro 1 d. Tangrraa "He/she sees him/her/it"

Bok-Bennema AGR''J

vp[VNpJ]

AGR''J

w

[V NPJ]

AGR'J

w

[V p r J ]

AGR^'J

w

[V proi]

The examples in (1) are intransitive sentences. On the right I have indicated their structure (before Agreement-Hopping), ( l b ) shows that Eskimo has pro-drop, something that is to be expected, given its very rich agreement system. The sentences in (2) are transitive. Three things are to be noted here: In the first place AGR agrees both with the subject and the direct object. Furthermore, either the subject or the direct object, or both, can undergo pro-drop. Finally Eskimo is ergative, in the sense that direct objects have the same ( 0 ) Case-ending as subjects of intransitive sentences, while there is a distinct ending for subjects of transitive sentences. The explanation of these facts crucially involves the assignment of Case to the direct object NP. In Groos (1982) and in Bok-Bennema and Groos (1984) it is claimed that universal grammar contains the following parameter: (3)

a. Verbs are (objective) Case-assigners b. Verbs are not Case-assigners

(nominative-accusative languages) (ergative languages)

Eskimo languages are ergative and fall under (3b). If a direct object NP does not receive its Case from the governing verb it has to receive it in some other way. In Eskimo languages it is INFL containing AGR that assigns Case to the direct object, via chain-government. The principle of chain-government has been proposed by den Besten (1982) for Dutch and German constructions with a nominative NP in the VP. A chaingovernor for a is the governor that minimally c-commands the governor of a. S' and NP are absolute barriers to chain-government. Den Besten claims that in certain languages Case-theory contains the principle in (4): (4)

If NPj is governed by a category a which cannot or may not assign Case, NPj will acquire its Case from the first Case-assigner up it is chain-governed by (Den Besten, 1982, (1 la)) 3

On Marked Pronominal Anaphors and Eskimo-pro

3

Case-theory in Eskimo makes use of principle (4) and this accounts for the fact that in these languages INFL (AGR) is the Case-assigner for the direct object NP and for the fact that direct objects and intransitive subjects bear the same (nominative) Case. The analysis I have just presented is substantiated by data involving infinitival constructions. As the presence of AGR is crucial to the assignment of Case to the direct object NP, one expects that when there is no AGR there cannot be a lexical direct object. This is indeed the case. As an example, consider the verb sqe (want, ask), a verb that typically takes infinitival complements. Sqe is a verb of object control. The complement sentence of sqe cannot contain a lexical direct object. Thus, (5a), with an intransitive complement sentence, is perfectly grammatical. (5b), with a transitive complement, however, is not. 4 (5)

a. Angutem yura-sq-aa arnaq man-gen dance-ask-3sg3sgIND w o m a n - 0 "The man asks the woman to dance" NP1 AGRiJ y p [ V NPJ [ s - PRO i V]]

Notice that the construction involves a rule of verb-raising, which attaches the lower verb to the upper one. b. * Angutem nere-sq-aa tan'gurraq akutaq man-gen eat-ask 3sg3sgIND boy-(J) ice cream-0 "The man asks the boy to eat ice-cream" The fact that direct objects in Eskimo undergo pro-drop shows that the local determiner (LD; see Chomsky, 1982) which warrants the presence of pro by agreeing with it in all features, including Case, does not necessarily have to govern it directly. What remains to be accounted for now is the Case-assignment to the subject NP in (2) and the fact that the latter can undergo pro-drop as well. The following examples show that in this respect transitive subjects are exactly the same as (possessive) subjects of NPs: (6)

a. angutem angya-a man-gen boat-3sg "the man's boat" b. angyaa "his/her boat"

When an NP in Eskimo has a subject it has to contain an agreement morpheme that has the same person and number features as that subject.

4

Reineke

Bok-Bennema

This can easily be explained if one assumes that the presence of the agreement morpheme is a necessary condition for the assignment of (genitive) Case to the subject NP. In order to strengthen the parallel between nominative assignment in sentences and genitive assignment in (Eskimo) NPs, we can assume that the agreement morpheme in NPs is a set of features, "agr" (^AGR), contained in an inflectional category, "infl" (=£INFL), which governs the subject at the moment of Case-assignment and functions as its Case-assigner. 5 Thus at this moment, (5a) has the structure given in (7): infl

(7)

NP*

agr1

N

.

At a later moment in the derivation infl attaches to the head noun, just as INFL attaches to V in sentences. Given this analysis, there is nothing to bar pro-drop in NPs, as in (5b), which has the structure given in (8): infl

(8)

pro 1

agr1

N

For transitive sentences it is the same set of agreement features, agr, that is responsible for genitive assignment to the subject NP and functions as LD for a pro in this position. 6 Thus, INFL, when it contains tense, can contain two sets of agreement features: AGR and agr. The two are distinct, of course: AGR is ultimately responsible for nominative assignment and agr for genitive assignment. It seems plausible then, that AGR bears the feature [+nominative], and agr the feature [+genitive]. Furthermore, AGR is an obligatory expansion of [+tense] INFL, whereas agr is optional. agr never appears in intransitive sentences. Under the assumption that Case-assignment is obligatory and Case-clash prohibited, intransitive structures with agr are always ruled out because the subject NP would receive both genitive and nominative Case. A further point is that the assignment of genitive to direct object NPs has to be excluded. This means that the rule for genitive assignment - formulated in (9) - has to be "local", in the sense that it cannot apply via chain-government. 7 (9)

Genitive rule for Eskimo: Assign genitive Case to NP locally governed by INFL or infl containing agr, where "locally governed" means governed, but not chain-governed

On Marked Pronominal Anaphors and

Eskimo-pro

5

This concludes the analysis of the basic Eskimo data presented in (1) and (2).

2. pro-DROP PRONOMINAL ANAPHORS IN ESKIMO

The normal way to express non-oblique pronominals in Eskimo languages is by means of a pro that is locally determined by an agreement morpheme. First and second person lexical pronominals do exist but they occur very rarely in non-oblique positions; there are no lexical third person pronominals. As we saw in the preceding section, the morpheme that locally determines pro is either part of the inflectional head of S or of infl in NPs. A particular feature of Eskimo is that for third person there exist two distinct types of morphemes. One of these is what we can call the normal agreement morpheme. The other is employed under specific circumstances: it requires that the pro of which it is the LD be coreferent with some higher subject in the sentence. 8 As an illustration, consider the following English sentences and their translations: (10)

a. b. c. d.

He meets his son They said they wanted to come When he saw the moose, the man went away When the man saw it, the moose went away

(11)

a. Angutem pairtaa pro geturraa man-gen meet-3sg3sgIND pro son-3sg "The man meets his son" a'. Angutem pairtaa pro getura/zz "The manj meets hisj son" b. Okarput pro kaijomangmai (Labrador Eskimo) say-3plIND pro want-to-come-3plDM (DM=dependent mood) "They said they wanted to come" b'. Okarput pro kaijomagamz'/c "Theyj said they; wanted to come" c. pro tangellrafo/ tuntuvak, angun ayalruuq pro saw-3sg3sgDM moose, man went-away "When he saw the moose, the man went away" c'.pro tangllermz'rczM tuntuvak, angun ayallruuq "When hej saw the moose, the manj went away d. Angutem tangellraA:« pro, tuntuvaq ayallruuq man saw-3sg3sgDM pro, moose went-away "When the man saw it, the moose went away" d'. Angutem tangellrara pro, tuntuvaq ayallruuq "When the man saw itj, the moose; went away"

6

Reineke

Bok-Bennema

As is indicated by the glosses of the first sentence of each pair - i.e. the ones in which pro is locally determined by an agr ( l l a , c ) or AGR ( l l b , d ) morpheme contained in a, ngmat, and raku - there is no conference requirement. In the second sentence of each pair - where the LD of pro is a part of ni, gamik, nimiu and rani - however, coreference with the higher subject is obligatory. Note from (11c') and ( l i d ' ) that the inflectional ending varies according to whether the transitive subject (11c') or the object (1 Id') has to be coreferent, i.e. according to whether it contains a coreference requiring morpheme belonging to agr or one belonging to AGR. The normal agreement morphemes and the ones that require a coreferential reading are not in complementary distribution. Although the preferred reading for the first sentence of each pair in (11) is one in which there is no coreference, this is probably due to pragmatic factors, rather than to grammatical ones. One can certainly have pairs like those in (12), where in (12a) coreference with the subject is possible. Grammarians tend to regard cases like (12a) with a coreference interpretation as "errors", but they agree that they do occur.9 (12)

a. Aksaartauniarpok pro p'mganik (Labrador Eskimo) steal-passive-3sgIND pro goods-3sg "Hej was stolen of hisj/j goods = They stole his goods" b. Aksaartauniarpok pro piminik "Hej was stolen of hisj goods"

While the agreement morphemes contained in a, ngamat, raku and nganik thus serve as an LD for an EC that is a normal pronominal pro, the pro determined by the agreement morpheme in ni, gamik, miniu, rani and minik has certain anaphoric characteristics: it has to be bound by a c-commanding NP in the sentence. As is often the case with anaphors, this NP has to be a subject. This subject does not necessarily have to be the next higher one: in (13a), for example, igluminut can either be 'Noah's house' or 'Joseph's house', but it has to be one of those (minut belongs to the same class as ni etc.; the variant that doesn't require coreference would be inglunganut)\ similarly, the antecedent of the pro in (13b), of which the LD also belongs to the «/-class, can either be the subject of say or the subject of leave. (13)

a. Noa tussarpokpro igluminut Joase ittermat (Labrador) N. hear-3sgINDpro house-3sg J. enter-3sgDM "Noahj hears that Josephj enters his ¡/j house" b. Okautigaapro anguwe kimakaa (Greenlandic) say-3sg3sgIND pro father leave-3sg3sgDM "Hej says that hej has left hisj/j father"

On Marked Pronominal Anaphors and Eskimo-pro

7

Though a closer examination of relevant data is necessary, it is probably the case that the binding domain of the pro under consideration is the domain of the indicative mood inflection. If so, the anaphoric characteristics of the pro are those of what Yang(1983) calls "marked reflexives". Marked reflexives are bound in the domain of a specific type of inflection, and they are always bound by a subject. 10 What is important here is that the pro also has something in common with pronominals. This becomes clear when we consider its occurence in direct subject position: in this position it can never be coreferent with the subject of its own clause. Thus, ( l i d ) , which I repeat here as (14), cannot mean: "When the man saw himself, the moose went away". (14)

Anguten tangell-rani pro, tuntuvaq ayalruuq man saw-3sg3sgDM pro, moose went-way

Obviously, some disjoint reference requirement plays a role here. The question is now: how should this requirement be formulated? Notice, in this respect, that when the pro under consideration is the subject of an S it is always free in its governing category. When it is the subject of an NP it is free in this NP. Given the parallelism between NPs with a subject and Ss, it is quite plausible that the agr morpheme in Eskimo NPs, when present, acts as a governing SUBJECT and, consequently, that NPs with such a morpheme are governing categories. If this is the case, and I assume it is, a pro subject of an NP is also free in its governing category. The only other position where our pro occurs is the direct object position of sentences: in that position it has to be free in its governing category, as was exemplified above. The disjoint reference requirement for a pro with an LD of the «/-class can thus simply be equated to the disjoint reference requirement for pronominals, formulated in (15). (15)

A pronominal has to be free in its governing category

The EC presented here is sometimes called "fourth person" (Woodbury, 1977), "reflexive" (Bourquin, 1891; Schneider, 1976), other possible terms for it are "proximate pronominal", "logophoric pronominal" or "pro-drop pronominal anaphor". I prefer the latter term because it comprises its most important characteristics, which, to sum up, are: a. it is anaphoric, because it has to be bound in the sentence b. it is pronominal, because it is subject to the binding condition for pronominals c. it is pro

8

Reineke

Bok-Bennema

In the next section I will consider how Eskomo pro-drop pronominal anaphors fit into the typology of expressions of the Government and Binding theory.

3. PRO-DROP PRONOMINAL ANAPHORS AND THE TYPOLOGY OF EXPRESSIONS

In Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding, Chomsky takes the binding theory (16) as the point of departure for the formulation of a typology of expressions (17). He also states that one expects that for each type of expression there exists a lexical and a non-lexical counterpart, except in those cases where independent principles of grammar can be invoked to bar the existence of a certain counterpart. (16)

A. An anaphor is bound in its governing category B. A pronominal is free in its governing category

(17)

a. b. c. d.

[+anaphor, -pronominal] [-anaphor,+pronominal] [+anaphor, +pronominal] [-anaphor, -pronominal]

The four ECs of the Government and Binding model are distributed over (17) in the following way: (17a) is NP-trace, (17b) is pro-drop pro, (17c) is PRO and (17d) is wh-trace. In the preceding section I presented an EC that is pro on the one hand and a pronominal anaphor on the other. The existence of such an NP implies both that pro cannot be uniquely defined as the empty pronominal and that the empty pronominal anaphor cannot be uniquely defined as PRO. I will argue in this section that the existence of pronominal anaphors other than PRO can be motivated by an extension of the binding theory, which is needed anyway to account for the existence of certain anaphors, and that the existence of a pro that is not a pure pronominal must be related to the possibility of LDs of pro to bear anaphoric features. As is well known, there are many languages that have lexical anaphors for which the binding condition (BC) (16A) is too restricted. The Danish anaphor sig in (19) is a case in point. (19a) demonstrates that sig is an anaphor: the ungrammaticality of the sentence is due to the fact that there is no linguistic antecedent for sig. If one assumes the standard definition of governing category (18), sig in (19b) is bound in its governing category, but sig in (19c) isn't. (19c) is as grammatical as (19b), however.

On Marked Pronominal

Anaphors and

Eskimo-pro

9

(18)

(3 is a governing category for a iff |3 is the minimal category containing a , a governor for a , and a SUBJECT accessible to a , where SUBJECT is AGR, if present, or a subject otherwise

(19)

a. *Jeg slog sig "I hurt himself" b. Peter slog sig "Peter hurt h i m s e l f ' c. Han bad mig hjaelpe sig "Hej asked me to help himj" d. *Peterj sparger om hanj ville bede mig hjaelpe sigj "Peterj wants to know if hej will ask me to help himj"

Anaphors like sig are marked anaphors. Generally there are restrictions on the domain in which a marked anaphor may be bound: in (19d) these restrictions are obviously not fulfilled, and the sentence is ungrammatical. The binding domain for marked anaphors may vary for different items: Yang (1983), for example, claims that it may be the domain of a subjunctive INFL, or of an indicative one and Koster (present volume) adds to these the domain of COMP, the domain of certain prepositions and others. Generalizing, one can say that: (20)

A marked anaphor a is bound in some domain 0 where: 1. (3 ¥= the governing category for a 2. /3 is parametrized

(20) should be interpreted as a (marked) extension of the BC (16A). It is parametrized in the sense that the value of ¡3 has to be fixed for each individual marked anaphor. Which value j3 has is indicated in the lexical entry of the anaphor in question. The term "anaphor" in (16A) should now be read as "unmarked anaphor". The introduction of (20) in the binding theory entails an extension of the typology of expressions in (17). Marked anaphors are a subclass of anaphors, not of pronominals, so (17b) and (17d) remain the same, but (17a) and (17c) fall into two subclasses, so that the total picture now becomes: (21)

a.

b.

[+anaphor,-pronominal]: 1. [+unmarked anaphor, -pronominal] NP-trace, himself etc. 2. [+marked anaphor,-pronominal] sig... [-anaphor,+pronominal]

pro, lexical pronominals

10

Reineke c.

d.

Bok-Bennema

[+anaphor, +pronominal]: 1. [+unmarked anaphor, +pronominal] PRO 2. [+marked anaphor,+pronominal]: [-anaphor,-pronominal]

wh-trace, lexical expressions

The extension of (17) to (21) implies that potentially there are four new types of expressions: lexical marked anaphors and non-lexical marked anaphors, which both fall under (2 la.2.), and lexical and non-lexical "marked pronominal anaphors", which fall under (21c.2.). Lexical marked anaphors have been considered above; I will leave the question whether indeed they can have non-lexical counterparts till later. What I want to discuss at this point are lexical marked pronominal anaphors. Chomsky argues that PRO cannot have a lexical couterpart; in our terms this means that there cannot be an EC characterized by the features [+unmarked anaphor] and [+pronominal]. The argument that such a category cannot exist is based on the binding theory and the Case-filter. As it is an unmarked anaphor it is subject to the BC (16A) and as it is pronominal it is subject to the BC (16B); this implies that it has to be both bound and free in its governing category, and, as this is a contradiction, it follows that it cannot have a governing category and, under the assumption that every governed element has a governing category, it also follows that it cannot be governed. As a lexical anaphor is subject to the Case-filter and Case is assigned under government lexical pronominal anaphors are excluded. 11 Consider now lexical marked pronominal anaphors. They are lexical and hence have to have Case, consequently they have to have a governor and a governing category. They have to be free in this governing category because they are pronominals, but they differ from unmarked pronominal anaphors in that the domain in which they have to be bound is not equal to their governing category. Of course, when the binding domain is contained in their governing category the contradiction that holds for unmarked pronominal anaphors also holds here: their binding domain is a subdomain of their governing category, in which they have to be free. However, when their anaphoric binding domain (properly) contains their governing category the contradiction is only partial: they can be freely bound in that part of their binding domain that does not include their governing category. Thus, the inclusion of marked anaphors in the binding theory leads to the prediction that lexical pronominal anaphors can exist, as long as as anaphors they are marked and have an anaphoric binding domain j3 which contains their governing category. A candidate for lexical marked pronominal anaphor is Dutch zich.

On Marked Pronominal Anaphors and Eskimo-pro

11

The idea that zich is in some sense a pronominal anaphor has originally been presented by Huybregts (workshop, Pisa, \919).Zich must be bound in what Koster calls its COMP domain, i.e. the minimal domain that contains zich and a lexical complementizer, but it may not be bound in its governing category.12 Thus, (22a), where the antecedent of zich is outside its COMP domain, is ungrammatical. (22b), where the antecedent is within the COMP domain and outside the governing category of zich, is grammatical, and (22c), with an antecedent within the governing category (and the COMP domain), is ungrammatical again.

(22)

a. *Janj gelooft dat de mensen voor zichj werken "Janj believes that the people work for zichj" b. Janj laat de mensen voor zichj werken "Janj lets the people work for zichj" c. * Janj werkt voor zichj "Janj works for zichj"

These facts can be accounted for by considering zich to be a marked anaphor that is subject to (20) (with 0 specified as the COMP domain), and, at the same time, a pronominal subject to (16B). Zich then, would be a lexical marked pronominal anaphor. 11 Though expressions like zich can be viewed as (marked) pronominal anaphors with respect to the binding theory, it is not the case that they can be defined as such on the basis of their semantics. Anaphors are expressions that are referentially dependent on a linguistic antecedent in the sentence, while the antecedent of (non-resumptive) pronominals can either be a linguistic or a pragmatic one. Thus, from a semantic point of view it is impossible to have expressions that are anaphoric and pronominal at the same time. The fact that PRO can be treated as a pronominal anaphor follows from its ability to function as a pronominal in certain contexts and as an anaphor in others. Zich, however, always functions as an anaphor semantically. If expressions like zich are indeed subject to the BCs (20) and (16B), there is no complete one-to-one relation between their semantic properties and the propreties they have with respect to the BCs. This means that they are exceptional or MARKED in some sense (I use capitals here so that this kind of markedness will not be confused with the markedness of what I have called "marked (pronominal) anaphors"). There is one class of expressions for which an analogous MARKEDNESS property seems to hold. These expressions are the ones that can be defined as pronominals, but that do not undergo the BC (16B). The pronominals under consideration - which, according to their semantics, can either have a

12

Reineke

Bok-Bennema

linguistic or a pragmatic antecedent - may be bound in their governing category. If this happens they receive a reflexive interpretation. Two examples of pronominals of this kind, which for some reason are often (but not always, see (23b)), first or second person, are in (23). (23)

a. Peter slog mig "Peter hurts m e " b. Jeg slog mig "I hurt myself' c. Hij beschuldigt hem 1 3 "He accusses him/himself"

(Danish)

(Middle-Dutch)

Both in the case of zich and in that of the pronominals in (23) the disparity between semantic properties and BT properties holds only with respect to the BC for pronominals: zich is a (marked) anaphor that undergoes this BC and mig and Middle-Dutch hem are pronominals that do not undergo it. In order to account for these facts we can assume that lexical pronominals and anaphors contain a feature [a F], An expression that has the feature [+F] undergoes the BC for pronominals, an expression that has [ - F ] does not. For pronominals [+F] is the UNMARKED feature, whereas the UNMARKED feature for anaphors is [-F]. We thus get four classes of lexical pronominals and anaphors: (24) a. b. c. d.

pronominals, pronominals, anaphors, anaphors,

UNMARKED MARKED UNMARKED MARKED

(+F) (-F) (-F) (+F)

BC pron. (16B) + +

BC ana. (16A or 20) - {mig, hem) + + {zich)

Note that a lexical unmarked anaphor will never be MARKED (i.e. bear the feature [+F]): if this were the case it would be an unmarked pronominal anaphor with respect to the BCs, something that, as we saw above, is impossible for lexical NPs because of Case theory. This concludes what I have to say about lexical marked pronominal anaphors. Let us now return to the Eskimo pro-drop pronominal anaphors presented in 2. These ECs are both pronominals and marked anaphors. According to their pronominal status they have to be free in their governing category. As marked anaphors they have to be bound in a domain p, which (probably) is the domain of indicative inflection. As they have LDs which spell out Case and as they have to agree with their LDs in feature content (see below), they have to appear in Case positions, and hence in

On Marked Pronominal Anaphors and

Eskimo-pro

13

governed positions. The domain in which they can be bound is their anaphoric binding domain |3 with the exclusion of their governing category: in this respect they are exactly like lexical marked pronominal anaphors. The difference is that they are ECs. Chomsky (1982) claims that an EC with an LD - i.e. an EC of the pro-drop type - is always pronominal. He bases his claim on what he calls the 'functional definition' of such an EC. If the EC has a local antecedent this antecedent will have an independent 0-role: it cannot share a 0-role with the EC because the EC is in a Case position, and it also cannot be an operator, for various reasons. If the pro-drop EC is not anaphoric it also can be without a local antecedent, i.e. free (it should be remarked here that LDs never count as local antecedents). According to its functional definition an EC that is bound by a local antecedent with an independent 0-role or that is free is a pronominal. From this point of view all pro-drop ECs - including the Eskimo pro-drop pronominal anaphors are pronominals. Another claim made by Chomsky, however, is that at least for referential pro-drop ECs, the feature content of the EC is identical to that of its LD. Clearly, the LDs of Eskimo pro-drop pronominal anaphors have a set of lexical features that makes them distinct from the normal Eskimo agreement morphemes. This set of features ultimately specifies the marked anaphoric status and the anaphoric binding domain (0) of its EC. At a certain point in the derivation - before the BCs apply the EC also acquires these features. In order to account for this I assume that feature sets of this kind are freely assigned to ECs but that they have to be recoverable, in the sense that they have to be expressed lexically in some way. Note that for features like [+unmarked anaphoric], [-anaphoric] and [±pronominal] there exists no such recoverability requirement. This, I suppose, is due to the fact that these features, unlike marked anaphoric features, are not marked. Consequently, free assignment of the marked anaphoric feature set to an EC will only give correct results if the EC has an LD which expresses the same set. Furthermore, I assume that LDs themselves are not visible to the BCs. Thus, the marked anaphoric status of the Eskimo EC under consideration is ultimately determined by the feature content of its LD, while, if Chomsky is right, its pronominal status is determined functionally. Notice that semantically the EC is as MARKED as lexical marked pronominal anaphors like zich are, i.e. it is an anaphor that undergoes the BC for pronominals. If the above is correct, however, this MARKED status is not due to the presence of the lexical feature [+F], which is only assigned to lexical anaphors with argument status, but to the fact that the EC under consideration is a pro-drop EC and hence a pronominal. The assumption that pro-drop ECs are always pronominals, which, as we saw above, follows from their functional definition, entails that

14

Reineke

Bok-Bennema

marked non-pronominal anaphors like Danish sig cannot have a n o n lexical counterpart. The empty counterpart would have the features of a marked anaphor, which have to be recoverable from an LD, i.e. the nonlexical marked anaphor would have to be a pro-drop EC, but if this were the case it would be a pronominal as well. Data from other languages may reveal the existence of marked non-pronominal anaphors, which would refute the claim that pro-drop ECs are always pronominal. Data of this kind are so far unknown to me. If one assumes that ECs 'bound' by clitics are pro-drop ECs (cf. Chomsky, 1982), there are on the contrary, at least two facts that can be accounted for elegantly on the basis of the hypothesis about the pronominal status of this kind of ECs. The first of these facts refers to constructions of the type exemplified in (25): (25)

Jeanj se lave ECj

(French)

The point here is: should the EC be considered an NP-trace or a pro-drop pro? In the literature (Marantz, 1981, Grimshaw, 1982, Bouchard, 1982) there are several arguments that favor the former option, one of which is that the auxiliary that appears in this kind of construction is être, the auxiliary that typically appears with verbs that govern an NP-trace. If the EC is a trace the clitic se in (25) apparently has the capacity of absorbing the Case-assignment properties of the verb and of incorporating the 0-role of the subject NP (see the references mentioned above). Notice that when a clitic has these 'absorbing' properties it obviously no longer functions as an LD for a pro. Marantz (1981) claims that the same situation as in French obtains in all languages that have an identical reflexive construction with a clitic, i.e. that in all those languages the EC should be considered an NP trace and not a locally determined EC (=prodrop pro). This is explained in a cogent way if pro-drop pro's are pronominals: the construction involves a binding configuration that is not allowed for pronominals, according to (16B). A second fact involves the ungrammaticality of (26b), which is taken from Kay ne (1975): (26)

a. Je lui présenterai ces filles EC b. *Je se présenterai ces fillesj ECj

In (26a) the EC is pro-drop pro and lui is its local determiner. Candidates for EC in (26b) are either NP-trace or pro-drop pro. If the EC is considered to be an NP-trace the ungrammaticality of the sentence is explained as a violation of the 6-criterion, because both the EC and its antecedent ces filles are in 0-positions. If the EC is considered to be pro-drop pro and if indeed pro-drop pro is always pronominal then the

On Marked

Pronominal

Anaphors

and

Eskimo-pro

15

ungrammatically is due to the fact that (26b) contains a violation of BC (16B). 1 S What I have tried to do in this section has been to sketch a general picture of pronominal and anaphoric expressions within which Eskimo pro-drop pronominal anaphors occupy a specific place. The basis on which this picture was constructed in Chomsky's insight that possible expressions are predictable from the binding theory and that when a certain predicted expression does not occur this is due to independent principles of grammar. The traditional BCs, as I have argued, are t o o poor, or, one could say, t o o "idealized", to account for a certain kind of lexical anaphor that occurs in languages from all over the world. The - marked extension of the binding theory which is needed for this anaphor has as a consequence that there are several new potential types of expressions, one of which is the pro-drop pronominal anaphor that occurs in Eskimo languages.

NOTES 1. On the essential points, the facts I will present are the same in all variants of American Eskimo and Greenlandic. 2. I will consistently leave out arguments involving word order. Most of the sentences in Reed et al. (1977) present SVO order, but I suspect this is for expository purposes. From the observations of Bourquin (1891), who bases himself on Kleinschmidt (1851), one can deduce that the eastern variants of Eskimo are SOV, but allow a certain amount of 'scrambling'. Johnson (1980) claims that in Central Arctic word order is 'completely free'. 3. Note that, according to this formulation, other categories than INFL (AGR) can also serve as Case-assigners for NPs they do not govern directly. Den Besten (1982) presents examples in which the direct object NP of an S -deletion complement with a non-Case-assigning verb receives objective Case from the (chain governing) matrix verb. 4. Unlike English, Eskimo has an oblique, thematic Case for theme/patients. An NP in this Case can always be added to intransitive complements of sqe, if this is semantically plausible, as in (i): (i)

Angutem neresqaa tan'qurraq akutamek Man-gen eat-ask-3sg3sg b o y - 0 ice-cream-obl 'The man wants the boy to eat ice-cream"

Most subject control verbs do allow for transitive complements. In such complements the direct object NP agrees with the matrix verb and has nominative Case (ii). (ii)

Piita-up arqagu iqaluk niri-juma-vaa Peter-gen tomorrow fish-0 eat-want-3sg3sgIND "Peter wants to eat the fish tomorrow"

I assume that here the complement direct object receives its Case from the matrix

16

Reineke

Bok-Bennema

verb, which means that the complement clause is transparent for Case-assignment via chain-government. The transparency of the complement verb must be related to the fact that the construction is a verb-raising one: as is well known, verb-raising complements generally are transparent to processes from outside. Note that it is possible, in principle, to have the matrix INFL assign Case to the complement direct object of (5b) (in the text) as well. However, if this happens the matrix direct object NP will not receive any Case and the structure will be ruled out by the Case-filter. Infinitival clauses in Eskimo do not occur in structures other than those of subject and object control. 5. Hungarian has a similar inflection-node in NPs (Szabolcsi, 1984). 6. Due to morpho-phonological processes agr and AGR are often not recognisable as separate units. When AGR is third person singular, however, it is expressed by a (J) morpheme; in this case it is very clear that agr in INFL is (practically) identical to agr in infl. This is illustrated by the following paradigms: agr in INFL object 3rd person (AGR = 0 ) first person singular dual plural second person singular dual plural singular third person dual plural

agr in infl ka put puk n ci tek a at ak

ka put/vut put/vuk n ci/si tek/sek (ng) a (ng) at (ng) ak

7. Obviously, the locality of genitive-assignment is a stipulation. Further research will have to reveal why, unlike nominative and objective (cf. footnote 3) Caseassigners, genitive Case-assigners can never assign their Case via chain-government. 8. Labrador Eskimo is the only variant of Eskimo that is exceptional in that it has no coreference requiring LD for object pro's. I will disregard this fact throughout. 9. The examples in (12) are from Bourquin (1891), pp. 341. Schneider (1976) refers to the proximate use of normal agreement morphemes with the term 'réfléchis de narration', implying, if I understand him correctly, that the speaker (narrator) does not want to stress the coreference, or that he considers it more or less as accidental. 10. For an explanation of the fact that the antecedent of a marked reflexive always has to be a subject, see van Riemsdijk (1983). 11. In a footnote Chomsky observes that this is not completely true because there is one position in which Case is not assigned under government: this is the genitive position in NPs and gerunds. Under the assumption that the genitive position in NPs is governed by the head noun (see Aoun and Sportiche, 1983) the only position in which an NP can receive Case without being governed is the subject position of gerunds. Logically, (unmarked) lexical pronominal anaphors are possible in this position. But perhaps - as Chomsky claims - when the possibilities for the appearance of a certain element is so restricted it will never appear at all. An alternative explanation could be that English gerunds and NPs have an optional infl node, comparable to the Eskimo one, and that this node governs the subject position and is responsible for genitive assignment (see Chomsky, 1981, p.

On Marked

Pronominal

Anaphors

and

Eskimo-pro

17

188, for a suggestion in this direction): genitive NPs would then always be governed. 12. Actually, this only holds true for zich when it occurs in the context of nonlocative prepositions. For other occurrences of zich see e.g. Vat (1980), Everaert (1981) and, in particular, Koster (present volume). 13. For a theory in which zich can be treated as an unmarked anaphor I refer to Huybregts (1983). 14. This example, from Leupenius (1653), is cited by Everaert (1981). 15. Note that if the line of reasoning presented in this paragraph is correct one has to assume that in French not only direct object reflexives but also indirect object reflexives involve movement to the subject position, (i) presents an example of an indirect object passive: (i)

EllCj

s'est offert des cadeaux e^

The EC in (i) is bound in its governing category and hence - under the assumption that pro-drop pro is always pronominal - it can not be pro-drop pro. The EC then, can only be NP-trace. This entails, however, that: (a) se can sometimes absorb the 0-role of the subject NP without affecting the objective Case-assignment properties of the verb (b) French has an NP position for indirect objects. Such a position - which has been argued for by R. Kayne at GLOW 1981 - can never contain a lexical NP (cf. the ungrammatically of (ii)), a fact which is probably due to Case-factors. (ii)

* Elle a offert cadeaux sa mère

It is clear that this analysis of indirect object reflexives requires a much more detailed argumentation than the one I'm able to present in this footnote.

REFERENCES Aoun, Y. and D. Sportiche (1983) "On the Formal Theory of Government" in: The Linguistic Review, 2, 211-236. Besten, H. den (1982) "Some Remarks on the Ergative Hypothesis", in: Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanischen Linguistik (GAGL), 21. Bok-Bennema, R. and A. Groos (1984) "Ergativiteit". Glot, 7, 1-49. Bouchard, D. (1982) "On the Content of Empty Categories", diss. MIT. Bourquin, T. (1891) Grammatik der Eskimo-Sprache, wie sie im Bereich der Missions - Niederlassungen der Brüdergemeine an der Labrador Küste gesprochen wird, Moravian Mission Agency, London. Chomsky, N. (1981) Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris Publications, Dordrecht. Chomsky, N. (1982) Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding, Linguistic Inquiry Monograph Six, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Everaert, M. (1981) "Zieh", in: Daalder, S. and M. Gerritsen (eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 1981, North Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam etc. Grimshaw, J. (1982) "On the Lexical Representation of Romance Reflexive Clitics", in: Bresnan, J. (ed.) The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, Mil Press, Cambridge, Mass.

18

Reineke

Bok-Bennema

Groos, A. (1982) "On the Requirement that Clauses have Subjects and Unaccusative Phenomena", ras., Tilburg University. Huybregts, R. (1983) "Covalency", paper presented at the Luminy Colloquium "Levels of Grammational Representation". Johnson, M.R. (1980) Ergativity in Inuktitut (Eskimo), in Montague Grammar and in Relational Grammar, IULC, Bloomington. Kayne, R. (1975) French Syntax, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Kleinschmidt, S. (1851) Grammatik der Grönländischen Sprache, mot teilweisem Einschluss des Labradordialekts, Berlin (reprint: 1968, Georg Olms, Hildesheim). Koster, J. (present volume) "Reflexives in Dutch". Leupenius (1653) Aanmerkingen op deNeederduitschetaaleenNaabericht,published, introduced and annotated by W.J .H. Caron (1958), Groningen. Marantz, A.P. (1981) "On the Nature of Grammatical Relations", diss. MIT. Reed, I., O. Miyaoka, S. Jacobson, P. Afcan and M. Krauss (1977) Yup'ik Eskimo Grammar, Alaska Native Language Center, Fairbanks. Riemsdijk, H. van (1983) "A Note on the Typology of Bound Anaphora", ms., Tilburg University. Schneider, L. (1976) Inuktituorutît, Grammaire purement esquimaude, Ministère des Richesses naturelles, direction générale du Nouveau-Québec. Szabolcsi, A. (1984) "The Possessor that Ran away from Home". The Linguistic Review 3.1. Vat, J. (1980) "Zieh en Zichzelf", in: Daalder, S. and M. Gerritsen (eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 1980, North Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam etc. Woodbury, A.C. (1977) "Greenlandic Eskimo, Ergativity and Relational Grammar", in: Cole, P. and J.M. Sadock (eds.) Syntax and Semantics 8, Academic Press, New York etc. Yang, D.-W. (1983) "The Extended Binding of Anaphors", Handout GLOW.

Chapter 2

French Relative Clauses with DONT: A-Chains and Binding Principles D. Godard Université de Paris VII

1. INTRODUCTION

Relative clauses are characterized by two relationships: (1) between the relativization site and the COMP of the relative. (2) between the COMP of the relative and the antecedent NP. French relative clauses introduced by dont yield special insights into the properties of the first, and, for this reason, will be the focus of this study. Their syntactic properties are very problematic within the Extended Standard Theory (cf. Godard, 1980); the Government and Binding framework (cf. Chomsky, 1981), however, permits a unified treatment of relative clauses including those introduced by dont. More precisely, it will be shown (a) that the relativization site is related to the form in COMP {dont) by a rule creating an A-chain, that is, a chain whose head is in a non-argument position, operating at the level of S-structure. But it will also be shown that the same rule operates in some relatives introduced by a [+wh] word, in French. (b) that the phrase which occurs in the relativization site, whether it is an empty category or a pronoun, is anaphoric, with dont as its antecedent. It is also suggested that the extension of this hypothesis to relatives introduced by a [+wh] word is straightforward. The hypothesis that relativization sites should be analyzed as anaphoric elements contrasts with Chomsky's (1981) proposal that they are syntactic "variables": in Chomsky (1981), "variables" are defined by the features [-pronominal, -anaphor], while Binding Principles control the occurrence of elements which are pronominals (i.e. [+pro]) or anaphors (i.e. [+an]). That is, Chomsky divides elements without lexical content into two classes, those which obey Binding Principles, and those which do not obey them, but do obey Principle C. The second category, which he calls "variables", includes elements in relativization sites. On the other hand, the proposed analysis resembles Chomsky's earlier proposal (cf. Chomsky, 1973) that relativization sites are anaphors, obeying Opacity Conditions (Specified Subject, Tensed S Condition). There are, however, significant differences. First, the relation between the

20

D. Godard

relativization site and the COMP of the relative will be shown to be constrained by the Tensed S Condition, but not by the Specified Subject Condition. Secondly, Chomsky (1973) does not discuss Principle C, which, as will be argued here, holds for relatives. To say that relativization sites are anaphoric does not imply that they are not "variables". It will be argued, on the contrary, that Chomsky's dichotomy between anaphoric elements and variables is not supported by the data. In other words, there exist different types of rules or principles, but a given linguistic segment may be analyzed with respect to more than one principle. In particular, rules which control the occurrence of anaphoric elements differ from those which control the occurrence of variables, but they both apply to relativization sites: they are analyzed as anaphoric at the level of S-structure, and as variables at the level of LF.

2. SYNTAX OF RELATIVE CLAUSES WITH DONT

Dont is traditionally considered a morphological variant of a se2.1. quence de + wh-word; that is, it is supposed to be a relative form corresponding to a relativized site of the form PP [+de] [e]. Consider the relatives with dont illustrated in (1): (1)

a. Un argument dontj on se servira [ ej ] pp r + ^ i "An argument of which one will have use ' b. Un argument dontj la force [ ej ]pp [+de\ n e P e u t ® tre ™ s e doute "An argument of which the strength cannot be doubted"

en

Nothing, apparently, distinguishes this relative clause from a relative introduced by que or a prepositional phrase [+wh], as in (2): (2)

a. Un argument quej l'on n'avait pas encore utilisé ej "An argument which one had not yet used" b. Un argument auquelj on n'avait pas encore prêté attention ej "An argument to which one had not yet paid attention"

The relative form which occurs in (2) depends on the function of the relativized site: que, in (2a), is related to an empty direct object NP, auquel, in (2b), to an empty indirect object PP [+à], subcategorized by the V. In the same way ,dont corresponds to an empty PP [+de\, which is subcategorized by the V in (la), and which is complement of the NP in (lb). But now consider (3):

French Relative Clauses with DONT (3)

21

a. Un argument dontj il semble que personne ne lj'a utilisé "An argument of which it seems that nobody has used it" b. Un argument dontj on pense que personne ne lj'a utilisé "An argument of which one thinks that nobody has used it"

In these cases, the relativization site is not represented by an empty PP [+de], but by the pronoun which occurs in the complement S. Consider the two main arguments: 1 (1) Dont does not systematically correspond to an empty PP. That is, there are a few verbs, including penser, which may be said to be subcategorized for such a PP, or which co-occur with an initial PP [+c?e], but such is not the case with most of the predicates which occur in this relative clause. In other words, the "source" PP \+de\ is generally absent, in particular, it is always absent when the matrix predicate is an impersonal verb (cf. (3 a)), or a sequence V + N (cf. (4)): (4)

Un argument dontj on a l'impression que personne ne lj'a utilisé "An argument of which one gets the impression that nobody has used it yet"

One could propose that (5a) or (5b) is the source for (3b), but there is no corresponding S for (3 a) or (4): (5)

a. ? On pense de cet argument j que personne ne lj'a utilisé "One thinks of this argument that nobody has used it" b. De cet argument, on pense que personne ne l'a utilisé "Of this argument, one thinks that nobody has used it"

(6)

a. *I1 semble de cet argument que personne ne l'ait utilisé "It seems of this argument that nobody has used it" b. *De cet argument, il semble que personne ne l'ait utilisé "Of this argument it seems that nobody has used it"

(7)

a. *On a l'impression de cet argument) On a de cet argument l'impression) que personne ne l'a utilisé "One gets the impression of this argument that nobody has used it" b. *De cet argument, on a l'impression que personne ne l'a utilisé "Of this argument, one gets the impression that nobody has used it"

(2) The pronoun is obligatory: not only is it impossible to leave it out, but it may not be replaced by a complement:

22

D. Godard

(8)

a. *Un argument dont on pense que personne n'a utilisé b. *Un argument dont il semble que personne n'a utilisé c. *Un argument dont on a l'impression que personne n'a utilisé

(9)

a. *Un argument dont on pense que personne n'a utilisé cette approche "An argument of which one thinks that nobody has used this approach" b. *Un argument dont il semble que personne n'ait utilisé cette approche c. *Un argument dont on a l'impression que personne n'a utilisé cette approche

Note that nothing, in principle, prevents the occurrence of two co-indexed lexical NPs in the same S, provided they are not both in argument positions. Although there may be stylistic differences between (10) and (11), they are both correct (the example is from Hirschbiihler (1974): (10)

La grande blonde qui est là-bas, je pense que je l'ai déjà vue quelque part "The tall blond girl over there, I think I have already seen her somwhere"

(11)

La grande blonde qui est là-bas, je pense que j'ai déjà vu cette tête-là quelque part "The tall blond girl over there, I think I have already seen that face somewhere"

Thus, when the relative clause does not contain an empty position of the form PP [+de], the pronoun is obligatory. One concludes that the pronoun represents the relativization site. The relative form dont is related either to an empty position or to a pronoun; if empty, the category must be of the form PP [+de\. contrast (1) and (12): (12)

*Un argument dontj peu de personnes ont utilisé [ e "An argument of which few people have used"

1

2.2. If one considers the properties of the relation which holds between dont and the relativization site, one sees that it cannot be the result of a movement rule: (1) The Subjacency Principle is not relevant, whether the relativization site is empty or a pronoun. The bounding nodes, in French, are NP and S (cf. Sportiche, 1981), and, thus, the path from the pronoun to dont, in

French Relative Clauses with DONT

23

(13), crosses two nodes, which violates Subjacency. The structure, however, is grammatical: (13)

Un collègue dont; il semblerait [que [les discussions avec luij] soient plutôt difficiles] "A colleague of which it would seem that discussions with him are rather difficult"

In the same way, in (14), the empty PP [+de] is separated from dont by two bounding nodes, the NP and the S: (14)

Un étudiant dontj on sait [combien [le travail ej] est sérieux] "A student of which one knows how much the work is serious"

It is necessary, however, to comment on this last example. One could argue that the Movement Rule, in (14) does not cross two boundaries at a time, but moves the relativized PP first to the intermediate COMP, crossing one node, the NP, and, then, to the COMP of the relative, crossing again one node, the S. Thus, combien and the PP could co-occur in the intermediate COMP at some stage of the derivation, or the derivation would concern first the PP, and then combien, thus violating the strict cyclicity principle. To show that this objection does not hold, one can apply the same argument which Rizzi (1978) uses to show that Italian relative clauses obey Subjacency. Rizzi observes that a relative equivalent to (15) is grammatical: (15)

Une hypothèse quej l'on constate [que vous ne savez [avec quels arguments; étayer ej ej ]] "A hypothesis which one observes that you do not know with which arguments to prove"

There are two bounding nodes S between the relativization site and the COMP of the relative. Rizzi argues that there are three possibilities for its derivation: A. The relativized phrase and the questioned phrase co-occur in the COMP of the most embedded S. B. The derivation applies first to the relativized phrase, moving it to the successive COMPs; then, it goes back to apply to the questioned phrase. C. On the most embedded cycle, the questioned phrase is moved to COMP, on the intermediate cycle, the relativized phrase is moved to the intermediate COMP directly, crossing one S, and then to the COMP of the relative clause.

24

D. Godard

Given that Wh-MVT leaves a trace in COMP, the first hypothesis implies that there is no filter against a doubly filled COMP, and that there are two positions for a wh-phrase in a COMP, contra Chomsky and Lasnik (1977). In hypothesis B, the strict cyclicity principle is violated, since the derivation may go back to finish up the most embedded cycle. No principle is violated in hypothesis C, the only assumption is that a derivation may temporarily leave a wh-phrase in the S in which it originally occurs. In none of these hypotheses is Subjacency violated. One could alternatively argue that Subjacency is not relevant in French relative clauses. There is a structure which contrasts minimally with (15) and which makes it possible to choose between these possibilities. Consider (16) (16)

*Une hypothèse quej vous ne savez pas [avec quels argumentsj on vous a suggéré [d'étayer ej ej ] ] "A hypothesis which you do not know with which arguments you have been told to prove"

The difference between (15) and (16) is structural: in both cases, the relativization site is in a doubly embedded S, and one of the complements is [-WH], while the other is [+WH]; but their relative order differs: in (15), the [+WH] S is embedded in the [-WH], and the reverse is true in (16). If Subjacency did not hold in French relative clauses, (16) should be as acceptable as (15), which is not the case. The same argument holds if Subjacency applies and the derivation is as represented in hypothesis A or B. On the contrary, if Subjacency is relevant and if the derivation is as represented in hypothesis C, the contrast between (15) and (16) is accounted for. If it is assumed that WH-MVT applies cyclically, and that it is not possible to have two wh-phrases in a COMP, then the movement of the relativized phrase cros se s one bounding node - the most embedded S - in the derivation of (15), but two in that o f ( 16). Thus, the discussion of relatives (14), (15) and (16) allows us to say that (1) at least some relative clauses obey Subjacency in French, and (2) dont-relative clauses do not. (2) The pronoun of a relative clause with dont may occur in an "island" but a wh-trace may not. For instance, (17) and (18) exemplify relativization in an //clause: (17)

Une solution dontj il semble bien que, si on lj'avait adoptée plus tôt, on aurait pu gagner plusieurs mois sur la concurrence "A solution of which it seems that, if one had adopted it sooner, one could have been several months ahead of the competition"

(18)

*Une solution quj'il semble bien que, si on avait adoptée ex plus tôt, on aurait pu gagner plusieurs mois sur la concurrence

French Relative Clauses with

DONT

25

It is worth noting, however, that the empty category in a ¿¿»«¿-relative does not occur in an island: (19)

*Une solution dontj il semble bien que, si on s'était servi ej plus tôt, on aurait pu gagner plusieurs mois sur la concurrence "A solution of which it seems that, if one had made use e sooner, one could have been several months ahead of the competition"

Thus, there is a discrepancy between rules which obey Subjacency, and rules which obey Island Constraints. The data indicate the following: (1) Structures obeying Subjacency (e.g. relativization of NP in French, cf. (16)) also obey IC; (2) There are structures which do not obey Subjacency, but nevertheless obey IC (e.g. relativization in dont- e); (3) There are structures which are not constrained by Subjacency, or by IC (e.g. relativization in cforci-pronoun). In other words, if Subjacency is taken to be the criterion for a certain category of rules, IC have a wider range of application: they are a necessary, but not a sufficient property for classifying a rule as a movement rule. Given the fact that neither the dont-e, nor the ¿forcf-pronoun relative clause obeys Subjacency, it is desirable to have the same relativization rule operate in both cases. If one makes the further hypothesis that IC are pertinent for empty categories as opposed to phonologically realized pronouns, one may generalize over the behavior of the dont-pronoun relative: the rule relating the COMP dont and the relativization site does not take IC into consideration. Thus, c?o«i-relatives have neither of the properties which are necessary for a structure to be derived via a movement rule. 2.3. Let us list the properties of relatives introduced by dont: (1) The relativization site is either an empty category or a pronoun. (2) If it is an empty category, it corresponds to a de- NP sequence; if it is a pronoun, it may have any function, and any corresponding form (clitic or stressed pronoun). The array of possibilities is exemplified in (20)-(26): the pronoun is a subject, direct object, and dative clitic in (20), (21) and (22); clitic y in (23), stressed pronoun in (24), and an empty PP [+de] in (25) and (26): 2 (20)

a.

Un argument dont il me semble qu'il est solide "An argument of which it seems that it is solid" b. *Un argument dont il me semble que est solide

(21)

a.

Un argument dont il me semble que personne ne l'a utilisé "An argument of which it seems that nobody has used it" b. *Un argument dont il me semble que personne n'a utilisé

26

D. Godard

(22)

a.

Un collègue dont il me semble que tu ne lui as pas rendu justice "A colleague of which it seems that you were not fair to him" b. *Un collègue dont il me semble que tu n'as pas rendu justice

(23)

a.

(24)

a.

Un collègue dont il me semble que tu aurais dû penser à lui "A colleague of which it seems that you should have paid attention to him" b. *Un collègue dont il me semble que tu aurais dû penser

(25)

a. *Un argument dont il me semble que tu t'en serviras "An argument of which it seems that you will make use of it" b. Un argument dont il me semble que tu te serviras

(26)

a. ??Un ami dont il me semble que tu n'apprécies pas toutes ses décisions "A friend of which it seems that you do not appreciate all his decisions" b. Un ami dont il me semble que tu n'apprécies pas toutes les décisions

Un argument dont il me semble que tu aurais dû y penser "An argument of which it seems that you should have paid attention to it" b. *Un argument dont il me semble que tu aurais dû penser

(3) No movement rule applies in the derivation to create syntactic binding between the relativization site and dont. The following hypotheses make for a unified treatment of relative clauses with dont, from which the above properties follow: (a) Dont is analyzed as a pro-PP [+de], even when it does not correspond to an empty category of this form. (b) Dont is base-generated as such in COMP. (c) Dont and the relativization site are related at the level of S-structure by a rule which creates an A-chain. Let us now justify these hypotheses. The distribution of the pronoun and the empty category raises the question of the categorical status of dont. If it is a complementizer with a restricted distribution (that is, it would be specialized for relatives) rather than a pronoun, the pronoun in the relativization site is easily accounted for. This does not, however, account for the restricted occurrence of the empty category, which can only correspond to a PP [+de], in the same way as the PP [+wh] duquel/ de qui:

French Relative Clauses with DONT (27)

27

a. Les derniers romans parus chez Gallimard, desquels je vous entretiendrai la semaine prochaine "The last novels published b y G., of which I will speak next week" b. Un ami de qui t u n'apprécies pas toutes les décisions "A friend of whom you do not appreciate all the decisions"

On the other hand, if dont is a p r o - P P [+de\, one accounts for relatives like (25) and (26), but not directly for relatives like ( 2 0 ) - ( 2 4 ) ; that is, if both the element in COMP and the relativization site are pronominal, one would expect argreement with respect to their function (or case marking). The double analysis of dcwi-complementizer when it co-occurs with a pronoun, and pronoun if it co-occurs with an empty categoryis not supported by independent arguments. Without further justifications, I will maintain the traditional analysis of dont as a p r o - P P [+c?e]. 3 The second hypothesis, that dont is base-generated in COMP, follows from the fact that there is no source for it in the c?o«i-pronoun relative, and the fact that the relation between dont and the empty category does not obey Subjacency. The last hypothesis accounts for the syntactic binding between dont and the relativization site. That is, it gives a syntactic account of this relativization. It is clear that the notion of " c h a i n " elaborated in Chomsky (1981) is crucial here, since it yields a way to express this relation, which was impossible in earlier frameworks. Let us now consider the formulation of this rule. Chomsky ( 1 9 8 1 : 3 3 3 ) defines the notion of a chain of co-indexed categories for an A-chain C, that is, a chain whose head is in an argument position, noted A-position (subject, direct or indirect object are the simple cases). Cinque (1982) proposes to extend the notion to structures in which the head is in a non-argument position, noted A-position, and more precisely in a S peripheral position, as in (28): (28)

Xi

sl-Oi

•••]

This is meant to cover the structures in which the left peripheral X is in COMP or in an initial position (cf. TOP in Chomsky, 1977), and the NP origin of the chain is in an A-position in S. Such a chain would formalize the relation between an NP in an A-position and an A-position within S, and represent how such a phrase is anchored in the argumentai structure of a S. I propose that there is a rule which applies at S-structure, which is not subject to Subjacency, and which creates an A - c h a i n binding the relativization site to dont. The only remaining problem is to account for the distribution of the pronoun and the empty category.

28

D. Godard

Recall that one gets an empty category when the relativization site is of the form PP [+de] and a pronoun elsewhere. The pronoun may be a clitic or a stressed pronoun, the distribution being as expected, that is, one gets a pronoun as a complement of a P, and a clitic elsewhere. It is well-known that a clitic pronoun in French is characterized by morphological case-marking, that is, it has different forms according to its function. Thus, when the A-chain contains a clitic, it bears morphological case-marking. What happens when the pronoun is complement of a P? Milner (p.c.) has suggested analyzing the P of a subcategorized complement as another aspect of case-marking in French, one difference between direct objects and indirect ones being that the latter are case-marked. If one accepts this hypothesis, the chain bears case-marking when it contains a pronoun. What about empty categories? Of course, in themselves, they have no morphological case, or any other overt feature. Observe that the empty category is allowed when the relativization site is of the form PP [+de]; but observe also that dont is analyzed as a pro-PP [+de\. Thus, it is when dont, the head of the chain, indicates its case that an empty category is allowed. In other words, if dont bears case-marking for the chain, the origin is an empty category; otherwise, there is a pronoun. One accounts for this distribution by incorporating obligatory morphological case-marking among the properties of the A-chain, noted C*, following Cinque. The rule will be as in (29): 4 (29)

Rule creating an A-chain at the level of S-structure: Create a chain of co-indexed categories a: C* = («J ... Oj ... a n ) iff (a) a j is in an S peripheral position cq ( f a n ) is in an A-position a n (origin of the chain) is in an A-position in S (b) a j locally binds aj + 1 (c) one of the a bears morphological case-marking, indicating the function of the chain.

The validity of Rule (29) is strengthened by the fact that it is needed in other structures in French: Left-Dislocation and Relativization of a PP [+wh]. They have the required properties: (1) the occurrence of co-indexed categories is as described in (29). (2) Subjacency does not hold. (3) The chain contains either a pronoun or a P. Consider first the data in (30)-(32): (30)

Cet argument, personne ne l'a encore utilisé "This argument, nobody has used it yet"

French Relative Clauses with DONT (31)

*Cet argument, personne n'a encore utilisé "This argument, nobody has used yet"

(32)

A cette attaque, on ne sait trop quoi répondre "To this attack, one does not know what to oppose"

29

(30) and (32), where the chain is case-marked, are acceptable, while (31) with an initial NP and an empty category in S lacks case, and is unacceptable. Note moreover that the relation between the co-indexed categories does not observe Subjacency: (33)

Cette attaque,, nous ne savons [quelle réponsej notre journal décidera [d'yj apporter ej ej]] "This attack, we do not know which answer our newspaper will decide to oppose to it"

(34)

A cette attaque;, nous ne savons [quelle réponsej notre journal décidera [d'apporter ej e,]] "To this attack, we do not know which answer our newspaper will decide to oppose"

If one now turns to relative clauses with a wh-word, one sees that, contrary to the relativization of a NP (cf. (16)), relativization of a PP does not observe Subjacency: one has (36) parallel to (34), but (35) is not good: (35)

*Un argument quej nous ne savons encore [à quelle attaquej notre journal a décidé [de réserver ej ej]] "An argument which we do not know for which attack our newspaper has decided to keep"

(36)

Une attaque à laquelle] nous ne savons encore [quelle réponsej notre journal décidera [d'apporter ej ej]] "An attack to which we do not know yet which answer our newspaper will decide to give"

The data follow if Rule (29) applies in (36), but not in (35), that is, if the structure in (35) does not contain case. Thus, the proposed treatment is consistent with the analysis of the element que/qui of relativization of a NP as a complementizer rather than a pronoun (cf. Kayne, 1974/75). 5 If so, relativization of a NP in French can only be the result of Wh-MVT, not of Rule (29). The syntax of relative clauses in French is thus accounted for by two

30

D. Godard

rules: (1) the well-known Rule of Wh-MVT, and (2) Rule (29). Each of them has its specific property: pertinence of Subjacency for (1), and obligation of case-marking for (2). These rules cannot be collapsed, although both create A-chains syntactically binding a left peripheral phrase and an A-position in S.

3. ANAPHORIC RELATIONS IN THE D O N T - R E L A T I V E CLAUSE

The general idea is to consider the relation between the relativi3.1. zation site and the element in COMP as having properties of anaphoric relations. This requires two hypotheses. The first one consists in extending the binding system proposed in Chomsky (1981). In Chomsky, the occurrence of anaphoric elements is controlled by Binding Principles which are meant to apply to elements whose antecedent is in an A-position. Aoun (1981) proposes to extend their domain of application to elements whose antecedent is in an A-position. This approach allows one to consider the item in COMP as the antecedent of the relativization site and to account for some properties of relative clauses in dont. The first hypothesis implies the second one. The Binding Category is defined as the minimal syntactic category containing both the anaphoric element and an "accessible SUBJECT". A SUBJECT is either the ordinary subject NP, or the AGReement (contained in INFLexion); the basic structure of S is as follows: (37)

NP INFL VP where INFL = [[±Tns], (AGR)], and AGR co-occurs with [+Tns] (Chomsky, 1981:209)

Thus, the minimal syntactic category could be S, rather than S. But it is obvious that it has to be S, since it has to include the COMP position, if Binding Principles apply to relativized structures, and the antecedent is in COMP. This is the case if S is not a major syntactic category on its own, independently of S. In other words, the extension of the Binding system to relativization forces one to make a strong hypothesis concerning the relative status of S and S. This is, itself, an open question. 6 Briefly stated, there are two possibilities: (1) S and S are both, independently, major categories, and, as such, each has its own "head": INFL for S, and COMP for S. (2) S alone is a major category, having as its head both COMP and INFL, which form a discontinuous constituent. One sees immediately how the proposal that relativization sites are anaphoric makes sense only if S is not a major syntactic category, and, thus, not a Binding category.

French Relative Clauses with

DONT

3.2.

Binding Principle B states:

(38)

A pronominal is free in its Binding Category (Chomsky, 1981:220)

31

If the hypotheses presented in 3.1. are correct, one expects that dont and the pronoun cannot occur within the same S. Thus, the contrast between (39) (cf. (4a)) and (40) follows directly: (39)

Un argument dontj on se souvient que personne ne l'ja utilisé "An argument of which one remembers that nobody has used it"

(40)

*Un argument dontj personne ne lj'a utilisé "An argument of which nobody has used it"

But the contrast between (39) and (41) is not expected: (41)

*Un argument dontj personne ne se souvient l'javoir utilisé "An argument of which nobody remembers having used it"

In our terms, (41) indicates that the binding category for the pronoun le which occurs in an infinitival complement S does not co-incide with the complement clause, but with the whole of the relative: a complement clause is a binding category for the pronoun of the dont-relative clause only if it is tensed. 7 Let us go back to the definition of the binding category. It crucially relies on that of an "accessible SUBJECT": the subject NP does not count as an "accessible SUBJECT" for the element in the relativization site, but the AGR (part of the INFLexion of a [+Tns] S) does. This situation is similar to that of negation in French, studied in Milner (1981). In French, negation is composed of two items, the negative particle ne and a second element, the adverb pas or a negative polarity item, personne, rien etc. Milner shows that the relation between ne and a negative polarity item has the properties of an anaphoric relation; precisely, ne and the negative polarity item may occur in two different clauses - matrix and complement S - but not if the complement is tensed, compare (42) and (43): 8 (42)

a. Je; ne veux §[ej voir personne] "I do not want to see anyone" b. Je ne l'j ai vu / - C O N T +SON aSTR -aVOICE/

If we now turn to the other sixteen possible / - N A S / classes defined b y the features CONT SON STR and VOICE as in (12) (12) CONT SON STR VOICE

1 _ _ -

2 _ _ +

3 _ _ + -

4 5 - - + + _ + -

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 - - - + + + + + + + + + + + _ - - _ + + + + _ + + _ _ + + _ _ + + + - + - + - + - + - +

/ - N A S / segment classes we find that of these classes, seven correspond to the traditional classes: voiceless stops /p t k/ (1) voiced stops /b d g/ (2) non-strident voiceless fricatives /0/ (9) non-strident voiced fricatives / 3 / (10) strident voiceless fricatives /f s s/ (11) strident voiced fricatives /v z z/ (12) non-nasal sonorants /r 1 w y/ (14) The affricates /c j/ normally require an additional feature /DEL REL/ but within this framework they could be accounted for as strident stops (classes 3 and 4) to which I return below.

94

Daniel

Hirst

I suggested above that stop + sonorant clusters be analysed as segments with feature values / - C O N T +SON - N A S / . This corresponds to classes (5) and (6), normally ruled out by the filter (10). Relaxing conditions on underlying segments by removing (10) from the grammar means that (7) and (8) are also possible underlying segments. How are we to interpret a voiceless strident sonorant stop (class 7)? The obvious parallel to the treatment of stop + sonorant clusters suggests itself. Since a segment cannot be simultaneously strident, a stop and a sonorant, it will be linearised as a strident segment followed by a stop segment followed by a sonorant segment. (7) can consequently be taken as the underlying segment for clusters /spr/ /str/ /skr/ /spl/ and /skw/ assuming, that /s/ like /r/ is not specified for place features. As we saw, nothing further is needed to explain the mysterious absence of */sr/ since if neither /s/ nor /r/ are specified for place features the underlying segment for /sr/ would be filtered out by principle (8). If /sr/ is given the place features of /s/ i.e. / - H I G H - L A B +COR/ this will be interpreted as defining the marked sonorant /1/ rather than the unmarked fricative. If on the other hand /sr/ is given the place features of /r/ i.e. /+HIGH -LAB +COR/ this will be interpreted as defining the marked fricative /S/ rather than the unmarked sonorant. The other strident fricative plus sonorant clusters /si sw fr fl fw and §r/ are accounted for by class (15) whereas the non-strident class (13) accounts for /0r/ and /0w/. The only remaining class of clusters consists of the fricative + stop clusters /sp/ /st/ and /sk/ which constitute class 3. We arrive, then, at the result that out of sixteen possible classes defined by the features CONT SON STR and VOICE, all except two (classes 8 and 16) actually occur. Furthermore, following what seem to be rather natural well-motivated assumptions, every occurring cluster in English syllable onsets can be non-ambiguously represented as a single underlying segment.

2. THE SINGLE SEGMENT HYPOTHESIS: A RULE OF ENGLISH OR UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR?

The Single Segment Hypothesis as developed above states essentially that in English: (13)

syllable onsets are constituted by a single underlying segment defined by the features /HIGH LAB COR NAS CONT SON STR VOICE/.

The original problem discussed in section 0 above was that of characteris-

Linearisation

and the Single-Segment

Hypothesis

95

ing t h e p a r a m e t e r w h i c h distinguishes languages like Maori f r o m languages like English and these t w o f r o m languages like Polish or Moroccan Arabic. A n obvious candidate for such a parameter is ( 1 3 ) or s o m e t h i n g like it which w o u l d p r e s u m a b l y be a rule of Maori and of English b u t not of Polish or of Moroccan Arabic. In t h e case of Moroccan Arabic, t h e consonant clusters seem clearly polysegmental since t h e m o r p h o l o g y allows t h e m t o be b r o k e n u p b y shwa in certain cases: t h u s there are systematic o p p o s i t i o n s b e t w e e n verbs like: (14)

a. / s x a t /

' t o curse'

b. / w b d /

'to engender'

c. / b r a d /

'to c o o l '

a n d corresponding n o u n s like: (15)

a. / s a x t / b. /wald/ c. / b a r d /

'curse' 'boy' 'cold'

A similar case could p r o b a b l y be m a d e for a polysegmental analysis of Polish onset clusters which p e r h a p s derive diachronically f r o m d i f f e r e n t syllables. A second way in w h i c h languages can vary according t o this h y p o t h e s i s would be d e t e r m i n e d by t h e m o r p h e m e structure c o n d i t i o n s which in Maori virtually limit u n d e r l y i n g segments t o their surface f o r m s b u t w h i c h in English allow practically any c o m b i n a t i o n of features with the exception of / + N A S / clusters. This variation is f u r t h e r b o r n e o u t by the fact that t h e restriction on nasal clusters observed in English is by n o m e a n s observed universally. Clusters consisting of plosive + nasal are fairly widespread ( G e r m a n and Russian are examples as was Old English) as are t h e opposite solution consisting in linearising nasality t o t h e left resulting in pre-nasalised plosives which are c o m m o n in a great n u m b e r of African languages. T h e possibility of language-specific linearisation rules c o n s t i t u t e s a n o t h e r phonological p a r a m e t e r . A good example is given by the / + S T R / clusters in I n d o - E u r o p e a n languages for e x a m p l e . F o r English the linearisation rule (ignoring the problem of affricates m e n t i o n e d above) results in /s/ b e f o r e stops and s o n o r a n t s alike. In Italian + S T R linearises as /s/ b e f o r e stops and / z / b e f o r e s o n o r a n t s . S t a n d a r d F r e n c h is like English for this parameter b u t several n o n - s t a n d a r d speakers, particularly in in S o u t h e r n F r e n c h , linearise / + S T R / as in Italian. In G e r m a n the situation is a little d i f f e r e n t - the u n m a r k e d strident fricative is p e r h a p s /s/ ( f n . 5).

96

Daniel

Hirst

3. FRENCH SHWA A N D THE SINGLE SEGMENT HYPOTHESIS

However attractive a hypothesis may seem, the fact that it provides a solution to a problem which it was designed to solve always leaves some degree of doubt as to whether the hypothesis is a "real" solution, or just an elegant way of manipulating the data. A reasonable expectation would seem to be that "real solutions" should be able to provide interesting new insights into problems other than those they were designed to tackle. The problem of the analysis of French " s h w a " from this point of view provides interesting confirmation for the Single Segment Hypothesis. The facts of the problem are relatively simple. The standard account is that of Dell (1973, 1980). (For more recent accounts see Anderson 1982, Morin 1983a, 1983b.) In the dialect of French described by Dell, / a / is phonetically identical to the open front round vowel /oe/ but phonologically distinct in that the former but not the latter is liable to an optional rule of shwa deletion. Thus 'genet' ( " b r o o m " (plant)) and 'jeunet' ("youngish") are h o m o p h o n o u s in some contexts but not in others. (16)

a. 'genet' /z oe n e / o r /zne/ b. 'jeunet' /z oe ne/ */zne/

One other phonological difference between shwa and /oe/ is that the latter but not the former can occur in syllable-initial position as in 'heureux' /cer/ 'heure' /cer/ and 'eboueur' /ebucer/. Put another way, this means that shwa is always preceded by a consonant. This of course suggests the possibility that shwa is in fact epenthetic in French, so that (16a) and (16b) would be phonologically: (17)

a. /2ne/

b. /zoene/

As Dell pointed o u t , however, this analysis would not explain why shwa can be inserted in some contexts b u t not in others. Thus we find (18)

a. 'pelouse' /pluz/ or /paluz/ b. 'place' /plas/ */p3las/

Note, however, that if we accept the Single Segment Hypothesis, Dell's argument is no longer valid since the initial cluster of 'place' will be analysed as a single segment whereas that of "pelouse" will be analysed as two consecutive segments, just as the initial consonants in the Moroccan Arabic examples needed to be analysed as consecutive segments. An interesting case is provided by the word "pelain" ( " l i m e - p i t " ) which has a variant form "plain". While the word is obviously etymo-

Linearisation

and the Single-Segment

Hypothesis

97

logically related to "peler" and hence phonologically /p.le/, the variant form is a case of reanalysis as a single segment /pi/.

4. CONCLUSION

The Single Segment Hypothesis I propose in this paper makes the claim that one parameter which can be used to characterise the phonological structure of languages is the condition that each underlying consonant be followed by a vowel. The way in which languages group according to this parameter is somewhat surprising since we find English and Maori on the one hand and Polish, Moroccan Arabic and French on the other hand. This hypothesis in fact shows languages as oscillating between conflicting tendancies to simplify surface forms on the one hand and underlying forms on the other hand. A question I have not broached at all in this paper concerns the way in which the Single Segment Hypothesis interacts with more general considerations of phonological structure. The obvious question to be asked is how far can other phonological constituents such as "rime" "peak" or "coda" be analysed as single segments? While I have no real answer to this question to propose here, an interesting approach might be a model in which underlying representations consist of a sequence of segments (fn. 6) which are subsequently built up into surface prosodic categories such as syllable and stress-foot. Under this sort of approach the underlying form for the lexical item "tremble" might consist of three segments corresponding to the surface segments /tr/, /em/ and /bl/ respectively. In French, which might have an identical lexical entry for the same verb the middle segment would be realised as a nasal vowel and the final segment as a syllable final consonant cluster. In English, a surface constraint ruling out nasal vowels will cause the middle segment to be linearised as a vowel plus a nasal consonant homorganic with the following stop. A further surface constraint in English but not in French will cause the final /1/ to be realised as a syllabic sonorant. While a number of implications of this model need to be worked out in detail, the general approach seems a promising line for further investigation.

NOTES 1. Assuming that /r/ is in fact analysed as /+HIGH - L A B +COR/. Note however that this assumption is in no way crucial to what follows. 2. The idea that certain consonant sequences are best analysed as complex segments is not entirely new. Firth ( 1 9 3 6 ) remarked "Consonant groups, such as st, spr, sp, spl, sk, skr, in intial position in [English, are best regarded as group substituents, and

98

Daniel Hirst

no attempt should be made to identify the function o f the letter 1 ' (here part of a digraph or trigraph) with that of a similar letter used in another context." (p. 73). Firth does not, however, appear to have developed this idea any further than this. Other authors have proposed a segmental analysis of certain clusters but not others, thus for example Gimson ( 1 9 6 2 ) discusses the possibility o f analysing /tr/ and /dr/ as affricates "mainly on account of the phonetic relationship of the elements, i.e. the retracted nature of the /t/ and the friction associated with the /r/ in general R P " (p. 168). Fudge ( 1 9 6 9 ) , as mentioned above, proposes to analyse the groups /sp/, /st/' and /sk/ as single segments following a suggestion by Kohler ( 1 9 6 7 ) . Finally, Chomsky & Halle ( 1 9 6 8 ) analyse /kw/ and /gw/ in English, as underlying labialised velars. The most systematic attempt to define surface clusters by a single column of features has been that of Fujimura (cf. Fujimura and Lovins 1978, Fujimura 1 9 7 9 ) who claims that "it is possible to specify uniquely each cluster with a single 'place' feature." (Fujimura and Lovins 1978 p. 12) since final sonorants in Fujimura's (non-standard) feature-system are sufficiently specified by other features. While the basic insight behind Fujimura's work is essentially the same as that developed here, as far as I can gather from Fujimura's examples, his analysis still requires a large number of negative conditions to rule out the non-occurring clusters whereas as I show in sections 1.3.1 and 1.3.2, one of the most persuasive arguments for the Single Segment Hypothesis is the fact that a great number of non-occurring clusters are ruled out without the need for ad-hoc filters. 3. Note that /y/, when part o f a cluster, is assumed here, as in most analyses, to be part of the rhyme rather than of the onset, on the basis, essentially, of the fact that there are few restrictions on what may precede /y/ but many on what may follow it. The situation is, however, reversed when /y/ is not part o f a cluster (cf. 'year', 'yes', 'young' etc.). 4. I assume here a dialect where 'witch' and 'which' are homophonous. The analysis would be marginally different for dialects which distinguish /w/ and /hw/. 5. An alternative analysis of German consonant clusters would take /s/ as the unmarked fricative just as in English and Standard French, but would linearize /+STR/ to the right for /pf/ and /ts/ which would explain the absence of /sp/ and /st/ in Standard German. 6. More strictly a set o f sequences of segments to allow for 'prosodie' phenomena which require a distinct tier o f representation.

REFERENCES Anderson, S. 1982 " T h e analysis of French shwa." Language 58 (3), 5 3 4 - 5 7 3 . Benkirane, T. 1982 Structure et Fonction de la Syllabe en Arabe Marocain. Unpublished doctoral thesis Institut de Phonétique, University o f Provence. Chomsky, Noam 1964 Current Issues in Linguistic Theory. Mouton; The Hague. Chomsky, Noam 1982 The Generative Enterprise. Foris; Dordrecht. Chomsky, N. & M. Halle 1968 The Sound Pattern o f English. Harper & Row, New York. Dell, F. 1973 Les Règles et les Sons. Paris, Herman. Dell, F. 1980 Generative Phonology & French Phonology. London, Cambridge University Press. Firth, J . R . 1936 "Alphabets and Phonology in India and Burma" in J . R . Firth ( 1 9 5 7 ) Papers in Linguistics pp. 5 4 - 7 5 Oxford University Press.

Linearisation

and the Single-Segment

Hypothesis

99

Fudge, E. 1969 "Syllables". Journal of Linguistics 5 (2), 253-286. Fujimura, O. 1979 "English syllables as cores and affixes." Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 32 (4) 471-476. Fujimura, O. & J.B. Lovins 1978 "Syllables as concatenative phonetic units" in A. Bell & J.B. Hooper (eds.) Syllables and Segments. Unabridged version distributed by IULC (1982). Gimson, A.C. 1962 An Introduction to the Pronunciation of English. Edward Arnold, London. Gussman, E. 1980 Studies in Abstract Phonology. MIT Press. Halle, M. 1983. "On distinctive features and their articulatory implementation." Natural Language & Linguistic Theory I (1). Kohler, K.J. 1967 "Die Stellung der Phonologie innerhalb der deskriptiven Linguistik" Phonetica 17, 116-128. Morin, Y.-C. 1983a "Cross-syllabic constraints and the French e - m u e t " . Journal of Linguistic Research 2. Morin, Y.-C. 1983b "Some recent developments in the French verb morphology." Ms. Université de Montreal. Selkirk, Lisa 1978 "On prosodie structure and its relation to syntactic structure" Distributed by Indiana University Linguistics Club. Selkirk, Lisa 1980 "The role of prosodie categories in English word stress". Linguistic Inquiry 12 (3), 563-605. Vergnaud, J . - R . & M. Halle 1978 "Metrical structures in phonology (a fragment of a draft) Unpublished ms. MIT. (Revised 1979).

Chapter 5

Principles of Particle Constructions R i c h a r d S. K a y n e

INTRODUCTION

T h e English c o n s t r u c t i o n exemplified in (1) contains what is o f t e n called a 'particle': (1)

a. J o h n l o o k e d t h e i n f o r m a t i o n u p . b. J o h n looked u p t h e i n f o r m a t i o n .

We shall be primarily interested in ( l a ) ( e x c e p t for section 6 , where ( l b ) is t a k e n u p ) , and in particular in t h e question of the c o n s t i t u e n t structure of t h e VP of ( l a ) ( a n d , in section 6 , of ( l b ) ) . S t a n d a r d a s s u m p t i o n s would a priori allow f o r ( l a ) t h e three possibilities given in ( 2 ) : (2)

a. V NP Prt (flat s t r u c t u r e ) b. [ V N P ] Prt c. V [ NP Prt ]

We would like t o k n o w which of these is c o r r e c t , a n d w h a t t h e principles are that d e t e r m i n e t h e correct choice. A partial answer is provided by our ' u n a m b i g u o u s p a t h s ' principle, i.e. by t h e h y p o t h e s i s that a ternary branching structure such as ( 2 a ) is in general unavailable. 1 T o decide b e t w e e n ( 2 b ) and ( 2 c ) , let us start f r o m t h e idea that a N P can be assigned a 0 - r o l e by V , b u t not by V, 2 generalizing it informally as in ( 3 ) : (3)

A sister of X must be thematically a u t o n o m o u s

A bare ( n o n - a d v e r b i a l ) N P is not thematically a u t o n o m o u s , in this sense, a n d hence m a y not be a sister of V. 3 A s s u m e n o w ( 4 ) : • T h i s paper corresponds in its essentials to a talk given at USC in November 1982 and at the Levels of Syntactic Representation conference in Marseilles in January 1983.

102

Richard S. Kayne

(4)

Particles are not thematically autonomous

This implies that particles may not be sisters of V, thereby eliminating (2b). If so, then the constituent structure of ( l a ) must be as in (2c): V [ N P P r t ]. The body of this article will be devoted to accumulating varied types of evidence in favor of this conclusion. If successful, this will indirectly support the principles responsible for the choice of (2c) - on the one hand (3)-(4), and on the other, the general restriction to binary branching structures that eliminated (2a).

SECTION 1. In attributing to ( l a ) the constituent structure '...looked [the information up]\we are grouping(la) with other constructions such as (5): (5)

John considered Bill honest

These are instances of 'small clauses': ...considered [Bill honest]. Following Stowell (1983), we shall take the head of the small clause in (5) to be the adjective honest. By transposition, we take the head of the small clause in ( l a ) to be the particle up. A significant property of (5) is that it has no derived nominal counterpart: (6)

*John's consideration of Bill honest

We have claimed elsewhere 4 that this lack of derived nominal depends crucially on the fact that (5) does have a small clause structure, and more generally that small clause constructions are systematically excluded from derived nomináis. Consider in this light the observation made by Fraser (1970, 92) concerning the 'V NP Prt' construction: 5 (7)

*The looking of the information up took a long time *The taking of privileges away is a dangerous enterprise *This running of scurrilous pamphlets off has got to stop *His pulling of that bank job off was a real coup

If 'V NP Prt' is an instance of a small clause structure, then (7) is expected, parallel to (6). Another significant property of small clause structures like (5) involves extraction of a subpart of the postverbal NP:

Principles of Particle

Constructions

103

(8)

T h e cold w e a t h e r has g o t t e n J o h n ' s sister q u i t e depressed T h a t makes t h e back of t h e closet o u r last hiding place

(9)

*Who has t h e cold w e a t h e r g o t t e n t h e sister of quite depressed? *Here's t h e closet t h a t t h a t m a k e s t h e back of our last hiding place.

In an SVO language like English, e x t r a c t i o n of t h e subpart of a left branch yields a violation. 6 It is, t h e n , t h e small clause structure of ( 8 ) - ( 9 ) t h a t determines the deviance of t h e latter. In this light, consider ( 1 0 ) and (11): (10)

T h e cold w e a t h e r has w o r n J o h n ' s sister o u t All the p a p e r w o r k has ticked J o h n ' s sister o f f n o end T h e cold w e a t h e r has g o t t e n J o h n ' s sister d o w n T h e low h u m i d i t y has dried half of that b o o k o u t T h e b o m b scare cut J o h n ' s lecture short

(11)

*Who has t h e cold w e a t h e r w o r n t h e sister of o u t ? *He's t h e guy w h o all t h e p a p e r w o r k has ticked t h e sister of off no end *Who has t h e cold w e a t h e r g o t t e n t h e sister of d o w n ? T h e only b o o k that t h e low h u m i d i t y has dried half of o u t is t h a t one *Which professor did t h e b o m b scare cut t h e lecture of short?

T h e a t t r i b u t i o n to these 'V NP P r t ' examples of a small clause structure yields an a c c o u n t of ( 1 1 ) via t h e principle operative in ( 9 ) . T h e deviance of ( 1 1 ) t h u s reinforces t h a t of ( 7 ) in s u p p o r t i n g 'V [ NP Prt ]'. Before turning t o a n o t h e r t y p e of a r g u m e n t in favor of this c o n s t i t u e n t s t r u c t u r e , let us inquire in m o r e detail into t h e illformedness of ( 7 ) . At issue in part is t h e status of o f . If of reflects genitive Case, t h e n ( 6 ) and ( 7 ) could be distinguished f r o m ( 1 2 ) if genitive Case assignment could not take place across a b o u n d a r y : 7 (12)

T h e d e s t r u c t i o n of t h e city t o o k place yesterday T h e building of all those houses was pointless

That of spells o u t genitive Case in ( 1 2 ) is not certain, however (cf. t h e possibility of stranding o f , and t h e wider f r e e d o m of positioning of 'of NP', as c o m p a r e d with a genitive N P in G e r m a n ) . T h u s Stowell ( 1 9 8 1 , 2 4 7 ) has a specific rule of ¿»/-insertion stated so as t o exclude ( 6 ) , again, by taking advantage of t h e small clause boundaries. Alternatively, let us suppose t h a t , apart f r o m designated n o n - a r g u m e n t

104

Richard S. Kayne

elements like there, any phrase that is in subject position with respect to some predicate must be assigned a 0-role, and furthermore that (13) holds: (13)

A subjectless PP must not be assigned a 0-role

This proposal, based on Stowell's (1981) Case Resistance Principle, but deviating from it somewhat, works as follows: Both (6) and (7) have small clause structure, so that the 'of NP' is in subject position with respect to the predicate of the small clause, 8 hence must be assigned a 0-role. But being a subjectless PP itself, it is not allowed to receive a 0-role. This contradictory requirement is what is responsible for the ungrammatically of (6) and (7). (In (12), [pp of NP] is not in subject position and so need not be assigned a 0-role (as opposed to the NP within it).)

SECTION 2. 2.1 The preceding proposal, which prevents normal (subjectless) PP's from being the subject of a predicate, has an interesting consequence for particle constructions, beyond that seen in (7). Consider the fact that English has numerous examples of 'V Prt PP': (14)

John teamed up with Bill They stocked up on foodstuffs Don't mess around with them They're narrowing in on the problem They've done away with free wine He blasted away at them

The order 'V PP Prt' seems systematically unavailable: (15)

*John teamed with Bill up *They stocked on foodstuffs up *Don't mess with them around T h e y ' r e narrowing on the problem in *They've done with free wine away *He blasted at them away

This follows from the principles introduced so far: There are three possible phrase structure analyses:

Principles of Particle (16)

Constructions

105

a. V PP Prt (flat structure) b. [ V P P ] Prt c. V [ PP Prt ]

(16a) is excluded by the restriction to binary branching, (16b) by ( 3 ) - ( 4 ) (particles may not be sisters of V), 9 and (16c) by the exclusion of PP from subject position (here, of a small clause). Thus no stipulation concerning the relative order of Prt and PP is necessary. The constituent structure of (14) is ' [ V P r t ] PP', 1 0 which is compatible with all of the above principles. Consider now the relative order of particles and adverbs: (17)

J o h n gave up immediately He made out poorly

(18)

*John gave immediately up *He made poorly out

The order 'V Adv Prt' is excluded here: as a flat structure, by the binary branching requirement; as '[ V Adv ] Prt', by ( 3 ) - ( 4 ) ; as 'V [ Adv Prt ] ' qua small clause, by an extension of the discussion of PP subjects. If [ Adv Prt ] is taken as a small clause, then Adv is in subject position, and thus must be assigned a 0 - r o l e . But adverbs are plausibly prohibited from receiving 0-roles, just as were subjectless PP's. There is one remaining hope for 'V Adv Prt', and that is as 'V [ A d v Prt ] ' , with the adverb taken rather as a modifier of the particle itself. (The adverb could not be taken to modify the verb, on the assumption that verb modification requires being a sister to some V-projection, since sisterhood to V 1 has been ruled out for the adverb in (18) by our principles.) In other words, (18) might be possible with adverbs that can reasonably be interpreted as modifying the particle, and in fact some such cases seem to exist: (19)

He walked quickly away

(20)

?She sat slowly up

Note that it would not be desirable to try to particle movement from the structure '[ V P r t He walked away quickly, She sat up slowly), as discussed above, and in part because that (21):

derive (19) by rightward ] Adv' of (17) (i.e. from in part because of (15), would leave unexplained

106

Richard S. Kayne

(21)

*He walked fast away

(vs. He walked away fast). Whereas by analyzing (19) as 'V [ Adv Prt ]', we can relate (19) vs. (21) to (22) vs. (23): (22)

He quickly left the room

(23)

*He fast left the room

Adverbs in -ly can be left-branch modifiers much more readily than 'adverbs' identical in form to adjectives. 11 2.2

English sentences can be of the form '...V Prt S':

(24)

She pointed out that he was wrong They're trying to make out that he's a drunkard He blurted out that he was guilty They found out that they were right

The order '...V S PRT' is not available: (25)

*She pointed that he was wrong (right) out (to him) T h e y ' r e trying to make that he's a drunkard out *He blurted that he was angry (right) out (to the judge) *They found that they were needed out (from John)

As before, '...V S Prt' cannot be a flat structure, by binary branching; nor '[ V S ] Prt', by (3)-(4). That leaves only 'V [ S Prt ]', in which S is the subject of the particle-headed small clause. But there is good reason to believe that at least tensed S's are excluded form subject position. 12 In which case (25) is accounted for, there being no viable structure at all for ' . . . V S Prt'. The complexity or heaviness of the immediately postverbal constituent in (25) cannot bear the brunt of the deviance of (25), given (26): (26)

?She pointed something he didn't know (right) out (to him) ?He blurted something he shouldn't have (right) out (to the judge)

A complex or heavy NP yields a lesser degree of deviance, to our ear. 13 Somewhat similarly, we find that gerundive equivalents of (25) are better, as gerunds in subject position are better than tensed S (though the improvement here is less massive):

Principles of Particle (27)

Constructions

107

?He says he's going to give playing chess up in favor of playing Scrabble

This recalls the fact that certain PP's (seemingly referential) are possible in the subject position of certain S's, and in the subject position of certain particle-headed small clauses: (28)

Is under the bed a good hiding place?

(29)

?I bet they pick under the bed out as their new hiding place

3.1 Raising to subject position, as with seem, is compatible in English with particles: (30)

a. There turned out to be a problem b. There ended up being a surplus c. There went on being surpluses

The particle may not, however, appear to the right of the infinitival or gerundive S or S : (31)

a. *There turned t o be a problem out b. *There ended being a surplus up c. *There went being surpluses on

In particular, (31b) and (31c) contrast sharply with (27). The crucial difference would appear to be one between raising (in (31)) and control (in (27)), i.e. between NP-trace and PRO. For (31a) an additional factor, akin to (25), might be at work, but that would not affect the contrast between (31 b ) - ( 3 1 c) and (27). Furthermore, the small clause counterparts of (31) display the same behavior: (32)

a. John turned out intelligent b. He ended up a linguist

(33)

a. *John turned intelligent out b. *He ended a linguist up

By taking (31) and (33) to contain NP-trace, an empty category which is subject, unlike PRO, to the ECP proper government requirement, we have a straightforward solution: The structures of (31a) and (33b), for example, are as in (34):

108

Richard S. Kayne

(34)

a. There; turned [ [ [ e to be a problem ] out ] b. Hej ended [ [ [ e ] j a linguist ] up ]

The particle-headed small clauses are imposed by binary branching plus the prohibition against a particle sister to V. The inner (small) clause in each corresponds to the hypothesis of raising. 14 In other words, (31) and (33) must have what we might call double (small) clause structures, with one (small) clause embedded inside another. Now, the ECP requires that [ e ]j in (34) be properly governed. The antecedent there^jhe^ is too distant, so that proper government of [ e ]j implies government of [ e ]j by the matrix V turned/ended. This V is separated from [ e ]j by two (small) clause boundaries. The simplest interpretation of Stowell's (1983) hypothesis concerning small clauses is that they are maximal projections of their head. 15 If so, then, since all characterizations of the government relation agree that having two intervening maximal projections is incompatible with the relation, it follows that in (34) [ e ]j is not governed by the matrix V, hence not properly governed. The ungrammaticality of (31) and (33) is thus due to the ECP. The grammaticality of (30) and (32) is likewise understandable: For example, (30a) and (32b) can have the structures in (35): (35)

a. There; [ turned [ [ e ]j out ] ] [ [ e ] j to be a problem ]j b. Hej [ ended [ [ e ]j up ] ] [ [ e ]j a linguist ]j

In these, the inner (small) clause has been removed from the outer one and adjoined to V, a la Heavy-NP-Shift or extraposition. Consequently, [ e ]j is separated from V (or V) by only one (small) clause boundary, i.e. by only one maximal projection, and so can be taken to be governed, hence properly governed, by V (or V). (We are taking the presence of a single intervening small clause boundary to be compatible with government.) In summary so far, the fact that '...V XP Prt' is ill-formed for XP=PP, Adv (when modifying V), tensed S, infinitival S with raising, and small clause with raising is a consequence of the interaction of various principles (primarily binary branching, (3)-(4), (13), ECP) and does not need to be specified as a series of properties of particles or coded into PS-rules. 16 3.2 We turn now to a more complex case involving a verb followed by '...NP Prt NP': (36)

They're trying to make John out a liar

This sentence is paradoxical in that the relationship of John to a liar looks as if it is the same as in (37):

Principles of Particle (37)

Constructions

109

T h e y ' r e calling J o h n a liar

Y e t , whereas ( 3 7 ) is straightforwardly analyzable in t e r m s of a small clause [John a liar], ( 3 6 ) a p p a r e n t l y contains n o such c o n s t i t u e n t . At t h e same t i m e , t h e particle out, which clearly goes w i t h make ( c f . t h e second e x a m p l e of ( 2 4 ) ) , seems t o c o m e in t h e m i d d l e of w h a t should be a small clause. Moreover, a l t h o u g h a particle is usually free t o position itself on either side of a N P (cf. ( 1 ) ) , the m i d d l e position in ( 3 6 ) is t h e only acceptable o n e : 1 7 (38)

* T h e y ' r e trying to m a k e J o h n a liar o u t

(39)

* ? T h e y ' r e trying t o m a k e o u t J o h n a liar

Let us begin b y trying t o f i n d a c o n s t i t u e n t s t r u c t u r e for ( 3 6 ) . T h e particle out m u s t n o t be a sister of V , by ( 3 ) - ( 4 ) . T h e r e f o r e it m u s t have as its sister n o d e either John or a liar. If t h e f o r m e r , t h e n , given binary branching, John does not c - c o m m a n d a liar; this is plausibly illicit, given t h a t a liar is predicated of John - cf. n o t e 14 and Williams ( 1 9 8 0 ) . If t h e latter, then out is not t h e intransitive preposition it is held t o be ( c f . E m o n d s ( 1 9 7 6 ) ) , in its use as a particle; put a n o t h e r w a y , t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of ( 3 6 ) does not seem c o m p a t i b l e with a liar being t h e o b j e c t of out. Conseq u e n t l y , there is n o reasonable c o n s t i t u e n t structure for ( 3 6 ) - unless we look t o t h e possibility of e m p t y categories, i.e. t o t h e idea t h a t t h e S - s t r u c t u r e of ( 3 6 ) differs f r o m its D - s t r u c t u r e . This allows us t o postulate a D - s t r u c t u r e that represents in a maximally simple way t h e relation b e t w e e n John and a liar, a n d at t h e same time keeps t h e make...out relation in standard V . . . P r t f o r m : 1 8 (40)

. . . m a k e [ [ J o h n a liar ] o u t ]

In ( 4 0 ) , [John a liar] is a small clause of t h e t y p e f o u n d in ( 3 7 ) . T h e V . . . P r t relation is exactly as in 'V [ N P P r t ]', with a small clause in place of NP. In f a c t , ( 4 0 ) is exactly parallel t o t h e D - s t r u c t u r e of ( 3 4 b ) , apart f r o m the fact that t h e subject position of make is t h e m a t i c (filled at D s t r u c t u r e ) , while that of ( 3 4 b ) is n o n - t h e m a t i c ( e m p t y at D - s t r u c t u r e ) . Our discussion of ( 3 4 ) carries over t o ( 4 0 ) : As a f u n c t i o n of t h e t w o small clause boundaries, John is not governed by make, so that t h e r e is a Case filter violation. This provides t h e awaited a c c o u n t of t h e ungramm a t i c a l l y of ( 3 8 ) . T h e ECP violation of ( 3 4 ) is r e p r o d u c e d exactly in ( 4 1 ) , which has u n d e r g o n e N P - m o v e m e n t : (41)

* J o h n has been m a d e a liar out

110

Richard S. Kayne

The structure is as in (42): (42)

Johrij has been made [ [ [ e ] j a liar ] out ]

The ECP accounts in similar fashion for (43) and (44): (43)

*Who are you trying to make a liar out?

(44)

*They were making a liar out not only Bill, but also his brother

The question now is how to derive the acceptable (36) from the D-structure (40). To do so by moving the particle out leftward in between John and a liar seems undesirable: First, if such movement left a trace, that trace would not be c-commanded by its antecedent (and if it did not, then the subject-head relation between the small clause and out would have been altered between D-structure and S-structure, arguably a violation of a version of the (Extended) Projection Principle). 19 Second, if the particle could be so moved, what would prevent it from being moved to the left of John, thereby incorrectly deriving (39)? Third, if such particle movement down into the middle of a small clause were possible in English, then we might expect it to be in German or Dutch, which could then have VP's of the form: ...John Prt a liar V; as far as we know, none exist. Fourth, leftward particle movement would provide no straightforward way of accounting for the W/z-extraction prohibition concerning a liar in (36) to be discussed shortly. We conclude that (36) must be derived from (40) via rightward movement of a liar: (45)

...make [ [ John [ e ]j ] out] a liarj

Whether a liar is adjoined to the phrase headed by out or to V, a liar will c-command its trace, as desired. The problem of avoiding the generation of (39) is solved, too: Rightward movement of a liar could never yield (39), which could apparently be derived from (40) by rightward movement of the entire inner small clause: (46)

...make [ [ e ]j out ] [ John a liar ]j

This structure is excluded, however, by the Case filter, as follows: If the inner small clause is adjoined to the one headed by out, then John remains separated from make by two maximal projections, the one whose head is out and the one whose head is a liar. Therefore, John cannot receive Case. If the inner small clause is adjoined to V (binary branching

Principles

of Particle

Constructions

111

prohibits attaching it as a daughter to V), then John is separated from make by only one maximal projection (that of a liar), but can still not receive Case from make, this time because make does not strictly c command it (in the sense of 'first branching node up'). 2 0 The fact that there seems to be no counterpart in Dutch or German to (45), with V at the right-hand end of the VP, could perhaps be understood as follows: Given '...[ [ John a liar ] Prt ] V', rightward movement of a liar (i.e. of its counterpart) to a position in between Prt and V would require, given binary branching and c - c o m m a n d requirements, rightadjunction of a liar to the small clause headed by Prt, but right-adjunction of NP to XP is extremely marginal in Dutch and German, in particular in the case of right-adjunction of NP to VP, 2 1 contrary to English. In other words, there may be a generalization spanning (45) and rightward H e a v y - N P - S h i f t , with both allowed in English and neither in Dutch/ German. We turn now to the question of W/i-extraction alluded to above. With (36) in mind, consider the result of applying Wh-movement to each of the NP's: (47)

Who are they trying to make out a liar?

(48)

*?What kind of a liar are they trying to make Bill out?

We can take (47) to have a structure just like (45), with [ e ] (a variable) in place of John. Why, then, can (48) not successfully have a structure like (45) with [ e ] in place of a liarV. (49)

[What kind of a liarjj.. .make [ [ Bill [ e \ ] out ] [ e

The essential difference appears to be that in (45) John is in an A-position, but a liar is not. Consequently, an empty category in place of John can straightforwardly be a variable, but an empty category in place of a liar cannot, since a variable must be in an A-position. The question arises, of course, as to why the leftmost [ e ]; in (49) could not be taken as the variable. A plausible answer is that a variable must be locally bound by an operator phrase, and that the left-most [ e ]j in (49) is locally bound by the other [ e ]j, rather than by the Wh-phrase.22 IV/z-movement of a predicative NP yields a clearly more acceptable result than (48) in (50): (50)

What kind of outfielder do you think they'll make Bill? How good a shortstop do you consider Bill?

112

Richard S. Kayne

A variable can thus, reconstruction aside, occupy the base position of a predicate NP, a natural extension of the A-position requirement. Why, then, can (48) not be derived directly from the D-structure underlying (45), i.e. from (40)? The resulting S-structure would be: (51)

[What kind of a liar Jj... make [ [Bill [ e ] j ] out ]

This is excluded, as desired, by a Case filter violation on Bill, which, as discussed above, is not governed by make, because two maximal projections (small clause boundaries) intervene. In (50), there is only one such boundary. There is in addition in (51) an ECP violation with respect to [ e ] j, not governed by make because of the same two boundaries. There seems to be a clear contrast between (48) and (52), as pointed out to us by I. Heim: (52)

How intelligent did he turn out? How poor did he end up?

This contrast can be attributed to a structure of the type given above in (35): (53)

[How intelligent]¿...he^ turn [ [ e ]j out ] [ [ e J^ [ e

]j

Here, adjunction of the inner small clause to V, made possible by [ e not needing Case (cf. note 20), has the effect that [ e ] j is separated from the V-projection by only one small clause boundary. An important question is that of the status of W/2-movement as applied to the passive of (36): (54)

John has been made out a liar (by more people than...)

(55)

??What kind of a liar has he been made out this time (by all those people)?

If (55) is ungrammatical, it must be that in it the trace of he needs to be in a configuration compatible with Case assignment or with Case absorption; the latter would then also require strict c-command by a category of Case-assigning type. 3.3 What permits (36), with the structure (56) (=(45)), to avoid a Case filter violation on John of the type that ruled out (38), (39) and (51)?

Principles of Particle (56)

Constructions

113

...make [ [ John [ e ]j ] out ] a liarj

John is separated from make by two maximal projections, yet here there is no violation. Our proposal is that, as a result of rightward NP-movement, the inner small clause ceases to be a barrier to the government of John from without. One way to accomplish this is by having L-containment 2 3 be a necessary condition for barrierhood, as in (57): (57)

In [ if

...Y...], a can count as a barrier to government for Y only contains lexical material

If nothing further is said, then one of the two violations in (51) drops away, since by (57), Bill is separated from make by only one effective barrier. The ECP violation on [ e ]j in (51) is not affected by (57). 2 4 One might wonder why there is no ECP violation in (56). The intuitive answer is that the antecedent of [ e ]j in (56) is much closer to it than in (51). More precisely, let us assume that in (56) a liarx is adjoined to the small clause headed by out. Then it is separated from [ e ]j by only one maximal projection 2 5 (which is, perhaps crucially, coindexed with a liarj (if Williams (1982, 279) is correct about index sharing among projections)). Our claim, in other words, is that [ e ] j in (56) is properly governed by its own antecedent. Such proper government by the antecedent is clearly unavailable in (51). 3.4 There is a contrast between (58) (=(39)) and (59) that remains to be accounted for: (58)

*?They're trying to make out John a liar

(59)

(?)They're trying to make out John to be a liar

As expected, (60) is possible, parallel to (36), and (61) impossible, parallel to (38): (60)

They're trying to make John out to be a liar

(61)

*They're trying to make John to be a liar out

In discussing (46), we noted in effect (transposing now) that (59) cannot be derived from the D-structure resembling (61) simply by moving the infinitival S around the particle (to give (62)), since that could not undo the Case violation in (61), no matter where the infinitival S was adjoined:

114 (62)

Richard S. Kayne .. .make [ [ e ]j out ] [ John to be a liar ]j

Something further is required to allow (59), and to distinguish it from (58). To allow (59), let us propose that additional rightward movement can take place, namely of the VP, 26 yielding (63): (63)

...make [ [ e ]j out ] [ John [ e

]j [ to be a liar

Take [John [ e ]j to be adjoined to the small clause headed by out. Then John is separated from make by two maximal projections, that of out, on the one hand, and the infinitival Sj on the other. But the latter does not L-contain, and so does not count as a barrier for John. Consequently, John is governed by and can receive Case from make in (63) (though not in (62)). Examples (59) and (60) have a tensed counterpart in (64): (64)

They're trying to make out that John is a liar

(65)

They're trying to make out that advantage was taken of them

But the infinitival counterparts of (65) are worse than (59) or (60): (66)

T h e y ' r e trying to make out advantage to have been taken of them

(67)

*They're trying to make advantage out to have been taken of them

Similarly in: (68)

*They're trying to make out there to be no solution to this problem

(69)

*They're trying to make there out to be no solution to this problem

Under our analysis (66)-(69) must all involve rightward movement of io-VP (to avoid a Case filter violation). There is thus a link to (70) vs. (71): (70)

I've believed John for a long time now to be a liar

(71)

*I've believed there for a long time now to be no solution to this problem *I've believed advantage for a long time now to have been taken of me

Principles of Particle

Constructions

115

It seems that rightward movement of to-VP is prohibited when the subject NP is an idiom chunk or there.21 However, the passives of ( 6 6 ) - ( 7 1 ) are improved: (72)

?Advantage was made out to have been taken of them (?)There was made out to be no solution to this problem

(73)

(?)There has been believed for a long time now to be no solution to this problem ?Advantage has been believed for a long time now to be taken of the poor

Our solution runs as follows: Chomsky's (1981, 41; 1982, 10) Extended Projection Principle holds at all syntactic levels of representation. Movement of to-VP yields an instance of i o - V P with no syntactic subject. Therefore movement of f o - V P must give rise to the appearance of a new adjoined subject NP: (74)

...believed [ John:j [ e ]=l ] for a long time [ U e ] [ to VP ] • ] rNij

Although a kind of structure building, this process seems compatible with the letter and spirit of the Projection Principle. 28 What is, then, the status of [ e ]j, the new NP? Clearly, it is not c-commanded by John-y and so cannot be NP-trace, and similarly in the make out examples. Rather, it must be PRO in all. Whence an account of (66)-(71), since there and idiom chunks are disfavored as controllers of PRO: (75)

*There were reptiles before being mammals *Advantage was taken of John's inattention before being taken of his stupidity

The improved status of (72)-(73) is in this view due to the fact that passivization raises the NP subject of the infinitive to a position where it does c-command the newly created [ e ]j subject, which can then be taken to be N P - t r a c e f P R O . 2 9

SECTION 4.

4.1 In section 3, we examined sentences containing a small clause plus a particle: (76)

They're trying to make John out a liar (=(36))

116

Richard S. Kayne

(77)

*They're trying to make John a liar out (=(38))

(78)

*?They're trying to make out John a liar (=(39))

There is a striking resemblance between this pattern of data and the following: (79)

They handed John down the tools

(80)

T h e y handed John the tools down

(81)

*?They handed down John the tools

The construction in (76)-(78) has the property that Wz-movement of the second NP leads to deviance: (82)

*?What kind of a liar are they trying to make John out? (=(48))

That of (79)-(81) has the same property: 30 (83)

*?What kind of tools did they hand John down?

We would like to claim that the positioning of the particle in (79)-(81), as well as the deviance of extraction in (83), can be made sense of under our analysis, in essentially the same way that (76)-(78) and (82) were made sense of in section 3. The basic point is that (79)-(81), (83) also involve a small clause plus a particle. The difference between these and the make out cases lies in the type of small clause. With make out, the small clause is predicative in nature, while with hand down it is possessive. We are relying here on proposals made elsewhere31 concerning the constituent structure of simpler sentences such as (84): (84)

They handed John the tools

We argued that these are of the form: (85)

.. .handed [ John the tools ]

That is, the two NP's form a constituent that does not include the verb. This small clause, to extend the use of the term a bit, conveys a possessive relation of a certain sort between John and the tools (John has the tools as a result of the handing). It is natural to think that (79) differs from (84) simply in having a particle that (84) lacks.

Principles of Particle

Constructions

117

Just as we derived (76) from a D-structure resembling (77), so will we propose to derive (79) from a D-structure resembling (80). Let us first consider (80) more closely. Given the restriction to binary branching and the requirement that the particle be strictly c - c o m m a n d e d by V, (80) lends itself to two constitutent structures. One is as in (86): (86)

. ..handed [ J o h n [ the tools [ down ] ] ]

If the particle here is t o be in the same relation to the verb as in all the other cases we have been considering, i.e. if it is to be the head of the sister constituent of V, then (86) must contain a constituent headed by down and having two pre-head NP's. The NP immediately to the left of down would plausibly be able to receive a subject-like 0 - r o l e from down, much as in the general case of 'V [ NP Prt ]'. But the first NP has under these assumptions no natural means of obtaining a 0 - r o l e . We conclude that (86) is not well-formed. The alternative structure for (80) is (87): (87)

...handed [ [ J o h n the tools ] down ]

Here the single 0 - r o l e assigned by down goes to the small clause. On the face of it, neither John nor the tools has any means whatsoever of obtaining a 0 - r o l e . The same is in fact true of (85). For this and other reasons, the analysis of ours alluded to in note 31 attributes to both (85) and (87) an additional element, namely an empty preposition (for convenience noted as P e ) : (88)

.. .handed [ [ P e J o h n ] the tools ]

(89)

...handed [ [ [ P e John ] the tools ] down ]

We take P e to be the source of the 0 - r o l e for both NP's in both (88) and (89), much as the preposition u in Russian must be the source of two 0-roles in (90): (90)

U Ivana kniga by John book ( ' J o h n has a book')

The empty preposition in (88) has, in conjunction with the small clause structure, the important effect of providing an account of (91): (91)

*?Who should we hand the tools?

118

Richard S. Kay ne

This is so, since in (88), John is a proper subpart of a left branch - cf. the discussion of ( 8 ) - ( l l ) . 3 2 Although (88) and (89) are both well-formed from the point of view of the 0-criterion, only the former respects the Case filter. Case is assigned by V to [pp P e John ] and then transmitted via P e to John. Thus, for John to receive Case, the PP headed by the empty preposition must itself be in a Case-receiving environment, as it is in (88). In (89), on the other hand, that PP may not receive Case from V, since it is separated from V by two maximal projections (two small clause boundaries). Consequently, (89) as it stands corresponds to no well-formed S-structure. This completes the account of (80). To derive (79) from the D-structure (89), we proceed exactly as for (76). Rightward NP-movement (an instance of Move a) applies to the tools, yielding (92): (92)

.. .handed [ [ [ P £ John ] [ e ] i ] down] [ the tools ] j

By (57) (L-containment), the inner small clause boundary is then no longer a barrier to the government relation between V and [?eJohn ]. Since there is only one other intervening maximal projection, that of down, hand governs that PP, and John successfully receives Case via P e . Although the inner small clause does not L-contain the PP, it does L-contain [ e ]j. Consequently, [ e ]j in (92) is not governed by hand. This [ e ] j is nevertheless compatible with the ECP, since [ e ]j is properly governed by its antecedent the tools, assuming, exactly as in the discussion of (56), that the tools is adjoined to a projection of down (rather than to V). Adjunction to the particle-headed phrase is desirable for another reason, having to do with the Case of the tools. Since [ e ] j is not governed by hand, the tools cannot get Case via its trace, and so must be assigned Case directly. That would not be admissible were the tools adjoined to V, since objective Case assignment requires strict c-command by the lexical category - cf. the discussion of (46). If, on the other hand, the tools in (92) is adjoined to a projection of down, then the tools is ccommanded by V, and can be assigned Case in place. This is, then, an example of Case assignment to an A-position, a phenomenon familiar from instances of Case assignment into COMP.33 The empty category in (92) is in a position to which a 0-role is assigned, and so must be in a chain marked with Case. Since no Case is assigned to it directly, the empty category is thereby forced to be in a chain with the tools. Put another way, the tools in (92) must be part of a thematic chain, and may thus not be taken to be an operator. 34 Consider now the following judgments:

Principles of Particle

Constructions

119

(93)

a. ?I'm planning to send Mary, before typing up for John, all the reports that I've written this week b. ?I'm planning to send out to Mary, before typing up for John, all the reports that I've written this week

(94)

*?I'm planning to send Mary out, before typing up for John, all the reports that I've written this week

In (93), we can take the rightward moved NP to be an operator phrase binding a Case-marked empty category functioning as a variable. In (94) we cannot. If (94) has a structure identical to (92) except for having an interpolated adverbial clause with a parasitic gap, then (94) is excluded since the final NP must be an operator if it is to bind the parasitic gap properly, but must not be an operator if it is to be in a chain with [ e ]j for Case reasons. We expect correctly that dropping the parasitic gap from (94), and thus relieving the pressure of contradiction, will yield improvement: (95)

(?)I'm planning to send Mary out before noon all the reports that I've written this week

If we try t o salvage (94) by associating with it a structure like (92), but in which the final NP has been moved rightward a second time, we neutralize the operator/nonoperator contradiction (the new [ e ] j can be a Casemarked nonoperator and the lexical NP an operator), but at the expense of a structure in which the operator NP binds no correct variable (the new [ e is not in an A-position, and the original one is not locally bound by the operator phrase), exactly as in the discussion of (49) (which carries over also for (83)). The implication is that rightward NP movement, or put another way, a right-adjoined position, is a priori neutral with respect to the distinction operator vs. nonoperator, the choice in any particular case being determined in effect by the interaction of other principles. This is essentially the same claim as that made in Kayne (1984, chapter 10) for leftward adjunction to S. Returning t o (92), the S-structure of (79), we note that, as just mentioned, the position of the took, not being an A-position, is not appropriate for a variable, and furthermore that the [ e ]j in the A-position within the inner small clause will not be locally bound by a Wz-phrase moved from the position of the tools, so that in (83), the Mz-phrase binds no variable correctly, whence the violation. Wz-movement of the first NP in (79) yields a left-branch violation exactly as in (91): 3 5

120 (96)

Richard S. Kayne *?Who should we hand down the tools?

Consider now (81), whose notation as *? is somewhat over-simplified. It seems to us that (81) is more often rejected than not, by a substantial margin, but there clearly exists a non-negligible minority that accepts at least some sentences of that form. 3 6 For example, Stowell ( 1 9 8 4 , 3 4 1 ) accepts (97): (97)

%The board sent out the stockholders an announcement

But he rejects (p. 342) Mz-movement in (98), as with (83): (98)

T h i s is the announcement which the board sent out the members

The ungrammaticality of (98), if representative, is a strong indication that (97) has essentially the same D-structure as (79) does, namely (89). We speculate that (97) is derived parallel to (79) except for one extra rightward movement (of the entire inner small clause, as in (46)/(63)), and that this extra 'complexity' is tolerated by some and not by others (for reasons that we do not understand). In this view, (97) has the S structure: (99)

...sent [ [ e ]j out ] [ [ P e the stockh. ] [ e ], ]j [the ann.Jj

In (99), both adjunctions must be to projections of out, otherwise neither NP could get Case (send must strictly c-command the positions to which it assigns Case). The announcement is in an A-position, just as the tools in (92) (if the announcement were left in place, neither NP would be able to receive Case or to be governed by V). Therefore (98) is excluded, for reasons of A-position and local binding requirements on variables, exactly as (94), (83) and (48). 4.2. As Emonds (1976, 83) has noted, the particle back can contrast minimally with (80): (100) You should give John his books back We see no natural way in which the structure in (89) can be allowed to surface with back but not with other particles. 37 We suggest, therefore, that (100) is instead an instance of the structure of type (86), repeated here with P e added: (101)

...V [ [ P e N P j ] [ N P 2 P r t ] ]

Principles of Particle

Constructions

121

Earlier, we claimed that (101) violated the 0-criterion. We would like to maintain that claim, while modifying it somewhat to take into account the presence of P e . Assume that P e must assign two 6-roles (in effect 'possessed' and 'possessor'), and that both must normally be assigned to NP's. Then (101) is excluded because in it P e can assign, apart from NPj, a 0-role only to the non-NP particle headed small clause [ NP2 Prt ] (NP2 itself is neither a sister of P e nor in a subject-like configuration with it). To allow (100), his books back must be capable of receiving a 0-role from P e . Therefore, his books back in (100) must either be a projection of back that is exceptional in being able to function parallel to NP with respect to 6-marking, or else a projection of books, i.e. a NP, as suggested to us by D. Pesetsky.38

SECTION 5. The 'V [ N P P r t ] ' structure that our analysis imposes on (102) 5.1 is semantically transparent in the sense that the small clause can be taken to express directly the result of the turning: (102) John turned the radio off This is comparable to standard small clause adjectival examples like (103), in which the small clause again expresses a result: (103) John made Bill unhappy Further examples on the order of (102) are: (104) John stared Bill down He bid the stakes up He worked some weight off You should clean the crumbs off They signed their rights away He slept his hangover off He shouted us down In all of these, the postverbal NP is much more naturally interpreted as subject of the particle than as object of V. These so-called resultatives have been argued by van Voorst (1983) to be instances of small clauses in the general case in Dutch. Some examples of non-particle resultatives are:

122

Richard S. Kayne

(105) They talked John into joining He slept himself into a stupor He'll eat his parents out of house and home They drank themselves silly The result in all these cases is expressed by a small clause that is the object of the verb. This leads to a straightforward understanding of the absence of sentences like (106), noted but not accounted for by Simpson (1983a): (106)

*John drank whiskey silly

This cannot mean that drinking whiskey caused John to be silly. The reason is in part that John and silly cannot form a small clause in (106), in part that even with an empty subject associated with it, silly could not be the object of V. The impossibility of (107) (with PRO) in the resultative sense is a consequence of the limited distribution of PRO, which would illegitimately be governed by V: (107)

*John drank silly

There is another type of resultative sentence, both with particles, as in (108), and non-particles, as in (109): (108) John wound the clock up They starved the soldiers out They sponged the water up (109) They hammered the metal flat They starved John into giving up In these, the postverbal NP could at first glance equally well be taken as the subject of the particle, AP or PP, or else as the object of V. Thus, the structure of (108)-(109) might be: '[ V NP ] [ PRO XP ]'. However, not every understood semantic relation is necessarily syntactically represented, even for objects - cf. Kayne (1984, section 3.1) and (110): (110) A little more hammering should get that metal flat More importantly, the syntactic behavior of (108) and (109) is much like that of (102)-(105), in ways that clearly suggest a 'V [ N P X P ] ' structure for (108) and (109), too. It is useful to use as a control (111), the structure of which is arguably [ V NP ] [ PRO AP ]:

Principles of Particle (111)

Constructions

123

John eats his meat raw

We have in mind two syntactic probes. The first is derived nomináis: (112)

The eating of one's meat raw is not a good idea

(113)

*The winding of that clock u p won't be easy *The starving of one's enemy out is unjustifiable *The sponging of that water up will take hours

(114)

*The starving of J o h n into giving u p could have been avoided. *The hammering of metal flat is exceedingly difficult.

To our ear, (113) and (114) have the status of (7), and can be accounted for in the same way, if (113) and (114) are instances of V+small clause. The second probe uses extraction: (115)

the hunter that the lion ate the knuckles of raw

Although (115) seems possible in the sense of (111), it does not seem possible to us (cf. however note 6) in the resultative sense (e.g. a lion cub playfully chewing on the hunter's hands). Again, this follows, as in the discussion of (11), if the resultative sense of (115) is necessarily conveyed by a V+small clause structure. The difference in structure between ( 1 0 8 ) - ( 1 0 9 ) on the one hand and (111) on the other is supported by an observation concerning prepositions: (116)

(?)Why, he's so enamoured of that chair, he'd even sit in it unpainted

A [ PRO AP ] small clause seems possible when modifying the object of a preposition. 3 9 Although (116) is delicate, there is no comparison between its status and that of (117), in the resultative sense: (117)

a. *He stepped on it dead b. *He stepped on it into nothingness

Versus: (118)

a. He squashed it dead b. He crushed it into nothingness

124

Richard S. Kayne

The generalization seems to be that small clauses may never themselves be objects of prepositions.40 But this makes sense only if (117a) is the '...P [ NP AP ]' counterpart of (118a), which must then be 'V [ NP AP ]', despite the intuition that the NP could have been the object of V. Despite the ungrammatically of (117) and its passive counterpart (119), there is no corresponding sentence with PRO in (120): (119) *It was stepped on dead by Johnny. (* as a resultative) (120) *He stepped on sore In other words, the widespread complementarity between PRO on the one hand and lexical NP and NP-trace on the other does not hold for the subject position of argument small clauses. Another example is (121), alongside (38) and (41): (121) *John is trying to make a liar out 41 Another class of 'V [NPPrt ]' sentences have an idiomatic char5.2 acter, one example being (122): (122) John looked the information (right) up The idiomatic parts of (122) are V and Prt, which do not form a constituent (although the phrase headed by Prt forms a constituent with V). This is of course quite unexceptional (the idiomatic pieces are italicized): (123) John lost his cool The cat has John's tongue You should give John his due They are leading John a merry chase

SECTION 6.

6.1 The resultative particle constructions of (104) and (108) have counterparts of the form 'V Prt NP': (124) John stared down Bill He bid up the stakes He worked off some weight., etc.

Principles of Particle (125)

Constructions

125

He wound up the clock They starved out the soldiers., etc.

The result interpretation seems quite unchanged. It is difficult not to attribute to (124)-(125) the same D-structure as their counterparts in (104) and (108), namely ' . . . V [ N P P r t ]'. The derivation of (124)-(125) therefore involves a movement rule. Leftward particle movement to a position sister to V is prohibited by the binary branching requirement. Leftward particle adjunction to V would leave a trace not properly c-commanded by its antecedent; if no trace were left, the result small clause would cease to exist, in violation of the Projection Principle. Furthermore, both variants of leftward particle adjunction are subject to at least some of the objections levelled against the complex V analysis below. We conclude that the derivation of (124)-(125) must involve rightward movement of the postverbal NP, yielding an S-structure of the form: 4 2 (126)

. . . V [ [ e ] j P r t ] NPj

The type of derivation called for by ( 1 2 4 ) - ( l 25) can be extended to the 'V Prt NP' counterpart of (122): (127)

John looked up the information

Here, it is perhaps less clear that (127) could not be taken to reflect directly D-structure, i.e. the naturalness of a movement rule is less immediate than in (124)-(125). A ternary branching VP would be impossible, under our general approach. That leaves ' [ V P r t ] NP'. But if [ V Prt ] is a V, there is a violation of (3), i.e. V may not assign a 0-role. In addition, there would be a Case filter violation, since V may not assign objective Case, either. The only remaining alternative to the NP movement derivation of (127) is to take [ V P r t ] in (127) to be a V, i.e. to be some kind of complex verb in the base. It should be emphasized that the idiomatic character of (127) cannot be taken as a serious argument in favor of a complex V approach, given (123), and more broadly, given the still rudimentary understanding we have of the notion 'idiomatic'; note in particular Nunberg, Sag and Wasow's (1981), Ruwet's (1983) and Lindner's (1983) arguments to the effect that idioms are in general much more compositional than is usually assumed, a conclusion concerning interpretation that recalls Chomsky's (1972, 169) point that idioms have on the whole the same syntactic form as non-idioms. A complex V approach to (127) seems unattractive for a number of reasons. 43 First, why couldn't the inflectional morpheme position itself outside the whole complex V?:

126

Richard S. Kayne

(128) *John look up-ed the information Second, why would a complex V not be able to be followed by a pronominal object?: (129) *John looked up it. (*Parallel to (127), ok with it=a periscope and up=a transitive preposition) Third, why, for an appreciable majority of speakers, would complex V's then have to be excluded from the dative construction?: (130) *?They handed down John the tools (=(81)) Similarly, such complex V's would have somehow to be prohibited from predicative small clause constructions: (131) *?They're trying to make out John a liar (=(78)) And complex V's would have to be excluded from cooccurring with infinitives having certain idiomatic subjects: (132) *They're trying to make out advantage to have been taken of them (=(66)) Furthermore, even for those speakers who accept (130), it would remain unexplained why ^ - m o v e m e n t of the tools is impossible when V is 'complex', though possible with an ordinary V: (133) Which tools should we hand John first? (134) *Which tools should we hand down John first? (=(98)) (Notice that although hand down is not itself idiomatic, (130) should be taken to stand for 'V Prt' combinations in general, i.e. the claim is that there are no such combinations, even idiomatic, that would make (130) (or (134)) acceptable to all, or even most, speakers.) Finally, if we compare (127) with true examples of morphologically complex verbs, we see a difference with respect to right: (135) ?John looked right up the information (136) *John right upended the rocking chair

Principles of Particle

Constructions

127

This last problem has a somewhat different status from the others in that it would be conceivable to claim for it that (135) simply indicates that (127) is ambiguous between a complex V analysis, which would not allow right, and an analysis with rightward NP movement, which would. But then one might wonder what work a complex V analysis would be doing at all. The preceding series of problems takes on a rather different character if we reject the complex V analysis in favor of the systematic use of rightward NP movement to derive sentences like (127), with an S-structure then as in (126). It is clear that with such an S-structure, (128) is, correctly, not expected to exist. An account of (130)-(134) has already been given in previous sections, making crucial use of rightward movements, and of S-structures like (126) (or more complex variants of it) containing small clauses. The contrast between (135) and (136) is straightforward: A particle cannot have a 'modifier', e.g. right, if right+Prt would be dominated by a lexical category, as in (136). In (135), rightsPrt is not dominated by a lexical category. As for (129), we would like to link it to the unnaturalness of (135). In both, rightward NP movement has applied. (135) is perfectly natural if the NP is 'heavy': (137)

John looked right up the information I had asked for

In agreement with Fiengo (1977, 48), let us take the relevant notion not to be the absolute 'heaviness' of the moved NP, but the relative heaviness of it to the material across which it moves (or: which separates it from its trace). Consider the following informal proposal (cf. Oehrle (1976)): (138)

In ...[ e ]j X NPj..., where NPj binds [ e J j N P j m u s t be at least as heavily weighted as X

(139) Weightings: heavy NP=2, ordinary NP=1, pronoun=0, particle=l, right+Prt=2 Then (135) is deviant unless the NP is heavy (stress or focus can contribute); (127) is fine; (129) is deviant (it can be improved somewhat by heavy stress). 44 Similarly for (140) and (141): (140)

?They handed John right down the tools

(141)

*They handed John down them

128

Richard S. Kayne

Particles differ with respect to (139) from the adjectives of the 6.2 standard small clause construction: (142) a. John called Bill up b. John called Bill dumb (143) a. John called up Bill b. ??John called dumb Bill In terms of weightings, this could be expressed by assigning such adjectives the weighting 2, as opposed to particles' 1. But this does not seem to be an isolated difference between particles and adjectives: (144) John's calling up of Bill was a mistake (145) *John's calling dumb of Bill was a mistake Similarly: (146)

She pointed out that he was wrong., etc. (=(24))

(147) *She considered obvious that he was wrong *She finds desirable that he be there *She believed absurd that he should disagree In (143)-(147), there are extra possibilities for particle-headed small clauses as compared with the adjectival ones. For all of these environments, one might be tempted to think that the 'V Prt' sequence was behaving like a simple V. But this leads to a paradox: If (143a), for example, is admissible because 'V Prt' can be taken to act like V, then why is (129) inadmissible? In fact, most of the preceding section was devoted to showing precisely how 'V Prt' does not act like a single V. What we need is a theory that can have 'V Prt' mimic V behavior in some cases, while prohibiting 'V Prt' from mimicking V behavior in others, and the distinction must be a principled one. Government-binding theory has, if we are correct in what follows, the desired property. The bifurcation between (143)-(147), which display V-like behavior for 'V Prt' sequences, and (128)-(136), which display un-V-like behavior on the part of 'V Prt', is matched, in this theory, by the fact that verbs have two separate functions. They assign 6-roles, and they assign Case. Our claim is that 'V Prt' sequences can under certain conditions assign a 0-role essentially as a V does, despite 'V Prt' not being a V. But that 'V Prt', not being a V, can never assign Case as

Principles of Particle

129

Constructions

a V does. And, finally, that this draws exactly the needed distinction between (143)-(147) and (128)-(136). More precisely, we propose the following: The D-structure of 'V Prt NP' sentences like (143a) contains, as before, a small clause: V [ NP Prt ]. If no movement rule applies, we have (142a). Rightward NP movement is what yields (143a), with the S-structure: (148)

...called [ [ e ]¡ up ] Billj (=(126))

For (148) to be well-formed with respect to (139), the particle must be weighted 1. Let us assume that, for it to be so weighted, the particle must give up its 0 - r o l e , in the following sense: The 0-role that the particle would normally assign to its subject is percolated up to the V node that immediately dominates the maximal projection of the particle: 45 (149)

... [ y called [ [ e ] j u p ] ] Billj

From there, it is assigned to the sister constituent of the node now carrying it, i.e. to the NP sister of V, namely Billy This percolation allows the 0-role that would otherwise go directly to [ e ] j to go instead directly to Billy The distinction between (143a) and (143b) can now be drawn in terms of (139), if the adjective in the latter may not participate in 0-percolation of the type just described, so that the adjective will remain weighted 2. 4 6 Let us turn now to (144)-(145). At the end of section one, we proposed distinguishing (150) from (151) in terms of 0-assignment: (150)

the destruction of the city (=(12))

(151)

*John's consideration of Bill honest

(=(6))

The phrase [ p p o f N P ] is not allowed to be itself assigned a 0-role; 0-assignment in (150) can affect solely the NP object of of; 0-assignment in (151) must apply to the entire PP because any phrase in subject position with respect to some predicate (here that of the small clause) must be assigned a 0-role. Assume that by 'be assigned a 0 - r o l e ' here, we mean 'be in a chain that is assigned a 0-role'. Then this account of (151) extends to (145) and to (152): (152)

* John's consideration honest of Bill

That is, rightward movement of of Bill cannot save (151). 4 7 Why, then, can the comparable violation in (153) be saved by rightward movement?

130

Richard S. Kayne

(153)

*John's calling of Bill up was a mistake

(154) John's calling up of Bill was a mistake

(=(7)) (=(144))

The answer is that in (154), 0-percolation allows up not to assign any 0-role to its subject position, i.e. no 0-role need be assigned to the chain headed by of Bill. Rather, ^-assignment (from V (or perhaps N), as a result of percolation) can go directly to Bill, as in (150). Put more neutrally, 6-percolation transfers (154), with respect to of Bill, from the class of '6 in a subject position' sentences to the class of '0 in an object position' sentences. As for (146) and (147), the difference will again be that in (146) the 0-role is assigned to S by V, as a result of 9-percolation, whereas in (147) it is assigned within the small clause, by the adjective. Assume that the empty category in small clause subject position in (146) and (147) needs to be bound. 4 8 Then it would be possible to treat (146) vs. (147) somewhat similarly to (154) vs. (152), if that-S were prohibited from being part of a chain that included a subject position. 49 To summarize, then, the V-like behavior of the 'V Prt' sequence in (143)-(147) can be accounted for by a percolation mechanism enabling V to assign a 0-role to its sister constituent in the manner of a V (in effect, relaxing (3) in this specific case). The important point is, now, that this 6-mechanism does not interfere with the account of the non-V-like behavior of the 'V Prt' sequence in (128)-(136). The constituent structure of 'V Prt NP' is as in (149). There is no sense in which 'V Prt' there belongs to the lexical category V, 50 although 'V [ e ] Prt' is a V. Consequently, (128) can still be attributed to INFL having to attach to a lexical category. Our earlier proposal concerning (129), revolving around (139), depends on the fact that in (149), Bill[ binds an empty category from which it is separated. This characteristic of (149) is entirely unaffected by ^-percolation to V, so that the earlier proposal stands. Our account of (130)-(133) depends on there being a double small clause structure, and on various properties of Case, government and control. None of this is at all affected by 0-percolation. The account of (134) (and (83), (48)) depends on the preceding plus the proper characterization of a variable, in particular as needing to be in an A-position. The question arises as to whether a position assigned a 0-role by V should count as an A position; the answer is, however, irrelevant to (134), etc., since the crucial position there, that of the rightward moved NP, must, for reasons discussed at (92), be one that is adjoined to a projection of the particle, not to V, and so will remain unaffected by properties of ^-percolation to V. The fact that the particle in (149) may be 'modified' by right, if the NP is 'heavy', is due to the fact that the particle

Principles of Particle

Constructions

131

is not dominated by the category V. Thus, this result, too, is unaffected by d-percolation. Consider again (130) and (131), in which the small clause as a whole has been moved rightward around the particle. If the small clause is right-adjoined to a projection of the particle, then (at least) the initial NP of the small clause will remain ungoverned, given the two small clause boundaries intervening between it and V (unless the small clause can be broken up, yielding some global improvement, as in the discussions of (62) and (99)). If the small clause is adjoined to V, then there will be a Case filter violation on both small clause NP's in (130) and at least on the first in (131), on the usual assumption that V cannot assign objective Case (and that objective Case assignment by V requires strict c-command 5 1 ). Thus, although V can under certain conditions be a 0-assigner, it can never be an objective Case assigner; there is no Case counterpart to the upward 0-percolation proposed above. 52 It follows that in (149) objective Case is assigned to the position of [ e ]j, not to that of Billv much as in (155) objective Case is assigned to [ e ]j, not directly to the possibility that...'. (155)

...mentioned [ e ]j to John the possibility of him going out with Mary

(155) yields, to our ear, an example of well-formed extraction from within a rightward moved NP: 53 (156) Mary is the only girl who I dared mention to John the possibility of him going out with That's the secret that I mentioned/ explained to John only part of Compare: (157) Mary is the only girl who I dared bring up the possibility of him going out with That's the series of books that I called up only part of

NOTES 1. Kayne (1984, Introduction and chapter 7). 2. Cf. Chomsky (1981,37-38). 3. Or of any higher non-maximal V-projection, and similarly for (3). We are abstracting away here from rightward NP-movement, i.e. a NP can be sister to a non-maximal V-projection if it binds a trace which does not violate (3). Notice, though, that the Prt in (la) cannot occupy a comparable position, since in '*V

132

Richard

S.

Kayne

[p r t e ] NP Prt\ the NP would, given the restriction to binary branching, itself violate (3). On the unavailability of ' * [ y V [ p r t e ] ]', see below, note 9 and section 6. Our use of the symbol Prt is an informal one - cf. Emonds (1972) and note 46 below. 4. Kayne (1984, section 7.3.3, 7.4.1). 5. Cf. also Chomsky (1970, 193), Jackendoff (1977, 69), Stowell (1981, 297) and Declerck's (1978, 314) statement: "So far I have not found one native informant who did not frown on action nominals of the type his throwing of the ball up." Fraser (1970, 91; 1976, 3) indicates, however, that for some speakers examples like (7) are acceptable with particles of the 'reduced adverbial' type (e.g. throw the ball up); cf. Kroch (1979, 222) to some extent; such speakers may match Lindner's (1983, 22) description: "Still other speakers rate as fully acceptable both literal and idiomatic combinations in preposed word order ['V Prt o/NP'], while the literal combinations in postposed order (59c) [=His bringing of the dinner in...] are considered definitely less acceptable than these, but are still distinctly preferable to idiomatic combinations in post-posed order (59d) [=His looking of the number up...]. In our terms, (2b) must be marginally possible for these speakers in cases where the particle could be replaced by a full PP. On the other hand, the more extreme judgments of Bolinger (1971, 10) are probably to be interpreted in the context of note 8 below. 6. For some speakers, at least some examples like (9) are not sharp, and similarly for (11); a proposal about how to account for such fluctuation is made in Kayne (1984, chapter 8, note 3). 7. Stowell (1981, 244) notes that our earlier proposal to interpret (6) as reflecting a property of the category N with respect to cross-boundary government did not cover the corresponding facts with A. According to Pillinger (1980, 71), genitive Case in Latin did not cross an infinitival boundary. 8. Of cannot take the entire small clause as its object: '*...of [Mary honest]' '*...of [the information up]', since prepositions can in general not govern across a maximal projection - cf. (text to) note 40 below. We suspect that it is this prohibition, rather than the text one, that is relaxed in some way in the (perhaps primarily British) dialect that accepts nominals like 'the making of John happy' (examples in Jespersen (1970b, sections 4.1, 8.4g, 8.4 9 , 18.8J), Soderlind (1958, 188,191) and Wik (1973, 136)) and 'a digger of things up', along, presumably, with (7). We have departed from Stowell's formulation because we have evidence that argument small clauses need Case even when headed by a preposition. Note that in the [[P e NP] NP] structure of (89) below, there is no problem for (13), since the second NP is not a predicate, unlike particles (whether idiomatic or not - cf. Lindner (1983) and sections 5 and 6 below). 9. The fact of (15) is noted in Ross (1967, section 5.1.1.1). There is one use of back, in the sense of in return, which counts as autonomous for (3)/(4): If you spit at him, he'll spit at you back' - cf. Bolinger (1971, 139). 10. [V [Prt PP] ] seems clearly inappropriate for (14), though plausible for John jumped down into the well. Cf. Down into the well he jumped vs. *Up with Bill he teamed, etc. The ungrammatically of (15) implies that there exists no particle movement capable of deriving (15) from (14). Any such movement of the particle that respected binary branching would violate (3)/(4) unless it left a trace. With a trace it plausibly violates some generalization of the condition on the output of upward rightward movements given in (138) below. If the PP in (16c) is replaced by a P-headed small clause, then (13) is no longer violated, but there will be a violation akin to that in (38) (or in (121)) below, unless there can be movement as in (36) (cf. perhaps They did John out of his money).

Principles

of Particle

Constructions

133

11. Cf. Jackendoff (1972, 51), Quirk et al. (1976, 238). There does exist He fast ran out of money (cf. soon). Combined with He speaks English poorly vs. *He poorly speaks English, it suggests that certain adverbs must, presumably for reasons of interpretation, be (properly) governed, which in English implies being on a right branch; this is assuming, as suggested by (21), that cross-boundary government is never available for adverbs, perhaps because (19) is really ...[PRO quickly away] cf. Hoekstra (1984, 246). The similarity between (19) and (22) is reinforced, with proper government again perhaps at issue, by the observation that neither allows the adverb to be focussed. The contrast between (19) and (22) is noted by Bolinger (1971,148), who gives examples like He tossed it quickly up (*with fast) (cf. also Oehrle (1976, 208)), which we tend to accept, though many speakers do not (cf. McArthur and Atkins (1979, 8)). The structure is ...[it [quickly up] ]. On the interpretation of ...[right Prt], cf. Fraser ,1976, 25). A particle can be modified by another: He handed his paper back in - ... [his paper [back in] ]. Oehrle (1976, 219) notes that two separated particles are not allowed: *He handed in his paper back, *He handed back his paper in-, cf. Bolinger (1971, 142). This follows from the text principles, since binary branching forces a violation of (3)/(4) here. 12. Cf. Emonds (1976, section IV.2.4), Koster (1978), Stowell (1981). Stowell argues that tensed S is also excluded from true object position, with both exclusions attributed to his Case Resistance Principle. If so, then (25) would be neutral, rather than clearly favorable to our hypotheses. However, we find IHow many people did you say you were sick to? quite a bit better than (25) or * Who did you find (that) everything was OK out from?, which is probably not expected from Stowell's point of view. 13. We agree with Kroch (1979, 221) that Fraser (1976, 19) overstates the degree of deviance of (26). 14. A representation like (34b) lacking the empty category would force a < coupable f) fee livrel rcontre la peine de mort f constaté 1 (people had denied/noticed Marie/Jean/that book the most beautiful girl in the world/guilty/against the death penalty)

Of course Rizzi did not make that crucial distinction on the basis of ne.. .que infinitives. He was basing it, rather, on the respective behaviour of passive and CL.PL from the subject position of infinitives in Italian, which yield (marginally) acceptable results with the Italian counterparts of the verbs in (54) but unacceptable ones with the Italian verbs that don't take a small clause (e.g. temere (fear) sostenere (assert) or affermare (state)), like French nier or constater. Consequently, if we are right in claiming that ne...que infinitives share that basic property with sentences where "Move NP" has applied to the subject of the infintive to yield either passives or clitics on the main verb, we predict that pairs analogous to (52) vs. (53) should be found with these constructions as well. This is correct, as shown by the following:

(56)

?Marie a longtemps été

considérée \ / avoir fait son devoir crue I l être la plus belle fille du monde/ supposéé >< avoir résolu ce problème dite 1 / être contre la peine de mort estimée I1 avoir supprimé son amant

(Mary has long been considered/believed/supposed/said/estimated to have done her duty/be the most beautiful girl in the world/have solved that problem/be against the death penalty/have killed her lover

imee (57)

*Marie a longtemps été

constatéé

i avoir fait son devoir , être la plus belle fille du monde avoir résolu ce problème être contre la peine de mort avoir supprimé son amant

(Mary has long been denied/noticed to have done her duty/be the most beautiful girl in the world/have solved that problem/be against the death penalty/have killed her lover)

308

J.-Y. Pollock

(58) 21 ??Marie, Pierre l'a longtemps

considérée supposée crue dite estimée

avoir fait son devoir être la plus belle avoir résolu ce problème être contre la peine de mort avoir supprimé son amant

(Marie, Pierre long considered/supposed/thought/said/estimated her to have done her duty/be the most beautiful of all/have solved that problem/be against the death penalty/have killed her lover)

(59)

*Marie, Pierre l'a longtemps

avoir fait son devoir être la plus belle avoir résolu ce problème être contre la peine demort avoir supprimé son amant

(Marie, Pierre long denied/noticed ... (same as in (58)) It should be pointed out straightaway that beyond this basic similarity ne...que infinitives and (56)-(58) exhibit one striking difference: The former are sensitive to the verb-type of the infinitive, the latter are not. Notice in particular contrasts like those under (60) and (61): (60)

a. *Je croyais n'avoir supprimé son amant que Marie (I thought only Mary to have killed her lover) b. *Je supposais n'avoir téléphoné qu'un linguiste ce soir là (I thought only one linguist had phoned that evening) c. *On a dit n'avoir beaucoup aimé Marie que Jean (People said only John loved Marie a lot)

(61)

a. ??Marie, on l'a longtemps crue avoir supprimé son amant (=last sentence of (58)) b. ?Pierre a longtemps été supposé avoir téléphoné ce soir là (Pierre has long been thought to have phoned that evening) c. ??Jean, on l'a longtemps dit avoir beaucoup aimé Marie (Jean, people long said him to have loved Marie a lot)

These and similar contrasts are expected under the view that the S-structure position of the clitic, like the subject position of the matrix tensed clause, are Case-positions, unlike the post-verbal position of transitive verbs or simple intransitive verbs in the embedded infinitive. Coming back to pairs like (52) vs. (53), (56) vs. (57) or (58) vs. (59) I will claim that a slight reformulation of the analysis suggested for Italian

On Case and The Syntax of Infinitives in French

309

by Rizzi (1978), appendix) is correct. It was suggested there that the acceptability of Italian sentences like (56) was derivative and due to a "parasitic" reading of the infinitive as a small clause. Since verbs like nier and constater cannot take an object SC, the analogical ^interpretation is impossible, whence e.g. (57)-(58). As stated in Rizzi (1978), this revealing account cannot as such carry over to French, for two reasons: First it cannot make the necessary distinction between (58)-(56) and e.g. (62):" considéré]

!

avoir fait son devoir . être la plus belle Marie / avoir résolu ce problème 'être contre la peine de mort ' i avoir supprimé son amant

supposé crue instead of her) (same as (58) with Marie dit estimé Second it incorrectly predicts that sentences like (63) and (64) should be marginally acceptable.

(63)

*Marie a été longtemps souhaitée voulue/désirée

(same as (56) verbs)

(64)

avoir fait son devoir , être la plus belle avoir résolu ce problème ' avoir tué son amant être contre la peine de mort '

with wants/wish instead of the declarative main

*Marie,je l'aurais

l souhaitée, (voulue [désirée

• être la plus belle l avoir fait son devoir | avoir tué son amant [être contre la peine de mort] 1 avoir résolu ce problème

(same as (58) with want/wish instead of the declarative main verb) This is so because wish verbs can take object small clauses: 23

(65)

la plus belle l souhaité ma voisine I plus dévouée J'aurais/voulu ,( SC cette solution) plus harmonieuse ^ ) 'Marie désiré ' contre la peine de mort ' Pierre i meilleur médecin

310

J.-Y. Pollock

If the sheer existence of object SC's was enough to permit "analogical" reading of the infinitive, (64) and (63) should also be acceptable. Similarly since we are claiming that ne...que infinitives are made marginally acceptable on the basis of the same analogical process, adoption of Rizzi's treatment would incorrectly predict (47c) and (47d) to have the same status as (42a) and (43a). What (62)-(63) show is that the presence of COMP, although it is not a sufficient condition to obtain (marginally) acceptable ne...que infinitives or passives like (58) (cf. the nier/constater facts) is nevertheless a necessary condition. The formulation I will adopt for the analogical reanalysis we need 2.4. will rest quite crucially on Kayne's reinterpretation of the notion COMP (see Kayne (1983, section 2 his (10) and (11)). Under this reinterpretation there is no COMP node as such. Ignoring more complex cases of inversion, one (somewhat oversimplified) way of interpretating Kayne's proposal is to say that the familiar (66) should in fact be formulated as in (67): (66)

S -*• COMP S

(67)

Xm +

1

^XmS

S is analysed, crucially for what follows, as the maximal projection of INFL. X m is any maximal projection of N, V, A, P, Q, etc. and X m + 1 any projection thereof or S (i.e. I N F L m a x ) . The latter possibility is severely constrained, most prominently by principle (68): (68)

If INFL has a specifier in an A-position (i.e. if S has a subject) then it only has one such specifier (Kayne (1983, (11))

Given (68), a structure like (69) will be excluded, since INFL would have two specifiers: (69)

(gMPjCs e Ci INFL...))

If X m + 1 f S, then the moved constituent must be marked +wh (see Kayne (1983, (10)). Given this consider the analogical rule stated informally in (70): (70)

V X m ( s => V X m ( s c only if V also takes an object SC

Following Stowell (1983) I will take SC to be an informal abbreviation for a projection of A, V, P, N (see e.g. (65)). Consider the effect of (70) on a structure like (69). It would yield (71):

On Case and The Syntax of Infinitives in French (71)

311

( s N P j ( s c ecj INFL...))

Notice crucially that this structure is no longer excluded by (69). This is so because ecj is no longer a specifier of INFL since SC is not a (maximal) projection of INFL. Consequently analysis of x m + l as S has become possible. This has the further consequence that NPj in (71) need not be marked +wh. Put informally, this amounts to claiming that analogical reanalysis of S as a SC has the automatic consequence of allowing movement of a non-wh phrase into COMP. If, like Kayne, we now allow external government of X m across X m + 1 (i.e. if S is transparent to external government) then a chain headed by NPj in (71) will be governed as it should be (see (49)). Finally, we want to disallow lexical NP's from occupying the "COMP position" in (71). Observe that this impossibility is not restricted to the constructions at hand. Given the ECP, a structure like (72) (72) (g Johnj seems (g ecj to love Mary)) shows that ecj is governed by seem. If so, nothing excludes the impossible structure in (73): (73)

(g there^ seems (g (j^p a man) to be in love with Mary))

(73) contains a Case-marked chain C = {there, a man) headed by expletive there. It should consequently be well-formed. Whatever explanation is found for this unpleasant situation, we may expect it to carry over to (71). For the sake of completeness, I will simply assume here that only ec's can be governed across S. This will yield a descriptively adequate treatment of both (71) and (73): the former will be excluded because the chain it contains will fail to abide by (49), the latter because the putative chain {there, a man) will not abide by Kayne's generalised connectedness requirement on links in chains (see Kayne (1983, section 5.1, (145)). Let us now check that (70) and rule (3) deal correctly with the facts in the previous sections and consider the sentences in (74): (74)

a.

?On avait supposé n'être entré qu'un cambrioleur dans l'appartement (= (52b)) b. ?Marie a longtemps été considérée avoir tué son amant (= last example of (56)) c. ??Marie, Pierre l'a longtemps crue avoir résolu ce problème (= third example of (58) d. *On avait nié n'être entré qu'un cambrioleur dans l'appartement (= (53c))

312

J.-Y.

Pollock

e.

*Marie a été longtemps niée avoir tué son amant (= last example of (57)) f. *Marie, Pierre l'a longtemps constatée avoir tué son amant (= last example of (59)) g. *J'aurais voulu ne devoir être réécrit qu'un chapitre de ma thèse (= (47 c)) h. *Marie a été longtemps voulue être contre la peine de mort (=(63)) i. *Marie, je l'aurais souhaitée être la plus belle (=(64)) j. * Je croyais n'avoir téléphoné que deux linguistes (= (29b)) k. *J'avais pensé ne devoir réécrire son article qu'un seul linguiste ( = (31b)) Before (70) applies, the S-structure of (74a) is essentially as in (75): (75)

(On avait supposé

( ^ ) (g proj n'être entré (j^p que NP))))

The chain (pro, que NP) is OK with respect to the 0-criterion and the Case-filter, given application of (3). But its head is not governed. (70) must therefore apply to it, subsequent application of "Move NP" will yield (76): (76)

(On avait supposé (g proj (g£ e^ n'être entré (j^p que NP)))

the head of the chain (pro, e, (j^jpque NP)) is now governed by supposé Case marked and 6-marked by entré. Therefore the sentence is acceptable. I will assume that its somewhat peculiar status is due to the fact that the infinitive is a hybrid: it exhibits properties of sentences (it contains INFL) and properties of SC's: Its (derived) subject can be governed from without. The same analysis will carry over to (74b) and (74c), essentially. Their structure would be (77) and (78), respectively: (77)

(Mariej a été longtemps considérée (g e^ (gç e^ avoir tué son amant)))

(78)

(... lej a considéré (g ej (gç. ej avoir résolu ce problème)))

The chain C = (Marie;, ej, e,) is well-formed with respect to the 0-criterion (it is 6-marked by the predicate of the infinitive) and the Casefilter (its head is Case-marked). Each of its links satisfies Kayne's generalised connectedness condition. Notice crucially that it would not if rule

On Case and The Syntax of Infinitives in French

313

(70) did not apply. As a consequence Marie would not be 0-marked since it could not be properly linked to a 0-position, and the structure would then be excluded by the 0-criterion. Exactly the same analysis will hold of (78), with possibly one important difference having to do with the way Case is assigned to the chain (lej, ej, ej). It is not entirely obvious that the clitic position is the Case-marked position in such structures. If it was not, then either the "COMP" position of the ec(s) in the (derived) SC should be. Suppose the latter possibility is excluded for clitics. Then only Case-marking into COMP (i.e. into "analogical" subject position) would be possible. But suppose this is a (very) marked option (see below). This would then account for the fact that many speakers (including the author) find such sentences definitely worse than (77). If such was indeed the case we'd predict that (78) and the like should be accepted on the same level as (77) only by those speakers who systematically allow Casemarking into "COMP". This does not appear to be entirely true. I will therefore continue to assume that the clitic position itself may be (re)analysed as a Case-position in such structures, thus accounting for the fact that sentences like (78) are more widely accepted than (28b) or (74j)-(74k). The utter impossibility of (74d, e and f) will receive the same explanation, crucially resting on the inapplicability of rule (70): nier, constater (and others like regretter (regret)) do not take object SC's, therefore neither (79) nor (80) nor (81) will yield acceptable structures: (79)

(g On avait nié ( ^ m + l X m (g proj n'être entré ( ^ p qu'un 1 cambrioleur)))

(80)

(g Mariej a été longtemps niée (j^m+1 X m (g ej avoir tué son amant)))

(81)

(g ... lj'a longtemps constaté ( ^ m + 1 X m (g e^ avoir tué son amant)))

Given (49) the chain headed by pro in (79) should be governed. Pro must therefore move to the COMP position. This yields structure (82): (82)

(g On avait nié ( ^ m + l pro- (g ej n'être entré ( ^ p qu'un cam1 brioleur)))

But since rule (70) cannot apply, cannot be analysed as S, clearly, pro should therefore be marked +wh. It isn't and (82) falls back being a violation of Kayne's reinterpretation of the requirement that only +wh phrases can move to COMP (Kayne (1983, (10)). Consequently (79) can never surface as a well-formed structure, as desired. For exactly the

314

J.-Y. Pollock

same reason (70) will not apply to (80) or (81). As a consequence, there will never be a well-formed chain of the type (Mariej, ej) or (lej, ej) (each such chain would violate Kayne's generalised connectedness condition, or would require Marie or le to be (wh-)operators). This will result in a 0-criterion violation in both (80) and (81). Since vouloir, désirer etc. do not take a COMP (i.e. an X m in (70)), the analogical rule in (70) will not apply to the S-structure underlying (74g), (74h) and (74i) which will then receive exactly the same treatment as (74d), (74e) and (74f), as is clearly desirable. The explanation for the impossibility of (74j) and (74k) cannot be of the same nature, obviously: croire and penser are subcategorised for COMP and allow object SC's. (70) will then be applicable to them and their structure will be the same as that of (76). The only difference lies in the inapplicability of rule (3). This will suffice, as pointed out in 2.2 above, if a verb like supposer cannot assign Case to the COMP of structures like (76), even though it governs it. 24 I will indeed assume that Case-assignment to COMP in such structures is a (very) marked process in fact non existent in the grammar of most speakers of French, whence, for them, the impossibility of such sentences (and contrasts like (42b), (43b) vs. (45)).

3. ON EMBEDDED INFINITIVAL RELATIVES

3.1. Given the description in 2.4, the alert reader will have easily perceived that we predict contrasts like the following: (83)

a. * L'homme que j'aurais voulu être arrivé à l'heure (the man who I would have wanted to arrive on time) b. *Le chapitre que j'aurais désiré ne pas être réécrit (The chapter I would have wished not to be rewritten)

(84)

a. (?)L'homme que tu avais constaté être arrivé en retard (the man who you had noticed to have arrived late) b. (?)Le chapitre de la thèse que tu avais nié devoir être réécrit the chapter of the thesis which you denied to have to be rewritten (the chapter of the thesis which you denied would have to be rewritten)

Since wish verbs are not subcategorised for COMP (i.e. in our terms X m ) no movement to COMP will ever be possible, e.g. AUX movement in Italian (see Rizzi (1982, 91)) or wh-movement in French and Italian.

On Case and The Syntax of Infinitives in French

315

Since the applicability of our analogical reanalysis is also dependent on the existence of such an X m , there should not be any significant contrast between e.g. (63), (64) and (83). This is correct. Observe however that verbs like nier or constater do take a subordinate infinitive with COMP. Nothing will block wh-movement from the infinitive with such verbs. Since we have explicitly stated that COMP is accessible to external government from the matrix verb, we predict, correctly, that (84) and the like should be acceptable and should contrast minimally with cases of reanalysis like (53). This is so because (70) cannot apply with such verbs because they do not take an object SC. But of course this is immaterial for wh-movement, whence the contrast noted. It is of some consequence to notice at this point that this analysis of pairs like (53) vs. (84) rests quite crucially on the dual status of the ec in COMP in structures like (85), which is the S-structure of (84a): (85)

l'homme (que: tu avais constaté ( N 3 ( N 2 e ( s ecj être arrivé 1 +Wh ecj...))))

For Kayne's reinterpretation of the requirement that COMP be filled by wh-phrases only it is crucial that ej should be marked +wh. But notice that this should not prevent that empty category from heading the 9chain that includes the two ec's in the infinitive. This should create a tension, however, especially if a +wh trace in COMP always counted as a surrogate quantifier and if quantifiers can never head 6-chains. It is worth nothing, in this context, that some speakers, among whom the author, tend to find (84) (slightly) worse than equivalent sentences with main verbs like croire, supposer, etc., although (84) is considerably more acceptable than (53), as "*" vs. "(?)" shows. The (weak) contrast between croire and nier in infinitival relatives might be analysed as follows: Our analogical reanalysis can, of course, apply to infinitival relatives embedded under croire, yielding structures like (86), among others: (86)

L'homme quij je croyais (g ecj

vblj être arrivé t j en retard))

in (86) the ecj in COMP does not need to ever be associated with a +wh feature. Consequently there is no tension between the requirement that ecj be the head of chain C = (ecj, vblj, tj) and the requirement that it bear a +wh featu re (i.e. that it be a surrogate quantifier). Seen in this light, what is surprising is the fact that (84) should be acceptable at all if surrogate quantifiers, like quantifiers, can never head 0-chains. Observe, for instance, that (85) contrasts minimally with the utterly impossible (87): 25

316

J.-Y. Pollock

(87)

*Je ne savais pas ( i3 ( n quel homme) N Nf +wh retard)))

vbl1; être arrivé t;1 en

In (87) the quantifier quel homme is governed by savoir just as the +wh empty category is in (85). If quel homme could head a 6- chain of the type (88): (88)

C = (quel hommej, vbl, tj)

there would be no reason why (87) should be ungrammatical: (88) is 6-marked and Case-marked and it obeys the visibility requirements on chains put forward in (70). This suggests, clearly, that no chain such as (88) should be allowed by UG. This is precisely the result obtained if 0-chains cannot be headed by operators. If so, something special needs to be added concerning surrogate quantifiers. Suppose we said sentences like (85) are redeemed because surrogate quantifiers, unlike real quantifiers, play no part in the interpretation of sentences. In particular let us suggest that the +wh feature in ec's bound by real quantifiers can be ignored (i.e. deleted) at a suitable level of (LF) representation. At that level (85) will have lost its problematic character (although not at Sstructure, whence, perhaps the "?" of (84) for some speakers (Kayne (1983, (10)) is explicitly stated to apply only at S-structure)). This minor revision will not alter our treatment of the ungrammatically of (74d), (74e) and (74f) because the +wh feature in the ec in COMP will not be ignored (deleted) since it is not bound by a real quantifier (i.e. can no more be interpreted as a surrogate quantifier as quel homme in (87)). 3.2. Coming back to pairs like (24)-(28) now, it is easy to see that the treatment for the similar contrasts in ne...que infinitives formulated in section 2 will apply here as well. Consider the pair in (89) for instance (89)

a.

L'homme que je croyais avoir été injustement condamné (the man who I thought to have been unfairly condemned) b. ?*L'homme que je croyais avoir injustement condamné ces prisonniers (the man who I thought to have unfairly condemned these prisoners)

The S-structure of (89a) is as in (90) (assuming, for convenience, (70) not to have applied and the +wh feature of the ec in COMP to have been deleted):

On Case and The Syntax of Infinitives in French (90)

l'homme (quej (je croyais ( ^ 3 ( ecj)))

^

ec)

(s

317 eci avoir

^

condamné

Ni

( 9 0 ) can be analysed as containing two different chains. One contains the ec in subject position o f the infinitive and the ec in object position o f the participle. Given rule ( 3 ) that chain in Case-marked. Since it is also 0-marked by the passive participle, it abides by the 0-criterion. However its head is not in a governed position. Consequently it violates constraint ( 4 9 ) . This forces us to assume that ( 8 9 ) should be analysed as containing a chain with three members whose head is the ec in COMP: That empty category is governed by croire as is required by ( 4 9 ) . The same will hold o f ( 8 9 b ) , whose S-structure would be ( 9 1 ) : (91)

l'homme (quej (je croyais ( 3 ( 2 e ) ( s prisonniers)))) ^ ^i

eci av°ir

condamné ces

The difference between the two structures lies in the fact that ( 3 ) can only apply in ( 9 0 ) . This will account for the difference in acceptability noted above if, as with ne...que infinitives, we assume that " C O M P " (i.e. N? (=NP.)) even though it is governed by croire cannot, in the unmarked case, receive Case from it. 3.3. Sentences like ( 8 9 a ) raise an interesting problem concerning the location o f the variable the Qu-operator binds at L F . Given the following definition (Cf. Chomsky ( 1 9 8 2 , 3 5 ) ) . (92)

An ec is a variable iff it is in an A-position and locally operator bound

it is clear that only the ec in subject position qualifies: That in COMP is not in an A-position (whether ( 7 0 ) has applied or not), that governed by the unaccusative verb or the passive participle is A-bound by the ec in subject position within the domain o f its Wh-operator. In other words, the structure o f such sentences at L F is the same as that of, e.g. ( 9 3 ) : (93)

a. Quij (5 vblj a été condamné t j ) b. Whoj ( 5 vblj was condemned t j )

where t j is an anaphor bound by the vbl in subject position. There is, however one crucial difference between the two types o f structure: in ( 9 3 ) the vbl is in a Case-marked position and the anaphor is arguably not marked for Case. 26 In embedded infinitival relatives, on the contrary, our previous account o f pairs like ( 8 9 ) shows that the vbl cannot be Case-

318

J.-Y.

Pollock

marked but that the anaphor must be. The consequences of this state of affairs for the theory of ec's should be apparent: in particular one cannot, like Manzini (1983), exclude structures like *Mary-l kissed e q by saying the postverbal anaphor is Case-marked. 3.4. As pointed out in section 1 above some speakers find contrasts like those in (89) very weak. N. Ruwet is one such speaker and gives as wellformed the sentences in (91) (see Ruwet (1982, 163)): (94)

a. Quel mythe Socrate croyait-il devoir intéresser Glaucon? (What myth did Socrates think to be likely to interest Glaucon?) b. Je me suis mis à lire Rousseau, que certains disent avoir résolu la question (I began to read Rousseau, who some people claim to have solved the problem) c. Quelle émeraude ton joaillier estime-t-il valoir plus de 10.000 francs? (what emerald does your jeweller suppose to be worth more than 10000 fr.) d. Aspasie a préparé ce plat d'une façon qu'elle savait plaire à Péricles (Aspasia prepared that dish in a way she knew to please Pericles) e. J'ai disséqué un chien qu'elle prétendait lui appartenir (I dissected a dog she claimed to belong to her) f. Ceux de nos pasteurs que vous prétendez être sociniens parfaits et rejeter les peines éternelles (those of our ministers who you claim to be perfect socinians and to reject eternal sufferings)

To my ear such sentences are very odd or have a very strong literary flavour, 27 although N. Ruwet informs me that this is not necessarily so for him. I will assume that for speakers like him the analysis adopted by Kayne and Rizzi (see 1.1 above) is indeed appropriate: Case-marking into COMP will make the chain these examples make use of visible for the 6 criterion. I will continue to assume that strategy to be marked, whence the fact that it is not spontaneously adopted by all speakers. One might speculate that the reason why this strategy is marked is that a +wh empty category marked for Case would normally surface as a vbl, which is impossible if that ec is in COMP, i.e. in an A-position. Perhaps such speakers as N. Ruwet can marginally reanalyse the COMP position as an A-position, whence the fact that for them (94) are "neutral". Be that as it may, it should be pointed out that this strategy does not normally carry over to the cases of analogical reanalysis studied in section 2. In particular N.

On Case and The Syntax of Infinitives in French

319

Ruwet has informed me (p.c.) that for him too sentences like (74a) contrast sharply with e.g. (74j) and (74k), in the way described above. If Case-marking of X m was also possible here there should not be any such contrast. The reason for this asymmetry between wh-movement and reanalysis is relatively transparent: Rule (70) has the effect of allowing movement of a non wh-ec into COMP and, crucially, of turning x m + l into a derived sentence. In embedded infinitival relatives, on the contrary, X m + 1 may remain a projection of the Wh-phrase in COMP (assuming as in 3.1 that deletion of the +wh feature in the ec in COMP yields an acceptable structure at LF, which suppresses the need for (70) to apply here as well). If Case-assignment through a major category boundary (i.e. N^ here) is allowed only to (the projections of) the head of the category, like government under Belletti & Rizzi's interpretation, the asymmetry will follow: Necessary application of reanalysis in ne...que infinitives and the like makes x m + l a non projection of the (derived) subject NP. Consequently it remains opaque to Case-assignment (although not to government, as noted above (see footnote 24)). 28 In embedded infinitival relatives, on the contrary, marked Case-assignment to N^ through N^ will be possible for speakers like N. Ruwet, as desired. 4 . CONCLUSION

The above description hinges crucially on rule (3): (3)

NP -> [+Case] when governed by V* (= unaccusative verbs, passive participles and être)

and on the analogical reanalysis in (70): (70)

V Xm

( s => V X m

( s c only if V also takes an object SC29

Given the rather intricate and specific nature of the phenomena these two rules will permit an understanding of when they are set against the principles of UG, the description adopted in this work appears fairly minimal. In so far as it is, it provides interesting, though of necessity indirect, support for the views sketched out under A, B, C and D in the introduction.

320

J.-Y. Pollock

NOTES 1. Rule (3) in fact conflates two rules which one might want to keep distinct: Passive participles and être probably assign [+acc] to their objects, as indicated by examples like (6) in text below and by (i): (i)

Malin, Pierre l'est Clever, Pierre is it (Pierre is certainly very clever)

Unaccusative verbs on the contrary don't, as suggested by the ungrammatically of (ii), which contrasts minimally with (6): (ii)

Est-ce qu'il arrive que les bons linguistes travaillent peu? *non, il ne l'arrivé pas Does it arrive that good linguists work little no it arrives it not (Are there good linguists that don't work hard? no there aren't)

Belletti (1983) shows that unaccusative participles assign [+nom] in Italian, as was suggested for French by Pollock (1983a, note 33). Rather than saying that le in (6) and (i) is an accusative syntactically, one might want to claim that it corresponds to a "neutral" Case spelled out as [+acc] in the morphology, as was suggested by J.-R. Vergnaud during the Pisa workshop. If this difference between passive participles and être on the one hand and unaccusatives on the other is correct then rule (3) should be reformulated as in (iii): (iii)

NP

(+nom] when governed by unaccusative verbs

since (4b) would take care of passive participles and être, (iii) might then be said to be a suspicious rule in that its effect would be accidentally similar to that of (4a). Assuming we did want to get rid of that accidental similarity we might want to claim that what assigns nominative Case in (iii) is the agreement morphology on the verb rather than the verb itself. If this was correct it might provide an explanation for the difference between French/Italian on the one hand and English on the other with respect to the applicability of (3) if Pollock (1982) is right. These further refinements have no effect, as far as I can see, on the results presented here. 2. Recall that le is morphologically accusative. Therefore an analysis of (6) or of (i) and (ii), also acceptable (i) (ii)

?I1 ne le semble pas it it seems not (it doesn't seem so) il ne le faut pas it it must not (it mustn't be the case)

in terms of the existence of a chain (il, le) meeting the Case filter because of its nominative head would violate plausible constraints on Case agreement in chains. See Reuland (this volume), Kayne (1983), Pollock (1983a). For further evidence that passive participles can in fact assign Case to their object, see Pollock (1981), Kayne (1982). 3. On this and similar cases see Kayne (1983), Pollock (1982) and (1983a), Tarald-

On Case and The Syntax

of Infinitives

in French

321

sen (1984). For a discussion of the inadequacy of co-superscripting (or of Rizzi's redefinition of Binding (see Rizzi (1982, 136)), see Pollock (1983b, section 2.3 and 2.4). 4. On many additional consequences of this approach for the syntax of en/ne see Pollock (1983b). 5. If languages differed with respect to the applicability of rule (3) we would predict interesting sets of empirical differences correlated with a single parameter. That this is indeed the case is argued for in Pollock (1982) and (1983b). 6. With notable exceptions not tackled in Safir (1982), like: (i)

il reste encore cela á analyser it remains still this to analyse (this remains to be analysed)

or more generally allne...que structures like (ii): (ii)

il n'est entré que Paul/ton ami/la voisine it only came in Paul/your friend/the neighbour (only... came in)

7. Reuland (this volume) suggests another reason for the existence of chains of this kind, namely the Extended Projection Principle. Pollock (1983b, note 18) suggests a similar approach, but restricted to empty expletives (pro). Assuming the correctness of the approach sketched out in B and C, Reuland's analysis would force us to assume that a chain like (12) can only be formed at LF after the interpretation of quantifiers and variables. But if so it is not clear to me what potential empirical consequences such a chain might have aside from the desire to maintain Safir's account of the DE. That this account is too weak is suggested by cases of DE for which it is hard to think of a chain in which to include the offending NP, like (i), pointed out to me by Richard Kayne (i)

a. The table has a book on it b. ?*The table has the book on it

That it is also too strong is suggested in Pollock (1983b, note 17) on the basis of stylistic inversion sentences "triggered" by the subjunctive which take a pro subject heading a chain including the postverbal NP but which don't show any DE. For contradictory analyses of similar cases of stylistic inversion see Safir (1982), appendix). 8. Cf. among others Pesetsky (1981). 9. For a qualification of this requirement see Kayne (1983) and section 2 below. 10. Rizzi (1978, appendix) and Kayne (1980, note 14) both pointed out that this prediction appears weakened by marginally acceptable sentences like (i) and (ii): (i) (ii)

?Pierre a été longtemps suppose aimer les roses rouges ??Marie, Pierre l'a longtemps supposé avoir été séduite par Jean (i): Pierre has long been assumed to like red roses (ii): Marie, Pierre has long considered her to have been seduced by Jean

Both suggested an "analogical" account of these structures. I will take up this suggestion in 2. below in a slightly different form. 11. Rouveret & Vergnaud (1980, note 23) and Rouveret (1980, 78 example (12)), among others, are speakers of this type.

322

J.-Y.

Pollock

12. Put another way, the two analyses summed up above claim that the minimal contrast between French/Italian vs. English illustrated by pairs like (13) and (14) is fully neutralised in infinitival relatives. What contrasts like (24)-(28) show is that this neutralisation is only partial and that the difference between French and English with respect to the syntax of infinitives shows up again in cases like (i) vs. (ii) : (i) (ii)

The man who I believed to have solved the problem was John ?*L "homme que je croyais avoir résolu le problème est Jean

13. For a very careful and interesting account of the syntax of ne... que in general, see Azoulay (1981). 14. (39)-(40) contrast minimally with "simple" cases of stylistic inversion, like (i): (i)

a. Où trônaient ces bibelots avant de tomber par terre? b. Dans quel grenier se promenaient des milliers de souris en se riant du chat c. Dans quelle prison ont été fusillés de nombreux prisonniers sans être jugés (a= Where did these jewels queen before falling to the ground?) (b= In which attic did thousands of mice run about laughing at the cat?) (c= In which prison were numerous prisoners shot without being trialed?)

This contrast follows if we assume with Kayne (1979) that the empty subject in (i) is a variable, i.e. an R-expression, which can control PRO, unlike expletives. On some marginal cases of control by expletive pro see Pollock (1983b, note 26). 15. An empty category in subject position can also be identified as (expletive) pro in French in the subjunctive, whence the minimal contrast (i) vs. (ii): (i)

(ii)

J'aimerais que sorte Paul I would like that leave Paul (I would like Paul to leave) *Je crois que sortira Paul I think that will leave Paul (I think Paul will leave)

16. (41) should be made to follow from the structure of UG, clearly, although I do not know how to do it. All the studies I have seen on ne...que incorporate some such admittedly opaque stipulation in one form or an other. The same stipulation is presumably valid for "list" constructions like (i): (i)

sont entrés Pierre, Paul et Marie (Pierre, Paul and Marie came in)

as shown by (ii): (ii)

*sont entrés Pierre, Paul et Marie avant de frapper (Pierre, Paul and Marie came in before knocking at the door)

although most speakers find (iii) worse than (iv), for reasons unclear (iii) (iv)

?*Je croyais être entré Pierre, Paul ettoMarie (I thought Pierre, Paul and Marie have come in) ? Je croyais n'être entré que Pierre

On Case and The Syntax

of Infinitives

in French

323

17. Although it is not entirely obvious why: If the subject position is not governed in French, which will allow sentences like (i) (i)

(jsjp trois PRO) sont entrés

(see Belletti & Rizzi (1981), Pollock (1983b)), then it is going to be impossible to block PRO sont entrés. It is tempting to relate this to the anaphoric properties of AGR in French. This could be done if the number features associated to PRO were "invisible" to AGR in the latter case but recoverable from determiners like trois in (0. In (ii) (ii)

Marie et Jeanne^ croyaient (PRO être satisfaites)

number and gender agreement on the participle is determined by what Fauconnier called a "coreference network" (see Fauconnier (1974)). This does not suffice in the case of AGR, clearly: (iii)

*Marie et Jeanne^ croyaient que PROj seraient satisfaites

Perhaps agreement features on participles have retained pronominal properties unlike AGR (On the anaphoric vs. pronominal AGR see Pollock (1983b, section III. 1)). One could explain the fact that the ec cannot be identified as an anaphor if Paul in (36) was necessarily adjoined to S as in (iv) (iv)

(g (g ecj est sorti) Paulj)

and if the internal S counted as the minimal governing category of ecj. This would follow if (v) (v)

(g ccj est sorti Jeanp

violated principle C of the Binding Theory (or any reformulation thereof). 18. Richard Kayne has pointed out to me that (i) contrasts minimally with (ii) (i) (ii)

a. b. a. b.

A qui penses-tu qu'a téléphoné Marie Par qui penses-tu qu'a été séduite Marie *A qui penses-tu avoir téléphoné Marie *Par qui penses-tu avoir été séduite Marie

There is no reason to suppose that the ec in (ii) should be analysed differently from the ec in (i). In the latter the ec is a variable. It should be in the former too. But if so, what is it that makes (ii) ungrammatical? He suggests the following answer: suppose Marie in such structures is part of a complex quantifier obtained by absorption at LF and suppose such a quantifier cannot be A-bound. This will prevent the vbl in subject position from being in a chain with Marie. But if so there is no way the variable in (ii) could be part of a Case-marked chain, even in cases like (iib). 19. The stipulation concerning PRO is unrevealing but unfortunately shared by all other "visibility" requirements on chains (see Chomsky (1981, 334, (18)). 20. On for in English see Kayne (1980). I am assuming that PRO is excluded here by the 6-criterion; PRO is an R-expression and would compete with the Que NP for the unique 0-role associated with the unaccusative verb or the passive participle.

324

J.-Y. Pollock

21. On the fact that (58) and the like are often felt to be worse than (56) (whence the "??") see below section 2.4. 22. In fact Rizzi (1978, appendix) claims some Italian counterparts of (62) are acceptable. Assuming these judgements to be representative, French and Italian would seem to differ considerably with respect to such constructions. Perhaps Italian allows for a more radical reanalysis than the one formulated for French in (70). See f o o t n o t e 28 below. 23. These are "real" SC's and not NPs (see Williams (1984)), as shown by the fact that the following are acceptable: (i) (ii)

Sa femme est encore plus acariâtre que je n'aurais pu souhaiter sa concierge (his wife is even more bossy than I could have wished his concierge) En quelle langue aurais-tu voulu/souhaité/désiré cette thèse?) (In what language would you have wanted/wished this thesis)

24. There are other examples of asymmetries between government and Case-assignment in the literature. For example Pollock (1981) argues that the reanalysed predicate prendre forme can govern (and 0 - m a r k ) the postverbal NP in structures like (i): (i)

Il prend forme un grand espoir dans ce pays

but shows that prendre forme cannot assign Case to un grand espoir. Kayne (this volume) has examples of a related asymmetry between 6-marking and Case-assignment. It would be tempting to relate the text's asymmetry to the pair (72) vs. (73). 25. (87) and the like contrast minimally with acceptable sentences like (i) in Spanish (see Bosque and Moreno (1984)): (i)

No sabemos quiénes/cuántos (de los jugadores) ir a Paris

Bosque and Moreno show that cuántos/quiénes and the like can be analysed as binding an ec in front position of the infinitive. If we understand the facts correctly, it is that ec that heads a chain including the 8-position in the infinitive, not the w h quantifiers. Since French does not allow such ec's (cf. pairs like los jugadores quereis ir a Paris (Bosque and Moreno (1984, (12b)) vs. *les joueurs voulez aller à Paris) (i) will not have any well-formed counterpart in French. 26. Given rule (3) above, it is not entirely obvious, at least in French (see Pollock (1982)), why the anaphor in (93) could not be marked for Case. Assuming we wanted to exclude that possibility the following comes to mind: Since the variable in (93a) is not governed it must be Case-marked (see constraint (49) above). A s a consequence, application of (3) will yield a chain with two Cases, a situation which has been suggested should be excluded in principle (see e.g. Pollock (1983a (45)), Reuland (this volume)). If this is so it is easy to see that only two cases of legitimate application of (3) will arise: first, in tensed clauses, whenever UG does not independently require the postverbal NP in (3) to be part of a chain headed by a Case-marked expletive (e.g. il impersonal sentences if Pollock (1981), (1982) is right). Second, in infinitival clauses when the NP Case-marked by (3) is part of a chain whose head is governed but not Case-marked (viz. ne...que infinitives (and infinitival relatives, for most speakers)). This does not leave any space for the anaphor in (93a) to be Case-marked by (3), clearly. 27. The last two sentences of (94) are borrowed from Montesquieu and Rousseau, respectively, and could therefore conceivably be said to be examples of the strategy

On Case and The Syntax

of Infinitives

in French

325

of imitation of Latin which prevailed in French from the 14th to the end of the 16th century, according to Lorian (1973), quoted in Kayne (1980, footnote 24). 28. In fact I know of only one speaker who accepts sentences like (74j) and (74k), roughly at the same level of acceptability as (74a) (Anne Zribi-Hetz (p.c.)). One way to interpret this would be to say that she pushes her reanalysis one step further and allows X m + 1 itself to be reanalysed as a SC, which we know is transparent to government and Case-assignment. By doing so, she adopts a reanalysis very close to that suggested by Rizzi (1978, appendix) for Italian although not quite as extensive in its range of application since she appears to be reluctant to accept sentences like (62), (the counterparts of) some of which are marginally good for (some) Italian speakers (see Rizzi (1978, appendix)). This difference might perhaps be related to the fact that Italian has a productive A u x - t o - C O M P rule while French does not. One could claim, as Rizzi (1978) did for other contexts, that it is application of that rule to INFL which licences lexical subjects in infinitives. 29. As stated in 2 above, rule (70) is informal. V could easily disappear from its formulation. Similarly, it is unlikely that it should be allowed to apply in tensed subordinate clauses. It would not be difficult, although it would be unrevealing, to add a constant in the structural description of (70) which would yield the correct description.

REFERENCES Azoulay, A. (1981) Etudes des constructions de A", unpublished thèse de doctorat de troisième cycle, Université de Paris 8. Belletti, A. (1983) "Frasi ridotte assolute", unpublished paper, MIT. Belletti, A. and L. Rizzi (1981) "The syntax of "ne": Some theoretical Implications", The Lingusistic Review, 1, 117-154. Bosque, I. and Moreno J.-C. (1984) "A Condition on Quantifiers in Logical F o r m " LI, 15.1, 164-167. Chomsky, N. (1981) Lectures on Government and Binding. Foris Publications, Dordrecht, Holland. Chomsky, N. (1982) Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding, Linguistic Inquiry monograph no. 6, MIT Press Cambridge, Mass. Fauconnier, G. (1974) La coréférence: Syntaxe ou Sémantique?, Le Seuil, Paris. Kayne, R.S. (1979) "Extension of Binding and Case-marking", Linguistic Inquiry 11, 75-96, also in Linguisticae Investigationes 3, 39-55. Kayne, R.S. (1980) "On Certain Differences between French and English", Linguistic Inquiry 12, 349-371 also in Langages 60, 47-64. Kayne, R.S. (1982) "Le Datif en Français et en Anglais", in Analyses Grammaticales du français, M. Herslund, O. M^rdrup / F. S^rensen eds., Revue Romane numéro spécial 24, 1983. Kayne, R.S. (1983) "Chaînes, catégories extérieures à S et inversion complexe en français", Langue Française no. 58, 36-65. Kayne, R.S. (this volume) "Principles of Particle Constructions". Lorian, A. (1973): Tendances stylistiques dans la prose narrative française du XVIième siècle, Klincksieck, Paris. Manzini, R. (1983) "On Control and Control Theory, Linguistic Inquiry, 14, 421446. Pesetsky, D. (1981) "Complementizer-trace Phenomena and the Nominative Island Condition", The Linguistic Review 1, 219-252.

326

J.-Y.

Pollock

Pollock, J . - Y . (1981) "On Case and Impersonal Constructions" in R. May and J. Koster eds., Levels of Syntactic Representation, 219-252, Foris Publications, Dordrecht, Holland. Pollock, J . - Y . (1982) "Accord, chaînes impersonnelles et variables", Linguisticae Investigationes 7, 131-181. Pollock, J.-Y. (1983a) "Sur quelques propriétés des phrases copulatives" in Langue Française 58, 89-125. Pollock, J . - Y . (1983b) "Sur la syntaxe de " e n " et le paramètre du sujet nul", à paraître in Grammaire Modulaire, D. Couquaux et M. Ronat (eds.) Editions de Minuit, Paris. Reuland, E. (this volume) "Representation at the Level of Logical Form and the Definiteness Effect". Rizzi, L. (1978) "Nominative Marking in Italian Infinitivies and the NIC" in F. Heny, ed. Binding and Filtering, Croom Helm, London. Rizzi, L. (1982) Issues in Italian Syntax, Foris Publications, Dordrecht, Holland. Rouveret, A. and J . - R . Vergnaud (1980) "Specifying Reference to the Subject; French Causatives and Conditions on Representations", Linguistic Inquiry 11, 97-202. Rouveret, A. (1980) "Sur la notion de proposition finie gouvernement et inversion", in Langages 60, 75-107. Ruwet, N. (1982) Grammaire des insultes et autres études, Le Seuil, Paris. Safir, K. (1982) Syntactic Chains and the Definiteness Effect, unpublished MIT dissertation. Stowell, T. (1983) "Subjects across Categories", The Linguistic Review 2, 285312. Taraldsen, T. (1984) "On the complementarity of Bounding and Binding," GLOW talk, 1984, Copenhagen. Williams, E. (1984) "There-Insertion", Linguistic Inquiry 15, 131-153.

Chapter 13

Representation at the Level of Logical Form and the Definitiveness Effect Eric J. Reuland

0. INTRODUCTION

In this article I will discuss a number of questions involving the 'definiteness effect', recently discussed by Ken Safir in his dissertation (Safir (1982)), and earlier by Milsark (1974). The phenomenon is illustrated in (1). (1)

a. there ensued a/*the riot on Mass. Ave. (Milsark (1974)) b. ... dat er een/*de man in de kamer liep ... that there a/*the man in the room walked

For reasons of exposition the Dutch example in ( l b ) is given in the subordinate SOV form, as will be most other examples from Dutch. The structural subject of this construction lacks a thematic role, and is realized by a nonargument, such as there in English, or er in Dutch. In PRO-drop and some other languages the subject is expletive e (Safir (1982)). The actual bearer of the relevant thematic role is an NP in VP-internal position. This aspect of the structure is illustrated in (2). (2)

a. [g there AG [yp ensued a riot PP] ] b. ... dat [g er [ y p een man PP liep ] AG]

The term structural subject will be used in the standard fashion to refer to the NP position outside the VP directly dominated by S. Constituents *This article is an expanded and improved version of my contribution to the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 2. In its original form it appeared in the Proceedings of that Conference, Barlow et al. (1983). A substantial part of this research was carried out under a travel grant from the Netherlands Organization for the Advancement of Pure Research (Z.W.O.), which I gratefully acknowledge. I am indebted to many people for various discussions which helped me develop my views, in particular to Noam Chomsky, Irene Heim, Jim Higginbotham, Ken Safir, Esther Torrego, and Lisa Travis, and also to Hagit Borer, David Pesetsky and Barry Schein. For extensive comments on the previous version I am grateful to Jacqueline Gueron and Jean-Yves Pollock. All errors are mine.

328

Eric J. Reuland

such as a riot and een man, the real arguments in this construction, will be referred to as VP-internal subjects, or also thematic subjects. That a riot in (la) is VP-internal in English I will be assuming without comment. On the basis of an argument presented in Den Besten (1981, 1982), it can be established that the thematic subject in the Dutch ^ - c o n s t r u c tion must be in the direct object position, inside the VP. 1 The definiteness effect is that a VP-internal subject as in (1) must be indefinite. The main concern of this paper is the question why this is so. Safir (1982) presents a very interesting approach to an explanation of this effect. I will present a brief sketch of its main features. The definiteness effect (henceforth DE) is derived from the assumptions in (4), illustrated on the basis of the structures in (3). (3)

a. ... [ s therej AGj [ w V NPf ] ] (English) b. , . . [ s e r ^ v p N P f V ] AGj ] (Dutch)

(4)

a. There is a chain containing the structural and the thematic subjects. This holds true at S-structure and at LF. b. Definite NPs are subject to the binding conditions both at S-structure and at LF. Indefinite NPs are invisible to the binding conditions (BCs) at S-structure. Hence they are subject to the BCs only at LF. c. Indefinite NPs are like quantifiers, and undergo an LF movement rule (Quantifier Raising (May (1977)) adjoining them toS.

Safir provides the following motivation for (4a). According to the 6 criterion as formulated in Chomsky (1981), which subsumes the Casefilter, the VP-internal subject must be a member of a chain with Case. Since the verb is intransitive, NP* cannot receive Case from the latter. NP* is not governed by AG, hence cannot receive Case from this item either. However, the expletive element in the structural subject position is governed by AG, and can receive Case. The chain containing the Case marked nonargument and the Caseless thematic subject will satisfy the 6-criterion - for present purposes it is immaterial how this chain is formed. Either movement, or free coindexing will have the required result. However, in the resulting configuration the VP-internal subject is c-commanded by the coindexed expletive subject. According to the binding conditions as formulated in Chomsky (1981) a referential expression must be argument free. In the configuration of (3) this requirement is not met, NP* is bound by there/er (which, although nonarguments, are in an argument position (A-position)). So, at any level at which NP* is visible to the BCs, the structures in (3) lead to an ungrammatical result,

Representation

at the Level of Logical Form

329

unless there is a rule available at that level mapping such a structure onto a structure not containing the violation. No such rule is available at S structure, hence definite NPs, which are visible at that level are ruled out in this construction. At LF, however, there is a rule which has this effect according to Safir, namely the rule QR of (4c). The result of applying QR to NP* is illustrated in (5) (for (3a), (3b) would be similar). (5)

[ s NPf [ s therej AGj [ y p V

ej]]

In (5) the BCs are not violated. ex resulting from the LF movement of NP* is locally A-bound by there. Hence, by the functional definitions of empty categories (Chomsky (1981, 1982)), it is an anaphor bound in its governing category. There, in turn, is locally A-bar-bound by NP*. Safir assumes that this makes it into a variable. So, the structure comes out as well-formed with respect to the BCs. It follows that chains as in (3) yield a grammatical result just in case NP* is indefinite. If NP* is indefinite, the violation of the BCs does not arise at S-structure, where it could not be remedied, but only at LF, where the structure can be saved by QR. In order to be able to rule out sentences like *there was everyone in the room it is stipulated that certain quantifiers (including every) are definite. Hence they give rise to violations of the BCs at S-structure. The parameter accounting for the absence of a DE in languages such as Italian involves the accessibility of the VP-internal subject for direct assignment of Case by AG. Somewhat modifying the analysis discussed in Chomsky (1981) (the relevant Case assigner is argued to be a null subject clitic), Safir proposes an S-structure as in (6) for the sentence arriva Gianni. (6)

[ g e inflj [ y p V Giannij ] ] Sclj

Gianni is governed by the subject clitic on the verb, and thus receives Case without the structural subject e acting as an intermediary. Since the assigner of the nominative Case is on the verb, its governing domain will include NP positions adjoined to the VP (cf. Chomsky (1981)), as in a telefonato Gianni with a non-ergative verb. Safir assumes that the adjoined position counts as external in the sense of Williams (1980, 1981); hence an argument in this position will receive the external 0-role. The core of Safir's proposal can thus be said to consist of the hypothesis that a chain is formed between the expletive subject and the thematic subject because the latter has to inherit its Case, and the stipulation that indefinites are exempted from the binding conditions at S structure, which in a sense represents the asymmetry between definites

330

Eric J. Reuland

and indefinites. Ideally such an asymmetry should follow from the general character of the difference between definites and indefinites. One of the aims of this paper will be to derive this asymmetry from a more general characterization of the difference. First, however, we will address the first part of Safir's proposal, viz. the reasons for the formation of a chain containing the structural and the thematic subjects.

1. DEFINITENESS EFFECTS WITHOUT CASE INHERITANCE

In this section it will be argued that Case inheritance cannot be the relevant factor in the explanation of the DE. However, as we will see in the next section, Safir's basic insight, viz. that the structural and the thematic subject are in a chain, will be retained. Only, this chain cannot be due to Case inheritance. This claim can be established by considering existential constructions in a certain number of languages. In some instances the facts are virtually self explanatory, in other instances some more involved argumentation is required, but in all cases the status of the conclusion is identical: there is a VP-internal constituent which receives a Case not mediated by the structural subject, and yet there is a definiteness effect on this constituent. Self-explanatory is the existential construction in German, illustrated in (7). (7)

es gibt einen/*den Mann it gives a man=there is a man

The thematic subject einen Mann has objective Case, which must have been assigned by the verb; yet there is a definiteness effect (this was in fact noted in Safir (1982), but regarded as an anomaly). In a language without overt Case marking on non-pronominals, such as Dutch, the Case of an indefinite NP must be established in an indirect way. Consider the Dutch existential given in (8). (8)

je hebt er een/*de fabriek you have there a factory=there is there a factory

The verb agrees with the subject pronoun je, which is 'generic' (=one) here. There is no reason to think that een fabriek receives Case from AG, nor that it inherits Case from er. If the complement of hebben is a small clause here (which seems probable), er and een fabriek are both directly governed by hebben, which ordinarily assigns objective Case, as can be seen on pronouns. Hence, the null-hypothesis is that een fabriek has

Representation

at the Level of Logical Form

331

objective Case, just like any other object of hebben, without an intermediary. Yet there is a definiteness effect in this construction. More direct is the evidence from Spanish. The existential construction in Spanish is illustrated in (9), due to Torrego (1982)). (9)

hay un/*el hombre en la habitación there is a man in the room

Torrego is able to show that the position occupied by un hombre receives objective Case from hay, since it is possible to cliticize from that position (although full pronouns are impossible due to the DE). She gives the following example. (10)

Hay estaciones de metro en esa zona de la ciudad? are there any subway stations in that area of the city? No las hay en esa zona, pero las hay muy cerca. there aren't any in that area, but there are them close by

las in the answer to the question has objective Case, thus showing that the VP-internal constituent in the hay-construction does not receive its Case mediated by the structural subject, but directly from the verb. Yet, as (9) shows, there is a DE. Pollock (1982) develops a theory of Case assignment accounting for the inverted subject construction in French, where there is no agreement between the verb and the inverted subject. Pollock claims that there is a difference between ergative and non-ergative verbs as illustrated in (1113). (11)

a. il est arrivé trois hommes b. ??? il a téléphoné trois hommes

(12)

a. l'homme queje croyais être arrivé t .... b. ??? l'homme queje croyais avoir téléphoné t ....

(13)

a. l'espoir queje croyais s'être formé t .... b. *l'espoir que je croyais avoir pris forme t ....

He argues that in all of the a-cases the postverbal NP receives its Case directly from the verb. That is, in French ergative verbs are claimed to be exceptional in that they assign (possibly nominative) Case to their complements. Notice that in (12) and (13) the extraction site is in a tenseless clause. Thus Case inheritance from a subject position governed by a finite inflection can be excluded. The contrasts between the a- and

332

Eric J. Reuland

the b-case also preclude an explanation solely on the basis of exceptional Case assignment to a trace in Comp along the lines proposed in Kayne (1981). Pollock also discusses the existential construction in French, where he claims the VP-internal argument receives Case from avoir. In all of these cases there is a DE, as shown by (14). (14)

a. il y a un/*l'homme it there has a man=there is a man b. il est arrivé un/*Fhomme it is arrived a man=there has arrived a man

The paradigm case for the Case inheritance theory is the inverted subject construction in English and Dutch. Yet it can be shown that here too, an analysis based on direct nominative Case assignment to the VP-internal subject by AG is to be preferred. Motivation for this position has been presented in Reuland (1982, 1983b). For present purposes a sketch of the relevant considerations will suffice. One of the issues is what principles govern the distribution of impersonal it and expletive there in English, and their counterparts het 'it' and er 'there' in Dutch, and how these principles account for what appear to be differences between these languages in the distribution of those items. In English one finds there as a pleonastic subject when the thematic argument is an NP, and it, when the argument is a clause. Cf. therej*it ensued a riot on Mass. Ave., but it/*there was assumed that this was a disaster. In the former case, Dutch patterns like English, but in the latter case it differs. In passives with a clausal argument one generally finds er as the subject, as in er/*het werd aangenomen dat dit een ramp was 'there was assumed that this was a disaster', with the reverse pattern from its English equivalent. Preferably, this should be derivable from an independently motivated parameter distinguishing English and Dutch. This parameter is the rule lowering the inflection onto the verb (rule R in Chomsky (1981)). As we shall see below, there is evidence that in Dutch, like in Italian, this rule may apply in the syntax. For English the standard assumption will be retained, viz. that it cannot apply in the syntax. Given this assumption about the way the parameters have been set, the distributional facts about there¡er and it¡het follow from the following hypothesis: therejer can never be in a Case position, whereas itjhet require Case. Given that a Case assigner such as AG must assign its Case whenever it can, i.e. whenever it governs an NP, it follows that there ¡er can only emerge when AG can assign its Case to some NP that is not in the structural subject position, bypassing there/er, or when AG does not govern the structural subject, i.e. when AG is inside the VP. Since in English the latter case does not

Representation

at the Level of Logical Form

333

obtain, one strictly finds there...AG...NP versus it...AG...S'. In the latter case it is obligatory since AG cannot assign its Case to the S' (by Stowell (1981)'s Case resistance principle), hence must assign it to the subject. In Dutch one finds er...AG...S' just in case AG is inside the VP, and hence does not govern the structural subject. So, the crucial hypothesis is that er/there is not in a Case position when it is a subject. In fact, for Dutch this is supported by the general character of er, which for instance occurs in PPs, but never in the canonical position of the argument of the preposition (where presumably it would have to receive Case) (cf. Reuland (1982b)). However, if er/there must be characterized as not occurring in a Case position, one has to assume that the postverbal NP in 'i/zere-insertion' constructions receives its Case directly from AG, rather than inheriting it from there¡er. As an aside, this eliminates the only instance of an A-chain where the position marked for Case by the Case marker does not coincide with the position occupied by the argument NP on which the Case shows up. In Reuland (1982a) I pursue further the idea that Case in an A-position must always be locally licensed, thus eliminating Case inheritance from there/er as a theoretical option. Under the present approach there/er is comparable in status to Safir's expletive e. Like the latter, er/there does not appear as the subject in control structures; following Safir one can assume that it requires government by tense. I will assume that the fact that English and certain variants of Dutch require there/er rather than expletive e follows from the way in which the null-subject parameter is set in these languages. Although certain interesting issues arise, I will not discuss them here. The proposal that an NP with morphological Case in an A-position cannot have this Case licensed by a Case assigner unless it is itself governed by the latter has some immediate consequences for the analysis of the inverted subject construction in English. According to Milsark (1974) for English two constructions must be distinguished, the inside verbal (IV) construction, illustrated in (15) and the outside verbal (OV) construction, illustrated in (16), and discussed first. (15)

there is a man in the room (see (17) for the structure)

(16)

a. there walked into the room a man b. [g there AG¡ [ y p [ y p walked into the room] a man^ ] ]

The structure of (16b) represents the view that the postverbal subject has been moved and adjoined to the VP. In Chomsky (1981) it is assumed that the moved constituent originates from the structural subject position, with inheritance of both Case and 0-role from that position. However,

334

Eric J. Reuland

the OV construction does not occur as freely as such an analysis would suggest. Its admissibility is subject to dialectal and stylistic variation; in addition it is lexically governed. Any analysis of this construction will have to account for such facts. An analysis based on free movement of an argument NP from the structural subject position with adjunction to the VP, or based on free chain formation between these positions in some other way, will fail to account for the restrictions, unless some other factors are brought into consideration. The restriction on Case inheritance between A-positions introduced above, implies that a man in (16) cannot inherit its Case from there; rather, it must receive its Case directly from AG. This immediately suggests a parameter accounting for the variation involving the nature of the adjunction site. In variants not allowing the construction, it is the higher VP which constitutes the domain of the verb. Since a governor cannot govern into the domain of some other head, AG cannot assign Case to a man (cf. Reuland (1983a) for some discussion of governing domains). As a consequence, in such variants the construction is impossible. Notice that this proposal differentiates between the OV construction and the result of heavy NP shift. Heavy NP shift, be it from the subject position, or from the direct object position, moves an NP to an A'-position. As a consequence, it gives rise to a variable at the extraction site, which is A ' bound by this NP. The restriction mentioned does not apply to this configuration; as always, the variable is in the Case position, the element A'-binding it is not. As a consequence, contrasts between the variants of English allowing the OV construction, and those not allowing it, will tend to involve relatively short NPs. In variants not allowing the OV construction, superficially similar sentences with a heavy NP may be grammatical, if construed as involving heavy NP shift. In variants allowing the construction, a man must be accessible to AG. It is, if the VP counting as the domain of the verb, for purposes of government, is the lower VP rather than the higher one. This kind of variation can be understood as follows. Adjunction of an NP to the VP potentially changes the governing domain of the verb. In variants not allowing the construction the adjunction does change this domain, with the effect discussed above. Variants allowing the construction can be thought of as having highly fixed configurations, in that domains of heads are not extended by adjunctions; as a consequence the domain of the verb that counts for purposes of government is the domain it had at D -structure. In such variants it is the lower VP that counts as the relevant boundary in (16). As a consequence, a man will be governed by and receive Case from AG in its derived position. A Case inheritance approach would have to build the variability into the notion of inheritance itself, and thus into the theory of chains. So,

Representation at the Level of Logical Form

335

the present approach provides a simple characterization of the difference between there/er and it/het, which is a desirable feature in itself. In addition, also the parameters involved in the dialectal variation are represented in a straightforward manner. As I noted earlier, within variants allowing it, the OV construction is nevertheless restricted in terms of lexical properties of the main verb. This fact can be brought out by comparing (16a) with a sentence such as there telephoned a man, which is generally judged to be worse than (16a) or even completely impossible. Given the lexical nature of this type of variation, one would expect the differences to be characterizable in terms of subcategorization and/or 0 - r o l e assigning properties of the verbs involved. If the postverbal NP in the OV construction originates from the structural subject position, subcategorization cannot be involved. Subcategorization may be invoked if one assumes that verbs such as walk are like ergatives in Italian under Burzio (198 l)'s analysis. They are subcategorized for an NP t o which they do not assign Case. As a consequence this NP has to move to a Case position. However, contrary to the Italian base generated cases, the verbs allowing the OV construction in English are not generally ergative; the 0 - r o l e the subject receives is presumably agentive in cases like that of walk. This may not be a serious drawback, since in the case of Dutch it is hard to see how one can escape the conclusion that agentive 0-roles may be assigned VP-internally. However, there may be some evidence that the postverbal NP in the OV construction does originate from the structural subject position. The relevant considerations will be discussed in the final section. If they are correct, the source of the variation cannot involve subcategorization. It is possible, however, that 0 - r o l e assignment is involved. If the contrast between walk and telephone is the paradigm case, it may follow from the consideration that verbs in English typically 0 - m a r k positions on their right. A verb like telephone in its intransitive use will automatically assign a 0 - r o l e to an argument NP to its right (maybe one will want to consider it a quasi-0-role since the verb is intransitive). But then this argument cannot at the same time bear the agentive 0 - r o l e it receives from the VP. Verbs such as walk, on the other hand, will be marked as more liberal under such an approach. They do not treat the adjoined position as an argument position which they govern; rather the adjoined position is treated as external also for purposes of 0 - r o l e assignment, and hence can receive the external 0 - r o l e . To be precise, under this approach the picture of the differences and similarities between the grammatical OV constructions with walk and the ungrammatical ones with telephone will be as follows. With respect to government and governing domains, the configurations are identical: since it is the D-structure domains that count, the postverbal NP is governed by AG, not by the verb. Since the external 0 - r o l e is assigned to an NP governed by VP, in b o t h

336

Eric J. Reuland

cases the adjoined VP receives the external 0-role. Verbs like telephone, however, treat as an internal argument any argument they c-command (I assume the version of c-command that goes up the projection line, cf. Chomsky (1981)). This leads to a violation of either the 0-criterion, or the projection principle, or the externality requirement. Verbs like walk are marked to treat as internal only arguments they govern. It is not inconceivable that this difference is related to other properties of these verbs, such as the fact that telephone but not walk also occurs as a transitive verb. The inside verbal construction is not subject to dialectal variation. However, it can only occur with a limited number of verbs, denoting a mode of being (Milsark (1974)). These facts show that a different parameter must be involved. Paradigm cases of the IV construction are sentences with be. The properties of these constructions can be accounted for on the basis of the following assumptions. The VP-internal subject (in fact the subject of a small clause complement of be) stays in its base position. It is accessible to government and Case assignment by the finite inflection of the matrix clause, since the restructuring process described by Akmajian, Steele and Wasow (1979) will deprive the VP of its head: the primary effect of restructuring is that be is no longer in the head position of the VP, but can be taken to occupy a specifier position of the VP. The relevant structure is illustrated in (17). (17)

[g there AGj [ y p is [y'— [g a man^ in the room] ] ] ]

Given that a headless constituent does not constitute an opaque domain with respect to an outside governor (Reuland (1983a)), a man can receive its Case directly from AG. The next question is how to account for the behaviour of the other members of this small class. On the one hand, such an account should make use of the fact that these verbs are semantically similar to be, on the other hand such an account should still differentiate between be, which after restructuring displays a clear auxiliary-like behaviour, and the others which apparently don't. Clearly, such an account must refer to lexical idiosyncrasies. The only aspect of the analysis that involves the theory, is the requirement that the idiosyncrasies should be of a kind that is stateable in the theory, without expanding the theoretical apparatus available. Now, auxiliaries and main verbs as classes in English are distinguished in two respects: main verbs, but not auxiliaries, occur as heads of the VP; auxiliaries, but not main verbs, can be in the INFL/AUX position at S structure, merging with the inflection (for the idea of merger cf. Reuland (1983d, e)). The auxiliary be idiosyncratically can occupy the main verb

Representation

at the Level of Logical

Form

337

position; after restructuring out of that position to the specifier position, it both frees the way for its complement to become governed by AG, and it is henceforth amenable to operations affecting auxiliaries. Suppose now that the possibility to restructure, i.e. to be treated as a specifier rather than a head of the VP, is associated with the class of IV verbs as a whole, possibly linked to the semantic characteristic they share. Suppose, in addition, that be is the only member in this class that is an auxiliary in the sense that it may merge with inflection at S-structure. These assumptions together yield precisely the right results. The complements of verbs such as exist, ensue, etc. which allow the IV construction freely, are indeed accessible for government by AG. Yet, these verbs do not exhibit the auxiliary-like behaviour of be, since they cannot leave the VP. The only stipulation that is not independently motivated in this account is the stipulation that these verbs are like be in that they restructure. Everything else follows from independent considerations. This account of the IV construction in English is both adequate and simple, I think. It has the advantage that it makes it possible to immediately link the limited distribution of IV constructions in English to a characteristic property of English, namely that INFL is always independent and outside the VP at S-structure. Hence, VP-internal arguments can only receive Case from INFL under special conditions. 2 The corresponding construction in Dutch (see (2b)), to the contrary, lacks the restrictions to which its English counterpart is subject. It is possible with virtually every intransitive verb. 3 As I said earlier, it can be established that the thematic subject is in the DO position inside the VP. Apparently, it must be generally accessible to AG. This general accessibility immediately follows from the proposal formulated above, that in Dutch, unlike English, the rule lowering the inflection onto the verb optionally applies in the syntax. The resulting structure of (18a= lb) is represented in (18b). (18)

a. ... dat er een man in de kamer liep b. . . . d a t [g er [ y p een man PP liep- AGj] inflj ]

In this manner, the VP-internal subject is governed directly by the lowered AG and thus receives Case. So, in fact the differences between English and Dutch concerning the generality of constructions with VP-internal subjects and the differences in the distribution of there and it versus er and het have both been reduced to the same typological difference, viz. that involving the availability of rule R in the syntax. The conclusion of the considerations presented so far must be that also in the construction types just discussed, the definiteness effect cannot be caused by Case inheritance, since the latter does not apply.

338

Eric J. Reuland

Quite striking evidence supporting the claim that the DE occurs where Case inheritance cannot play a role, is found in the nominative-dative inversion construction in Dutch. In Dutch it is possible for a dative argument of the verb to appear in a position between the complementizer and the VP, possibly the structural subject position, while the nominative thematic subject then occupies the direct object position (see Den Besten (1981, 1982) and Safir (1982) for discussion). An example is given in (19) and (20). (19)

ik vroeg of dit plan^Qj^ de m i n i s t e r j ^ y wel beviel I asked if this plan the minister pleased

(20)

ik vroeg of de m i n i s t e r ^ - p dit plan^Qj^ wel beviel

There is no DE in (20). This is to be expected. According to Den Besten (1981, 1982) these sentences are derived from a base structure as in (21), i.e. the verbs involved are like ergatives. (21)

[ s np [ v p N P [ ) A T NP* V ] AG ]

NP* is 6-marked by V, but cannot receive Case from the latter. The structural subject position is non-thematic. In order to receive Case, NP* can move to the structural subject position where it is governed by AG. Alternatively, it can receive Case from AG in situ. Under the approach outlined earlier (which is somewhat different from Den Besten's proposal), government of NP* by AG is possible if AG is lowered onto the verb, as discussed. If AG is on the verb the structural subject position is Caseless; consequently, the dative NP' can move to the structural subject position, yielding (20). Alternatively, the empty np can be identified by er (see below). The two structures are given in (22). (22)

a. [ s N P ^ . [ v p b. [ s er

[

w

tj

W

NPft0M.

D A J

V-AGj ] inf^ ] ]

N P f t 0 M . V-AGj ] infl, ] ]

Safir observes that there is a definiteness effect in (22b), but not in (22a). This can be illustrated on the basis of (23) as a realization of (22b). (23)

ik vroeg of er de minister enig/*het plan beviel I asked if there the minister any/*the plan pleased

He proposes that the S-structure of (23) is as in (21) with np realized as er, and Case assignment to NP* is mediated by er, which has Case from

Representation at the Level of Logical Form

339

AG, causing the DE. Following Den Besten he claims that the thematic subject in (20) receives Case by a marked process which allows government by AG to skip the structural subject position if otherwise a Case conflict would ensue (due to the dative marking on de minister). Since the dative subject may be skipped, there is no chain between the structural subject and the thematic subject, and hence no DE. Apart from the fact that this approach crucially uses a marked process instead of a general one (it must be somehow prohibited that AG assigns its Case to NP* if np in (21) is er), the explanation it provides of the distribution of the DE in this construction does not cover all of the facts. Crucially, there is an alternative realization of the structure given in (22b), in which the definiteness effect appears on the dative NP', and not on the nominative NP*. This is shown in (24). 4 (24)

a. ik vroeg of er i e m a n d p ^ j dat planj^QM n ' e t beviel I asked if there anyone that plan not pleased b. ik vroeg me af of er wel genoeg/*deze m e n s e n p ^ j dit p l a n ^ o M I wondered if there enough/*these people this plan zou aanstaan would please

The facts can be summarized as follows: The VP may contain both a dative and a nominative NP when the structural subject is expletive er. They may not both be definite. The structure may be saved if at least one of the arguments is indefinite (two indefinites is possible too). Since there is no way in which the dative NP could inherit its Case from an expletive subject marked nominative by AG, the DE must be independent of Case inheritance. I have reviewed now a number of constructions in different languages exhibiting definiteness effects. In some of the cases a DE was found involving a non-nominative constituent, excluding Case inheritance as the relevant factor straight away. In other cases the constituent exhibiting the DE was a nominative NP; however, it could be argued that the optimal analysis must be based on the relevant NP receiving its Case directly from AG, not mediated by the structural subject. This leaves open the task to find an alternative explanation of the definiteness effect.

2. THE E X T E N D E D PROJECTION PRINCIPLE

The fundamental idea in Safir's explanation of the definiteness effect is that for one reason a chain must be formed containing both the exple-

340

Eric J. Reuland

tive and the thematic subject, which leads to a structure that for another reason can only survive if the thematic subject is indefinite. This idea seems correct, and will be maintained. In this section I will develop a proposal to the effect that it is the extended projection principle, specifically the requirement that a clause must have a subject at every level of representation, which necessitates the relevant chain to be formed. Reconsidering the nominative-dative inversion case in Dutch, if the DE depends on chain formation, the generalization must be that at least one of the arguments of the verb must be coindexed with the structural subject, the choice being essentially free. The question is now why this would be so. Notice that even under Safir's original proposal the effect of coindexing between the expletive and the thematic subject is two-fold: the thematic subject becomes a member of a chain with Case, and the expletive becomes a member of a chain with a 0-role (in the ergative cases). The second effect looks like a concomitant feature without independent significance. Notice, however, that this effect is a very general by-product of rules moving an argument of the verb into the subject position, be it NP-movement under passive, or DAT-movement as in (20). The basis of my proposal will be that this is not a by-product of some other process, but rather a primary effect, necessitated by the status of subjects under the extended projection principle (henceforth EPP): A clause must have a subject at every level of representation (Chomsky (1982). 5 I shall assume the following interpretation of this requirement: (25)

At every level of representation of a clause one argument position must be characterized as external.

The notion of an external argument is discussed in Williams (1980, 1981); see also Safir (1982) and Marantz (1981). The question is now what requirements on representations (25) induces. The null-hypothesis is that (25) holds for configurational and nonconfigurational languages alike. Since in a non-configurational language it is impossible to define canonical positions, one possible interpretation of (25) for this case would be that one argument is arbitrarily picked out and marked as external. It seems plausible, though, that this is not a completely arbitrary choice, in the sense that also the 0-role of the argument may be relevant: certain 0-roles may be more amenable to externalization than others. Following a proposal by Marantz I will make the assumption in (26). (26)

An argument will be characterized as external by virtue of the compositionality of the function which determines its thematic role.

Representation at the Level of Logical Form

341

As a limiting case, zero-argument predicates can be subsumed under these definitions if the fact that no 0 - r o l e can be assigned is taken to be compositionally determined. The subject of weather verbs can be taken as an instance of this case. The defining characteristic of configurationality is that grammatical functions are associated with canonical positions in the structure of the sentence. Following standard assumptions this necessitates movement, traces, 0 - r o l e inheritance, etc. The requirement of the EPP that one argument position must be external, when taken to mean that the G F [NP, S] must be always available, now implies that a sentence must have a structural, or canonical subject position at every level of representation on which canonical positions can be defined. If GFs are dispensed with in the manner proposed by Williams (1981), this still holds true of what remains: the notion of externality. The role of the canonical position can be formulated as in (27). (27)

An external argument is characterized as such b y virtue of its structural position, namely that of an S-daughter outside the domain of the verb.

Just as (27) may characterize an argument as external for structural reasons, it is also possible for an argument to be characterized as internal for such reasons. I will be assuming that one of the effects of configurationality is that a VP-internal argument could not be made to qualify as external in order to satisfy (25) on the basis of (26) alone. This rules out a pathological structure like ... [g [ y p V NP* NP' ] ] with NP* marked as external by (26) as possibly satisfying (25). So, non-satisfaction of the configurational requirements where defined will overrule satisfaction of the thematic requirements Notice that this leaves open the possibility that there are mixed configurational-nonconfigurational languages. In such languages, however, (26) will come into play as a sufficient condition only in sentence types where structural criteria are not defined (cf. Reuland (1982b) for discussion of such cases in Dutch). It is (27) together with its counterpart, that a VP-internal constituent cannot qualify as external, which leads to the presence of expletive elements in configurational languages: the only way for a clause with only V P internal thematic arguments to satisfy (25) is by virtue of having an expletive subject meeting (27). The crucial point is now the status of expletive elements of L F . Properties of LF are least accessible to observation. Accordingly, properties of LF must be highly determined by UG, and most constant under language change and variation. Hence, the null-hypothesis will be that LFs in configurational grammars are similar to those in non-configurational

342

Eric J. Reuland

grammars. The minimal structure one must postulate for LF is what is necessitated by processes such as scope assignment and predication. I will now propose that at LF there is no structure but what is motivated by such considerations. If this is correct, the notion of an external position does not have a status at LF which is independent of the role performed by the element occupying it. To put this differently, if an expletive element performs no other function than that of occupying a certain position, it will not be visible at LF. Specifically, I will adopt as a working hypothesis the visibility condition given in (28). (28)

At LF an A-position is visible iff it is a member of a theta-marked chain.

From (28) one can immediately derive the following consequence: (29)

At LF an expletive subject must be a member of a theta-marked chain if the sentence is to count as having an external argument satisfying the extended projection principle at that level.

Consider now the effect of this hypothesis regarding a sentence with a D-structure containing only VP-internal arguments. We saw an example of this in (21). At D-structure (25) is met, since the empty «p-position satisfies (27). If none of the arguments moves, this position will have to be realized by some overt expletive if the language does not allow expletive e, but this is a condition separate from the EPP. In Dutch (22b) is a well-formed S-structure, with np realized as er; there is no need for er to enter a chain with any other A-position. Alternatively, either NP' or NP* can be externalized, as in (19) and (20). However, given (29), (22b) is not wellformed as an LF structure, er is not a member of a theta-chain, and hence invisible. So, as it is (22b) would count as subjectless at LF (note: but only there), and hence violate the EPP. However, given that free indexing between A-positions is available at LF (as well as at S-structure), it is possible for the expletive element to become a member of a 0-chain at LF. Thus, abstracting away from other features of LF, the structure in (30), which minimally differs from (22b) in that the expletive and the dative NP' are coindexed, does meet the requirement that a clause must have an external argument. (30)

[s

erj

[ v p NP] NPf V - A G j ] inflj ]

Clearly, the chain could have been formed between er and NP* instead. Thus, chain formation between the expletive and one of the arguments at LF is necessary in order to avoid violating the EPP. This is what we

Representation at the Level of Logical Form

343

set out to show. Notice that there are in fact two interpretations of what happens, which may turn out to be not completely equivalent: one interpretation is that the chain formation makes er visible, as we have been arguing; the other is that the chain formation in fact externalizes the VP-internal argument involved, by making part of its chain external. I will not pursue this issue here. 6 In the next section I will continue the discussion of the relation between the chain and the definiteness effect. This section will be concluded with a discussion of some issues related to the use we make of the EPP. An important point is the status of argumentless passives under the present version of the EPP. That is, how is the EPP satisfied in sentences like (31), where er should be invisible at LF. At the same time the question arises why (32) is ungrammatical. (31) (32)

ik zag dat er gedanst werd *I saw that there was danced

I will argue that this difference between Dutch and English can be reduced to another difference. In Dutch, but not in English, the agentive 0 - r o l e can be assigned VP-internally. As mentioned in the beginning, virtually every intransitive verb can occur in the er-construction, with the thematic subject in direct object position. An example is (33). (33)

a. ik zag dat er iemand danste=I saw that there someone danced b. ik zag dat [g er [ y p iemandj d a n s - A G j ] inflj ]

The first question to ask is now, why the passive counterpart of this sentence is ungrammatical. (34)

*ik zag dat [§ er [ y p iemandj gedanst w e r d - A G j ] inflj ]

The reason cannot be that iemand cannot receive Case, since the auxiliary werd carries AG, and governs the argument position. Since the only difference between (33b) and (34) resides in the passive morphology, the ungrammaticality of (34) must be due to the latter. A natural assumption is that passive morphology suppresses the agentive 0 - r o l e , which the verb assigns to the thematic subject. I propose that this makes the thematic subject a quasi argument. So, a referential NP is excluded. Because of the DE the quasi-argument het is excluded too (for the DE, see the next section). As a consequence, the thematic subject can only be realized as a governed and Case-marked empty category, a quasi argument variable. The structure can be represented as in (35). The variable is bound by er.

344

Eric J. Reuland

(35)

ik zag dat [g erj [ y p ej gedanst werd-AGj ] infl- ]

Since e is a quasi-argument, like weather it, it satisfies the compositionality requirement of (26). However, since e is VP-internal, (27) is not immediately met. It will be, however, by virtue of the coindexing between er and e. So, just like it rains is well-formed by virtue of the fact that it is structurally external and 0-marked as determined by a 'calculation' satisfying (26), so is (35) well-formed since er is structurally external and in a chain with e which is 0-marked by a calculation satisfying (26). The only assumption we need now to account for the ungrammaticality of the argumentless passive in English is that the verbal passive not only requires that there is a 0-role suitable for suppression (as a direct argument; it may still be realized as a PP¿^ to use Williams's notation), but also requires that there is an argument that can be externalized. In the English (32) the VP does not contain any argument at all; in its Dutch counterpart it does: the quasi-argument e is externalized. Under the assumption that passive morphology suppresses certain types of 0-roles (let us call them agentive), but not others, it is also possible to account for the fact that true ergative verbs in Dutch, such as komen 'come', do not allow passivization. So, we do not have *er werd door veel mensen gekomen 'there was come by many people', although we do have ...dat er veel mensen kwamen '...that there many people came' with veel mensen in DO position. Suppose that komen assigns a theme-role, not an agentive 0-role, to its thematic subject. In that case the passive morphology cannot suppress a 0-role as required under our assumption. Hence the structure is out. It should be pointed out that in this account there is a distinction between 0-role suppression (and internalization in the form of a by-phrase) by the passive morphology, and dethematization of the structural subject position. For the latter process I assume a variant of the formulation given in Chomsky (1981: 125). (36)

If some NP governed by V is not assigned objective Case, then the VP of which V is the head assigns no 0-role.

We will say that under the condition given in (36) the subject position is dethematized for structural reasons. Such structural dethematization always leads to a true expletive subject, never to a quasi argument. Hence, if the subject loses its 0-role under (36) it is always necessary for some argument to be externalized. So, the standard cases of passive always involve two dethematization processes: (i) the suppression of an agentive 0-role, regardless of the question whether it is internal or external, and (ii) the dethematization of the structural subject position due to the fact

Representation

at the Level of Logical Form

345

that the passive participle governs an NP and does not assign objective Case. In (35) both processes operate, but on different NPs. e is a case of suppression, er one of structural dethematization. The scope of the latter process of course includes many more constructions than only the passive. The last point concerning impersonal passives which needs to be considered here is a restriction like what is found in French, prohibiting stripped impersonal passives like (37a), while allowing (37b). (37)

a. *il est dansé=there is danced b. il est tiré sur le bâteau=there is shot at the boat

A discussion of these cases can be found in Safir (1982). Under the account given above, the ungrammatically of (37a) is not surprising, given that in French the only intransitive verbs with a VP-internal 'thematic subject' are the ergatives. We saw that ergatives do not allow passivization. The other intransitive verbs cannot passivize either, since they lack a VP-internal argument which can be externalized as required, tiré in (37b) does have an internal argument, however, namely the PP sur le bateau. The latter can be externalized by entering a chain with il. As a consequence, the conditions for passivization are met in (37b), but not in (37a). Although there is a chain between il and the PP, this does not necessarily imply that there is coindexing between il and an NP contained in this PP. As a consequence, the use we will make of the coindexing between an expletive subject and some NP-argument in order to derive the DE in the next section, will not carry over to such PPs. Therefore they will not be expected to exhibit the DE, which in fact they don't, as observed by Safir, and shown by the example (Safir uses this fact in support of the theory of Case inheritance). It is quite interesting, incidentally, that there is a striking similarity between the approach to stripped impersonal passives in Dutch and German outlined above, and the approach developed in Perlmutter (1983). Maybe the convergence of such rather dissimilar theories at this point can be taken to suggest that the general approach to this question is on the right track. The final case to be considered in this section is the inverted subject construction in Italian, where no DE is observed. Given the EPP and the fact that Italian is configurational, one of the arguments (i.e. the thematic subject) must be external. According to standard analyses, the inverted subject is inside a VP constituent, and governed by the verb. As a consequence, its position cannot count as external in the required sense. However, in Aoun (1981) and Safir (1982) proposals are developed to the effect that Italian exhibits subject clitics (either AG is analyzed as a clitic, or there is argued to be a null-clitic). Aoun specifically claims

346

Eric J. Reuland

that the clitic is a possible A - b a r binder of a postverbal trace. I will propose that the parameter accounting for the absence of the DE in Italian is that the subject clitic counts as a canonical subject in the sense of the EPP, satisfying (27). Notice that AG is a nominal element originating as an S-daughter, viz. in INFL. However, since it is not in an argument position, it will fail t o A - b i n d a postverbal thematic subject t o which it assigns Case. Hence, n o DE will arise. This is illustrated in (38). (38)

[ s e'

ef [

w

V - c l j NP¡ ] ]

9

9

clj (=AG) is external because of its link with e* (=trace of AG). The expletive subject e does not have to enter the chain t o guarantee externality. Hence, NP¡ remains A - f r e e . The reason that there is a DE in the ft a y - c o n s t r u c t i o n in a language like Spanish, which is also a P R O - d r o p language, possibly with subject clitics (as suggested to me by Alfredo Hurtado), follows from the following considerations. Assume a structure, similar to (38), but with the verb assigning objective Case to the postverbal NP (so it has an index j instead of i). There is no 0 - r o l e associated with any of the canonical subjects; it is not a null-argument verb, so the limiting case of (26) cannot be invoked. As a consequence, the thematic subject will have to be externalized. Since it has objective Case, it cannot become a member of a chain with [e*, cl], as this would lead to a violation of the requirement that a chain may not have two Cases (the clitic having nominative Case). As a consequence it will have to enter a chain with the structural subject (expletive é), which is in an A-position and lacks Case. I suggest that similar considerations apply to other cases where a VP-internal argument with objective Case is linked to the structural subject position. Thus, for instance in the il y «-construction in French, I will be assuming that il as a nominative clitic is dissociated from the structural subject argument position, freeing the way for the latter to become linked to the complement of a. This concludes the discussion of the EPP. 7

3. LF CHAINS A N D THE DEFINITENESS EFFECT

The result of the preceding section is that the EPP requires that one of the arguments of the verb is in a chain with a position external to the VP at LF. In the cases where a DE is f o u n d , this external position is the structural subject position, an A-position. I will maintain Safir's proposal that such a coindexing leads to a violation of the binding conditions. However, since the coindexing will not (have to) be established before LF, the viola-

Representation at the Level of Logical Form

347

tion of the BCs will only emerge at LF. As a consequence, Safir's stipulation as to the difference between definites and indefinites given in (4b) loses its relevance. This result eliminates a stipulation, but we are now faced with the task to find another way to account for the difference. In fact, a difference with the required effect need not be stipulated, but will be argued to follow from a general theory of indefinites developed in Heim (1982). First, I will briefly introduce that part of Heim's theory that will concern us here. Its basic observation is that the distribution of definite versus indefinite NPs in a text is constrained. The constraint can be stated in the following way. (39)

The novelty-familiarity condition: Assume that NPs carry a referential index. Whenever some NP carries an index that was borne by an NP previously occurring in the text, the former NP may not be indefinite.

Unless specific conditions, which will not concern us here, are satisfied, the first NP bearing some index must always be indefinite. The facts are illustrated on the basis of text fragments as in (40). (40)

a. * . . . . The man, arrived. A manj sat d o w n . . . . A man, arrived. Hej/the manj sat d o w n . . . . b

According to Heim, the condition may be represented in the following way. Assume that there is a file associated with the text. The file contains a separate entry, a card, for each referential index occurring on the NPs in the text. The file grows with the text. When at some point in the text an NP occurs, it is checked whether its index is already on the file. If it is, the NP must be definite; if it is not, the NP must be indefinite, and a new entry containing its index is created and added t o the file. Using the format of the binding conditions, one may express Heim's condition as follows: (41)

a. definite NPs are file bound b. indefinite NPs are file free, i.e. not file bound

Although this part of Heim's theory rather concerns texts, it does include certain aspects of sentence grammar as a borderline case. For instance, generally, NPs that are A - b o u n d are also file bound, hence cannot be indefinite. I will assume now that all A-positions are checked with respect to condition (41) at S-structure. In addition, any subsequent reindexing

or movement must preserve the assignment of definiteness at S-structure. Thus, condition (41) must be met both at S-structure and at LF.

348

Eric J. Reuland

Consider now the effect of these assumptions on an S-structure as in (42). (42)

[fllel,2,...,n]

[ s there [

w

V NPj]...]

First consider the status of the expletive there, with respect to definiteness. Being an expletive, there does not have an index. If it had, it would be a true argument, would require a 0-role, etc. contrary to our assumptions. Not having an index, it cannot have an index on the file. As a consequence, there, and every true expletive, must be file free. Hence, it is technically indefinite. Recall that at S-structure, there is no coindexing be tween there and any argument. If there were, this would cause a violation of the BCs. Suppose now, that the index j of the VP-internal argument occurs on the file. This will be the case iff NPj is definite. According to the results of the previous section, at LF the EPP requires coindexing between there and NPj. If this happens, there acquires the index o f / . The resulting situation is depicted in (43). (43)

[ f i l e l , 2 , . . . , j , . . . , n ] [ s t h e r e f j [ v p V NPfj ] ]

It follows from the conditions stated that (43) is ungrammatical: there was marked indefinite at S-structure, being file free. As a consequence of the reindexing it is file bound at LF: Assuming that NPj is a licit definite, it has an index on the file licensed by the preceding context. So, acquiring the index / cannot fail to make there into an illicit indefinite. The conclusion is that an expletive element may not enter a chain with a definite NP. If definites, like indefinites, undergo QR, the situation does not change: there remains an illicit indefinite, being file free at S-structure and file bound at LF. 8 Consider next the case where the index / of NPj in (42) does not yet occur on the file. In that case, NPj is a licit indefinite at S-structure, as is there. LF-structure is represented in (44). (44)

[file ' -2----.il] - [ j l

[sSSSjlvpVJgi]]

By assumption / is not on the file. Hence, assigning the index j to there does not make the latter file bound. It remains a licit indefinite. Moreover, since there is expletive, i.e. does not have an index by itself, it did not establish an entry with an index at S-structure. As a consequence, coindexing there with NPj does not conflict with the indefiniteness of the latter either. NPj remains file free after the reindexing, as required. Since the resulting structure is well-formed with respect to the novelty-familiarity condition, subsequent application of QR to the indefinite gives rise

349

Representation at the Level of Logical Form

to a structure that is also well-formed with respect to the binding conditions. This structure is represented in (45). (45)

[ f i ie •••]"[)]

[ S NPj [ S

there

j [VP

V

e

jJ]]

there is a licit binder of ej, much along the lines discussed in the introduction, as set out by Safir. The role played by NPj as a binder will be discussed later on. The final case we have to consider is that where the postverbal NP is a universally quantified expression (or another 'definite' quantifier). Relevant examples are given in (46). (46)

a. *there was every man in the room b. *...dat er iedere man in de kamer liep that there every man in the room walked

The structure will be as given in (47). (47>

[file-]

Is

QNj h

there

j

[

V

P

V e

j]]l

The question is, now, how such quantified expressions are to be represented on the file. The representation should be such that expressions like every man, most men count as definite, since they cannot occur in this construction, whereas expressions such as many men, two men should be indefinite, since they can occur as postverbal arguments in languages exhibiting the DE. Clearly, one would not want to simply stipulate that other types of NP are indefinite just in case they can occur in chains headed by an expletive. Since it would be impossible to deal with the various interesting issues arising without going beyond any reasonable bound on the size of this contribution, I will not discuss them here, and refer the reader instead to work in progress (Reuland (1983c)). Here I will confine myself to suggesting an independent characterization of the difference between definite and indefinite NPs, without explicitly relating it to a theory of their representation in terms of files. However, given such an independent characterization of which NPs are definite, and assuming that there is a way to represent it in terms of files (at least there are reasons to think there is), the proposal we developed here to account for the simple cases, will carry over to the more complex ones. This characterization of the definite-indefinite distinction will be given in semantic terms. It was motivated by an earlier proposal due to Jim Higginbotham. An NP (a quantifier in the sense of Barwise and Cooper) consists of a determiner Q and a set expression, which corresponds to the syntactic constituent N'. So, the NP every minister consists of the deter-

350

Eric J. Reuland

miner every and the set expression minister. A sentence s like every minister is a mediocrity is true for some model M iff the set A assigned to the set expression minister in M, is contained in the set B of mediocrities in M. Consider now models M', with A'=the set of ministers, and B - t h e set of mediocrities, such that B'=B and A is a proper subset of A'. In some such models s will be false, namely those in which A' contains (new) elements that are not mediocrities. Consider the NP the minister, and the sentence the minister is a mediocrity. The sentence can only be true in some model in which there is some unique minister given, who is also mediocre. Expanding the set of ministers leads to a violation of the unicity required by the determiner the, hence to a loss of truth. Consider on the other hand, the sentence exactly twelve ministers are mediocrities, with the determiner exactly twelve. Given a model M in which the sentence is true, it is easily seen that it will remain true under all model extensions that do not expand the set of mediocrities. Adding ministers that are not mediocrities will never lead to a falsehood. We can informally render the definition as follows in (48). (48)

The NP QN' is indefinite just in case the truth of a sentence QN' are P is preserved under model-extensions that expand the extension of N', with the extension of P held constant.

Conversely, it holds that the NP QN' is definite just in case truth is not generally preserved under the conditions of (48). In other words, for a definite NP, truth preservation under model-extensions requires that the domain of Ns is closed. For an indefinite NP the domain may be open. But this in fact reflects the given-new distinction we discussed in terms of file theory in the simple cases. Thus, it appears that the approach we advanced earlier can be generalized in a principled way.

4. (IN)DEFINITENESS A N D BINDING

I will conclude this discussion with some remarks on the role of the indefinite NP after QR adjoined it to S, as in (45), and the role of there. This case will be contrasted with the situation arising after adjunction of a definite quantifier. A comprehensive discussion does not yet seem feasible; when it can be given, it will require more space than can be found in a single article. Here I will be content giving just a number of considerations that may be relevant. One of the questions about (45) we have not yet discussed is the precise nature of the binding relations involved. For ease of reference, (45) is repeated below.

Representation (45)

351

at the Level of Logical Form

[fiie-]-[j]

[ s NPj [g therej [ v p V

ej

]]]

The central question is, which one is the variable, there, or ey If ej is the variable, the question arises how it is bound by there and what is the relation between there and NPj ; if there is the variable one has to conclude that not all variables need to have Case, and in addition that certain anaphoric ec's (ej) may have Case contra Manzini (1983). Remember, under the analysis advanced here, there can only be there by virtue of the fact that the presence of some other argument deprives it of Case marking. The ensuing discussion is based on the assumption that variables do indeed need Case, and that anaphoric ec's cannot bear Case. For arguments going beyond what has been given by Manzini and Chomsky (1981), I must refer to my work in progress and my (1983c). Under this approach, ej is the variable, and must be locally A'-bound. At LF its local binder is there; hence, the question arises what kind of a binder there is. In fact, we can say that although it is in an argument position, it will have to be an A'-binder. The crucial hypothesis is now that the status of a position with respect to the A- versus A'-distinction is not so much determined by its status in the phrase structure per se, but by its status with respect to Case- and 0-role assignment. I will assume then that a position to which neither Case, nor 0-role has been assigned is not an A-position. Rather, for such positions the A/A'-distinction is neutralized, and contextual factors will decide what its status will turn out to be. Since ej, being the variable, needs a local A'-binder, there will be construed as acting in that capacity. The next question requiring an answer is the status of NPj. Specifically, the question arises whether (45) will not violate restrictions against vacuous quantification. The answer to this question is based on the hypothesis that not all relations between an NP in A'-position and a coindexed variable are of the same kind. If we use binding as the more general term for this relation, we can say that not all binding relations are local. Specifically, a variable can be bound by an indefinite quantifier without being locally bound by it. Basically, the quantifier-variable relation has two components: 1) syntactically, the quantifier defines the item it binds as a variable, 2) semantically, the quantifier assigns the variable its interpretation. In principle it is possible for those two components of the relation to be separated. The claim is that this is what happens in the present case. This separation of the two components of the binding relation is not unprecedented in the literature. In fact this is precisely what happens in the analysis of purpose clauses in Chomsky (1981). This can be illustrated on the basis of (49). (49)

John bought a bookj [ S ' 0 j [ s PRO to [ y p read tj ] ] ]

352

Eric J. Reuland

Here the variable t j is locally A'-bound by the empty operator in Comp. Being empty, the latter does not provide an interpretation for tj. This interpretation is provided by a bookv This type of analysis would carry over to (45) in the following manner: there locally A'-binds the trace ej, but fails to assign it an interpretation. The interpretation is provided by NPj, thus binding the variable ej without being its local binder. I will henceforth refer to the binding relation between NPj and ej as one of non-local binding. Quantifiers allowing binding without a local component will be called non-local binders. My analysis of the structure of existential constructions and their likes can now by summarized as following from (25) and (28) - slightly reformulated so as to also apply to positions where the A/A'-distinction is neutralized - in conjunction with the hypotheses in (50). (50)

a. Indefinite quantifiers can be non-local binders b. There locally binds an ec-variable

One difference between definite and indefinite quantifiers is that definite quantifiers are always local binders, whereas indefinite quantifiers are not. Evidence that binding by indefinite quantifiers differs from binding by definite quantifiers, and crucially, that it may be of a non-local nature, is presented in Heim (1982). A similar interpretation can be given to a number of results in Pesetsky (1982). I will now present a brief discussion of these issues. Heim starts out from the observation that certain indefinite quantifiers have binding properties that are different from those of definite quantifiers. The relevant facts are illustrated by the contrast between (51a) and (5 lb). (51)

a. Some soldierj has a gun. Hej will shoot, b. Every soldierj has a gun. *He, will shoot.

It appears that the indefinite quantifier some soldier can bind a pronoun, viz. he, that is not in its scope, whereas the definite quantifier every soldier cannot bind a pronoun not in its scope. On the basis of such and other facts, and the analysis they require, Heim argues for a non-quantificational analysis of indefinites. For instance, a sentence such as (52) should not be analyzed as (53a) - the 'quantificational analysis'-, but rather as (53b) - the Variable analysis'. (52)

A cat arrived

(53)

a. [ 3 x j , [cat (xj), [xj arrived] ] ] b. [cat (xj), [xj arrived] ]

Representation

at the Level of Logical Form

353

Heim motivates a set of interpretation rules assigning to such expressions the appropriate interpretation. It is on the basis of these rules that Heim also accounts for the contrast between (51a) and (51b). The precise nature of these interpretation principles will not concern us here. What is relevant here is that the closure of expressions with an indefinite is built into the interpretation mechanism, and is not brought about by some locally available existential quantifier to bind the variable. Universal quantifiers, on the other hand, are directly represented in the structure, and do bind their variables. Independent of Heim's considerations, it is possible to interpret this approach as making certain claims about the representation of definite and indefinite quantifiers at LF as a level of analysis in the sense of the government binding theory. Although the system has not been devised so as to make correct predictions under this interpretation, if its basic insight is correct one would expect it to make them. Assuming that ec-variables are subject to the ECP in the sense that they must either be lexically governed, or antecedent governed, one would expect that indefinites of the type investigated by Heim should be excluded in environments where antecedent government would be required: under Heim's analysis the variable to which an indefinite gives rise is not locally bound, since the quantifier is not structurally represented. Interestingly, there are indeed environments in which at least certain indefinites are excluded, or unexpectedly bad. One case is the subject position of ACC-ing constructions in English, another case is the subject position of clauses with an auxiliary-less intransitive main verb without preverbal adverbial modifiers in Dutch (the reasons for this strange set of conditions would carry us too far afield, they are being explained in my work in progress). These cases are exemplified in (54). (54)

79 a. The hunchback hated [nice ladies/ • • a nice lady being hanged] b. Het kind ziet dat een vogel vliegt/dat er een vogel vliegt the child sees that a bird flies /that there a bird flies

In (54a) the favored interpretation is generic, hence the preference for the plural, which is more readily compatible with this interpretation. In (54b) the option without er has only a generic interpretation. The option with er has only a regular indefinite interpretation. As has been shown in Reuland (1983a) the subject position in ACC-ing complements is governed by -ing realizing INFL, and exhibits ECP effects, witness for instance the obligatory narrow scope for universally quantified NPs. The restrictions on Wh-extraction from the subject position in constructions like (54b) discussed in Reuland (1983d, e) show that that position too has ECP effects. Assuming that the generic interpretation reflects binding by the tense (cf. Heim (1982)) - note that INFL represents tense, also in n o n -

354

Eric J. Reuland

finite clauses, cf. a.o. Reuland (1979) - this interpretation is allowed, since INFL acts as a local antecedent. The indefinite interpretation is not available, however, since under Heim's approach a local antecedent would be lacking. These observations show that regular indefinite interpretations may be unavailable in some contexts where the indefinite is not lexically governed. On the other hand, there are clearly languages with constructions allowing NPs with indefinite interpretations in positions that are not properly governed. In English finite clauses, there is for instance not generally a Comp-Indef effect comparable to a Comp-trace effect. Hence, it must be concluded that under certain conditions it must be possible for a variable left by an indefinite to be antecedent governed. Interestingly, Pesetsky (1982) introduced a hypothesis, which if correct, would account for the existence of such variation, and thus provide the means to further integrate Heim's theory with the present approach. Pesetsky analyzes the structure of quantifying phrases in Russian, and shows that a principled distinction must be made between 'nominal' phrases of which the quantifier is the head and those in which the noun is the head. A constituent with the quantifier as its head is considered to be a quantifier phrase, QP. Thus the category NP is split up into real NPs and QPs. One of Pesetsky's basic insights is that QPs can never be arguments at LF, although they can originate in argument position at some other level. At LF they must be in an A'-position. Pesetsky proposes that the status of a trace, on the other hand, is determined by the local categorial requirements. That is, if a trace if governed by for instance an expression subcategorized for an NP, this trace has NP-status, regardless of whether it was left behind by an NP, an S', or a QP. The same holds true of a trace in subject position if coindexing with INFL would require it to be an NP. The relevant configurations are illustrated in (55). (55)

a. . . . [ s QPj [ S ej A G j . . . ] ] b. , . . [ s QPj [s •• • [ \ T V ej ] ] ] c. ... [ s NPj [ s ej A G j . . . ] ]

In all of these cases the trace ej has NP status because of its environment. As usual the trace must be properly governed. It is properly governed if it is lexically governed in the standard sense or if it is antecedent governed. Antecedent government, however, requires categorial identity according to Pesetsky. So, QPj in (55a) is categorially distinct from ej, hence is not a local antecedent. Since ej is not lexically governed either, the structure violates the ECP and is ruled out. In (55b) e; is not antecedent governed either, but since it is lexically governed the structure is grammatical. In (55c), finally, the binder of the trace is an NP, hence

Representation

at the Level of Logical

Form

355

a local antecedent. As a consequence, the structure is grammatical. The QPs excluded from the structural subject position are the so-called n o agreement numeral phrases, the genitive of negation, etc. in Russian. They are all indefinite, according to Pesetsky. Thus, crucially, not all quantified NPs are QPs. Universally quantified NPs, for instance, are not considered QPs under Pesetsky's approach. These will be analyzed as having the noun, not the Q as their head. It is from this assumption that the differences in distribution between these types of expressions follow. In Russian there is direct evidence that a distinction like that between QPs and NPs is necessary, with all QPs (not necessarily only QPs) being indefinite. The hypothesis to be advanced here, is that this distinction between NPs and QPs is generally made in natural languages, and that similar effects generally obtain. In languages where this distinction does not have direct morphological correlates, such as agreement phenomena, it is primarily reflected in the presence versus absence of certain readings under the relevant conditions. Variation between languages and constructions as to whether certain positions may contain a QP is then dependent on local factors, such as whether coindexing with an INFL of a certain kind does or does not force a certain trace to have NP-status. The assumption underlying the present approach is that the set of indefinites that would be QPs in Pesetsky's sense, coincides with the set of indefinites that under Heim's analysis gives rise to a free variable. This set, I should suggest, possibly does not include all indefinites, but only those that are non-specific. I will not pursue this here. For the moment, the proposal to identify these sets is somewhat speculative. The rationale for this attempt is that we need an explanation for the restrictions on indefinites mentioned, and the fact that there is a similarity in the structural status of the variables in the two sets. Neither the variable left by the QP in Pesetsky's approach, nor the variable corresponding to the indefinite in Heim's approach will be antecedent governed. Although the variable left by the QP will be bound, it is bound in a weaker sense than the one left by an NP. In Pesetsky's theory this is reflected in the status of the path between binder and bindee: the QP-[NP e ] - p a t h is infinite, the NP- [ ^ p e] - p a t h finite. Although the variables corresponding to the indefinites in Heim's theory are referred to as 'free', they do not really lack a binder in the GB sense. In fact, the expression cat (x^j in the LF representation of (52), viz. (53b), is in an A'-position and coindexed with the variable x j in [xj arrived], which it c-commands. We see that it does provide the range for this variable although the construction lacks a structurally and locally represented operator. But this is in fact what characterizes non-local binding as we introduced the term. It can be concluded that non-local binding aptly characterizes both the QP-trace relation and the indefinitetrace relation.

356

Eric J. Reuland

There may be an issue with respect to the interpretation of the terminology used in the theories under consideration. Pesetky's QP is said to have a quantifier head; Heim's indefinite lacks a quantifier. Still, there are possibilities to formulate a common denominator. Both analyses share the contention that the expression involved lacks a Noun as its head. Furthermore, in Heim's theory the lack of a quantifier in indefinites does not seem essential. What is essential is that it does not bind in the same way as a definite quantifier does, that is, that it behaves as, according to Pesetsky's analysis, it should behave. The fact that quite different approaches like Pesetsky's and Heim's both lead to a distinction of the same sort, I regard as a serious indication that the difference between the two kinds of binding is real, and should be represented along the lines indicated. Given the assumption that only indefinites can be non-local binders, and that definites have to act as local binders, the ungrammaticality of definite quantified NPs in Y/zere-insertion' contexts can be made to follow in a different manner for those Quantifiers that undergo QR. Consider (56). (56)

[ f l l e ...]

[ s every Nj [ s therej [ v p V

ej]

]]

Regardless of whether there violates the requirement that it may not change its status from indefinite at S-structure to definite at LF, this structure is also ruled out for the following reason, there is locally A'-bound by the definite quantifier every N. Since A'-binding creates a variable, except when the binder is not a local binder, there must be a variable bound by every N. This, however, is impossible since 1) there is Caseless, and 2) being a variable there would have to be an argument, and A-bind e-y requiring it to be anaphoric. Since ej has Case, it cannot be an anaphoric ec. Hence the structure is impossible. This is an interesting result, since it gives an additional reason why definite quantifiers coindexed with there may be excluded when there is in their scope. So, one reason is the definiteness effect per se, the other reason is that the variable is forced to be in the wrong place when the quantifier is assigned scope. It remains to be seen whether this redundancy is indeed motivated, and is amenable to empirical interpretation in cases where one but not the other effect occurs, or whether eventually one of the cases will be subsumed under the other. Crucial cases to be considered are constructions that exhibit a definiteness effect, but do allow definites under a list reading, like the existential constructions. Another relevant, possibly separate, case is the outside verbal construction in English. It was observed by Milsark, that compared to the inside verbal construction a definiteness effect appears to be absent. However,

Representation at the Level of Logical Form

357

it seems to me that the DE is to be evaluated as weaker, rather than as completely absent in this construction. Compare for illustration Milsark's example in (57) with the examples in (58). (57)

Thereupon, there ambled into the room my neighbour's frog

(58)

a. *Thereupon, there ambled into the room the frog b, "Thereupon, there ambled into the room every frog/most frogs

When the postverbal subject is modified by, f o r instance, a relative clause, the constrictions of (58) improve, as in (59). (59)

a. Thereupon, there ambled into the room the frog I'd turned into a prince b. Thereupon, there ambled into the room every frog I'd ever promised a reward

To put it very intuitively, what appears to be the relevant factor is that the entity, or set of entities, denoted by the thematic subject only starts to live in the story after the introduction of the situation described by the main predicate. This is in some sense equivalent to saying that the postverbal subject does not have scope over the main predicate. This could follow if there were indeed a difference between the definiteness effect per se and the quantification restriction, the latter being a consequence of the fact that there cannot be a variable. Suppose that the postverbal subject in the OV construction has been base generated in, and moved f r o m the structural subject position, with there being inserted at S-structure, after the structural subject position has been vacated. In that case, there and the postverbal NP would be coindexed at S-structure. As a consequence, the definiteness effect itself cannot arise, since there will not change its status in the transition from S-structure to LF; it will have the status of the NP that it is chained to by virtue of the movement. Even so, the construction is still ruled out if the postverbal NP can bind there if there is in its scope. But crucially, the construction is possible if the scope of such an NP can be kept down. 9 If these considerations are correct, a distinction between the two effects must be maintained, since there are constructions where even under the conditions sketched definites do not appear to be allowed. Moreover, these considerations may serve as an indication that in the OV construction the postverbal NP has indeed moved from the structural subject position as indicated.

358

Eric J.

Reuland

5. CONCLUSION This concludes the discussion o f the relation b e t w e e n LF chains and the definiteness e f f e c t . T h e main result o f this investigation is that the definiteness e f f e c t f o l l o w s f r o m the interaction b e t w e e n a number o f grammatical principles, and subtheories. Clauses must have an external argum e n t at every level o f representation. A t LF constituents are visible only by virtue o f their f u n c t i o n with respect to the representation o f scope assignment, predicate-argument

structure, etc. Expletive e l e m e n t s

are

visible only if they are part o f this structure. For expletive subjects this implies that t h e y are invisible at L F unless t h e y are linked u p to the thematic structure, externalizing a V P - i n t e r n a l argument. It f o l l o w s f r o m independently motivated properties o f definites, indefinites and expletives, that only indefinites can form such a chain with an expletive at LF. Considerations have been adduced that if chains consisting o f there

with a

definite NP are possible at all, they must already exist at S - s t r u c t u r e , and will be subject t o restrictions as f o u n d .

NOTES 1. The argument is based on the fact that the extraction in (i) is possible from the subject in e/--constructions, and from direct objects, but not from subjects in canonical position and indirect objects. It shows that the subject in er-constructions is not sensitive to the Subject Condition. (i)

watj zei je dat er [tj voor mensen] getelefoneerd hadden? what said you that there for people telephoned had what kind of people did you say had telephoned?

Den Besten originally made his claim only for ergative verbs. The fact that watvoor-split is also good with non-ergatives as in (i) suggests a more general approach as in the text. 2. This account for the distribution of there is not limited to cases where the relevant Case assigner is INFL. The same argumentation applies when the clause is a tenseless complement in the domain of an exceptional Case marker. For instance in (ii) the verb believe may assign its Case to a VP-internal NP just in case the latter is accessible, i.e. depending on the choice of V. (ii)

John believed [g there to [ y p V a riot on Mass. Ave] ]

Basically, whenever an NP is accessible to AG in the cases considered in the text, it would be accessible for government by a Case assigner outside S, like believe or for (see Reuland (1982) and (1983b)). 3. In fact, under certain conditions the construction may also occur with transitives. If it does, the thematic subject is in the DO position. The thematic DO can be shown to have left its canonical position (cf. Reuland (1983d)).

Representation

at the Level of Logical

Form

359

4. It should be pointed out that a label like DAT refers to abstract, rather than morphological Case. The overt nominative/objective distinction is restricted to personal pronouns in Dutch, and DAT is homophonous with objective. In the corresponding German constructions, these Case distinctions are all overtly realizable, however. Although personal pronouns for some reason cannot occur as VP-intemal subjects in Dutch, the constellation can still be identified, since an 10 personal pronoun in the subject position is overtly marked as non-nominative, and in all cases the finite verb agrees with the VP-internal subject, not with the DAT argument. Hans den Besten drew my attention to the fact that the DAT/NOM inversion construction with a DE is not as free as other constructions with a DE. I have the impression, however, that this factor is independent of whether the DE is on the DAT or on the NOM. It certainly cannot be the case that the DE can affect the DAT only markedly. (24b) for instance is unexpectedly bad when er is absent, and hence the DAT in the structural subject position. I rather have the impression that er only appears in this construction when for some reason needed to bind a variable arising from certain indefinite quantifiers in either the DAT or the NOM position (this ties in with the discussion in the last section). Although this raises intriguing questions about erlthere being needed as a binder in certain cases, I will not pursue this now. 5. The proposal in Chomsky (1982) is to subsume the effects of the projection principle, viz. that subcategorization requirements must be satisfied at all levels of representation and the requirement that sentences have subjects, expressed in the general rule S ->• NP INFL VP, under the EPP. As noted by Jacquelin Gueron, this step does not necessarily make the EPP a unified principle. Specifically, the link of the rule rewriting S with the notion of projection is not immediately clear. In recent work I show that the EPP need not be stipulated, but can in fact be derived from the notion of a projection (Reuland (1983f)). I will not pursue this here. 6. I am assuming that the impersonal it in sentences like (iii) is not theta-less. (iii)

it1 seems [that John left] 1

It is the coindexing (superscripting) with the clause which makes it a member of a 0-chain, and hence visible (see the definition of chains in Chomsky (1982) and the discussion of this construction given there; see also the discussion of the status of the Case filter for such cases in Reuland (1982, 1983b)). It is the fact that the argument is a clause, which makes it impossible for the structural subject to escape getting Case. Hence it is it rather than there. 7. Jean-Yves Pollock drew my attention to the fact that something more should be said about the interaction of the analysis presented here with the syntax of impersonal constructions in French. I suggest that the il in the il-y-a construction is dissociated from the structural subject A-position. Assuming a structure as indicated in (iv) partly following Safir (1982) (but for the indexing), the question may be raised why the ec does not violate the ECP. (iv)

[„ ec il. est. arrive un homme.] (ec acquires i only at LF) ^ W J J 1

The ec here I take to be expletive e in the sense of Safir (1982), and comparable in status to expletive e in German, or the relevant Dutch dialects. Assuming that the ECP involves antecedency relations it does not apply here. The ec is both Case-

360

Eric J. Reuland

less and indexless. I would suggest that il is obligatory here in order to prevent the inflection assigning its Case to the structural subject position, turning it into a Case marked ec, hence either an unbound variable, or an unidentified pro. So, it is the fact that INFL cannot by itself absorb Case, reflecting the fact that French is not a NOM-drop language in Safir's sense, which accounts for the necessity of il. This, in conjunction with the rest of the analysis raises another question, viz. what is the difference between a language like French, and languages like German and Dutch, which are not p r o - d r o p or NOM-drop languages in the standard sense either, and yet exhibit a different pattern in the choice of expletive e versus other expletive elements. These issues will be discussed in Reuland (in prep.). It should be noted that Kayne (1983) presents considerations going against a structure as in (iv), and argues that the subject pronoun is not cliticized on the verb in such cases. Notice, however, that for our argument to go through, it is not necessary that the structure is as in (iv); it is only necessary that il does not occupy the structural subject position in the relevant cases. So, also if Kayne is right that the structure is not generally as given in (iv) it would be conceivable that the pronominal subject is in some position to the left of the structural subject, connected with the Topic or Comp position, like in some Germanic languages. If such speculations would turn out to be correct, the present analysis could be maintained without change. There is an alternative, however, which avoids the whole issue as it is developed first in the text, and then in this footnote. One might argue that Case assignment only plays a role in licensing NPs at S-structure, making them visible for 6 - r o l e assignment at LF and pronounceable at PF. In that case the correlate at LF of what is a Case clash at S-structure, is a violation of the d-criterion. Where Case assignment to or Case absorption by some element at S-structure has not led to that element receiving a 0-role, the fact that it has a Case which is different in some respect from the Case of some other element, will not by itself prevent them from forming a chain at LF. I.e. at LF the Case of some element is not visible, only its 0 - r o l e if it has one. In a construction where the Case of the expletive element and/or INFL differs from the Case of the thematic subject, coindexing at S-structure is impossible (this is relevant for e.g. Spanish, where otherwise INFL might be the externalizer). The facts follow from the assumption that for free indexing and chain formation at LF only the structural subjectposition is available, which is in an A-position. This coindexing will cause the DE. The assumption that at LF Case as such and differences in Case are invisible is a very strong one. It is in the same spirit as the other assumptions about LF, reducing visibility at LF to aspects of structure with minimal cross-linguistic idiosyncrasies. Case differences do involve such idiosyncrasy, since there are languages differentiating dozens of Cases, and languages with no formal Case differences at all. Thus the notion of a Case conflict as opposed to that of a theta-conflict is a prime candidate for lacking an independent status at LF. This is not to say, of course, that such a matter can be decided on a priori grounds. It does appear to me, however, that the hypothesis is an interesting one, and that hence this possibility is worth pursuing. However, I will refrain from doing so here. 8. I call there/er technically indefinite, since they are indefinite by virtue of the definition of an expletive and the definition of indefiniteness in (41b). It is important to observe that the derivation of the DE given here, is crucially dependent on the fact that the expletive element and the thematic subject form separate chains at S-structure, and one chain at LF. If under some conditions the expletive element would be in a chain with the thematic subject at S-structure there would be no reason to expect a DE. The expletive would carry the index of the argument it would be coindexed with, and be file free, or file bound at S-structure depending

Representation

at the Level of Logical

Form

361

on the status of that index with respect to the file. This status would carry over to LF. In the text proposal it is assumed that this situation cannot arise, since the expletive would A-bind the argument in the chain, violating the BCs. This assumption is not completely uncontroversial. One reason for controversy is that it is explicitly assumed that there lacks an index at S-structure. So, the analysis requires that an element lacking an index can bind an element with an index; this is not very natural. Furthermore, it has been argued in Rizzi (1982) that elements belonging to the same chain cannot violate each other's binding conditions. This follows if indices are assigned to chains, and not to members of chains. If these considerations are indeed correct, the reason for the fact that the expletive element and the VP-internal argument cannot be coindexed at S-structure, is not t o be found in the binding theory. An alternative can be suggested, however, that is based on Case theory. In fn. 7 it was suggested that the notion of a Case conflict can be relevant at S-structure, but not at LF. Suppose now, that one of the principles distinguishing chain formation by Move alpha from chain formation by free indexing, is that the latter is Case neutral. That is, free indexing of a and b cannot lead to a chain [a, b] if a and b are distinct with respect to the manner in which they acquired Case. This virtually eliminates chain formation by free coindexing between A-positions at S-structure. It is a consequence of this hypothesis that if a has nominative Case by INFL and b lacks Case, or has Case by some other principle, free indexing cannot yield a chain [b, a] at S-structure. However, at a level on which Case is invisible (like LF) a difference in Case would not prevent a chain being formed, unless the 6-criterion would be violated. Concretely, since the thematic subject has Case from INFL (or the DAT has Case from V') and there/er has not been assigned Case by INFL, it is impossible to form a chain between the two by free indexing. So, at S-structure, the expletive and the thematic subject will be separate chains. The necessity for chain formation at LF then yields the DE along the lines developed. In connection with the novelty-familiarity condition, it is perhaps not superflous to state that in cases like John is a murderer I do not assume that a murderer is a referential expression coindexed with John at the levels on which the Binding Conditions apply. Coindexing will arise only after predication applied, presumablyafter LF. Even if a murderer is referential, such examples will not constitute violations of condition (39) if this condition only applies at S-structure and LF. 9. This analysis presupposes the alternative indicated in fn. 8, since apparently it is possible for the thematic subject to be coindexed with there, without violating the BCs. Since the chain arises from movement, and not from free indexing, the case restriction does not hold. In fact, as I said, there can be viewed as being inserted at S-structure in a position already coindexed with the thematic subject by movement. In the same vein one may analyze the stylistic inversion construction in French, as illustrated in (v). (v)

J'aurais souhaite que disparaisse Marie

According to Pollock (1983) the structural subject position of the complement clause is pro. Assuming a movement analysis of this construction, the question is not so much why there is no DE (the chain is present at S-structure) but rather how pro is identified - cf. Pollock (1983) for discussion.

362

Eric J. Reuland

REFERENCES A k m a j i a n , A . , S. Steele, and T . Wasow ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 'The Category A U X in Universal Grammar', Linguistic

10; 1-64

Inquiry

A o u n , J. ( 1 9 8 1 ) , The Formal

Nature

of Anaphoric

Diss. M I T .

Relations,

Barlow, M., D.P. Flickinger, and M . T . Wescoat ( 1 9 8 3 ) , Proceedings Conference

on

Formal

of tne West Coast

2, Stanford Linguistics Association,

Linguistics

Dept.

o f Linguistics, Stanford University Barwise, J. and R . C o o p e r ( 1 9 8 1 ) , 'Generalized Quantifiers and Natural Language', Linguistics

4: 159-220

and Philosophy

Den Besten, H. ( 1 9 8 1 ) , ' G o v e r n m e n t , syntaktische Struktur und Kasus' in: Hindelang et al. (çâs,.) Akten

des 15. Linguistischen

N i e m e y e r Tübingen

Kolloquiums,

Den Besten, H. ( 1 9 8 2 ) , ' S o m e Remarks on the Ergative Hypothesis', Ms. University o f Amsterdam Burzio, L . ( 1 9 8 1 ) , Intransitive

Verbsand

C h o m s k y , N . ( 1 9 8 1 ) , Lectures

on Government

C h o m s k y , N . ( 1 9 8 2 ) , Some ment and Binding,

Concepts

Diss. M I T

Italian Auxiliaries,

Foris

and Binding,

and Consequences

of the Theory

of

Govern-

M I T Press

Heim, I. ( 1 9 8 2 ) , The Semantics

of Definite

and Indefinite

Noun

Phrases, Diss. Univ.

o f Massachusetts K a y n e , R . ( 1 9 8 1 ) , 'ECP Extensions', Linguistic

Inquiry

12: 93-133

Manzini, R . ( 1 9 8 3 ) , 'On C o n t r o l and Control T h e o r y ' , Linguistic

Inquiry

14:421-

446 Marantz, A . ( 1 9 8 2 ) , On the Nature

of Grammatical

M a y , R. ( 1 9 7 7 ) , The Grammar

of Quantification,

Milsark, G. ( 1 9 7 4 ) , Existential

Sentences

Diss. M I T

Relations. Diss. M I T Diss. M I T

in English,

Perlmutter, D. ( 1 9 8 3 ) , 'Subject Dummies as Direct Objects' Pesetsky, D. ( 1 9 8 2 ) , Paths and Categories,

Diss. M I T

P o l l o c k , J - Y . ( 1 9 8 2 ) , ' A c c o r d , Chaînes impersonelles et Variables', Ms. Paris 12. Pollock, J-Y. ( 1 9 8 3 ) , 'Sur la syntaxe de en et la paramètre du sujet nul', Ms. Paris 12 & D R L Paris 7 Reuland, E.J. ( 1 9 8 2 ) , 'On the Subject o f W. Abraham ( e d . ) The Formal

Syntax

Nonargument

Subjects', to appear in: Benjamins

of the Westgermania,

Reuland, E.J. ( 1 9 8 3 a ) , 'Governing -ing', Linguistic

Inquiry

14.1

Reuland, E.J. ( 1 9 8 3 b ) , ' A N o t e on Nonargument Subjects', in: Otsu, V a n Riemsdijk, et al. (eds.) Studies

in Generative

Grammar

and Language

Acquisition,

ICU T o k y o

Reuland, E.J. ( 1 9 8 3 c ) , 'Conditions on Indefinites', paper presented at G L O W , Y o r k 1983, Ms. University o f Groningen Reuland, E.J. ( 1 9 8 3 d , e ) ' M o v e m e n t versus Merger: Relations between I n f l e c t i o n and V e r b ' , presentations at N E L S X I I I , and the conference on Levels o f Representation at Marseille (Jan. 1983), Mss. University o f Groningen Reuland, E.J. ( 1 9 8 3 f ) , 'Features f o r the System o f Categorial Heads', Ms. Groningen Reuland,

E.J. ( 1 9 8 3 g ) , ' T h e E x t e n d e d Projection Principle and the Definiteness

E f f e c t ' , in: Barlow et al. ( 1 9 8 3 ) R i z z i , L . ( 1 9 8 2 ) , Issues in Italian Safir, K . ( 1 9 8 2 ) , Syntactic

Syntax,

Foris, Dordrecht

Chains and the Definiteness

T o r r e g o , E. ( 1 9 8 2 ) , ' A l o o k to Existential there

Effect,

Diss. M I T

be sentences in Spanish', Ms. Univ.

o f Mass. Boston Williams, E. ( 1 9 8 0 ) , 'Predication', Linguistic

Inquiry

11.1

Williams, E. ( 1 9 8 1 ) , ' A r g u m e n t Structure and M o r p h o l o g y ' , The Linguistic

1.1

Review