Linguistics in the Netherlands 1985 [Reprint 2020 ed.] 9783112330128, 9783112330111

Citation preview

LINGUISTICS IN THE NETHERLANDS 1985

Still

available

Linguistics

in the Netherlands

1977-1979

Wim Zonneveld and Fred Weerman (eds) Dfl. 20,—/US $8. Linguistics

in the Netherlands

1983

Hans Bennis and W.U.S. van Lessen Kloeke (eds) Dfl. 25,—/ US $10. Linguistics

in the Netherlands

1984

Hans Bennis and W.U.S. van Lessen Kloeke (eds) Dfl. 32,50/ US $13.

Hans Bennis Frits Beukema (eds)

¥

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

Published by: Foris Publications Holland P.O. Box 509 3300 AM 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 Linguistics Linguistics in the Netherlands 1985 / Hans Bennis, Frits Beukema (eds). - Dordrecht [etc.] : Foris. - (AVT Publications ; 1) Papers presented at the 16th annual meeting of t h e ' Algemene Vereniging voor Taalwetenschap' (Linguistic Society of the Netherlands), which was held in Amsterdam on January 19, 1985. ISBN 90-6765-121-4 SISO 805 UDC 801 (492) Subject heading: linguistics ; The Netherlands.

ISBN 90 6765 121 4 ® 1985 Algemene Vereniging voor Taalwetenschap. seer.: A. Hulk, Dept. of French, Free University, P.O. Box 7161, 1007 MC Amsterdam. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission from the copyright owner. Printed in the Netherlands by ICG Printing, Dordrecht.

Contents

Preface List of contributors Joan Baart On the placement of 'integrative accent' in Dutch

1

Hans Bennis Het-raising Geert E. Booij Lexical phonology, final devoicing and subject pronouns in Dutch Frank Drijkoningen On the categorial status of INFLection

11 21 27

Colin Ewen & Harry van der Hulst Single-valued features and the nonlinear analysis of vowel harmony

39

Aafke Hulk Small Clauses "a tout prix"?

49

Harry van der Hulst Ambisyllabicity in Dutch

57

Brigitte Kampers-Manhe Le subjonctif dans la relative: une question de champ

67

Johan Kerstens Predication in NP

77

Jan G. Kooij The role of morphology in stress assignment

85

Willem Koopman The syntax of verb and particle combinations in Old English

91

VI Simone Langeweg Non-native suffixes and stress in Dutch

101

Robert Lankamp & Ron Verheijen Adverbs in English

111

W.U.S. van Lessen Kloeke Truncation in German - morphotactic versus phonotactic constraints

121

Läszlö K. Maräcz Some notes on weak crossover in Hungarian

129

JanPhase Odijkverbs in Russian and Burzio's generalization

139

Florimon van Putte Taking government seriously

145

Bob Rigter TO and PRO

157

Leonie de Smet On the semantics of the French NP des N

167

Frits Stuurman Big a puzzle

177

Ron Verheijen Antecedent-reflexive agreement

187

Elseline Vester Latin relative clauses and the notion of specificity Jip Wester Language technology as linguistics: a phonological case study of Dutch spelling Melchior D. degeminates Wolff W. Aspirated Leo Wetzels & Ben Hermans in Pali Irony and lexical meaning

197

205 213 225

Preface

This volume inaugurates a new series of publications, published for the 'Algemene Vereniging voor Taalwetenschap' (Linguistic Society of the Netherlands) by Foris Publications. In addition to the annual publication of Linguistics in the Netherlands, it is expected that further volumes may appear in this series as a result of other activities sponsored by the Linguistic Society of the Netherlands. This volume contains a selection of the papers presented at the sixteenth annual meeting of the Society, held in Amsterdam on January 19,1985. The aim of the annual meeting is to provide members of the Society with an opportunity to report on their work in progress. At this year's meeting fifty-three papers were presented. The twenty-five papers contained in this volume present an overview of research in different fields of linguistics in the Netherlands. As in previous years, the authors have submitted their articles in camera-ready form. We are grateful to them for their cooperation. May 1985

Hans Bennis Frits Beukema

List of contributors

J. Baart University of Leiden, Phonetics Laboratory, P.O. Box 9515, 2300 RA Leiden H. Bennis University of Leiden, Department of Dutch, P.O. Box 9515, 2300 RA Leiden G. Booij Free University, Department of General Linguistics, P.O. Box 7161, 1007 MC Amsterdam F. Drijkoningen University of Utrecht, Department of French, Drift 15, 3512 BR Utrecht C. Ewen University of Leiden, Department of English, P.O. Box 9515, 2300 RA Leiden B. Hermans Tilburg University, Department of Language and Literature, P.O. Box 90153, 5000 LE Tilburg A. Hulk Free University, Department of French, P.O. Box 7161, 1007 MC Amsterdam H. van der Hülst University of Leiden, Department of Dutch, P.O. Box 9515, 2300 RA Leiden B. Kampers-Manhe University of Groningen, Department of Romance Languages, Grote Kruisstraat 2-1, 9712 TS Groningen J. Kerstens University of Utrecht, Department of Dutch, Institute De Vooys, Padualaan 14, 3508 TB Utrecht J. Kooij University of Leiden, Department of General Linguistics, P.O. Box 9515, 2300 RA Leiden W. Koopman University of Amsterdam, Department of English, Spuistraat 210, 1012 VT Amsterdam S. Langeweg University of Leiden, Department of General Linguistics/Phonetics, P.O. Box 9515, 2300 RA Leiden

X R. Lankamp University of Leiden, Department of English, P.O. Box 9515, 2300 RA Leiden W.U.S. van Lessen Kloeke University of Nijmegen, Department of German, Erasmusplein 1, 6525 HT Nijmegen L. Mardcz University of Groningen, Department of General Linguistics, Grote Kruisstraat 2-1, 9712 TS Groningen J. Odijk University of Utrecht, Department of General Linguistics, Institute A. W. de Groot, Trans 14, 3512 JK Utrecht F. van Putte University of Leiden, Department of Spanish, P.O. Box 9515, 2300 RA Leiden B. Rigter University of Leiden, Department of English, P.O. Box 9515, 2300 RA Leiden L. de Smet University of Groningen, Department of French, Grote Kruisstraat 2-1, 9712 TS Groningen F. Stuurman University of Utrecht, Department of English, Oudenoord 6, 3513 ER Utrecht R. Verheijen University of Leiden, Department of English, P.O. Box 9515, 2300 RA Leiden E. Vester Free University, Department of Latin, P.O. Box 7161, 1007 MC Amsterdam J. Wester University of Nijmegen, Department of Phonetics, Erasmusplein 1, 6525 HT Nijmegen L. Wetzels University of Nijmegen, Department of French, Erasmusplein 1,6525 GG Nijmegen M. de Wolff University of Utrecht, Department of Slavic, Institute J.M. Meijer, Padualaan 14, 3584 CH Utrecht

Joan Baart

On the placement of 'Integrative accent' in Dutch 1. Introduction I n this paper, I will be concerned w i t h the question h o w the distribution of sentence accents over spoken D u t c h sentences can be accounted for. To b e g i n with, I would like to m e n t i o n two developments that in m y opinion have contributed to a better understanding of the topic. I n the first place, I refer to the research on D u t c h intonation that has b e e n carried out at the Institute for Perception Research (IPO) in E i n d h o v e n b y Cohen, 't Hart, Collier and others. Among other things, this research resulted in a n inventory of elementary pitch movements for Dutch, some of w h i c h were found to induce a subjective impression of prominence of the syllables w h i c h they are associated with. The phonetic properties of these "accent-lending pitch movements", as they are called, have b e e n determined precisely. A s a consequence, we now have at our disposal a m o r e or less objective criterion for judging the accentedness of syllables in spoken text: a n analysis of the p i t c h contour w i t h w h i c h a sentence is uttered w i l l reveal w h i c h syllables are associated w i t h accent-lending pitch movements. We m a y call these syllables "accented" and the others "unaccented". (Cf. 't Hart & Cohen, 1973, and 't Hart & Collier, 1975). For the purpose of m y research, the IPO concept of accent has b e e n adopted. It follows that I a m n o t interested in the placement of a single m o s t important ("nuclear") accent w i t h i n an intonational unit only, as is often the case in other literature o n accent placement, but rather in all accents that occur in a spoken sentence. By implication, I regard the examples in (1) as the representations of two different sentences instead of one and the same sentence because of the absence vs. presence of accent on Jan. (In the examples, accented words are g i v e n in capitals.) (1)

J a n heeft gisteren de SCHUUR geverfd JAN heeft gisteren de SCHUUR geverfd 'John has yesterday the shed painted'

A second development that I would like to m e n t i o n is the emergence of a n approach to accent placement that tries to account for the interplay of syntactic and pragmatic factors in the determination of accent locations w i t h the help of a concept that I will call "Focus structure". A t the level of Focus structure, some constituents of a sentence are m a r k e d for being "in Focus" (or [+Focus]) and others for being "out of Focus" (or [-Focus]). Here, the n o t i o n of "Focus" roughly equals what was termed "Newness" e.g. b y Halliday (1967) and Chafe (1974), or "Rheme" e.g. by Prague School linguists. Thus, "in Focus" is information that is m a r k e d by the speaker as "new" or otherwise (relatively) important, while "out of F o c u s " is information that is m a r k e d as "already k n o w n " or otherwise (relatively) unimportant. The central idea is that a speaker is free to select a certain distribution of [+/-Focus] over the constituents of his sentence o n the basis of semantic or pragmatic considerations. However, the exact locations of accents w i t h i n [+Focus] constituents are determined by sentence structure. For instance,

2 it is assumed that a Focus on a N P results in an accent o n the rightmost N o u n w i t h i n the NP, as in (2). (2)

even a nineteenth century professor of CLASSICS allowed himself to be so pedantic) (Ladd, 1980)

(wouldn't have

If the entire message that is contained w i t h i n a sentence comes "out of the blue", the sentence will be focussed u p o n as a whole. Such a Focus o n S w i l l result in a n accent o n (an element in) the Subject, see (3). (3)

your TROUSERS are torn there's a TEAR in your trousers (Gussenhoven, 1983)

The assumption of Focus structure m a k e s it possible to explain w h y the sentences your trousers are TORN and there's a tear in your TROUSERS, as opposed to the examples in (3), are inappropriate in a situation where there is no r e a s o n to assume that the listener is already thinking of 'trousers' or 'tear', respectively: while an accent o n the Subject of :ai sentence m a y serve to focus u p o n the sentence as a whole, a n accent o n the Predicate is compatible w i t h Focus o n the Predicate only, leaving the Subject out of Focus. In the recent literature, the Focus-structure approach to accent placement is advocated by Fuchs (1976), L a d d (1980: chapter 4), Gussenhoven (1983) and others. In Gussenhoven (ms) the approach is - in m y opinion - convincingly defended against some criticism by Bolinger (ms).

2. "Integrative accent" In Fuchs (1976; 1980) the n o t i o n of "integrative accent" order to designate those cases where a n entire phrase or focussed u p o n by means of a single accent. The sentences constitute examples of integratively accented NP and Ss. contrast w i t h the ones in (4): (4)

is introduced i n even sentence is in (2) and (3) The sentences in (3)

your TROUSERS are TORN there's a T E A R in your TROUSERS

In (4) the "new" information is split up into two parts, that are focussed u p o n separately, resulting in multiple accents, while i n (3) it is integrated in a single unit of information; hence the term "integrative accent". Of course, a single accent o n the Subject m a y be intended to focus o n the Subject only: your TROUSERS are torn (not your SHIRT). We m a y represent the different Focus structures that are compatible w i t h the accent o n trousers as in (5): (5a)

(b) [+Focus] your TROUSERS are torn

(c)

[+Focus]

A your TROUSERS are torn

your TROUSERS are torn

3 Below, a rule will be proposed that predicts the location of the accent within an integratively accented Dutch phrase or sentence. I will not be concerned here with the factors that determine the distribution of Focus over a sentence nor with the conditions that trigger integrative accent placement as opposed to a multiple accent pattern. Rather, I will restrict myself to a discussion of some Dutch constructions that have integrative accent, aiming at a generalised principle as to the exact location of the accent within these constructions. Furthermore, it should be emphasised that I do not claim in any sense that the output of my rule is identical to the most "neutral" or frequent accent pattern for a construction. As Fuchs (1980) points out with respect to Subject-Predicate combinations, integrative accentuation often constitutes the marked, rather than the unmarked case. Another point to be mentioned is that not all Dutch phrases and sentences may have integrative accent. For instance, structures in which Topicalisation has occurred are deprived of the possibility of having integrative accent, as is illustrated in (6). (6a)

die PET moet je aan de kapstok hangen 'that cap must you on the hatstand hang'

(6b)

je moet die PET aan de kapstok hangen (Gussenhoven, ms)

As Gussenhoven points out, the Predicate (aan de kapstok hangen) may be part of the Focus in (6b) but not in (6a), where the domain of Focus is restricted to the topicalised Object (die pet). I will therefore exclude structures like (6a) from further consideration here. (Note that within the topicalised Object there is integrative accent placement, resulting in an accent on pet rather than die). 3. Basic notions The rule to be given below takes as its input a representation of a phrase or sentence in the form of a strictly binary branching constituent tree. I assume that this input structure roughly equals the syntactic surface structure. Inasmuch as surface structure trees are not strictly binary branching, I assume that there are rules that map these onto binary branching trees. I will, however, not explore an explicitation of these rules here. With respect to the syntax of Dutch sentences, I have chosen the recent proposals in Bennis & Hoekstra (1983) and Hoekstra (1984) as my starting point. In addition to hierarchical structure, I take the grammatical relations between the constituents of a phrase to be of relevance. Within a phrase, a distinction can be made between the Head of the phrase and its Modifiers. The class of Modifiers can be divided into Complements and Specifiers. Complements are characterised by the fact that they subcategorise the lexical category of the Head (cf. Hoekstra, 1984: 24). For instance, NP-Objects only occur in combination with a subclass of the Verbs; other Verbs take PP-Objects, and again other Verbs take no Object at all. In a VP, Objects can therefore be said to be Complements. Specifiers on the other hand are characterised by a relative freedom of distribution. In the data below, several examples of Complements and Specifiers will be presented. Furthermore, a Subject-Predicate relation may be present in certain phrases. Not only Ss but also other syntactic categories may contain a Subject (Stowell, 1981; Hoekstra, 1984). Examples are given in (7).

4 (7)

Karel houdt v a n schaatsen 'Karel loves skating' (niet p r a t e n met) je m o n d v o l 'don't talk w i t h your m o u t h full' (met) de hoed in de hand 'with the hat in the hand'

In (7) the NPs Karel, je m o n d and de hoed are Subjects. The Predicates are realised as a VP (houdt v a n schaatsen), a n AP (vol) and a PP (in de hand), respectively. I will use the labels Strong (s) and Weak (w), familiar from metrical phonology, to indicate w h i c h of two sister constituents receives the accept in the case of integration: the constituent to w h i c h the accent is assigned is labelled s, its sister is labelled w . It follows from this definition that the labellings [ss] and [ww] are excluded, only [sw] or [ws] being allowed. I n phrases consisting of more than two lexical elements, integrative accent goes to the one that (apart f r o m the root node) is exclusively dominated by s-nodes. See the example in (8).

w

s

w

s

your TROUSERS are torn

4. Observations Below, I will present a number of D u t c h phrases and sentences. M y claim is that in these examples, the accents go to the capitalised words if the phrases or sentences are integratively accented. In other words: I claim that the entire phrase or sentence can be interpreted as being [+Focus], given the occurrence of accents o n the indicated words. I also claim that alternative accent locations lead to interpretations where part of the phrase or sentence is [-Focus]. This claim is based o n m y o w n intuitive judgement. I suggest that the reader checks m y claims by shifting the accent in the examples and determining whether or not a n accent location allows for an all-in-Focus reading. As a rule, [-Focus] can be detected w h e n use is made of the fact that it causes the impression that the speaker assumes that the listener is already thinking of the referent or concept referred to by the [-Focus] constituent. For instance, the location of the accent in (9a) suggests that the speaker believes that the listener is already thinking of his 'trousers', from w h i c h fact w e m a y conclude that je broek is [-Focus]. (9b) has a reading where the listener is assumed to be thinking of 'torn', but it also has a reading where all is [+Focus]. (9a)

je broek is GESCHEURD 'your trousers are torn'

(9b)

je B R O E K is gescheurd

We will first look at phrases containing Specifiers. The examples in (10a) and (b) differ w i t h respect to the order of Head and Specifier.

5 (10a)

Specifier-Head: Franse WIJN 'French wine' een opmerkelijke PRESTATIE 'a remarkable achievement' drie BRODEN 'three loaves' de door de regering toegezegde MAATREGEL 'the by the government promised measure' erg BANG 'very afraid' nogal OVERDREVEN 'rather exaggerated' vijf keer zo LANG 'five times as long' hardop PRATEN 'aloud to-talk' (... of die verf) in een keer DEKT 'whether that paint in one time covers' (hij heeft) de hele nacht GELEZEN 'he has the whole night read' (ergens) vlak VOOR 'somewhere just in-front-of'

(10b)

Head-Specifier: wijn uit FRANKRIJK een artikel in de VOLKSKRANT het cafe waar ik je heb ONTMOET onzeker in zijn OPTREDEN vlot in de OMGANG leuk om te ZIEN

'wine from France' 'an article in the Volkskrant' 'the cafe where I you have met' 'uncertain in his appearance' 'easy in the social intercourse' 'nice to see'

In (11) I present some phrases with Complements. (11a)

Complement-Head : (hij is) die LEZING beu (hij is) op MARIE verliefd een APPEL eten op ANTW00RD wachten (... of de winkels) OPEN blijven

(lib)

'he is that paper tired-of' 'he is with Mary in-love' 'an apple to-eat' 'for answer to-wait' 'whether the shops open stay'

Head-Complement: het verbod op STELEN de vraag of dit JUIST is overtuigd van eigen KUNNEN bang voor MUIZEN gewend om VERZORGD te worden (hij) beweerde dat hij ZIEK was tijdens de tweede WERELDOORLOG

'the prohibition on stealing' 'the question whether this right is' 'convinced of own ability' 'afraid of mice' 'used to cared-for be' 'he claimed that he ill was' 'during the second world war'

The data presented thus far suggest that Complements are Strong irrespective of their linear position relative to the Head (see (11)), whereas Specifiers are Strong only if they follow the Head (see (10b)). In (12) some examples of a Head with two Complements are given: (12)

de verwijzing van gastarbeiders naar OVERHEIDSINSTANTIES 'the referring of foreign workers to government agencies' de BOEKHOUDER van verraad beschuldigen 'the bookkeeper of treasury to-accuse'

I assume that in such cases the Head first combines with the adjacent Complement. Next the second Complement is attached to the group. I suggest that integrative accent goes to the "outer" Complement. This is illustrated in (13).

6 (13a)

de vervijzing v a n gastarbeiders naar OVERHEIDSINSTANTIES (13b)

de BOEKHOUDER v a n v e r r a a d beschuldigen In (14) I present some instances of integrative accent placement o n structures containing a Subject. I n (14a) the Predicate is a VP, in (14b-d) it is a n AP, PP and NP, respectively. (14a)

Subject-VP: je BROEK is gescheurd er zit een SCHEUR in je broek het GEBOUW gaat om v i j f uur dicht

your trousers are torn 'there is a tear in your trousers' 'the building goes at five hour closed' hoe zou e e n D R A A K er in het echt u i t z i e n 'how would a dragon there in reality look-like' vandaag wordt het nieuwe TAPIJT gelegd 'today will be the n e w carpet laid' (14b)

Subject-AP: (NIET p r a t e n met) je M O N D v o l 'don't talk w i t h your m o u t h full' (ik k a n ALLEEN m a a r w e r k e n met) de D E U R dicht 'I c a n only work w i t h the door closed'

(14c)

Subject-PP: (... met) de D E U R op slot (... met) de RADIO aan

(14d)

w i t h the door o n lock' w i t h the radio on'

Subject-NP: (met) LUBBERS premier (maken de b o n d e n GEEN KANS) 'with Lubbers premier m a k e the unions no chance'

I n all the examples presented in (14), integrative accent goes to the Subject. The examples in (15) show that there are exceptions to the rule that a Specifier that follows its Head is Strong. (15)

(dat het) in een keer DEKT 'that it in one time covers'

(het) DEKT in een keer 'it covers in one time'

(dat hij) zo vals ZINGT 'that he so false sings'

(hij) ZINGT zo vals 'he sings so false'

Apparently, the Verb is Strong relative to its Specifiers, irrespective of its linear position. The data that I have discussed so far can be accounted for by means of the following labelling rule. In this rule, w h i c h applies iteratively to pairs of sister nodes in a n input tree, I use the term "Argument" to generalise

7 over Subjects and Complements: (16)

in [AB], A is s iff (a) A is a n Argument, or (b) A is a Verb that is specified by B.

Of course, the formulation of clause (b) in (16) m a k e s a n ad-hoc impression. One might speculate that we have to distinguish three types of Specifiers: (i) those that follow their Head, (ii) those that precede their Head, and (iii) those that are mobile w i t h respect to their Head. (Adverbials typically belong to the third type.) It m a y be stated then that the first type is usually Strong, while the other two are Weak. Since I am not sure about this formulation, I will for the moment m a i n t a i n the simpler though less insightful formulation in (16). In (17) I present a number of Wh-questions w h i c h carry integrative accent. These examples appear to confirm the rule in (16): the Wh-constituent is Strong if it is a n Argument (see (17a)), but Weak if it functions as a Specifier (see (17b)). (17a)

op welke PARTIJ heb je gisteren gestemd? 'for w h i c h party did you yesterday vote' wat voor BOEK b e n je daar aan het lezen? 'what kind of book are you there reading' hoeveel BLADZIJDEN dacht je vandaag te gaan schrijven? 'how m a n y pages thought you today to go write' hoe LAAT is het op je horloge? 'how late is it o n your watch'

(17b)

op welke manier heb je je VROUW leren kennen? 'in what way have you your wife to-learn to-know' op welk tijdstip kom je AAN? 'at what time do you arrive' in welk tijdschrift staat dat A R T I K E L v a n jou? 'in what magazine is that article of yours' hoe laat begint de FILM? 'how late begins the film'

Since Relative Clauses are Specifiers of their antecedents, we expect the accent to go to the Relative Clause in the case of integration (they follow their Head). This is indeed the case in (18a), but in (18b) integrative accent goes to the antecedent. (18a)

het cafe waar ik je voor het eerst ONTMOETTE 'the cafe where I you for the first (time) m e t ' de dag waarop de DOOI begon 'the d a y o n w h i c h the thaw started'

(18b)

een FRONT dat vandaag over ons land trok 'a front that today over our country went' die UITSPRAAK die Lubbers gisteren gedaan heeft 'that statement that Lubbers yesterday done has' (ik heb nog) STUKKEN die ik moet doorlezen 'I have still papers that I m u s t read through (ik heb nog) STUKKEN om door te lezen 'I have still papers to read through'

8 It appears once more that the difference between Arguments and Specifiers is relevant: in (18a) the relativised NPs (het cafe, de dag) logically function as Specifiers of the Predicate in the Relative Clause, while in (18b) they function as Argument of this Predicate. In some cases the status of a clausal attribute is ambiguous: it m a y be taken either as a Complement or as a Relative Clause. This structural ambiguity m a y result in different locations of the integrative accent (in Newman, 1946, and Bresnan, 1971, attention is d r a w n to such cases): if the clause serves as a Complement, it will be assigned the accent in the case of integration (see the examples in (19a)); if it is a Relative Clause and its antecedent functions as an Argument, the accent will be assigned to the antecedent (see (19b)). (19a)

ik heb p l a n n e n o m D O O R te lezen 'I have plans to go o n w i t h reading' de v r a a g waarover we m o e s t e n SPREKEN 'the question w h a t w e should talk about'

(19b)

ik heb PLANNEN om door te lezen 'I have plans that I must read through' de VRAAG waarover w e m o e s t e n spreken 'the question that w e should talk about'

It is suggested in Fuchs (1980) and Gussenhoven (1983) that an Argument m a y not be integrated together w i t h its Predicate into a single Focus d o m a i n if it is a Pronoun. This is, however, too strong a restriction: if a P r o n o u n is used to introduce a new referent into the conversation, it m a y v e r y well receive integrative accent. See the examples in (20) (and imagine a speaker who is pointing to somebody; in Keijsper, 1985: 177, essentially the same point is made. Rischel, 1983, gives some D a n i s h examples w i t h integrative accent - he calls it "unit accentuation" - o n a Pronoun). (20)

(STIL!) H I J ligt daar te slapen 'Quiet, he is over there sleeping' (ik moet) H A A R nog e e n kado geven 'I m u s t her still a present give' ... omdat IK het niet wil h e b b e n '.. because I it not want to-have'

I conclude that Pronouns do not constitute a n exception to the rule in (16). Of course, they will seldom be assigned integrative accent, but this has to do with more general pragmatic conditions, rather than w i t h a structural condition.

5. Conclusion In this paper a rule has b e e n proposed that predicts the location of the accent w i t h i n D u t c h phrases and sentences that are presented as a single unit of [+Focus] information. This rule is based on earlier proposals b y Fuchs (1976; 1980), Ladd (1980: chapter 4) and especially Gussenhoven (1984: chapter 2). Whereas Gussenhoven's rule is restricted to the level of the traditional sentence constituents, such as Subject, Object, Predicate and Adverbial, the rule in (16) is intended to generalise over all syntactic levels and categories.

9 References BENNIS, H. & HOEKSTRA, T. 1983 De Syntaxis vail het Nederlands, For is Publications, Dordrecht BOLINGER, D.L. ms

Two views of accent, to appear in Journal of Linguistics

BRESNAN, J. 1971 Sentence stress and syntactic transformations, in Language 47, p. 257-281 CHAFE, W.L. 1974 Language and consciousness, in Language 50 FUCHS, A. 1976 'Normaler' und 'kontrastiver' Akzent, in Lingua 38, p. 293-312 1980 Accented subjects in 'all-new' sentences, in Wege zur U n i v e r s a l i e n forschung (Festschrift für Hansjakob Seiler), Gunter Narr, Tubingen, p. 449-461 GUSSENHOVEN, C. 1983 Focus, mode and the nucleus, in Journal of Linguistics 19, p. 377-417 1984 O n the Grammar and Semantics of Sentence Accents, Foris Publications, Dordrecht ms

Two views of accent: a reply, to appear in Journal of Linguistics

HALLIDAY, M.A.K. 1967 Notes o n transitivity and theme in E n g l i s h II, in Journal of Linguistics 3, p. 199-244 HART, J.'T & COHEN, A. 1973 Intonation by rule, a perceptual quest, in Journal of Phonetics 1, p. 309-327 HART, J.'T & COLLIER, R. 1975 Integrating different levels of intonation analysis, in Journal of Phonetics 3, p. 235-255 HOEKSTRA, T. 1984 Transitivity, Foris Publications, Dordrecht KEIJSPER, C.E. 1985 Information Structure, Rodopi, Amsterdam LADD, D.R.jr. 1980 The Structure of Intonational Meaning. Evidence from English, Indiana U.P. Bloomington NEWMAN, S. 1946 O n the stress system of English, in W o r d 2, p. 171-187 RISCHEL, J. 1983 O n unit accentuation in D a n i s h - and the distinction b e t w e e n deep and surface phonology, in F o l i a Linguistica 17 STOWELL, T. 1981 Origins of Phrase Structure, dissertation M I T

Hans Bennis

Het-raising 1. Introduction In this paper it will be argued that Dutch het is not a dummy pronoun when it functions as the subject of a weather verb, nor when it is in construction with an extraposed sentential complement. In the latter construction het may appear in subject and in object position. I shall provide arguments for the correctness of this hypothesis and discuss some of its consequences. In so doing, I will concentrate on an important aspect of this analysis in relation to Raising constructions. It will be shown that an analysis in which het is a referential expression carrying a thematic role leads us to a theory in which het is raised to subject position in order to receive Case, just like the regular instances of Raising. Before discussing the Raising construction, I will provide the necessary background that motivates this analysis. It will be demonstrated that het displays all the characteristics of referential expressions, such as the capacity to function as an antecedent for PRO, reflexives and parasitic gaps. As stated above, we can distinguish two different instances of the dummy pronoun het. In this respect Dutch is similar to English. The first instance concerns its use as a subject in construction with a weather verb, as in (1). This use will not be discussed any further here. The second case concerns a wide range of constructions in which the subject or object het does not seem to have a thematic role but is clearly related to a postverbal sentential complement, as in (2). (1)

Het regent it rains (2)a.Het schijnt dat Jan ziek is It seems that John ill is b.Het is vervelend dat Jan ziek is It is annoying that John ill is c.Het wordt beweerd dat Jan ziek is it is said that John ill is d.Jan betreurde het dat hij ziek was John regretted it that he ill was

In addition to the dummy use of the pronoun het, it can also be used as a neuter, personal pronoun. In view of what has just been said, it will be clear that I will try to argue in favour of an analysis in which the pronoun het is a referential pronoun in all instances. This implies that we need no longer make a distinction between three different uses of one pronominal element, but rather that, given the properties of the^pronominal element het, we expect het to occur in different construction types.

2. HET in object position In this section I will argue that if het appears in object position in construction with a postverbal S 1 , het is not a dummy pronoun but rather a referential expression in argument position carrying a propositional thematic

12 role. It is a well-known fact that het may appear optionally in object position in construction with a postverbal sentence. The occurrence of het yields the so-called factive interpretation that is virtually obligatory with some verbs (haten (to hate)), optional with others (betreuren (to regret)) and rather marginal elsewhere (zeggen (to say)). (3) a...dat ik ?(het) haat dat Jan ziek is that I it hate that John ill is b...dat ik (het) betreur dat Jan ziek is that I it regret that John ill is c...dat ik (?het) zeg dat Jan ziek is that I it say that John ill is Obviously, the selection of het is dependent on semantic and pragmatic factors that do not concern us here any further, except that some interpretation of the notion factivity is involved (cf.Kiparsky&Kiparsky,1970). What is relevant, however, is the question of the syntactic status of het in these sentences. It is generally assumed that the sentential complement is extraposed and that het is optionally inserted in the position of the trace, as a resumptive pronoun. If this was the correct derivation , het would not be a referential expression, since it would violate the theta-criterion. The thematic role is assigned to the S' by the verb, and not to het. In what follows I will adopt Hoekstra's proposal that if het is present, it is a referential expression base-generated in object position. This implies that in those cases the postverbal S' cannot be a direct argument of V , but only an 'indirect' argument by virtue of coindexation with the preverbal object het. S' must then be an adjunct clause. One argument that favours this analysis is the fact that het can be the antecedent of a parasitic gap. This is illustrated in (4). (4)

Jan zei dat hij het [na nogmaals overwogen te hebben] John said that he it after again considered to have toch betreurde dat deze beslissing genomen was yet regretted that this decision taken was

It is an interesting fact that this sentence becomes ungrammatical when we leave out the optional het in the matrix clause or when het occurs in a position to the right of the adjunct clause containing the parasitic gap (na......hebben). (5) a.*Jan zei dat hij na toch betreurde dat b.*Jan zei dat hij na het toch betreurde

nogmaals overwogen te hebben deze beslissing genomen was nogmaals overwogen te hebben dat deze beslissing genomen was

The sentences in (5) indicate that the construction in (4) is a regular parasitic-gap construction. For a discussion of the properties of the parasitic-gap construction in Dutch I refer to Bennis & Hoekstra(1985). If het were an optional expletive element, we would have no explanation for the facts in (4) and (5), while these facts are predicted to occur if we consider het to be a normal referential NP in object position. The second argument for an analysis along the lines presented here concerns extraction from the postverbal S' . As has been observed by several people (e.g.Hoekstra 1983, Groos 1983), extraction from sentential complements is excluded if a corresponding het is present. This is illustrated in (6). (6) a. Wat betreurde jij dat hij gezegd had? What regretted you that he said had

13 b.*Wat betreurde jij het dat hij gezegd had? What regretted you it that he said had In an analysis that is based on extraposition of the sentential complement, (6a) and (6b) differ only with respect to the insertion of het in the position of the trace. The only way to account for the difference in grammaticality would then be to postulate a completely ad-hoc filter which excludes extraction if het is present- If het in (6b) is a referential expression in argument position, and not a resumptive pronoun, then the ungrammaticality of (6b) follows immediately. In that case, the postverbal S' must be an adjunct clause, since there is no thematic role available. If that is correct, the ungrammaticality of (6b) is on a par with the ungrammaticality resulting from extraction out of other adjunct clauses, as in (7). (7) *Wat heb jij de beslissing betreurd nadat je gehoord hebt What have you the decision regretted after that you heard have Under this analysis the grammaticality of (6a) does not immediately follow. If the sentential complement is extraposed, the S' will be moved from an A-position to an A'-position. Again, the S' will be in a position that is structurally similar to the position of adjuncts, and extraction is thus predicted to be impossible, contrary to fact. Let us suppose that instead of being extraposed the S' can be base-generated in postverbal position. If that is correct, the postverbal S 1 may occupy an argument position. In that case, we can relate the difference between (6a) and (6b) to the fact that in (6a) the S' occupies an A-position, whereas it cannot occupy such a position in (6b) since the referential pronoun het must occupy the A-position. If het in (6b) does not occupy the A-position, but S' does, then there arises a violation of the theta-criterion, since there is a referential expression without a thematic role. The difference between (6a) and (6b) is then that in (6a) the verb betreuren assigns its propositional thematic role to the postverbal S', whereas it assigns this role to NP in (6b). The relevant parts of the structures in (6) are given in (8).

betreuren

dat ...

het betreuren dat ...

As far as extraction from S' is concerned, I will assume that only configurations in which the verb minimally governs the sentential complement, as in (8a) allow extraction. For further discussion of extraction from sentential complements in Dutch I refer to Bennis & Hoekstra (1985). The rather controversial assumption that sentential complements may be ^ base-generated in postverbal position might need some further elaboration. This assumption is based on the idea that the assignment of thematic roles is non-directional. The order of constituents must then be based on other principles of the grammar. Let us assume that Case assignment is directional. In Dutch, the verb assigns Case to the left, which explains why NP-complements have to appear preverbally. Since S' does not need Case, S' is allowed to appear postverbally, just like PP-complements. The question may then be asked why S'-complements do not appear preverbally, whereas PPs do. This might be explained in terms of the Unlike Category Condition, which essentially claims that no category XP may be governed by a category X (cf.Hoekstra 1984). If the

14 Unlike Category Condition is also assumed to be a directional principle, its direction being similar to the direction of Case assignment, it follows that S', which is non-distinct from V in its feature composition, cannot appear preverbally, while PP (and NP) can. A further observation that seems to support the analysis of the differential position of the postverbal S' being dependent on the presence or absence of het is provided by those cases in which the postverbal S' is related to the complement of a subcategorized preposition. It is then predicted that in those cases the S' cannot be in a postverbal A-position, since it is not the verb that assigns a thematic role in this case, but the preposition or rather the combination of verb and preposition. Given the fact that a preposition as head of a preverbal PP cannot govern the postverbal S', the S' must appear in A'-position. We therefore predict that a pronoun has to occur in the A-position, i.e.het is not optional as it was in the cases of V-complementation in (3). Furthermore, it is predicted that no extraction from S' is possible. Both predictions turn out to be correct. There is a further difference between these constructions and the direct object constructions discussed above. This concerns the fact that for some reason it is impossible for het to appear as a complement to a preposition. In those cases it is necessary to use the adverbial pronoun er, which appears to the left of the preposition (cf.Van Riemsdljk 1978). Other referential expressions have to appear to the right, as a consequence of the fact that P assigns Case to the right. Given the fact that these phenomena are not specific to the construction under discussion, I will not go into the discussion of complements of P and the related issue of preposition stranding. For an exhaustive discussion, I refer to Van Riemsdijk 1978 and Bennis & Hoekstra 1985. What is relevant, however, is the fact that if the preverbal preposition has a postverbal sentential complement, er is obligatorily present, as can be seen in (9). (9) a. Ik heb I have b. Ik heb I have

*(er) there *(er) there

op gerekend dat Jan dat boek zou lezen on counted that John that book would read niet aan gedacht dat Jan dat boek zou lezen not about thought that John that book would read

These facts are predicted in our approach by the theta-criterion, since there has to be a referential expression that carries the thematic role assigned by the (verb +)preposition. Given the fact that the S' cannot occupy a postverbal A-position at D-structure, er is necessarily present to carry the thematic role. Along the same lines, we predict extraction to be impossible because the S' is in an A'-position or adjunct position. This is shown in (10). (10)a.*Welk boek heb jij er op gerekend dat Jan t zou lezen Which book have you there on counted that John would read b.*Welk boek heb jij er niet aan gedacht dat Jan t zou lezen Which book have you there not about thought that John would read That er behaves like a referential expression in these cases can again be illustrated by the fact that it can be the antecedent of a parasitic gap. This is illustrated in (11). (11) Ik heb er [zonder PRO e over na te denken] I have there without about to think t mee ingestemd dat Jan naar huis zou gaan with agreed that John home would go

15 3. HET in subject position A full discussion of all the relevant instances of 'dummy' het in subject position would exceed the limits of this paper. Therefore I shall restrict my attention in this section to a discussion of het in the passive counterpart of the sentences in (3). I shall also discuss the fact that 'dummy' het in subject position can be the antecedent of a lexical anaphor and of PRO. We have seen in (3) that het is optionally present in object position if there is a postverbal sentential complement. This fact was argued to be related to the position of S' ,i.e. S' can be either in argument position or in adjunct position. If the sentences in (11) are given passive variants, we can either passivize the construction with het as direct object, in which case het behaves like a normal object, which has to be moved to the non-thematic subject position in order to receive Case, or we may passivize the construction without het, in which case there is no NP-object but only an S'-object. The resulting sentence will then show all the characteristics of the passive of intransitive verbs, since nothing need be moved to subject position, as an S'-object need not receive Case. The first type of passive construction is illustrated in (12a) and the second in (12b,c). (12)a. Het wordt betreurd dat Jan ziek is It is regretted that John ill is b. Er wordt betreurd dat Jan ziek is There is regretted that John ill is c. Door iedereen wordt betreurd dat Jan ziek is By everyone is regretted that John ill is If we base our approach on the existence of dummy pronouns, the paradigm in (12) raises several complicated questions. Three different dummy pronouns appear to show up: het in (12a), er in (12b) and the empty dummy pronoun e in (12c). What governs the distribution of dummy pronouns? What is the difference between het and er? Given the fact that it is certainly not the case that dummy het can always be replaced by dummy er, nor vice versa, as can be seen in the following examples, this approach would give rise to serious problems. (13)a. Het/*er schijnt dat Jan ziek is It/there seems that John ill is b. Er/*het wordt gelachen There/it is laughed In an approach in which het in (12a) is considered to be a referential expression, (12a) is nothing but an ordinary instance of a passive sentence. In that case, the fact that (13b) is ungrammatical does not come as a surprise, as this would result from a violation of the the ta-cr iter ion. There is no theta-role available for het. The question that arises is what is the status of er. Although there is no room to discuss this matter in any detail here, it can be argued that er is not a dummy pronoun either. Er can have various functions (cf.Bennis (1980)), one of which is as an optional adverbial with a weak locative and/or presentative meaning. In (12b) and (13b) it is exactly that function that is performed by er. This can be seen from the fact that in those sentences er is always optional and can easily be replaced by other adverbial constituents. If we pursue this line of reasoning, it will be clear that there are no empty dummy pronouns either, which is a desirable result since the notion of empty dummy is a fairly awkward: it implies that there are categories that have no surface realization and no interpretation either. These assumptions would naturally lead to the position that there may be sentences without a structural subject (like 12b,c), which position is in conflict with Chomsky's

16 Extended Projection Principle (Chomsky,1982), that requires sentences to contain a structural subject. However I think that too much has been made of the Extended Projection Principle and that we should go back to the Projection Principle. For an extensive discussion of this matter, I have to refer to Bennis(forthcoming). Let us assume that it is in fact correct to consider het in (12a) as a referential expression that is moved from object to subject position in order to receive Case. In that case, the S' is an adjunct and not an argument, and consequently we predict extraction from S' to be impossible. However, in (12b and c) the S' is an argument of the verb, and thus should allow extraction. These predictions are borne out, as is shown in (14). (14)a.*Wat wordt het betreurd dat Jan t gelezen heeft? What is it regretted that John read has b. Wat wordt er betreurd dat Jan t gelezen heeft? What is there regretted that John read has c. Wat wordt door iedereen betreurd dat Jan t gelezen heeft What is by everyone regretted that John read has In a dummy-pronoun analysis the contrast between (14b) and (10) would be very difficult to account for, as there is a dummy pronoun er and an extraposed sentential complement in the two sentences. There is no reason to suppose that something like coindexing between dummy and S' blocks extraction only in (10) and not in (14b). Before we turn to similar problems with respect to Raising constructions, I will present some additional evidence for the claim that het is a referential expression. Just like other referential expressions 'dummy'-het shows one of the most salient sentence-internal referential properties, i.e. it can be the antecedent for reflexives, as can be seen from (15). (15)a. Het spreekt voor zich(zelf) dat ik kom It speaks for itself that I come 'It is self-evident that I will come' b. Het doet zich vaak voor dat Jan ziek is It does itself often for that John ill is 'It often occurs that John is ill' We are not concerned with idiomatic expressions here, since het can be replaced by other referential expressions, as shown in (16). (16)a. Ik spreek alleen voor mijzelf I speak only for myself b. Dit rapport spreekt voor zichzelf This report speaks for itself c. Die situatie doet zich vaak voor That situation does itself often for It is interesting to note that while het is optional with complement clauses, in sentences such as (15) the occurrence of het is obligatory, which indicates that het is indeeed the antecedent of the lexical anaphor. A further argument for the hypothesis that 'dummy'het is a referential expression can be found in the fact that 'dummy'het may be the antecedent of PRO. For obvious reasons het cannot control the subject of the clause with which it is coindexed. This would constitute a violation of the i-inside-i condition. However, it may be the antecedent of PRO in another adjunct clause, as in (17).

17 (17)a. Het is [na PRO tien keer uitgelegd te zijn] It is after ten times explained to be eindelijk duidelijk geworden dat de aarde rond is at last clear become that the earth round is b.*Tijdens de les is [na PRO tien keer uitgelegd te zijn] During the lesson is after ten times explained to be toch duidelijk geworden dat de aarde rond is still clear become that the earth round is The ungrammaticality of (17b) indicates that the occurrence of het, which is optional if the adjunct clause is finite or is left out altogether, is obligatory to control the PRO-subject of the adjunct clause. 4. HET-Raising The evidence presented thusfar of the referential status of het in subject position leads quite straightforwardly to a similar analysis in the case of het appearing as the subject in Raising constructions, as in (18). (18) Het is gebleken dat Jan ziek was It is appeared that John ill was Just as in the case of the passive sentences discussed in the previous section (cf.(12)), the appearance of het is optional, as is illustrated in (19). (19)a. Er is gebleken dat Jan ziek is There is appeared that John ill is b. Gisteren is gebleken dat Jan ziek is Yesterday is appeared that John ill is Similarly, extraction from the sentential complement turns out to be impossible if the subject position is filled with het. (20)a.*Wat is het gebleken dat Jan gezegd heeft What is it appeared that John said has b. Wat is er gebleken dat Jan gezegd heeft What is there appeared that John said has c. Wat is gisteren gebleken dat Jan gezegd heeft What is yesterday appeared that John said has In all relevant respects these sentences are similar to the ones in which het optionally appeared in object position, and their corresponding passives. The explanation in those cases was dependent on the possibility for het to occupy a direct object argument position. If we postulated that het was a referential pronoun base-generated in subject position in (18) and (20a), we would be confronted with at least two serious problems. First, we would be forced to assume that a raising verb such as blijken has a thematic subject in those cases, whereas it lacks such a position in regular raising sentences, as in (21). (21) Jan blijkt ziek te zijn John appears ill to be This would be a very unfortunate consequence of this analysis. The second problem concerns the extraction cases in (20). Given the line of argumentation in the previous sections, we would be led to expect that the external thematic

18 role of blijken is either assigned to het (18), in which case the S' would be an adjunct or to the S' directly (19). In 2. it was argued that extraction from S' is possible only if S' is an (internal)argument of V. Under this analysis, this is not the case in (18) and (19), which would predict extraction to be entirely impossible, contrary to fact. In view of these problems I will consider this analysis to be incorrect. If we consider het to be a dummy pronoun only in these cases, we are left with the same problems as discussed in section 3. It would be hard to explain the distribution of dummy pronouns and the extraction facts in (20). Furthermore, it would be completely counterproductive to assume that het is a dummy pronoun in (18), but not in the comparable cases discussed in the previous section. However, if we assume that the factual similarity between the passive sentences in (12) and (14) and the raising verb sentences under discussion is an immediate consequence of a structural similarity, all problems vanish. This implies that het, if present, is a D-structure direct object, which is moved to subject position. This analysis is rather attractive since raising verbs have the same characteristics as passive verbs, i.e. they do not assign a thematic role to the subject position and no Case to their object position (cf.Burzio 1981). This is the standard analysis of raising in sentences such as (21). If we consider het in (18) to be a referential expression that needs a thematic role as well as Case, het must be base-generated as object to receive a thematic role, and must be moved to the subject position in order to get Case. Therefore, nothing has to be changed in the lexical specification of raising verbs to account for these cases. Furthermore, the extraction facts follow automatically. If het is present, the S 1 cannot be an argument of the verb and extraction is thus impossible. If het is not selected, the S' is a direct argument and extraction is predicted to occur. Then, the facts in (18) and (19), which have been a problem for some time and have led to analyses that argued for the existence of two verbs blijken, can be accomodated quite easily without construction-specific statements. Unfortunately, it turns out that the analysis of these raising-verb constructions is not always as simple as this. If we take a different raising verb such as schijnen (to seem), the facts are quite different. If schijnen is followed by a (finite) sentential complement, the occurrence of het is obligatory and no extraction from the sentential complement is allowed at all. This is shown in (22) and (23). (22)a. Het scheen dat Jan ziek was It seemed that John ill was b.*Er scheen dat Jan ziek was There seemed that John ill was c.*Gisteren scheen dat Jan ziek was Yesterday seemed that John ill was (23)a.*Wat scheen het dat Jan gezegd had What seemed it that John said has b.*Wat scheen er dat Jan gezegd had What seemed there that John said has c.*Wat scheen gisteren dat Jan gezegd had What seemed yesterday that John said has How can the difference between blijken and schijnen be explained? If we assume that there are two different verbs blijken and only one verb schijnen, we base our account of the differences between these two verbs on mere speculation. On the other hand, the dummy pronoun account runs into serious problems. It would be rather awkward to assume that the selection of dummy pronouns is lexically determined in such a way that blijken selects both het and er, while schijnen selects het only. More seriously, it would follow that the appearance of empty

19 dummy pronouns is not licensed by syntactic principles like the ECP or some version of weak pro-drop, but has to be lexically determined^too, since schijnen does not allow an empty dummy pronoun, as is shown in (22c). In the account proposed here these problems do not arise, since there are no dummy pronouns. I would like to argue that the differences between schijnen and blijken are a consequence of a difference in subcategorization. Whereas blijken allows the propositional thematic role to be expressed either by NP (het) or by S 1 , schijnen takes an NP only. If this is correct, it is clear that het is obligatorily present in (22), while it explains at the same time that extraction is entirely impossible, since S 1 has to appear in adjunct position. So the differences between the two raising verbs can be accounted for by making use of the independently necessary mechanism of subcategorization, which is possible only if het is analysed as a referential expression originating in object position. That subcategorization is necessary to account for the distribution of complements to raising verbs is also manifest in case of other complement of these verbs. Both blijken and schijnen take S-complements in the standard raising sentences such as (21). However, only blijken, and not schijnen, takes small-clause complements (cf.Stowell 1983), as is shown in (24).

(24)a. Jan bleek ziek John appeared ill b. Jan bleek een aardige jongen John appeared a nice guy c.*Jan schijnt ziek John seems ill d.*Jan schijnt een aardige jongen John seems a nice guy Whereas blijken takes all types of propositional complements i.e. S', NP(het), S and SC, schijnen subcategorizes for NP and S only. In this respect, it is interesting to note that there is a third raising verb lijken (to seem) that differs from the other two subcategorization schemas in that it allows NP-complements, S-complements and SC-complements but not S'-complements as is shown in (25). (25)a. Het lijkt (mij) dat Jan aardig is It seems me that John nice is b.*Er lijkt (mij) dat Jan aardig is There seems me that John nice is c. Jan lijkt (mij) aardig te zijn John seems me nice to be d. Jan lijkt (mij) aardig John seems me nice The fact that in the analysis presented here these three raising verbs are completely similar in their syntactic properties, which are fully predictable on the basis of independent principles of grammar, and different in their lexically determined subcategorization properties seems to me a desirable result, which is to be preferred to an analysis in which construction-specific claims have to be introduced. It should be stressed again that this analysis is dependent on the assumption that het is a referential pronoun. This assumption is supported by the fact that het shows referential properties because it can function as the antecedent for PRO, lexical anaphors and parasitic gaps.

20 Notes *. The research for this article was part of the Leiden University Research Project "Word Order and Syntagmatic and Paradigmatic Structure", financed by the Dutch Ministry of Education. Thanks are due to members of the research group. 1. A proposal that is similar in several respects is made in Hoekstra(1983). 2. A similar proposal with respect to the D-structure position of sentential complements is made by De Haan(1979), although for different reasons and with different consequences. 3. Hoekstra(1984) argues that the thematic role in these raising constructions is either assigned internally, in which case the S' is an argument of V, or externally in which case the subject position has to be occupied by the referential expression het and the S' is in an A'-position. This analysis is not very attractive since it forces us to assume that these verbs may assign one thematic role to subject or object position.

References BENNIS, H. 1980 er-deletion in a modular grammar, in S.Daalder & M.Gerritsen(eds) Linguistics in the Netherlands 1980 , Amsterdam BENNIS, H. & T.HOEKSTRA 1985 Gaps and Parasitic Gaps, to appear in The Linguistic Review 4.1 BURZIO, L. 1981 Intransitive verbs and Italian Auxiliaries diss.MIT CHOMSKY, N. 1982 Some concepts and MIT consequences of the theory of Government and Binding Cambridge (Mass), Press GR00S, A. 1983 Sentential Complements and Theta-marking, paper given at CILS, Barcelona HAAN, G.de 1979 Conditions on rules, Dordrecht,Foris Publications HOEKSTRA, T. 1983 The distribution of sentential complements, in H.Bennis & W.U.S.van Lessen Kloeke(eds) Linguistics in the Netherlands 1983 Dordrecht,Forisgrammatical Publications 1984 Transitivity; relations in Government- Binding Theory Dordrecht, Foris Publications KIPARSKY, P.& C.KIPARSKY 1970 Fact, in Steinberg & Jacobovits (eds).Semantics,Cambridge University Press RIEMSDIJK, H.van 1978 A case study in syntactic narkedness,Dordrecht, Foris Publications STOWELL, T. 1983 Subjects across categories, in The Linguistic Review 2, p.285-312

Geert E. Booij

Lexical phonology, final devoicing and subject pronouns in Dutch 1. Introduction The theory of Lexical Phonology (Kiparsky 1982) is a major step forward as compared to the standard theory of generative phonology. In Lexical Phonology two kinds of rules are distinguished: cyclic and postcyclic rules. Cyclic rules apply in the lexicon, and may interact w i t h morphological rules, whereas postcyclic rules apply in the phonological component w h i c h is ordered after syntax. In Booij(1981a, ch. 7, 1981b) this model is further refined in that two types of lexical rules are distinguished: cyclic and postcyclic rules. The reason for this refinement is that in this way the traditional and important distinction between word phonology and sentence phonology can be maintained in the form of the distinction between lexical and postlexical rules. Such an organizational model predicts that all the rules that do not m e n t i o n inter-word boundaries in their contexts are ordered before those rules that (also) apply across w o r d boundaries, i.e. in phrases. Once we assign all word-domain rules to the lexicon, a distinction between cyclic and postcyclic rules is necessary since certain lexical phonological rules may not apply cyclically. That is, I assume the following model: List of words/stems * Morphological rules

'

Cyclic phonological rules 4Postcyclic phonological rules I '

| Syntactic component

•ir

Phonological component (= postlexical rules) The rule of syllable-final devoicing of obstruents in Dutch is a lexical rule, since it only applies w i t h i n words. Yet, this rule has to be applied postcyclically, since otherwise incorrect phonetic forms will be derived, as is illustrated by the words in (2): (2) voogd 'guardian' /voyd/ [voxt] voogdes 'female guardian' /voyd+es/ [voydes] held 'hero' /helt/ [heltl heldin 'heroine' /held+un/ [heldmj If Final Devoicing is applied cyclically, we would predict the incorrect phonetic forms [voxtesj a r K j [ h e l t m ] for voogdes and heldin respectively, as the following derivation for heldin illustrates:

22 (3)

underlying form 1 cycle: syllabification j Final Devoicing 2 cycle: -in-affixation phonetic form

/held/ (held)

underlying form ^nd c y c l e : syllabification 2 cycle: -in-affixation resyllabification Post-cycle: Final Devoicing phonetic form

/held/ (held)

t

s

tn [heIt m l 2 With Final Devoicing as a postcyclic rule, the correct phonetic form is derived: (4)

s

in (hel) (din) s s

[heldln]

As pointed out above, the model in (1) predicts that word-domain rules precede the rules of sentence phonology. This is nicely illustrated by the ordering of" Final Devoicing with respect to Progressive Voice Assimilation, a rule which devoices fricatives after a voiceless obstruent. Final Devoicing must crucially apply before Progressive Voice Assimilation, as is particularly clear from cases in which we find an underlying voiced obstruent followed by a voiced fricative: (5)

moed vatten 'to take courage1

/mud

Lexicon: syllabification Final Devoicing Phonological component: Prog. Voice Ass. phonetic form

(mud) (va) (tan) s s s

vatan/

[mutfatan]

Note that the rule of Progressive Voice Assimilation has to apply here, even though the two obstruents agree in voicing at the underlying level. The importance of locating Final Devoicing in the lexicon is also confirmed by the fact that resyllabification across word boundaries, a process characteristic of more casual speech, never bleeds Final Devoicing, as illustrated in (6): (6)

ik heb /heb/ een boek 'I have a book '

(ke) (p9m) (buk) *(kfe.)®(b»m)®(buk)® ik zet mijn hoed /hud/ op 'I put on my hat' 3 . ^ . 1 D (52) [ s [ne ... pas ] [ g [ N p de voiture qui être mal garée] 2 [ g je vois e 2 ]]] j k i (51) ne peut être que la LF de (48b), puisqu'elle correspond à la lecture transparente: en effet, dans cette lecture, la négation ne porte que sur je vois, l'existence d'un réfèrent pour le NP étant affirmée. (52), par contre, ne peut être que celle de (48a). b,

^

Le subjonctif indique ici encore que le NP dans lequel il se trouve a un champ étroit: il doit se trouver dans le champ de ne ... pas• Nous pouvons, à l'aide des LF (51) et (52) et de la notion de champ telle qu'elle est définie par May (1983), expliquer pourquoi on peut insérer des expressions de polarité négative dans (48a): au niveau de LF, la relative se trouve dans le champ de la négation, parce qu'elle est c. commandée par elle. Si on insère une expression de polarité négative dans la relative de (48a), elle sera dans le champ de la négation dans LF, ce qui explique son emploi possible, Ainsi (53a) est grammaticale: (53a) Je ne vois pas de voiture qui soit le moins du monde mal garée Par contre, (53b) ne le sera pas, l'expression de polarité négative ne se trouvant pas dans le champ de ne ... pas.

74 (53b) "Je ne vois pas de voiture qui est le moins du monde mal garée Considérons les phrases (54a) et (54b): (54a) (54b)

Tu vois une voiture qui soit mal garée? Tu vois une voiture qui est mal garée?

(subj.l (ind.)

(54a) a, comme (9a), une lecture opaque et (54b), comme (9b) une lecture transparente. Ces deux phrases ont, à part le mode employé dans la relative, la même représentation au niveau de la Structure S, (55). (55)

[g

QU [ s

tu vois [ N P une voiture [_ q m ^ [ g e x être mal garée]]]]] i QU étant un opérateur de phrase, nous nous proposons de l'adjoindre, tout comme la négation, à S^, ce qui nous permet de former la structure intermédiaire (56): (56)

QU tu vois une voiture qui être mal garée ]]] j i dans laquelle figurent deux S. QR peut adjoindre le NP complexe à l'un de ces deux noeuds. Le résultat de son application est la LF (57), dans laquelle le NP a été adjoint à S., ou (58), dans laquelle il a été adjoint à S^. : (57)

[

f

une voiture qui être malgarée L [

QU [

tu vois e ]]]

]]]

(58)

[ s QU [ s [ N p une voiture qui être mal garée] 2 [ g tu vois e 2 j k i Dans (57), l'élément QU ne porte pas sur le NP. Cette LF correspond donc à la lecture transparente, selon laquelle l'existence d'un réfèrent pour le NP est admise. C'est donc la LF de (54b). Le NP ne s'y trouvant pas dans le champ de QU, on ne pourra y insérer des éléments de polarité négative, pas plus que dans (9b) et (29). (57) ne peut, par contre, pas être la LF de (54a). (58), où le NP est dans le champ de QU, correspond à la lecture opaque selon laquelle on ne se prononce pas sur l'existence d'un réfèrent pour ce NP. Cette lecture étant celle de (54a), LF (58) est celle de (54a). Puisque le subjonctif est l'élément qui indique la lecture de la phrase, nous pouvons dire que, dans ce cas encore, il fonctionne comme un marqueur de champ: il indique que le NP qui le renferme a un champ étroit et qu'il doit donc se trouver dans le champ de QU. Ceci explique qu'on puisse e m p l o y e r d e s expressions de polarité négative dans (54a), et que (23) et (26). soient grammaticales. Appliquons enfin notre hypothèse sur la fonction du subjonctif aux phrases (59a), qui a une lecture opaque, tout comme (10a), et (59b), qui a une lecture transparente comme (10b): (59a) Si tu vois une voiture qui soit mal garée, préviens-moi (59b) Si tu vois une voiture qui est mal garée, préviens-moi

(subj.) (ind.)

Considérant que, dans ces phrases, les deux propositions sont sur le même niveau, et que, par conséquent, aucune n'est enchâssée dans l'autre, nous donnons à (59a, b) la Structure S (60): (60)

[

[g si [ s i

[s

tu vois

une voiture [ g q u ^ [ g e_L être mal garée]]]]]

j préviens-moi ]]

QR peut adjoindre le NP à S^ ou à S.. On obtient (61) et (62): (61) [ s [ N p une voiture qui être mal garée] 2 [ g [ g si [ g tu vois e 2 ]] 1 i j [ préviens-moi]]] k

75 (62)

[ s [g s i [ s [ N P u n e voiture qui être ma garée ] [ tu vois 1 i j ^ préviens-moi ]] k D'après notre hypothèse, (62)(où le NP se trouve dans le champ de si, un champ étroit, est la LF de la phrase au subjonctif (59a). Cette LF bien à la lecture opaque, selon laquelle on n'affirme pas l'existence rent pour le NP.

e 2 ]]]

et a donc correspond d'un réfè-

Ceci explique encore une fois qu'on puisse employer dans la relative de (59a) des expressions de polarité négative, mais pas dans celle de (59b) , dont la LF est (61) . Ces expressions ne se trouveraient pas dans le champ de si. 5. Conclusion Le modèle de May (1977) et May (1983) permet d'expliquer formellement l'alternance indicatif/subjonctif dans la relative française. Dans tous les contextes étudiés le subjonctif joue le rôle de marqueur de champ: il indique que le NP dans lequel il figure a un champ étroit, qu'il doit se trouver dans le champ d'un verbe volonté, de la négation, de QU ou de si. L'indicatif, par contre, indique que le NP qui le contient a un champ large. Les cas étudiés fournissent un argument supplémentaire en faveur de la pertinence de la forme logique comme niveau de représentation: dans le cas présent, elle permet d'expliquer des faits syntaxiques dont la structure syntaxique elle-même n'est pas en mesure de rendre compte.

Notes 1. Cette règle est une traduction de Jackendoff (1972: 293) 2. Pour une définition du gouvernement, voir May (1983: 17-18) Bibliographie BAKER, C. 1970 Double Negatives, Linguistic Inquiry, 1.2 JACKENDOFF, R. 1972 Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar, M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, Mass. IMBS, P. 1953 Le subjonctif en français moderne, Strazbourg: Université des Lettres KAYNE, R. 1981 Two Notes on the NIC, dans A. Belletti, L. Brandi and L. Rizzi, eds. Theory of Markedness in Generative Grammar, Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa MAY, R. 1977 The Grammar of Quantification, unpublished doctoral dissertation, M.I.T. Cambridge, Mass. 1983 Logical Form as a Level of Linguistic Representation, paper distribué par le Indiana University Linguistics Club VAN DER MOLEN, W. 1923 Le subjonctif: sa valeur psychologique et son emploi dans la langue parlée, Amsterdam Zalt-Bommel

Johan

Kerstens

Predication in NP 1. Introduction * In Remarks on Nominalization, Chomsky posits the view that (1) may have either (2), (3), or (4) as its deep structure. (1)

Jane's foto

(2)

[ N p Det [ - foto (van) Jane ]]

(= Jane's photograph)

(3)

[ N p Jane's [ - foto ]]

(4)

[

Det [— foto die Jane heeft ]]

Thus it is accounted for that Jane in (1) is understood either as referring to the person being photographed (direct object), or as referring to the person who has taken the picture (subject), or as referring to the person who has the photograph in her possession. Chomsky's analysis is still being referred to, although few continue to assume that (4) is a deep structure of (1). The possessive interpretation is now commonly associated with deep structure (3). A different view is advanced in Williams' The NP Cycle. Williams claims that (1) has only one deep structure, namely (3). Also, he observes that (1) has a much wider range of interpretation than assumed by Chomsky. For example, (1) may be taken to refer to a photograph Jane is looking at, eating, tearing apart, etcetera. To deal with this, Williams proposes (5) as a rule of interpretation. (5)

Det Rule _ The relation between the possessive NP and the following N can be any relation at all.

Now, if (5) is adopted, there is no need for a deep structure as in (2) to account for the interpretation in which a photograph is taken of Jane. This interpretation is just one of the possibilities allowed by the rule. In a note (no.4), Williams adds that Jane and foto in (1) cannot be in the subject-predicate relationship. Although rule (5) would allow it, this is excluded by other principles (which we need not discuss here). The claim that Jane in (3) is not a subject is quite remarkable, however, since it is one of the hard-core assumptions of the extended standard theory that it is. In this paper, I will argue that Williams' proposals are on the right track, though mistaken in some important respects. I agree with Williams that (1) has just one deep structure, but I disagree on its nature. And though Williams' rule (5) may give a better account of the facts than Chomsky's analysis, it is not correct. What's more, as far as it is in agreement with the facts, it is redundant. Also, I will argue that Jane in (1) is a subject -contrary to Williams' claim- although not of the predicate foto. My proposal is that Jane in (1) is the subject of a small clause in which the predicate is PRO, being controlled by foto• So the first question to be answered is; what is a small clause?

78 2. Small clauses According to Chomsky (1981), a sentence like (6) has (7) as its deep (6) (7)

structure.

Jane zwemt naakt (= Jane is swimming naked) Jane^ zwemt [ g PRCL naakt ]

In (7) naakt is a small clause, i.e. an S without INFL. This analysis is induced by the 9-criterion, w h i c h does not allow NPs like Jane to have m o r e than one 0-role. In (7), Jane is assigned a 6-role by the VP zwemt, but it is also understood as an argument of naakt. The supposition that naakt has its own (PRO-)subject, controlled by Jane, enables one to account for the feeling that Jane has two 9-roles, without violating the 0-criterion. For some reason, it is usually taken for granted that only the subject of small clauses can be PRO. But, as far as I can tell, there is nothing in GB-theory w h i c h prevents the predicate of a small clause from being P|0. Besides, subjects in small clauses can be lexical if they have inherent case. So, if w e assume that there is a rule like (8), it is to be expected that small clauses of the form NP PRO will occur. (8)

S -» NP (INFL) XP

.where X = V,N,A,P

I believe that this expectation is borne out by the sentences in (9) - (ll), if we suppose that they have the structures in (12)-(14), respectively. (9) (10) (11)

er is iemand ziek (= there is someone ill) ik geef h e m een boek (= I give h i m a book) Jane's foto (= (1))

(12)

[ g [ s er P R C h H - iemand ziek is ]. ]

(13)

[ g ik [ g h e m P R O ^ t - een boek geef ]

(.14)

[ N p [ s Jane's PR0.][^ foto ]. ]

]

In this paper I will not discuss the cases in (9) and (10) . I will restrict m y attention to the case of the possessive NP, and address the next question: why should one want to assume that a possessive NP is a small clause?

3. NP structure A standard assumption is that NPs are characterized by a rule such as (cf. Jackendoff 1977; Selkirk 1977). (15)

NP -

{£'}

(15)

N

A n implication of (15) is that the relationship between a determiner and N is the same as that between a possessive NP and N. But this implication can be seen to be wrong if we take into consideration the constructions in (16) and (17). (16) (17)

het is zand het zand

(= it is sand) (= the sand)

Intuitively, it is hard to detect any difference between the way het and zand in the sentence are related, and the way het and zand in the NP are related. In (16), the pronoun het is clearly the subject of the predicate nominal zand, and it is n o t obvious that the article het in (17) is related to the n o u n zand in a different way.

79 There is m o r e solid evidence to support this intuition. Note that het and is, the head of V, in _the sentence agree ip number and person: similarly, het and zand, the head of N, in the NP agree in number and gender-*. N o w this similarity is naturally explained if w e simply assume that the relationship is the same in both cases. In other words, if we assume that the determiner is the subject of the following N.6 Turning to possessive NPs, the examples in (18) and (19) show that an agreement relation cannot be detected between Jane and the head of the predicate. (18) (19)

Jane's fotoos Jane's zand

(= Jane's photographs) (= Jane's sand)

In (18) Jane is singular, but the head is plural; in (19), zand is neuter, but Jane is not. So, on this score, there is no evidence that a possessive NP is a subject of the following N. One striking feature of possessive NPs is that their reference is restricted to living creatures. Compared to (18), (19), and (20), the expressions in (21) and (22) are ill-formed. ' (20) zijn gevel (= his front) (21) *hets gevel (= its front) (22) *Volendams haven (= Volendam's harbour) Surprisingly, this particular property is shared by indirect objects. These m u s t also refer to animate things, as shown b y the anomaly of (23) and (24). (23) (24)

?hij geeft de kast een deur ?dat ontgaat de machine

(= he gives the cabinet a door) (= that escapes the engine)

This, too, can be no coincidence. And that it is not can be infered from the fact that the possessive NP m i j n in (26) is interpreted just like the indirect object mij in (25). (25) (26)

mij is de wraak m i j n wraak

(= the revenge is mine) (= m y revenge)

Apparently, a possessive NP is the indirect object of the NP. Elsewhere, I argue that indirect objects are small clauses (Kerstens 1985). Granting the correctness of that argument, the similarity of possessive NPs and indirect objects strongly favours the hypothesis that possessive NPs are small clauses. Let us therefore replace rule (15) by (27). (27)

NP -> j ^ j

N

Also we can replace Williams' rule (5) by the m o r e appropriate (28)

(28).

Empty predicates assign empty 9-roles.

If we assume (29) as a subsidiary principle, it follows that the relation between the possessive NP and the following N can be any relation at all. (29)

A n empty 0-role can be any 6-role at all.

So Williams' Det rule n o t only turns out to be no Det rule (a small clause is not a determiner), it also turns out to be no rule but a mere description of the effect of (28) and (29). In the remainder of this paper, I will discuss two problems. In each case I will show that the problem is amenable to an interesting solution, thereby providing more evidence in favour of the analysis.

80 4. Reflexivization The first problem posed by the hypothesis that indirect objects and possessive NPs are small clauses is the acceptability of (30) and (31). (30)

ik beveel

(31)

[g Jan's^ PRO] foto van zichzelf^

Jan^ PRO] zichzelf^ aan

(= I recommend Jan himself) (= Jan's photograph of himself)

Given that a reflexive pronoun must be c-commanded by its antecedent, we predict that both (30) and (31) are ill-formed. But, to all appearances, they are not. Does this refute the analysis? I don't think so. Note that in comparison with (30) and (31), (32) and (33) are quite bad. (32) ?*ik beveel Jane, zichzelf. aan (33) ?*Jane's. foto van zichzeli. i I ' The only difference is that Jan has been replaced by the female Jane. Also, (34) and (35), in which haarzelf is substituted for zichzelf, are well-formed, more so than (30) and (31). (34) (35)

ik beveel Jane, haarzelf. aan Jane's, foto van haarzeli. l

I

But haarzelf is not possible in a genuine context of reflexivization, as in (36). (36) *Jane^ wast haarzelf^ (= Jane washes herself) Now, the pattern of (32)-(36) is what one would expect under the following assumptions (cf. Kerstens 1983). The forms zichzelf and haarzelf differ in that zichzelf, being an anaphor^, must be c-commanded by its antecedent, whereas haarzelf, being a pseudo-anaphor, must n o t be c-commanded by its antecedent. That's why the sentences in (37) and (38) do not have the same meaning: they must have a different structure. (37) (38)

ik hield Jane, voor zichzelf. ik hield Jane^ voor haarzelf^

(= I took Jane for herself) (= I kept her for her own sake)

Also, the antecedent of the pseudo-anaphor (haarzelf) must have definite reference, while no such condition holds for the anaphor (zichzelf)• Hence the contrast between (39) and (40), in which een vrouw (a woman) and iedere vrouw (every woman) do not have definite reference. (39)

-i . . , , J een vrouw. \ . , , , ik hield < . , l > voor zichzelf. ^ iedere vrouw^J i

vrouw (40) *ik hield s £ K voor haarzelf. I iedere vrouw^J i

Similarly, the expressions in (41) and (42) are out when compared to those in (34) and (35). //i\ *-i v i / e e n vrouw. \ (41) *ik beveel < . , i > L iedere vrouw^J (42) *iemands^ foto van hemzelf^

haarzelf. aan l (= someone's photograph of himself)

In (42), iemand does not have definite reference. The contrasts in (32)-(42) all follow from the assumptions made. But (30) and (31) are still predicted to be ill-formed. Why do they look alright?

81 I believe that the cause of their acceptability is the same as that of the acceptability of a sentence like (43), w h i c h is only slightly worse than (44) (cf. Chomsky 1977:92 fn.). (43) (44)

Jane, v i n d t de foto v a n zichzelf. beter (= Jane considers the photograph of herself better) Jane, v i n d t de foto v a n haarzelf. beter l i

A difference between (43) and (44) is that in (43) zichzelf must be taken as a direct object and Jane is necessarily understood as referring to the p e r s o n who has taken the photograph (the subject); such a restriction does not hold for (44). In other words, only in (43) m u s t the anaphor zichzelf and its antecedent Jane be understood as co-arguments of the predicate 'to m a k e a photograph of'. Now, this v e r y same restriction obtains in the case of (31): J a n must be interpreted as referring to the person who has taken the photograph, and cannot be understood as referring to the person who has the photograph in his possession. This latter interpretation, however, is freely available in (35). The generalization to be made is that anaphors are acceptable if they and their antecedents can be understood as co-arguments, even if not all the conditions are met. The case of (30) follows from this generalization too, if we assume that J a n can be understood as a co-argument of zichzelf. And as for the contrast between (30) and (31) on the one hand, and (32) and (33) on the other, this too is to be expected. Were (30) and (31) to be well-formed, h o w w o u l d the difference between male and female reference be able to interfere w i t h binding? All in all, the problem posed by the acceptability of (30) and (31) appears to find a n interesting solution under the assumptions made, and thus the analysis receives further support.

5. Deletion and definiteness Above, I proposed to replace rule (15) by (27). Both (15) and (27) predict the ill-formedness of (45) and (46). (45) *de Jane's foto (46) *Jane's de foto

(= the Jane's photograph)

Of course, this prediction is m e r e l y a stipulation. No insight is gained. Besides, there is ample reason to replace the rule in (15) not by (27) but by (47), w h i c h more accurately expresses (or so it seems) that the determiner is the subject and the possessive the indirect object of the NP. (47)

NP

-» Det (S) N

Rule (47), however, does not predict the ill-formedness of (45) and (46). Note also that possessive NPs behave like definite NPs (they are excluded from there-contexts), but nothing of the kind follows from any of the assumptions made so far. Again, I do not know of any alternative w h i c h fares better on this score. Still, it would be nice if the analysis advanced here had something interesting to say o n this subject. All I have to offer is the following. As noted before, NPs containing possessive NPs are like sentences without an external subject, e.g. (48) and (49). (48) (49)

het lukt mij (lit.:it succeeds m e ; = I succeed in it) het lijkt mij leuk (= it appears nice to me)

82 These sentences are usually assigned deep structures like (50) and (51). (50) (51)

[ e [r mij het lukt ]] [g e mij het leuk lijkt ]]

The crucial feature of (50) and (51) is that the grammatical subject has its deep structure position to the right of the indirect object, the surface structure being derived by (optional) movement of the subject-NP to the position indicated by e. Next, consider the contrast between the sentences in (52) and (53). (52)

ik weet dat ^

^ ^ j mij lukken zal

(= I know that I will succeed in everything/it) lukken zal

(53)

If the grammatical subject is het, it must be fronted. In this case het cannot be deleted. But in other cases it can, or even must be deleted. See the contrast between (54) and (55).^ (54) (55)

*(het) is duidelijk dat hij komt duidelijk is (*het) dat hij komt

(= it is clear that he comes)

Apparently, het can be deleted only if it is not an R-expression, and it must be deleted if it cannot be moved to initial position. As shown by the contrast between the sentences in (56) and (57), the same holds for existential er. (56) (57)

*(er) is iemand in de tuin in de tuin is (*er) iemand

(= there is someone in the garden)

Whatever the explanation of this phenomenon may be, it seems that we are dealing with the same pattern of facts in the case of NPs containing possessive NPs. If we compare NPs containing possessive NPs with sentences like (48) and (49), we must assume that the deep structure of (1) looks like (58) (implying that rule (47) should be replaced by (59)). (58)

[ N p Jane's

(59)

NP N

Det foto ]]

(S) N Det N

Suppose now that the determiner in (58) cannot move to the left of Jane's (either because that position is not available, or because 'move a' does not apply to NPs). Then the determiner must be deleted, given that it is not an R-expression. Furthermore, if the determiner is deleted, it must be a designated element. But then it must be the definite determiner, since not every indefinite NP has a determiner (e.g. zand vs. *een zand)• Thus the definiteness of an NP containing a possessive NP would follow from the condition that deletion must be recoverable. Of course, most of this is speculation. But if it holds water, it strongly favours the analysis of possessive NPs defended in this paper. Notes I thank the editors for helpful comments. 1. I will restrict my attention to Dutch, and ignore facts of English like those presented by (i) and (ii). These facts are not found in Dutch.

83 (i) the picture of John's (ii) the Palestinian delegation's presentation Note that in Dutch possessive NPs m u s t be bare nouns, expressions like 's lands wijs, 's lands eer (= when in Rome, do as the Romans) being m a r k e d exceptions. Most likely this restriction is due to the fact that the possessive case ('s) m u s t be spelled out, and that case marking in Dutch is possible only in bare nouns. The necessity of overt case marking m a y be the effect of the A-after-A principle as proposed in Kerstens (1981). 2. See for a different approach Anderson

(1984).

3. Alternatively, the PRO-X m a y act as a governor so that case in (12) and (14) is in fact structural case (cf. Chomsky 1981:170). 4. See Kerstens

(1985).

5. Note that het and zand in the NP also agree in person, since nouns taking determiners are all third person, as are the determiners. Also, the assumption that agreement of subject and verb is governed {by INFL) entails that we assume INFL or A G R in N P as well. But the latter assumption would be quite unwarranted. So, it w o u l d seem to be more sensible not to assume that agreement of subject and verb is governed. 6. If the predicate nominal is third person plural, the verb does not agree w i t h the subject het: het *is/zijn bloemen (lit. it *is/are flowers). I have no clear idei. why this is so. (Maybe het receives number from the predicate nominal.) 7. Some feel that (22) is well-formed. I think that this judgment is due to the fact that cities are easily personified, as are countries (e.g. Hollands glorie (= Holland's glory)), and institutions (e.g. Philips' aanspraken op overheidssteun (= Philips' claim to government support)). Similarly, indirect objects can refer to things like one's country (e.g. ik heb m i j n vaderland alles gegeven wat ik had (= I gave m y country all I had)), or a m u s e u m (e.g. ik schonk het m u s e u m al m i j n schilderijen (= I donated the m u s e u m all m y paintings)). 8. Actually, I assume (as in Kerstens 1983) that zich, not zichzelf, is the anaphor. In fact, zichzelf is an R-expression containing the anaphor zich just like zijn and not zijn been is the anaphor in (i). (i)

hij brak zijn been

(= he broke his leg)

9. Some feel that het and er need not be deleted in (55) and (57).

References ANDERSON, M. 1984 Prenominai genitive NPs. In: The Linguistic Review 3. CHOMSKY, N 1972 Studies on Semantics in Generative Grammar. Mouton. 1977 Essays on Form and Interpretation. N o r t h Holland. 1981 Lectures on Government and Binding. Foris. JACKENDOFF, R. A Study of Phrase Structure. LI Monograph MIT. 1977 X-Syntax:

84 KERSTENS, J. 1981 Structure and Structure Assignment: D u t c h as a VSO In: Linguistics in the Netherlands 1981.

language.

1983 Deep Structure and Surface Structure Interpretation. Diss. Utrecht. 1985 Indirecte objecten zijn zinnen.

(to appear in De Nieuwe Taalgids)

SELKIRK, E. 1977 Some Remarks on Noun Phrase Structure. In: P.W.Culicover, T.Wasow, A.Akmajian (eds). Formal Syntax. Academic Press. WILLIAMS, E. 1982 The NP Cycle. In: Linguistic Inquiry

13,2.

Jan G. Kooij

The role of morphology in stress assignment 0. Introduction Prosodic phonology has broadened our insight into the stress patterns of words and into the abstract structures underlying stress assignment. We are also beginning to understand more about the rhythmical principles that govern stress assignment and the readjustment of stress patterns. But there is one area where there are still more questions than answers, and that is the area of interaction between morphology and phonology. I will claim in this paper that proposals that have been made with respect to the stress pattern in Dutch derived words are unsatisfactory inasmuch as they imply claims about the morphological structure of these words. I will propose that Dutch words that are derived through suffixation basically have one and the same stress pattern, where the suffix is stress-neutral, and that other stress patterns in derived words have to be explained by additional rules or conditions rather than by assuming two types of derivations that would predict the correct stress patterns automatically.

1. The stress pattern of Dutch derivations There is evidence that the role of morphology in stress assignment varies considerably across languages. Consider, as an example, the summary of the situation in Afghan Persian given in Bing (1980): (1)

In [A B], B is prominent unless either A or B is an inflectional affix, in which case A is prominent.

In the case of Dutch, three stress patterns have traditionally been distinguished in words that are derived through suffixation (prefixation will not be discussed in this paper). The examples (2) - (4), below, illustrate, respectively, suffixes that do not affect the stress pattern of the stem and are thus stressneutral, suffixes that attract main stress unto themselves, and suffixes that attract main stress unto the last stresseable syllable of the stem. (2)

vijand

'enemy'

vijand+en vijand+schap

'enemies' 'hostility'

(3)

vijand Amerika

'enemy' 'America'

vijand+in Amerik+âan

'enemy FEM' 'American'

(4)

vijand afzet

'enemy' 'remove'

vijând+ig afzét+baar

'hostile' 'removable '

As compared to (1), above, the situation in Dutch appears to be quite complex. However, Neyt and Zonneveld (1981) observe that it can be made considerably more transparent by the assumption that, actually, there are only two stress patterns in derived words in Dutch. Either the suffix is disregarded by the lexical stress rules and adjoined to the pattern assigned by these rules, or the entire derivation, including the suffix, receives its stress pattern through application of the LCPR. For the purposes of this paper, this rule can be summarized as in Van der Hulst and Langeweg (1984):

86 (5)

In [A B], B is strong iff 1. B branches, 2. B dominates a superheavy syllable.

The stress pattern of the examples in (2), above, is now explained by the assumption that the rules based on (5) apply to the stem of the word only and disregard the suffix, whether it is a light suffix or a heavy suffix. The stress pattern in the example Amerikaan in (3) is predicted on the assumption that the same rules apply to the entire derivation; since -aan is a heavy syllable it receives main stress. The same would be true for most derivations in the [-native] vocabulary, where suffixes have generally kept their original stress. The example vijandin in (3) would, however, be an exception, since -in receives main stress although it is inherently light. The problematic cases in (4) cease to be problematic if we assume that they belong to the same category as the examples in (3). The stress rules implied by (5) apply to the entire derivation, but since a suffix like -ig is a light element and therefore does not receive stress in the regular case, a branching foot s - w will be erected over the right periphery of the word vijandig. The result is, correctly, that these words receive penultimate stress. Notice that, again, we have an exception here: since -baar is a heavy syllable, it should attract main stress unto itself rather than unto the immediately preceding syllable. The solution proposed by Neyt and Zonneveld is elegant. It reduces the stress pattern in derived words in Dutch to two familiar types: derivations where suffixes are stress-neutral (class (2) ), and derivations where suffixes are nonneutral (classes (3) and (4) ). Besides, stress assignment in derived words is related to the LCPR of Dutch with virtually no cost at all. It should be noticed that words where the suffix seems to attract stress unto the immediately preceding syllable are not isolated cases. Most of these words are adjectives, and a few more examples are given under (12): (6)

godsdienst alcohol bisschop oplet opdring

'religion' 'id' 'bishop' 'pay attention' 'push forward'

godsdienst+ig alcohol+isch bisschopp+elijk oplett+end opdring+erig

'religious' 'alcoholic' 'episcopal' 'attentive' 'obtrusive'

But the question remains how the proper application of the stress rules can be ensured. Here, Neyt and Zonneveld follow a suggestion by Selkirk (1982; now also 1984) to the effect that the two stress patterns are associated with different types of derivations. The examples in (2) are Word derivations, and the suffixes in that class are defined as Word suffixes. The examples in both (3) and (4) are Root derivations, and the suffixes are defined as Root suffixes. In a grammar where 'Root' is the domain of the lexical stress rules, the difference in stress patterns of derived words is now automatically explained. To the examples in (2), (3), and (4), Selkirk's grammar would assign the structures (6), (7), and (8), respectively, and the application of the stress rules, including a rule of 'stray syllable adjunction' would result in the stress patterns in (9), (10), and (11), respectively:(see Table next page). The LCPR immediately assigns the correct w - s stress pattern to the examples (10) and (11). In (9), on the contrary, the word vijand is assigned its lexical stress pattern s - w, and the suffix -en is attached to the existing prosodic pattern at a later stage by stray syllable adjunction, yielding (9). Though this is quite straightforward, I will claim that the analysis leads to serious difficulties, and can be maintained only at the cost of loss of generalizations elsewhere in the grammar.

87

(7)

(10)

W I R

Aff

vijand (8)

s

w

vij

and

w en

(11)

R Amerik

Aff aan

A

me ri kaan

(12)

(9) R vijand

s

Aff ig

vij

s

w

an

dig

2. Stress patterns and morphological structure In her recent book, Selkirk (1984: 79) concedes that the existence of a class of Word derivations and a class of Root derivations in a given language does not entail that the stress patterns of derived words are affected by that distinction. The reverse is, of course, equally well possible: the existence of different stress patterns in derived words is not necessarily tied up with a difference in morphological structure or with a difference in level of word formation. And Dutch appears to be one of the languages where the evidence points in another direction. To begin with, most [+native] suffixes of Dutch prosodically form a natural class. They cannot be stressed, and syllabify or otherwise merge with the preceding stem. In this respect, there is no difference between, say, the plural suffix -en which would be a Word suffix under the analysis by Neyt and Zonneveld, and the adjectival suffix -ig which would be a Root suffix under their analysis. In fact, the only elements that prosodically behave like Word suffixes are a few heavy suffixes that can be stressed and that do not merge with the stem, but among these, the suffix -baar, '-able' attracts stress to the immediately preceding syllable, as can be seen in the example afzet+baar 'removable' in (4), whereas other suffixes in this class do not attract stress, e.g. -loos, '-less'. This would mean that the Root suffix versus Word suffix dichotomy cuts right across the natural classes of suffixes and refers to their behaviour under stress assignment only. More serious, however, is the fact that the distinction between Root derivations and Word derivations finds little independent support in Dutch morphology. If the term Root derivation is to have any meaning independent of stress patterns, it applies to the Dutch [-native] vocabulary only, in particular to the Romance vocabulary. Here, derivations are by and large improductive and opaque to a varying but considerable degree, word formation in this area has a morphophonology of its own, and many suffixes, like the suffix -aan in Amerik+aan, receive main stress. The native suffixes of Dutch typically do not receive main stress, also not when they are prosodically heavy, and there seems to be little independent reason to call the stem in the plural vijand+en, 'enemies' a Word and the stem in the adjective vijand+ig, 'hostile' a Root. In terms of lexicalization or opaqueness, the examples in (12) do not form a homogeneous class, and while some of these suffixes, for instance, the suffix -(e)lijk, are improductive, some, for instance, the suffixes -ig and -erig, are not. The latter suffixes, incidentally, are also the source of a second complication for the analysis under consideration. If suffixes are distinguished as

88 Root suffixes versus Word suffixes, both -ig and -erig would have dual class membership. Next to adjectives like godsdienstig 'religious' (compare the examples in (12) ), derived from the compound godsdienst, there are adjectives like duizendpotig, analogously derived from a compound duizendpoot 'centipede' which do not show stress shift towards the last syllable of the stem at all. And next to the adjective opdringerig, 'obtrusive' derived from a compound verbal stem opdring, there are examples like afhoud+erig, 'ward off-ish', derived from a compound verbal stem afhoud, 'ward off' where the location of main stress is unaffected by the derivation. There are only a few simplex stems, such as vijand in (3) that are diagnostic for the stress shift in the derivation; but if a word like ananas, 'pineapple' can be the basis of an adjective ananass+ig, 'looking like/tasting like a pineapple' it is not very likely that the adjective would have final stress. Finally, there is a large class of derivations where an explanation of the stress pattern exemplified in (4) and, again, in (12) as an automatic consequence of Root derivation would not even be adequate, because it would not work. This is the class of derivations where an adjectival suffix is attached to a compound stem. Consider, again, the example godsdienstig, 'religious', given in (12). The stress rules of Dutch predict that compounds, both nominal compounds like godsdienst and verbal compounds like afzet 'remove' or oplet, 'pay attention', have initial stress. The adjectival suffix, for instance, -ig, would be attached to the rightmost constituent of the compound, and would define that constituent as a Root. But that would not ensure assignment of the correct stress pattern, since main stress would still be on the initial constituent, and the stress pattern would, accordingly, be godsdienstig rather than godsdienstig. The analysis would have the desired result only if we add the assumption that the feature 'Root' of the adjectival suffix percolates up to the highest W node in the morphological structure, as shown in (14), below. (13)

W

(14) R R godsdienst

Aff ig

In other words, derivation with a Root suffix destroys the internal morphological structure of the stem to which the suffix is attached. But that would seem to bring us straight back to the traditional and much more simple assumption that some suffixes, more precisely, some suffixes in some words, are nonneutral as far as stress assignment is concerned, and that, at least for some languages, of which Dutch is one, no further generalization than that is possible. For those languages, the distinction between Roots and Words complicates rather than simplifies the grammar, unless it is dissociated from the observed difference in the stress patterns of derived words.

3. Alternative analysis In the foregoing, I have assumed that a distinction between Roots and Words should receive independent support from the phonology and from the morphology. That position is not unavoidable; it would appear that Neyt and Zonneveld introduce the distinction precisely for the purpose of stress assignment and for that purpose only. But the same result, final stress on a number of derived words, can be achieved in a different manner without the complications that

89 were pointed out above. Assume that the basic stress rules for Dutch can indeed be summarized as in (15) (= (5) ): (15)

In [A B], B is prominent iff 1. B branches, 2. B dominates a superheavy syllable.

To this rule, we can add the following equally general rule: (16)

In [A B], where B is a native suffix, (15) applies to A, and B is adjoined by later prosodic rules.

This would give the correct result both for native derivations and inflections like vijanden 'enemies' and vijandschap 'hostility' and for non-native derivations like Amerikaan 'American'. For those cases where stress seems to shift, as in vijandig, we would need a separate rule: (17)

Stress' shift:

s

w

—

w

s

/

wj

The advantage of such a rule would be that it can apply at different levels or, in different strata of the morphology, which is desirable since stress shift, as we have seen, occurs both at the level of derivations with the suffixes -ig and -(e)lijk and a t the level of derivations with the completely transparent suffix -baar which forms compound-like derivations from verbal stems. Besides, there are also examples of plural formation where stress shift occurs: proton 'id.' can have a plural protonen with penultimate stress and concomitant lengthening of the vowel: [protonsn] . A disadvantage of the rule is that it would have to apply at three different levels of word formation at least, and that the morphological context where it applies will have to be specified in each case. In order to avoid the redundancy that is inherent in this proposal, a better option would be the following. Assume that, next to the basic rules (15) and (16), above, there is a rule (18) which says: (18)

In [A B], where B is a [native] suffix such as -ig, -(e)lijk, ... , B is extrametrical.

Under the assumptions that accompany the use of the extrametricality device (as explained in, e.g., Hayes (1982) ), the derivation of the stress pattern in vijandig, 'hostile' would now proceed in two steps. First, the regular s - w stress pattern is created for vijand, since the extrametrical suffix at the righthand edge of the word is disregarded. Next, the LCPR is allowed to reapply to the entire derivation including the suffix, yielding, finally, vijandig. The advantages of this solution are twofold. First, using the extrametricality device for native derivations expresses the fact that the vijandig class is an exception in the native vocabulary, and that, more often than not, stress shift applies to derivations that are lexicalized, or to one particular productive class such as the -baar derivations. Secondly, there is no need to assume that, morphologically, vijandig belongs to a level of word formation which is different from the level of other native derivations, or that -baar derivations and -ig derivations belong to the same level. Also, it is now possible to characterize the majority of [-native] derivations as a class of derivations where suffixes are extrametrical, which is desirable both morphologically and phonologically. The conclusion is that, wherever it is possible, differences in stress pattern should be accounted for by adjusting the stress rules or their mode of application, and not by a far more drastic adjustment of morphological structure.

90 References BING, Janet M. 1980 Linguistic rhythm and grammatical structure in Afghan Persian, in Linguistic Inquiry 11, p. 437-463 HAYES, B. 1982 Extrametricality and English stress, in Linguistic Inquiry 13, p. 227-276 KIPARSKY, P. 1982 From cyclic phonology to lexical phonology, in H. v a n der H ü l s t and N. Smith (eds) The structure of phonological representations (part I), Dordrecht, Foris, p. 131-175 K00IJ, Jan G. and M i e s VAN DER NIET 1985 Stress, stress shift, and morphology: the case of D u t c h - b a a r , in H. v a n der Hülst and N. Smith (eds) Advances in non-linear phonology, Dordrecht, Foris NEYT, A. and W . ZONNEVELD 1981 De aantrekkingskracht van - b a a r , in Slot 4, p. 215-228 SELKIRK, E. 1982 The syntax o f words, Cambridge Mass., The MIT Press SELKIRK, E. 1984 Phonology and syntax, Cambridge Mass., The MIT Press VAN DER HÜLST, H. a n d S. LANGEWEG 1984 Nederlandse klemtoon: ongelede woorden, in INL Working Papers 4, Leiden, Institute for D u t c h Lexicography

Willem Koopman

The syntax of verb and particle combinations in old English 0. Introduction There are in Old English cases where verb and particle form a semantic unit. These one can regard as the precursors of the M o d e r n English Phrasal Verbs, although their syntactic properties are quite different. In many respects they resemble the separable verbs of German'and Dutch, although there are m a n y differences. I n Old English the combinations are not always separated by a V - m o v e m e n t rule, whereas in Dutch and German this is always the case. Likewise the O l d English combinations are sometimes separated, even w h e n the verb form is non-finite. In this paper I will argue that the syntax of these combinations can be accounted for in a natural way, if w e m a k e some reasonable assumptions about V - m o v e ment rules in root and embedded clauses. The various positions of the particle, it is argued, can be explained by assuming that the order of elements in the VP is free. The only position specified is that the VP is head final.

1. W o r d Order in Old English Koster (1975) has argued that b o t h Dutch and German have SOV underlying order. I will assume that Old English has this order too. (for some discussion see Canale (1978)). Following v a n Kemenade (1984), I w i l l assume a V-second rule in root clauses. It is usually argued that a V-second rule moves V to COMP, thus accounting for the position of the verb in root clauses in many Germanic languages, (see d e n Besten (1977), Koopman (1984)). This V-second rule thus explains the usual V S order in root clauses. I n embedded clauses the rule is blocked because COMP is lexically filled. The verb appears clause finally in its base-generated position. Movement to COMP in root clauses neatly accounts for the surface patterns, but there is one major construction w h i c h is potentially difficult to account for. If V moves to COMP, then in sentences in Dutch such as (1) the subject cannot be in its structural subject position: (1)

Marie heeft deze m e n s e n in Parijs ontmoet Mary has these people in Paris m e t 'Mary m e t these people in Paris'

Here w e must assume that the subject is in TOPIC position. Thus (1) has the following structure: 1 (2)

[ s , , Marie. [ g I

^

pro. h e e f t ^ [g

e ]. ... ontmoet

[e] fc ]]

For Dutch and German this analysis is motivated o n the basis of sentences where we can assume topicalization of the subject: (3)

J a n (die) heeft h e m ontmoet John (that one) has h i m m e t 'John met him*

92

The d-word is not always lexicalized in Dutch, thus accounting for (1). The d-word analysis is not without its problems. 2 It seems extremely unlikely that such an analysis can be motivated for Old English. As far as I am aware there is no comparable construction. An analysis with compulsory deletion of the ¿-word would be decidedly ad hoc. Therefore I will not assume this analysis for Old English. Instead I want to explore the possibility that not all sentences in Old English have a COMP. Root clauses with the surface order V S have a COMP, but those with the surface order S V, corresponding to (1) do not have a COMP. Instead they show V-movement, not to COMP, but to a position next to the subject, which I will claim is INFL. Can we find further motivation for the position of INFL? The evidence comes from topicalization. If V moves to COMPwe would expect in clauses with a topicalized object the surface word order V S, as in Dutch, where V-second has applied: (4)

Die auto moet je kopen That car must you buy 'That car you must buy'

If instead V moves to INFL we can expect the surface word order S V. Old English clauses with topicalized objects frequently show this order: (5) (6)

pa medomnesse Saere strengio se salmscop ongeat (CP 85.22) 3 'the excellence of this strength the psalmist acknowledged' Hefonas he durhfor mid his modes sceawunga (CP 99.23) 'Heaven he traversed with the contemplation of his mind'

For (5) and (6) we cannot claim that V has moved to COMP. Should we then assume that TOPIC and COMP form one node and if it is filled no further movement can take place? The many examples with V in second position in root clauses (assuming V-movement to COMP) make this impossible. The element preceding the verb must be in TOPIC position. Could we then claim that in (5) and (6) there is no V-movement at all? The following example makes clear that we must assume V-movement in sentences with topicalization: (7)

)>urh pa wunde he forliest J>one wlite his lioma (CP 71.24) 'through the wound he loses the beauty of his limbs'

I will claim that in (5), (6) and (7) there is V-movement, not to COMP, but to INFL. Further movement of INFL + V to COMP must then be optional. This predicts that in Old English there are cases where the topicalized object is followed by the word order V S. These indeed exist, though they are not as frequent as the order of (5), (6) and (7). (8) (9)

ac eall diss aredaS se reccere suiSe ryhte (CP 169.3) but all this arranges the ruler very rightly 'but all this the ruler arranges very rightly' >aet de5 God to tacne eallum monkynne (Or 38.35) that does God as a sign for all mankind 'that God does as a sign for all mankind'

I conclude from this that the position of INFL next to the subject can be motivated, and that the underlying word order of Old English is (10). The COMP would be obligatory in embedded clauses, but in some root clauses it would not appear. (10)

(COMP) S INFL 0 V

In embedded clauses where the V has final position, INFL is allowed to be empty, being properly governed by COMP. In root clauses there would be movement of V

93

to INFL, with optional further movement of both to COMP, if there is a COMP. 2. Verb movement To what extent can (10) account for the word order patterns of Old English? In root sentences Old English usually shows V-second effects: (11)

pa ne mehte seo fird hie na hindan offaran 5 (ChrA 88.7 (894)) then not could the army them not behind overtake 'then the army could not overtake them from behind'

When the subject does not appear in first position, there is movement of V to INFL, and then of both to COMP. When the subject is in first position there is only movement to INFL: (12)

£ lfric munac gret £ Selweard ealdormann eadmodlice (5!Hex 76.1) lfric the monk greets ¿Ethelweard the nobleman humbly'

In embedded clauses the V can be in final position, just as in Dutch and German: (13)

gif hie cenigne feld secan wolden (ChrA 84.26 (894)) if they any open country seek wanted 'if they wanted to seek any open country'

It would seem that a similar explanation as for Dutch is possible. No V-movement, as COMP is lexically filled. However, if we assume that (10) is the underlying word order in Old English, and that there can be (optional) movement of V to INFL, further movement to COMP being blocked, then we can expect embedded clauses to have the order as in (14): (14)

COMP S V 0

This order indeed is frequent. Some 40% of all the embedded clauses in Barrett's corpus show this order (Barrett (1953)). (15)

si£J>an he onfeng bisE dome (ChrA 46.5 (745)) 'after he received the bishopric'

3. Verb and particle combinations Let us now concentrate on verb and particle combinations. When the particle immediately precedes the verb it is not always easy to distinguish them from a verb with a prefix. Various diagnostic tests have been proposed, but none are without exceptions. (See Mitchell (1978), Denison (1981: 50 ff), and Hiltunen (1983: 25-28)). I will simply assume here that verb + particle combinations can be recognized as such. I will assume that they form lexical combinations,i.e. that the particle forms part of the subcategorization frame of the verb, and generated with the verb under one V node, (see Koster (1975)). There are then 2 possibilities for the structure of this node: (16)

a

V / \ part V

b V

/

V

\ part

For evidence we need to look at embedded clauses where there has been no V-movement. The verb is then in its base-generated final position. Almost

94

without exception such clauses show the order of (17)

(18)

baet hie m i d f^aem pmt folc ut aloccoden (Or 222.3) that they w i t h that the people out enticed 'that they might entice w i t h it the people (to come) outside' He ... b e b e a d him, on Godes name, pxt he Sone cwelmteeran hlaf He ... begged h i m in God's name that he the deadly b r e a d 'He begged h i m in God's name to carry away the deadly bread' aweg ba:re (¿ECHom II 162.23) away carried

There are only a few examples w i t h the order of (19)

(16a):

(16b): 6

o33et twegen cyngas innan Normandige m i d heoran folcan coman until the two kings in Normandy w i t h their armies came 'until the two kings joined battle w i t h their armies in togaedere (ChrE 248.20 (1119)) together Normandy'

It seems reasonable to assume that (16a) is basic, and that (16b) is derived from it, perhaps by a stylistic rule. O n the basis of what we discussed before w e can expect V-movement in root clauses. The particle can then have its base-generated position at the end of VP: (20)

(21)

pa geat m o n f>aet attor ut on psere (Or 258. 16) 7 then poured one the poison out into the sea 'then they poured the p o i s o n into the sea' Ond pa ahof Drihten hie up (BIHom 157.22) A n d then raised God them up 'And then God raised them up'

In embedded clauses the order can be SOV, as in (17) and (18), but SVO is also possible, as in (22) and (23): (22) (23)

fiat Egypti adrifen Moyses ut m i d hys leodum (Or 34.16) 'that the Egyptians drove Moses away w i t h his people' b u t o n 3a lareowas screadian symle 3a leahtras furh heora unless teachers prune constantly the sins by their 'unless teachers constantly prune away sins by their teaching' lare aweg ( £ C H o m II 74.15) teaching away

Let us now concentrate o n the position of the particle. If we assume that (16a) is the base-generated position of particle and verb, then we need to explain all those cases where the particle does not appear in its base-generated position. In Dutch the effect of V-movement in root clauses w i t h separable verbs is to leave the particle in its clause final position: (24)

J a n lacht Piet uit John laughs Peter at 'John laughs at Peter'

In embedded clauses where there is no V-movement, particle and verb appear together: (25)

omdat Piet J a n uitlacht because Peter John laughs at 'because Peter laughs at John'

95

From the Old English examples given so far it would seem that a similar explanation is possible, with the major difference that in Old English there can be V-movement in embedded clauses. However, it is not difficult to show that this cannot work for Old English. There are numerous examples where not only V but also the particle appear in surface positions different from their base positions. (26) and (27) are examples of root clauses, (28) and (29) of embedded clauses: (26) (27) (28) (29)

and aweg gelaedde micelne dael pass folces to his rice (¿ECHom II 18.21) and away led a great part of the people to his kingdom 'and led away a great part of the people to his kingdom1 ac teah forS pa his ealdan wrenceas (ChrE 135.10 (1003)) but he drew forth then his old tricks 'but then he produced his old tricks' for3an pe se stream ber3 aweg Placidum (iECHom II 160.5) 'because the stream carries away Placidus' past heo onweg adyde ba gemynd paxa treoleasra cyninga (Bede 154.10) that they away did the record of the faithless kings 'that they would strike out the record of the faithless kings'

(26) to (29) all have objects following verb and particle. The position of the verb we have discussed above. It is clear that the particle must have been moved from its base position. Alternatively, the object must have been moved. I will discuss the latter possibility later. If we assume that the particle has been moved, it must have been caused by a movement rule to the left. As far as I am aware there are no examples where the particle appears before the subject as in Modern English out he went (see also Mitchell (1978) and Denison (1981)). The furthest left, it seems, the particle can be moved is to the right of the subject as in (29). Between this extreme position and its own base-generated position clause-finally there are many possibilities. The particle can have any position in between, separated from its base-position by the object, various adverbials, or a combination of these. A movement rule would be hard to motivate. I will, therefore, propose a different solution. Note first that if the particle can have almost any position in between the subject and its own base-generated position, this is tantamount to saying that its position is free, and it would be comparable to such adverbs as pa 'then', which can appear almost anywhere in a clause. But this makes a mockery of the link which exists between particle and verb. However, the idea of a free position is attractive, as it would make a movement rule superfluous. It can be motivated on the following grounds. Let us assume that in Old English case assignment is not structural, but lexical. Verbs subcategorize for certain objects and compliments. The subcategorization also involves 0-role and case. For certain verbs we need to specify that their object is in the genitive case, or in the dative, and this can only been done in the lexicon. I assume that the particle forms part of the subcategorization frame of tye verb too.8 From lexical case assignment, instead of structural case assignment, it follows that we need not specify the order of the constituents in the VP, with the exception that the VP is head final. If we do not dpecify the order, i.e. do not use phrase structure rules, the prediction is that the elements in the VP can occur in any order, with the exception of the V. Thus verbs with double objects can be expected to occur in constructions where the order of the objects is not fixed. This is indeed the case:

96

(30)

agylde se wer

(31)

gave the m a n the wife what was fitting for her 'the m a n gave the wife what was fitting for her' he gedaelde[0(j seofon hlafas] Q X f e o w e r busendum] (WPol 227. 16)

pam wife ] Q d [ h i r e gedafenu]

(CP 218.5)

'he divided seven loaves of bread among four thousand people 1 With particles we can expect the same. The following examples are a representative sample of the various permutations possible. (32) is an embedded clause with V-movement, (33) one without. In these two sentences the particle has initial position in the VP. (34) is an example with an object and V-movement, (35) has no V-movement. (36) is an example without V-movement, but with the object between the particle and the verb. (37) (already given as (27)) is a root sentence with V-movement, as is (38). Both have objects. (39) finally has V-movement and the particle in its base position clause finally. (32)

5eah 3 u s i e f ^ u p ofer Sine rrseS ahaefen]

(33)

although you are up over your condition raised 'although you are raised above your condition' p&t heo[yp ut of paim byrene gan sceoldej (GD 69.3)

(CP 467.3)

(36)

that she out of the stable go had 'that she had to go out of the stable' bonne h i f _ L , p 3e] for3 mid h i m to Sam ecan forwyrde gelaedon] W (JECHom I 516.18) when she y o u with them to the eternal damnation led 'when she led you with them to the eternal damnation' and Jpaerr ihte wear3[,._ [ H p pmt fast J upp to heofenum abroden] 0ELS I 226.94) and straightaway was the vessel up to heaven pulled 'and straightaway the vessel was pulled up to heaven' Jjaet 3a tanas [ v p u p C N p aspla] baron] (Sat 479)

(37)

so that the branches up apples bore 'so that the branches bore apples' ac he t e a h f ^ for3 his ealdan wrenceas]]

(38)

but he drew forth then his old tricks 'but then he produced his old tricks' w u r p a > [ v p C N p hit] ut on past waster] OEHex

(39)

'cast it out on the water' buton 3a lareowas screadianCyp symle C N p 3 a leahtras] Jjurh heora

(34)

(35)

(ChrE 135.10

(1003))

214.9)

unless teachers prune constantly the sins by their 'unless teachers constantly prune away sins by their teaching' lare aweg] (¿ECHom II 74.15) teaching away These examples illustrate the various positions the particle can have. There is one problem which remains to be solved. How can one explain the position of the particle before the verb in (26) and (29), repeated here. (26)

(29)

and aweg gelcedde micelne dael f>ass folces to his rice (iECHom II 18.21) and away led a great part of his people to his kingdom 'and led away a great part of his people to his kingdom' p t heo onweg adyde pa gemynd para treowleasre cyninga (Bede 154.10) that they away did the record of the faithless kings 'that they would strike out the record of the faithless kings'

97

There are two possible solutions. The first (and to me the more attractive) is to say that there is optional reanalysis by which particle and verb are reanalyzed as one node V, and it is this node which is moved by V-movement. Earlier 1 have claimed that the order of this node was: part - V, and that is exactly the order in (26) and (29). There are no examples in the corpora investigated by de la Cruz (1969), Denison (1981), and Hitunen (1983) where there is any element between particle and verb,9if they have the position illustrated in (26) and (29). Not even pa 'then'is found here, though pa can occur virtually anywhere. The second possibility is to say that in (26) and (29) there is no V-movement at all, but Object Extraposition. I think that this is unlikely because when the verb is in its base-generated position at the end of the VP, the particle is frequently separated from it (see e.g. (33) and (34)). Object Extraposition should make no difference, yet after it has taken place it is no longer possible to separate particle and verb. I have argued that this can best be explained if we assume optional reanalysis and V-movement. With Object Extraposition there is no explanation available. This brings me to a final point. It could be argued that Old English has a base-generated SOV order, V-movement in root clauses, but not in embedded clauses. The surface word orders can then be explained by a number of rules, such as PP over V and Object Extraposition, both of which can be independently motivated. If this is so, it would throw doubt on my assumption of an underlying order (COMP) S INFL 0 V, and V-movement in embedded clauses too. If there is no V-movement in embedded clauses we must assume a particle movement rule to the right to account for those cases where the particle appears to the right of the verb, as in (28) and (39), repeated here: (28) (39)

forSan pe se stream ber3 aweg Placidum (¿ECHom II 160.5) 'because the stream carries away Placidus' buton 3a lareowas screadian symle 3a leahtras purh heora unless teachers prune constantly the sins by their 'unless teachers constantly prune away sins by their teaching' lare aweg ¿ECHom II 74.15) teaching away

It seems that the particle can be moved to any position to the right of the V. Note that then we must assume free order of the VP, otherwise we need to formulate a leftward particle movement rule as well. It seems highly unlikely that the same element can be moved both to the left as well as to the right. Finally,it seems difficult to derive the following embedded clause (and there are many examples) without a V-movement rule: (40)

pat heo wolde hiere lif on famnhade alibban (Or 108.16) that she wanted her life in virginity live 'that she wanted to live her life in virginity'

Especially the position of the finite verb wolde is difficult to account for as we assume that alibban marks the base-generated V position. With V-movement to INFL there is of course no pleblem. I conclude tentatively that although there is independent motivation for an Object Extraposition rule, it cannot serve to explain the position of the V in embedded clauses, whereas an underlying order (COMP) S INFL 0 V and a V-movement rule account for the surface orders in a natural way. 4. Conclusion

98

I have argued in this paper for a base-generated order in Old English, w h i c h has INFL next to the subject. V-movement applies in root clauses, not to COMP, but to INFL. Further movement to COMP is optional. In embedded clauses movement of V to INFL is optional , whereas further m o v e m e n t to COMP is blocked because COMP is lexically filled. Both V-movements account for the position of the verb part of the verb + particle combinations. The positions of the particle can be explained by assuming that the VP is head final and that objects and complements of the verb are unordered. Case assignment takes place under subcategorization. The few remaining positions of verb and particle are due to a reanalysis rule, w h i c h makes it possible for V-movement to move particle and verb together. Finally I have suggested that Object Extraposition cannot account for the same range of data.

Notes 1. Examples are from K o o p m a n (1984). See there for an extensive

discussion.

2. See Travis (1984) for a, not always, convincing refutation of the jl-word analysis for Dutch. 3. See Bacquet (1962: 697 ff). The short titles of Old English texts are those proposed by Bruce Mitchell £it al (1975). 4. For a full discussion see Travis

(1984: 139 ff).

5. ne is a clitic, see v a n kemenade

(1984).

6. According to H i l t u n e n (1983) only 4 in his (large)

corpus.

7. In (20) there is PP over V, w h i c h is n e e d e d independently in Old English. For a different solution, however, see below. 8. Following Emonds

(1972) I take particles to be intransitive

prepositions.

9. Although there are no examples w i t h the negative ne, w e w o u l d expect it to come in b e t w e e n particle and verb. The negative always immediately precedes the finite verb. This is a property of the negative clitic, and w o u l d not constitute a counterexample.

References BACQUET,P. 1962 L a Structure de la Phrase Verbale Lettres, Paris

â L'fipoque Alfrédienne, Les Belles

BARRETT,C.R, 1953 Studies in the Word-Order of ¿Elfric 's Catholic Homilies and Lives of the Saints, The Department of Anglo-Saxon, Occasional Papers 3, Cambridge BESTEN, H. DEN 1977 The Interaction of Root Transformations and Lexical Deletive Rules, unpublished ms. CANALE.W. 1978 Word Order Changé in Old English: Base Réanàlysis in Generative Grammar, Ph.D. Dissertation, McGill University

99

CRUZ, J.M. DE LA 1969 Origins and Development of the Phrasal Verb to the E n d of the Middle English Period, Ph.D. Dissertation, Belfast University DENISON, D. 1981 Aspects of the History of English Group-Verbs, w i t h Particular A t t e n t i o n to the Syntax of the Ormulum, Ph.D. Dissertation, Oxford University EMONDS, J. 1972 Evidence that Indirect Object Movement is a Structure-Preserving Rule, Foundations of Language 8, 546-561 HILTUNEN, R. 1983 The Decline of the Prefixes and the Beginnings of the English Phrasal Verbs, T u r k u KEMENADE, A. VAN 1984 Verb Second and Clitics in Old English, in H. Bennis & W.U.S. v a n Lessen Kloeke (eds) Linguistics in the Netherlands 1984, 101-109 KOOPMAN, H. 1984 The Syntax of Verbs. F r o m Verb Movement in the K r u Languages to Universal Grammar, Ph.D. Dissertation, Tilburg KOSTER, J. 1975 Dutch as an SOV Language , LA 1, 111-136 MITCHELL, B. 1978 Prepositions, Adverbs, Prepositional Adverbs, Postpositions, Separable Prefixes, or Inseparable Prefixes, in Old English? M l 79, 240-257 MITCHELL, B., BALL, C., CAMERON, C. 1975 Short Titles of Old English Texts, A S E 4, 207-221 TRAVIS, L. 1984 Parameters and Effects of W o r d Order Variation, Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT

Simone Langeweg

Non-native suffixes and stress in Dutch 0. Introduction * In this paper I will discuss the stress behaviour of non-native suffixes in Dutch. This class of suffixes belongs to the so-called cohesive suffixes, i.e. after suffixation they form one prosodic unit w i t h their base word. The claim that is m a d e here, and has been made elsewhere (e.g. Neyt & Zonneveld 1982, Kager & V i s c h 1983, 1984), is that words derived by non-native suffixation b e have as monomorphemic words w i t h respect to syllabification and stress assignment. I will therefore first discuss an analysis of stress assignment in Dutch monomorphemic words, as presented in v a n der Hulst & Langeweg (1984). N e x t , in section 2, I will show that these stress rules can also account for the stress behaviour of the non-native suffixes. The question that then arises is whether the stress cycle plays a role in the derivation of these words at all, i.e. also w i t h respect to secondary stress placement. Furthermore, in b o t h sections the consequences for stress assignment in a text-to-speech system will be mentioned shortly.

1. Monomorphemic words Hayes (1980) showed that stress-assignment rules are related to the geometric nature of the tree structures involved, introducing the notions "quantity-sensitive" and "quantity-insensitive" stress systems. D i j k s t r a (1982) and Kager & V i s c h 1983,1984) were the first to analyse the stress system of D u t c h as quantity-sensitive. Syllable structure, then, is crucial to the stress-assignment rules of Dutch, as v a n der Hulst (1984) and v a n der Hulst & Langeweg (1984) also assume. In order to see how syllable structure plays a role, w e m u s t k n o w w h a t a p o s sible syllable of D u t c h m a y look like, or rather, since we will be looking at syllable weight, how a D u t c h rhyme is constituted. Let us assume the following template: (1)

Nucleus A V V

V

c

Rhjjne Coda

I' L

It m u s t be remarked here that this template differs from the syllable structure adopted in Dijkstra (1982) and Kager & V i s c h (1983,1984), who follow T r o m m e l e n (1983). I refer to v a n der Hulst (1984) for a critical account of Trommelen's approach and for a discussion of the template adopted here. N o t e that both V and C are allowed as the second element of the nucleus. This can be independently motivated, given the structural equivalence of W and VC in Dutch. We predict, then, that short vowels cannot occur in open syllables in Dutch, w h i c h is true, if we exclude schwa. If, however, we furthermore assume that schwas m a y be interpreted as '"empty nodes" assigned category labels w i t h i n the structure of a syllable' (Anderson 1984:101), a tripartite d i v i s i o n into

102 syllable weight can be made: (2)

a. light

b. heavy

c. superheavy

R I N I V R I N V' V v R N^Xd C

R /\ N Cd I I V c N v/xc R N X Q V^V

These are the three types that are crucial for stress assignment rules of Dutch. In (2a), the V-position must remain empty and will be realised as schwa. These light syllables, then, will never be able to receive main stress. The heavy syllables in (2b), the nucleus of which branches, can be stressed except when in word-final position. Superheavy syllables (2c), with both a branching nucleus and a branching rhyme, do receive main stress in word-final position. Some examples to illustrate the stress behaviour of the three syllable types are given in (3). (3)

a. tafel b. atlas c. fazant

'table' 'atlas' 'pheasant'

oktober kanarie garnizoen

'october' 'canary' 'garrison'

karbonade marihuana bibliotheek

'chop' 'marihuana' 'library'

Within the model of metrical phonology, these regularities can be described in a relatively standard way. If we assume that the last element of a word is extrametrical, we can adopt a metrical foot, the weak syllable of which must not branch. This maximally binary foot is assigned iteratively from right to left. At word level the labelling is W(eak)S(trong). If we apply this to some of the words in (3), the structures in (4) result (F stands for 'foot'). (4)

a.

/n

s

A F F F IW IW I s kar bo na (de)

b.

F Iw 1

F As / w

ka na ri(i)

IFW | | fa zan(t)

The final syllable of karbonade is adjoined to the monosyllabic foot na by stray syllable adjunction (SSA). In kanarie the final V-position of the (phonologically) long vowel is extrametrical. The final syllable then is treated as light, i.e. non-branching, and a bisyllabic SW-foot can be formed. Extrametricality of the final element in superheavy syllables, e.g. in fazant, still results in a branching syllable, which must therefore be dominated by a monosyllabic foot. However, this rather straightforward analysis runs into problems if we wish to account for words like almanak 'almanak', which end in a -W-VC # sequence and have antepenultimate stress as the dominant pattern. If structure is assigned to almanak in the way described above, we get:

rA

al ma na(k)

103 i.e. a prefinal stress. Marking these words lexically with an extrametrical syllable does not help either, since the penultimate syllable ma branches and is assigned a monosyllabic foot, resulting once more in a penultimate stress pattern. The final syllable then becomes the weak element of that foot by SSA. How can the antepenultimate stress in the case of -W-VC # words be explained? Although it does not emerge from the representations in (2), there is evidence that shows that W syllables are less heavy than VC syllables. In some languages (e.g. Tiberian Hebrew) this distinction may be decisive with respect to syllable weight, but in Dutch the open/closed distinction is subordinate to syllable geometry. Van der Hulst & Langeweg therefore suggest a different approach, in which the final element is no longer extrametrical. A new foot type must be adopted, which, it is noted, "fills a gap in the system". (I refer to van der Hulst (1984) and van der Hulst & Langeweg (1984) for a more detailed discussion of this gap.) In this, maximally binary, foot, the strong position must be filled by a branching syllable. Furthermore, it must be supplemented by a condition which prevents a mismatch between intrinsic and extrinsic syllable weight; i.e. a syllable in S-position within a foot may not be intrinsically less heavy than the syllable in W-position within that same foot, as has also been noted in Dijkstra (1982) and Kager & Visch (1983,1984).

(6)

F

_/\„ 2. 1

condition:

a

s

> a

w

The Lexical Category Prominence Rule (LCPR) takes care of the labelling at word level. In the case of a monosyllabic foot dominating a superheavy syllable at the word end, however, we want this syllable to be labelled strong. The LCPR, then, will have to be modified slightly. (7) LCPR In the configuration [AB], B is strong iff a. B branches b. B dominates a superheavy syllable The examples in (4) and (5), then, have the revised metrical structures in (8). (8)

a.

F

A

F

As

s w s w kar bo na de

b.

C

F

F

|w A

I s w ka na rie

"

/ V F F

|w

s

] I fa zant

d

"

F

r%

F

|w

s w l al ma nak

In (8a,b) a binary foot can be formed at the word end, which is labelled strong by the LCPR (7a). In (8c), the final foot, though non-branching, is strong because of the subrule (7b). The last syllable in (8d) is dominated by a monosyllabic foot because this syllable, though not superheavy, is closed, and therefore intrinsically stronger than the preceding open syllable. In a binary SWfoot, the open syllable would be extrinsically strong, which is not allowed by the mismatch constraint supplementing the foot type. The final monosyllabic foot does not comply with either of the conditions of the LCPR and is therefore labelled weak. Besides these general rules, some subregularities can be formulated, e.g. a rule to account for the non-stressability of prefinal —£-, and some [+F]-rules to ac-

104 count for the stress-receiving character of a number of heavy syllables. Both types of rules have been implemented in a computer program (written in PASCAL). They have been tested on a lexicon of 4200-4300 nouns with two syllables or more. The error score was 14%, i.e. ca. 550 words. However, since the program still works from spelling, and thus cannot recognise schwa, the percentage of errors will be reduced as soon as phonetic transcription is used as the input to the program. 2. Non-native suffixation 2.1. Main stress It has been claimed before (e.g. Booij 1977) that the class of cohesive affixes, which I take the non-native suffixes to belong to, combine with their base word to form one prosodic unit. One of the criteria used for the cohesive/non-cohesive nature of suffixes is syllabification. In words that have been derived with cohesive affixes, syllabification rules apply across the morpheme boundary. Cf. (9)

-i$teit -aal -is$me

: i$den$ti$teit : fe$no$me$naal : so$cia$lis$me

'identity' 'phenomenal' 'socialism'

With respect to stress assignment, too, a subclass of the cohesive affixes, the suffixes to be discussed here, behave like simplex words. We expect, then, that those suffixes that end in a superheavy syllable, or themselves form a superheavy syllable, will receive final stress. Those suffixes that end in schwa or a heavy syllable are stressed prefinally. The examples in (10) show that the stress assignment follows the expected pattern: (.10) identiteit

fenomenaal

socialisme

Some problems remain, however. For instance, there are a number of W - V C # suffixes, e.g. -atop, -avis, that have penultimate stress instead of the expected antepenultimate pattern (cf. almanak). Furthermore, the suffix -isoh that, on the basis of its structure, i.e. a long vowel-consonant combination, would be superheavy, is an exception to the rule: derivations with -isoh always have penultimate stress: (11) democratisch

'democratic'

encyclopedisch

'encyclopaedic'

I will leave these problematical cases out of consideration here. An explanation for the simplex behaviour of these derived words can be found in the fact that the relation between base word and affix is not always evident. Sometimes the base forms an independently existing word: (12) karakter absurd

'character' 'absurd'

-*• -»-

karakteristiek absurditeit

'characteristic' 'absurdity'

Sometimes a stem can be recognised which is not an existing word: (13)

*semant *electr

•*• -+•

semantiek, semantisch electron, electrisch

'semantics,semantic' 'electron,electric'

In other cases, there is no recognisable base at all: (14)

element

'element'

feodaal

'feudal'

Apparently, then, morphological structure, although it can formally be assigned, does not play a role for metrical structure, at least where main stress is concerned. This can be seen from the examples in (15), where the structure that is

105 relevant for main-stress assignment is the same for both simplex and derived words. F

A s

F

Aw r

I w a lu mi ni um ba naan kar bo na de a ca de mi cus chauf feur sym bo lis me Main stress assignment, however, does not imply anything about the stress cycle. The decision as to whether or not these words are cyclically derived depends on the placement of secondary stress. Let us now turn to that matter.

2.2. Secondary stress Before discussing the evaluation of cyclic and non-cyclic approaches to cohesive non-native suffixation, I will make some general remarks on the placement of secondary stress. It has been observed, e.g. by v a n der Hulst (1984), that secondary stress is an antipole stress phenomenon, i.e. it is situated at maximum distance from the main-stressed syllable. Where, in Dutch, main stress characterises the end of a word, secondary stress characterises the beginning of a word: it falls either on the first or on the second syllable of the word. In all possible initial syllable-combinations, i.e. those involving the first and second syllable, an initial secondary stress can be pronounced, and indeed in my pronunciation it is preferred. A number of words where the place of secondary stress can vary, and where others may prefer the secondary stress on the second syllable, are given in (16). (16)

#W-VC #VC-VC #W-VC

debiliteit responsabiliteit karakteristiek

'debility' 'responsibility' 'characteristic'

In the case of # V C - W - w o r d s , e.g. subtiliteit 'subtility', it is far more d i f ficult to find such examples where the secondary stress occurs on the first as well as on the second syllable. There seems to be a gap then with respect to the placement of secondary stress on the second syllable of a # V C - W - w o r d .

2.2.1. Cyclic derivation If we wish our stress rules to apply cyclically, we can view the lexicon as structured in terms of the following model, in which only the stress rules are considered:

This is the view held by Kiparsky (1982), Booij

(1977) and Selkirk

(1984).

A word like symbolisme 'symbolism', then, is built up out of the morphemes is me and symbool. In the trees, M stands for a word. The grid representations are standard Liberman & Prince (1977) grids that express rhythmical phenomena and that can be derived from tree structure.

106

(18)

gym

bool

\F / t s is me • * * * *

F 1w

|

sym * * *

Because two strong syllables Qiool and is) are adjacent, i.e. in a stress clash situation, a retraction rule is triggered that moves the secondary stress to the first syllable. In a number of words, the vowel of the syllable which is stressed in the base word is reduced to schwa. Some examples are: (19)

materiaal agressief juwelier

'material' 'agressive' 'jeweller'

from from from

materie agréssie j'uweel

'matter' 'agression' 'jewel'

If the stress pattern of these words is derived cyclically, retraction on ac count of stress clash will give the output of (20). (•20)

a.

b.

ju weel

F |w

/ X F F JW | s

ju

we

lier

The reduced vowel finds itself either in the strong syllable of a bisyllabic foot (20a) or in a monosyllabic foot (20b). Since both cases are associated with some degree of prominence, i.e. non-reducability, the representations in (20) would be ungrammatical. Reduction rules then have to take care of these cases. For instance, a rule like the beat deletion rule postulated in Selkirk (1984) could account for the examples in (20). (21)

Beat deletion

Application of this rule, supplemented with a change in the tree structure, would give as the final output of (20):

107 b.

(22)

A 'W

s ma

te

w ri

lier

aal

Note, however, that reduction must be an optional rule. In the case of, for instance, activist, which has its metrical structure comparable to juweliev, we do not want the vowel of the second syllable to reduce to schwa. In this way, then, the stress cycle, supplemented w i t h retraction and reduction rules, gives the correct output. Within this cyclic approach, how can the vacillation between initial and second syllable secondary stress be explained? Let us consider professorabel 'professorable' as an example: (23)

a.

^

pro

b.

I pro

s fes

w so

s ra

w bel

Both (23a) and (23b) are acceptable pronunciations. Retraction in a stress clash situation, then, must be an optional rule. Whether or not it has applied is shown by the place of the secondary stress. It does not follow, however, why stress clash should be obligatory in the case of # V C - W - w o r d s : (24) F/

A.. sub

sub

ti

li

teit

2.2.2. A non-cyclic approach If we adopt a non-cyclic derivation for the non-native suffixes, our model of the lexicon has to be restructured, as in (25). (25)

The question is now how secondary stress can be assigned

in a non-cyclic deri-

108 vation. The words, then, are treated as if they were monomorphemic. In section 1, it was said that foot assignment in monomorphemic words applies in right-toleft order. This will give us the trees in (26): (26) S F F "F F' F/^F A A fK I3 |W A " Is v s w s w s w | s w | sym bo lis me ju we lier ma te ri aal Note now that in materiaal the vowel in the second syllable, which should reduce, finds itself in a strong position. The same can be observed for monomorphemic words like locomotief 'locomotive', fonologie 'phonology', which have a metrical structure similar to that of materiaal and in which the second vowel Ts more likely to reduce than the third, as shown in (27).

(27) ^s ¥

F / ^ F I S r A ; lo co mo tief fo no lo gie

Perhaps, then, foot assignment, after main stress has applied, goes from left to right. This would give initial secondary stress. (28)

Iw / w A | s w s w pro fes so ra bel Again, the vacillation between initial and post-initial secondary stress cannot be explained. A different way of dealing with secondary stress is suggested in van der Hulst (1984). In his approach, a word is divided into two domains. The stress domain is created by the foot structure assigned in accordance with the stress rules. This implies then that the foot-assignment rules discussed in section 1 have to be adapted; they no longer apply iteratively. Instead, a maximally binary foot, as in (6), is constructed at the righthand side of the word, i.e. foot formation as discussed in section 1 assigns main stress only. The remaining syllables of the word are then grouped together in an unbounded foot, the antipole stress foot, as in (29). (29)

ma te ri aal

pro fes so ra bel

Again, since the first syllable of the antipole stress foot is associated with extra prominence, secondary stress characterises the first syllable. For a textto-speech system, this would be an easy rule to implement. Furthermore, this will be acceptable to most speakers of Dutch in most cases. In this way then, two stress positions are created: the position at the word end will usually be stressed, but the first syllable is available in the case of phrasal stress clash, as in (30).

109 (30)

a. generaTIEF algeMEEN geniAAL

b. GEneratieve lAALkunde ALgemene TAALwetenschap een GEniaal JONGetje

Let us see now how, in terms of this model, the alternation of the secondary stress can be explained. If we assume that prominence is dependent o n the following factors: (31)

a. cyclicity b. antipole stress, i.e. the position in the word c. rhythm, i.e. making a syllable, non-adjacent to the m a i n stress, more prominent d. syllable weight

and, as suggested here, we disregard the stress cycle for the non-native suffixes, we can express the remaining prominence-determining factors in an informal grid. Note that this grid essentially differs from the Liberman & Prince type of grid, i.e. it cannot be determined from tree structure. Instead, the syllables get a grid mark and may score extra points for position, rhythm (free) and weight. Tree structures look like those in (29). Thus, we get for the four possible initial sequences: (32)

a.

s^K Is # W - W I de bi li teit

b.

~

VC-VC el lip ti ci teit

# W-VC I re dac tio neel

d.

de bi li teit

1"

/IX # vc-w

1I

s

sub ti li teit

F

/ / V I"

el lip ti ci teit

re dac tio neel

I8

sub ti li teit

The first syllable always gets an extra mark for position, and either the first or the second syllable is chosen for rhythm. In (32a), neither the first nor the second syllable gets an extra mark for weight (both are of the type VV), in (32b) both syllables, in (32c) only the second and in (32d) only the first syllable get credit for their weight. We see then that in the case of initial #VC-VV sequences the column of the first syllable remains higher than the second, even in the case of rhythmic beat addition on the second syllable. In the case of (32a,b) we find two equal grid columns. Selkirk (1984) remarks with respect to the secondary stress on the second syllable in Ticonderoga — w h i c h she also explains by two equal grid co-

110 lumns— that it is quite conceivable that con may be heard as more prominent when it is at the same level of rhythmic prominence as the preceding syllable because it is itself followed by a weak syllable. Thus, the gap of secondary stress on the second syllable in these words would be explained. The hypothesis presented here must be looked upon as tentative. Firstly, Selkirk's interpretation of the two equal grid columns would have to be phonetically justified. Furthermore, the data on seoondary stress are not very clear. Here too phonetic research could provide more insight. Notes * The research reported on here is part of a project on automatic stress assignment in Dutch, supported by the Faculty of Letters, University of Leyden (Pfon 11.6). I thank Colin Ewen, Vincent van Heuven, Harry van der Hülst and Jan Kooij for their comments. References ANDERSON, S.R. 1984 A metrical interpretation of some traditional claims about quantity and stress, in Language sound structure, pp. 83-106. AR0N0FF, M. and R.T. OERHLE, eds. 1984 Language sound structure, MIT Press, Cambridge Mass. BENNIS, H. and W.U.S. van LESSEN KLOEKE, eds. 1984 Linguistics in the Netherlands 1984, Foris, Dordrecht. B00IJ, G.E. 1977 Dutch morphology. A study of word formation in generative grammar, Foris, Dordrecht. DIJKSTRA, J.M. 1982

De basiskenmerken van een "stress-scale", in TABU 12.2, pp. 49-54.

HAYES, B. 1980

A metrical theory of stress rules, PhD thesis MIT.

HÜLST, H.G. van der 1984

Syllable structure and stress in Dutch, Foris, Dordrecht.

HÜLST, H.G. van der and S.J. LANGEWEG 1984

Nederlandse klemtoon: ongelede woorden, INL Working Papers 4.

KAGER, R. and E. VISCH 1983

Een metrische analyse van ritmische klemtoonverschijnselen, MA thesis,RUU.

NEYT, A. and W. ZONNEVELD 1982 Metrische fonolgie- de representatie van klemtoon in Nederlandse monomorfematische woorden, in Nieuwe Taalgids 75, pp. 527-547. SELKIRK, E.O. 1984 Phonology and syntax: the relation between sound and structure, MIT press, Cambridge Mass. VISCH, E. and R. KAGER 1984 Syllable weight and Dutch stress, in Linguistics in the Netherlands 1984, pp. 197-205.

Robert Lankamp

and Ron

Verheijen

Adverbs in English

0. Introduction* In order to provide rules for the non-occurrence of adverbs in structural positions, Ernst (1984) employs the following mechanisms:

certain

The system is based on the generation of almost all possible AdvP positions by PS rules, and four basic interpretation rules, covering VP-readings in V 1 , S-readings in V 2 and above, and discourse-oriented readings to the left of subject NP's, and a general constraint on syntax-to-semantic scope-matching (with the important exception of post-Aux position). For this system to work, the grammar must make use of a LOOSE-FIT THEORY of the interaction of the lexicon and semantic interpretation rules, with a, a variable over types of semantic operands, having different ranges for different adverb-classes (occasionally also varying between words within classes). Syntactic features are also allowed, to cover exceptions to generalizations about adverb position that are otherwise handled by the combination of PS rules, semantic interpretation rules, and lexicosemantic information. (Ernst 1984:294). Thus, in order to explain the non-occurrence of a particular adverb in a structural position Ernst potentially has four mechanisms at his disposal. Firstly, he could place restrictions on the interpretation rules; secondly he could make an absolute exception to his general constraint on syntax-tosemantic scope-matching, as he does for the post-AUX position; thirdly, for an individual adverb he could restrict the range of the a variable, which caters for the interaction between lexicon and semantic interpretation; fourthly, for some individual adverb he could postulate an exception feature which prevents it from occurring in a particular structural position. In our opinion Ernst's sists in the fact that same end, namely, that positions. In this paper

approach contains a redundancy. The redundancy condifferent mechanisms are employed to potentially the individual adverbs cannot occur in all conceivable we shall attempt to eliminate that redundancy.

Our strategy for eliminating the redundancy is the following: first, we define a number of structural positions in which adverbs are allowed to occur; second, we explain why not all adverbs can occur in every conceivable position by way of limitations on their interpretational possibilities. We stress that, for the sake of clarity, we shall here deal with a simplified version of the pragmatic-semantic part of our theory. We shall present a more comprehensive account on a later occasion. We now turn to our syntax for adverbs. 1. The Syntax of English Adverbs Our syntax for adverbs is formulated within the framework of Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar (GPSG). In GPSG a syntactic category is defined as

112 a complex of hierarchically ordered features. We stress the fact that the features we employ in our grammar are features that define a particular syntactic category, and they are not mechanisms that exempt particular categories from falling under the range of a PS-rule. Attempts to construe our features in the latter fashion would invalidate our approach. The hierarchical and linear ordering of syntactic categories ultimately leads to completely specified context-free PS-rules. A PS-rule is well-formed under the interpretation given in (1). (1)

A PS-rule A * B

C is well-formed iff:

(i) A, B and C are syntactic categories of which the values of specified features accord with any values specified in an Immediate Dominance rule (ID-rule); (ii) there is an ID-rule A •*• B , C or: (iii) there is a metarule which induces A + B , C; (iv) feature-coefficients of A, B and C are instantiated in accordance with the Head Feature Convention (HFC), the Control Agreement Principle (CAP), the Foot Feature Principle (FFP) , and Default assignment; (v) there is a Linear Precedence (LP) rule B < C For the content of the technical notions mentioned Gazdar and Pullum (1982) and Farkas et al. (1983).

in

(1) we

refer

to

We now proceed to state the featural make-up of the syntactic category of adverbs. We propose that adverbs have the internal structure given in (2).

(2) ADV CASE The two values of the BAR-feature, 1 and LEX offer a choice between lexical and phrasal level. The category-name ADV indicates that we take adverbs to be a fully-fledged syntactic category: any relation between adverbs and adjectives is thus to be defined non-syntactically. The presence or absence of the CASE-feature is optional. If CASE is present, it has no consequences for the form of adverbs in English. If, however, CASE is absent, the entire adverbial category can appear as a value of the FOOT SLASH-feature of its mother. Thus, as (3) shows, adverbial categories can have a dependency In VP. (3)

How elegantly did he dress

?

We propose that an adverb can itself never formulation of this restriction is given in (4).

have

a

FOOT-feature.

The

(4) Feature Co-occurrence Restriction: [HEAD MAJOR ADV] => [-FOOT] (5) * How did he dress elegantly? The principle in (4) prevents adverbs from dominating a gap (i.e. an "extraction site" on a movement analysis), so that examples such as the one in (5) are not induced. We now turn to the rules that define the structural positions in which adverbs can occur. In general, the ID-rules and LP-rules in (6) apply. (6) ADV

LP

ID ->• (ADV,) ADV

ADV < ADV

113 The Immediate-Dominance rule in (6) allows adverbs optionally to be modified. We distinguish three essential structural positions for adverbs. Position 1 is induced by the rule in (7). (7)

ID

V [FIN]

Rule (7) allows the examples in (8), (9), (10) and (11) below, while those in (12) and (13) are excluded. The examples in (12) and (13) are excluded because the bracketed constitutents are [-FIN]. (8) However, John went away (9) Very possibly, John has left (10) However, possibly John left (11) Possibly, however, John has left (12) * Will perhaps [John go]? (13) * Do, however, [you go tomorrow]? Position 2 is induced by the rules in (14). (14)

ID

LP

ADV < V

V Examples of adverbs in position 2 are given in (15)-(20). (15) He never wins (16) He has never won (17) He never has won (focal stress on has) (18) He quite possibly (has) left (19) He was to never do it again (20) He has quite possibly left Note that the rules in (14) interact with subject-auxiliary inversion in (21) to allow (22) and are excluded. (21)

Subject-Auxiliary Inversion

V

(22) (23) (24) (25) (26) (27)

the metarule for (23), but (24)-(27)

* * * *

=>

V

Has he ever won? Will he probably win? Has ever he won? Will probably he win? Has he won ever? Will he win probably?

In (24)-(25) the ADV is positioned to the left of V, not V, as (14) requires. In (26)-(27) ADV is not positioned to the left of V, contrary to what (14) requires. The metarule and its accompanying LP-rule in (28) induce position 3 for adverbs.

114 (28)

ID

=»

T S' S' — - > F S * ri* S — > V X

131 n (X means an arbitrary number of maximal major categories). The rules i n (7) produce the following tree structure

As w e see from the tree diagram, E. Kiss does not postulate a syntactic VP-node in Hungarian. The S w h i c h is a maximal major category has a flat structure: the finite verb can be followed by all possible orders of maximal major categories. A single X can b e m o v e d from out of an A-position under S into the peripheral Focus p o s i t i o n w h i c h has the status of a non-A-position comparable to the English Comp-position, whereas an arbitrary number of X can b e m o v e d to the leftmost peripheral position, the T slot w h i c h is another Comp-like position.

2.3. Hungarian as a Non-Configurational

Language

As is w e l l - k n o w n Hungarian exhibits the properties of non-configurationality as given in Hale (1982): (a) 'free' w o r d order; (b) the use of discontinuous expressions; (c) free or frequent pro-drop; (d) lack of NP-movement; (e) lack of pleonastic elements (like it, there, etc.); (f) use of a rich Case system; (g) complex verb words. In Hale (1983) the Configurationality Parameter (CP) w a s formulated to account for such superficial facts (9)

CP: a. In configurational languages, the projection principle holds of the pair (LS, PS) b. In non-configurational languages the projection principle holds of LS alone

(LS stands for Lexical Structure, that is for the argument structure of a predicator, a verb). In Maracz (1984) arguments were developed to show that Hungarian chooses value (9b) of the CP (cf. Maracz (1984) for details). Therefore most of the grammatical principles and processes such as Anaphoric Binding, Case-assignment, GF-assignment, theta-marking, etc. are mainly carried out at LS in Hungarian. Hence, Hungarian PS, w h i c h is generated by rule (10), looks uninteresting at first sight. However, as w e will see later on in this paper, the opposite is true. (10)

S

> xn

V xn

Free w o r d order in this system is accounted for by free lexical insertion and base-generation of fully inflected forms. Thus, the non-configurational framework differs from the ones introduced above in the absence of move alpha, and the lack of hierarchical structure, or at least in PS. It has b e e n observed in fi. Kiss (1982) that the classical subjectobject asymmetries cannot be attested in Hungarian syntax. However, this does not m e a n that there are no hierarchies at all in Hungarian. In M a r a c z (1984) it is argued o n the basis of facts from Anaphoric Binding and Switch Reference that LS is organized configurationally, i.e. the nominative-marked NP is more prominent than the other arguments of the verb.

132 3. WCO in Hungarian Consider the following paradigm of Hungarian WCO: (11)(a)

(b)

ki.—0/

mindenki.-0/ JANOS.-0 szereti az

pro^ anyj-a-t

who-NOM/everyone-NOM/JOHN-NOM loves the 'Who./everyone./JOHN, loves his. mother' l ' l I I ki^-t szeret az pro^ anyj-a-0

3

mother-his-ACC

who-ACC loves the mother-his-NOM *'Who. does his. mother love' l l (c) mindenki^-t szeret az pro^ anyj-a-0 mother-his-NOM everyone-ACC loves the *'His^ mother loves everyone^' (d)

JANOS^-T szereti az JOHN-ACC loves the mother-his-NOM *'His. mother loves JOHN.' l l

(12)(a)

Az anyjat.. ki^/mindenki^/JANOS^ szereti

(b) *Az anyja^ kit^ szeret (c) *Az anyja. mindenkit. szeret (d) *Az anyja^ JANOST^ szereti From (11) we see that, contrary to English, the antecedent can in both nominative and accusative, allow a coreferential reading with the pronoun embedded in the possessive NP. The sentences in (11) and (12) differ only in one aspect: we have put the phrase his mother in sentence initial position. Notice, that in case the possessive NP is marked nominative coreference is no longer possible. Let us examine how the three different approaches to Hungarian syntax derive the above sentences. We observed already that unlike their English counterparts, the Hungarian sentences in (11) do not display WCO violations. Because in the framework of Horvath (1981) the Hungarian sentences in (I lb—d) are assigned the same LF representations as the English ones (i.e. (2)), their grammaticality comes as a surprise in her approach. Either the BP, or the configurational approach of Hungarian syntax is not correct. We certainly do not want to give up an independently motivated principle with universal validity like the BP (cf. Koopman & Sportiche (1982), Chomsky (1982), Saito & Hoji (1983)). Hence, we conclude that Horvath (1981) does not handle the facts correctly. In the Topic Focus model we have the following LF configuration after movement of the antecedent to a preverbal non-A-position (the Wh-phrase, and the focused NP by Focusing; the universal quantifier by Quantifier Movement) (.3)

[ T > F ANT. [ g V t. t N p pro. ]]]

Recall, that according to definition (3) pvo does not count as a variable, because it is not locally non-A-bound. Rather it is locally A-bound by the trace of the antecedent. Hence^ in (11) only one variable is present and thus no violation of the BP occurs. The step from (11) to (12) can be interpreted in the Topic Focus Model as having applied Topicalization to the NP containing the pronoun. This leads to ungram-

133 maticality in the sentences (12b-d). However, in E. Kiss (1981) no restrictions on the Topicalization transformation were formulated, because she claims it is an instance of move alpha. Another technical problem which the Topic Focus model has to face, in connection with the sentences in (12), is the assumption of layered traces w h i c h , at the present state of research, is at least a matter of debate. Hence, we conclude that the Topic Focus model runs into serious technical problems in order to derive Hungarian WCO facts as in (12). The explanation of the grammaticality of the sentences in (11) in the non-configurational approach is quite simple. As was noted above, no movement rules are postulated in that framework. So, the BP can never be violated in connection with the sentences in (11). To see how the non-configurational approach explains the asymmetry in (12) w e first have to say more about the Configurationality Parameter. In Hale (1983), it was argued that if the CP is a parameter of U G , then it must b e capable of generating parameters of its own with respect to, for example, binding relations in non-configurational languages. Following Hale w e will assume that there might be the following three non-configurational subtypes: (14)(a) (b) (c)

For a particular binding relation only PS is relevant For a particular binding relation only LS is relevant For a particular binding relation both PS and L S are relevant

In order to determine to which subtype Hungarian WCO belong w e have to check whether (a) the c-command relations at L S play a role (recall, LS is organized configurationally), and (b) the precedence relations do so at PS. In fact, c-command and precedence are taken as primitives in this system which may interact with each other (cf. Farmer & Tsujimura (1984) for a similar concept). To test whether LS is relevant let us compare (11a) and (12a). Coreferentiality is possible in both cases, even if the pronominal anaphor precedes its antecedent at PS, as in (12a). Therefore, w e conclude that L S is decisive indeed. Note, that at LS where we find the following configuration (the labels v" and v' represent LS projections of the verbal category). (15)

v"

Reinhart's (16)

(1976) rule on antecedent-anaphor

relations

A referential dependent may not c-command its

antecedent

is not violated. This is, however, the case in (llb-d), (12b-d). the notion of c-command more explicit in the next section).

(We will make

The comparison of (llb-d) to (12b-d) suggests that WCO in Hungarian is sensitive to precedence at PS. Precedence relations are involved in other processes in Hungarian Grammar as well, for example in Switch Reference (cf. M a r a c z (1984)) and in Scopal Interpretation (cf. Kenesei (1984)). In view of the^flat structure analysis the role of precedence does not come totally unexpected. Therefore the rule which w e can distill from the examples WCO in Hungarian has the form of a negated conjunction: (17)

(11,

12) and

regulates

A pronominal anaphor may not both c-command its antecedent at LS and precede at PS (first v e r s i o n )

It is easy to see that the binding relation between a Wh-phrase, universal tifier or a focused NP and a pronoun is of the type (14c) in H u n g a r i a n . ^

quan-

134 4. WCO and Cyclicity The crucial difference between sentences to b e presented in this section and those preceding is the fact that the pronoun is embedded in a complex NP. Let us take (11a, 12a) as our starting-point. We expect that binding will be possible, because, whatever the precedence relation is, the pronoun does not c-command its antecedent at LS. Hence, such sentences escape rule (17) (sentences with universal quantifiers, and focused NPs give the same result as Wa-phrases, both in (18) and (19)): (18)(a)

(b)

[gkij-0

allitotta

[Np[Npaz-t]

[ g , h o g y pro. szelhSmos

who-NOM stated that-ACC that 'Who. stated that he. was a fraud' l l [ [ g i h o g y p r o ^ szelh&nos volt]] ki^

But consider the following sentences which correspond tively: (19)(a)

(b)

fraud

volt]]] was

allitotta]

to (lib) and

(12b) respec-

L S i L NP NP hiwho-ACC got nervous that-NOM that fraud 'Who. got nervous from the fact that he. was a fraud' l I 1-g.hogy pro^ szelhamos volt]] kit^ idegesitett]

By comparing (12b) and (19b) we see that the ungrammaticality disappears in case we embed the pronoun more deeply than in a possessive NP. Something similar was reported in Huang (1982) dealing with coreference relations in Chinese and Japanese. Huang accounts for the relevance of the depth of embedding in such relations by (a) extending Reinhart's (1976) c-command with the notion of cyclic node resulting in: (20)

and

Cyclic-c-command: A cyclic-c-commands B if and only if: a. A c-commands B, or b . If C is the minimal cyclic node (NP or S') that dominates A but is not immediately dominated by another cyclic node, then C c-commands B

(b) by adding a language specific condition to the general rule (21)

A pronominal anaphor may not cyclic-c-command Chinese

(20):

its antecedent

in

We can apply Huang's solution for Chinese to Hungarian as well and build the notion of cyclic-c-command into our rule (17): (22)

A pronominal anaphor may not both cyclic-c-command its at L S and precede at PS (final version)

antecedent

In (12b) the pronoun itself does not c—command its antecedent. However, the NP dominating it, i.e. his mother does. Therefore, the pronoun cyclic-c-commands its antecedent by the definition of (20), with C=NP. In (19b), however, the pronoun does not cyclic-c-command its antecedent, because the minimal node, C=S', is dominated by another cyclic node, an NP. The pronoun precedes in both sentences its antecedent. So, rule (22) is only violated in the case of (12b). Hence, the impossibility of a coreferential reading.

135 5. Concluding Remarks In this paper some WCO facts in Hungarian were discussed. It appeared that of the three approaches to Hungarian syntax only the non-configurational framework in combination with an extension of the CP could handle the data adequately. This may be seen as a point in favor of such an attempt to Hungarian syntax. But also important, perhaps more so, is, that precedence and cyclicity, two notions relied on heavily in modern linguistic descriptions, have been shown to play a role in Hungarian WCO. We will leave it as a task for further research to examine in what respect these notions have to do with binding and configurationality in general (cf. fn. 5).

Notes *

I would like to thank Ken Hale, Sjaak de Mey, Eric Reuland and Istvan Kenesei for stimulating comments. To the latter I feel extremely indebted for his help during my stay at the Linguistic Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences in Budapest october 1984. Most of the observations above are his or were made in discussions with him. So, without his help this paper could never have been written in this form. 1. See for (local) binding Chomsky (1981). 2. Hale's version of the projection principle (cf. Hale (1983: 25)): The projection principle (restricted): If verb selects org at L., then verb selects arg at L. (where L. , L. range over the 'levels' LF, D-structure'] S-structure in the syntictic representations of clauses) 3. The realization of personal pronouns is optional in Hungarian. In the unmarked case they are not spelled out. The personal pronoun is used for reasons of emphasis only. Compare (i) and (ii): (Possessive NPs in Hungarian contain AGR as well. See, for an extensive discussion, Szabolcsi (1984)). i.

ii.

az pro anjy-a the mother-3sgAGR 'His mother' az o anyj-a the he mother-3sgAGR 'HIS mother' or 'It is his mother ...'

In cases like (i), pro is coindexed with AGR as Hungarian is a pro-drop language. In this paper the term pronoun will thus refer to both the overt pronoun 8 and the non-overt pronoun 'small' pro (cf. Chomsky (1982) for a characterization of pro-drop languages and empty categories). 4. In Koopman & Sportice (1982) the same explanation is given for the grammatical ity of: iii.

Who./everyone./JOHN. loves his. mother i l l l 5. The influence of word order on binding processes in other so-called flat structure languages has been observed by Georges Rebuschi (p.c.) for Basque, by Hale (1983), and Farmer & Tsujimura (1984) for Japanese, by Yang (GLOW 1984 handout) for Korean, Mohanan (1982, 1984) for Malayalam, and Mary Laughren (p.c.) for Walpiri.

136

6. In Mohanan (1984: fn. 4) it is assumed that pro is present only at LS. So, pro cannot obey any precedence condition in any language, as precedence is a property of PS. Rule (17) shows clearly that this prediction is not correct. From this it follows, that separating LS and PS as rigorously as is done in Mohanan (1984) might be the wrong approach. References Chomsky, Noam. 1981 Lectures on Government and Binding, Dordrecht, Foris 1982 Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding, Cambridge, MIT Press Farmer, Ann and Natsuko Tsujimura. 1984 On the Nature of Syntactic Structures: Implications for a Theory of Reference, Coyote Papers S, University of Arizona Hale, Ken. 1982 Preliminary Remarks on Configurationality, in J. Pustejovsky and P. Sells (eds) NELS XII, p. 86-96 1983 Walpiri and the Grammar of Non-Configurational Languages, in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1.1, p. 5-47 Horvath, Julia. 1981 Aspects of Hungarian Syntax and the Theory of Grammar, PhD dissertation, UCLA Huang, James. 1982 Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar, PhD dissertation, MIT Kenesei, Istvän. 1984 On What Really Figures in a Non-Configurational Language, in Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik 24, p. 28-54 Kenesei, Istvän and Läszlo Maräcz. forthcoming To Move or Not to Move: Is That a Question?, submitted to NLLT E. Kiss, Katalin. 1981 Structural Relations in Hungarian, a 'Free' Word Order Language, in Linguistic Inquiry 12.2, p. 185-213 1982 Subject-Object Symmetries, Ms, University of Budapest Koopman, Hilda and Dominique Sportiche. 1982 Variables and the Bijection Principle, in The Linguistic Review 2.2. p. 139-160 Maräcz, Läszlo. 1984 The Grammar of the PP in Hungarian, M.A. Thesis, University of Groningen Mohanan, K.P. 1982 Grammatical Relations and Anaphora in Malayalam, in A. Marantz and T. Stowell (eds). MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 4, p. 163-190 1984 Lexical and Configurational Structures, in The Linguistic Review 3.2, p. 1 13-139 Reinhart, Tanya. 1976 The Syntactic Domain of Anaphora, PhD dissertation, MIT Saito, Mamuro and Hajime Hoji. 1983 Weak Crossover and Move alpha in Japanes, in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1.2, p. 245-259

137 Szabolcsi, Anna. 1984 The Possessor that Ran Away from Home, in The Linguistic Review 3. 89-102

Jan Odijk

Phase verbs in Russian and Burzio's generalization 1. Consider the following sentences from Russian, all containing some form of the verb prodolSat' 'to continue': (1)a.

Professor prodolzal lekciju Professor-Nom continued lecture-Acc 'The professor continued the lecture' b. JfLekcija prodolSala Lecture-Nom continued 'The lecture continued' c. Lekcija prodolzalas' Lecture-Nom continued-SJA 'The lecture continued' d. *Professor prodolzalsja lekciju Professor-Nom continued-SJA lecture-Acc 'The professor continued the lecture'

The pattern of facts described in (1) can easily be accounted for in a Government-Binding framework (cf, Chomsky(1981)) under some rather conventional assumptions: (2)a. The verb prodolSat' can assign a and a 0-role to its object (e.g. restrictions on these.. b. prodolSat' can assign Accusative c. The affix SJA absorbs Accusative subject.

9-role (e.g. Agent) to its subject Theme), imposing certain selectional Case to its object Case and the thematic role of the

In effect, we have two stipulations concerning the lexical properties of the verb prodolSat', and one stipulation concerning the nature of the affix SJA in Russian. The stipulations concerning the affix SJA extend to other uses of this affix (e.g. as passive formative, or as a medial formative). The stipulations given, or similar ones, are necessary in any analysis. Given these assumptions, and given the Government-Binding framework, the well-formedness of (la) is accounted for. (lb) is not well-formed for various reasons (e.g. there is no object, so that the 0-criterion is violated, or there is an empty object and the Binding Theory is violated, as well as the Projection Principle. Lekcija as a subject in (lb) violates selectional restrictions imposed by the verb (lekcija cannot be an Agent) etc.). (Id) is not well-formed because SJA has absorbed the 0-role of the subject, so that the 0-criterion is violated; lekciju cannot receive Accusative Case because this Case is absorbed by SJA, so that the Case Filter (and ultimately the 0-criterion) is violated. Particularly interesting in this context is the wellformedness of (lc). The D-structure of (lc) must be as in (3): (3)

[ec] prodolza- SJA lekcij-

In (3), the subject position cannot be filled by an argument or the 0-criterion would be violated. The object position must be filled with an argument or the 0-criterion will be violated. In (3) it is filled with lekcij-, which, however, cannot receive Case from prodolSa-, since SJA has absorbed this Case.

140 In order to receive Case, this NP must move into the subject position, where it can receive Nominative Case. If this is done, (lc) results. I will call the verb prodolSat' that I have illustrated above prodolSat' I. 2. The verb prodol&at' can also be used when it takes an infinitival complement. Examples of this use of the verb are provided in (4): (4)a. b. c. d.

Lekcija prodolSala byt' skucnoj Lecture-Nom continued to-be boring 'The lecture continued to be boring' Ivan prodolSal rabotat' Ivan-Nom continued to-work 'Ivan continued to work' ProdolSalo smerkat'sja continued to-become-dark 'It continued to become dark' Prodolzalo rasti pjat' gribov Continued to-grow five mushrooms 'There continued to grow five mushrooms'

It is clear that in this use the verb prodolSat' does not impose selectional restrictions on the subject: the subject can be a Theme (as in (4a)), an Agent (as in (4b)), a quasi-argument (as in (4c)), or expletive (as in (4d)). I would like to suggest that the verb prodolSat' does not assign a 9-role to the subject in this use, and that it is actually a raising verb. This use of prodolSat' I will call prodolSat' II. 3. The strongest hypothesis possible with respect to prodolSat' I and prodolSat' II is the assumption that we are dealing here with one verb, not two, i.e. prodolSat' I = prodolSat' II. The differences between the two ways of using this one verb should follow from independent principles of Universal Grammar and the grammar of Russian. Of course, it might be the case that there are simply two verbs prodolSat', but assuming this would mean that a much weaker hypothesis is adopted. It would be claimed that the two verbs prodolSat' I and prodolSat' II accidentally have the same form. This is implausible for the following reason: verbs from the same semantic class ('phase verbs') such as naSinat' 'to begin' or konSat' 'to finish,stop' show exactly the same behaviour. Hence, the facts described are not idiosyncratic properties of the verb prodolSat' and must not be described as such. The relation between prodolSat' I and prodolSat' II must be described in a principled way that generalizes immediately to such verbs as na&inat' and konlatIf this is not attempted, an important generalization will be missed. 4. Let us try to make an analysis of the kind described above. Starting from prodolSat' I we observe that it assigns a 6-role to its subject. In order to get prodolSat' II, we must try to get rid of this 6-role somehow. We already saw one way of achieving this result, i.e. by adding the affix SJA to the verb. When we add SJA, an automatic consequence is that Accusative Case cannot be assigned anymore to NP's governed by this verb. This is a welcome result, since if prodolSat' II is a raising verb, it must have exactly this property. Let us furthermore assume that prodolSat' I has the property of triggering S-deletion. This property plays no role in the uses of this verb as illustrated above, but prodolSat' II must have this property if it is to be a raising verb. Given these assumptions, we can form sentences such as in (5):

141 (5)a. «Professor prodolSal [ lekciju Professor-Nom continued lecture-Acc 'The professor continued the lesson to b. *Lekcija prodolSalas' [ t byt' Lecture-Nom continued-SJA to-be 'The lecture continued to be boring'

byt* skuSnoj ] to-be boring be boring' skucnoj ] boring

In (5), taking prodolSat' I to be followed by a sentential complement (this is allowed since prodolSat' I = prodolSat' II by hypothesis), we have a form without SJA in (a) and with SJA in (b). In (5a) prodolSat' takes a sentential complement and triggers S-deletion, so that it governs the em a n d every A C E , if the quantifier | D 1 (A) is defined then A £ [ d X (A) (or A £ |D]S (A), respectively). If D is not strong, then D is weak." By applying this definition to the different model-theoretic definitions of D's, Barwise and Cooper, as a result, classify a_, some, one, two, three, ..., many, a few, few and no as weak, while the, the one, the two, the three both, all, every, each, most and neither are characterized as strong. The presumed linguistic relevance of the weak-strong division is supported by the fact that some wholly independently motivated classifications yield the same NP-distinctions. Milsark (1977; 1979), for instance, arrives at a similar table of NP-types, classified according to their acceptability in existential sentences, however.

168 (1) a. *There is the wolf at the door (no listing reading) b. *There is everyone in the room (2) a. There is a wolf at the door b. There were several people cycling along the creek The prohibited types are semantically characterized as expressions of quantification, the permissible types as expressions of cardinality. W i t h the help of Milsark's criterion, the list given by Barwise and Cooper can be extended and specified in a more accurate way. For example, the bare plural in a non-uni versai reading can be added to the weak D's. Furthermore, some and many, w h e n considered as weak D's, must not be interpreted as 'some but not other' and 'many but not other' respectively. In these interpretations, they are members of the class of expressions of quantification, i.e. they are then strong D's. In an article written in 1981, the French linguist Kleiber suggests a n NP-distinction for French NPs that is analogous to the weak-strong or cardinalityquantification distinction. He distinguishes between NPs that are acceptable as subjects of what he calls 'prédicats non-spécifiants' ('non-specifying predicates') and those that cannot occur as subjects of these predicates. For example : (3) a. *Un singe est gros 'A donkey is fat' (non-generic reading) b. *Quelqu'un est grand/gentil/chauve 'Someone is tall/friendly/bald' c. ^Quelque chose est grand 'Something is big' (4) a. Le/Ce/Mon singe est gros 'The/This/My donkey is fat' b. U n des singes est gros 'One of the donkeys is fat' c. Paul est grand 'Paul is tall' d. Un des hommes est grand/gentil/chauve 'One of the men is tall/ friendly/bald' e. La/Cette boîte est grande 'The/This box is big' f. Une des boîtes est grande 'One of the boxes is big' The NPs which are excluded from subject position in sentences containing nonspecifying predicates like gros 'fat', grand 'tall/big', gentil 'friendly', chauve 'bald', etc., are perfectly acceptable however in sentences w i t h a specifying predicate, i.e. a predicate containing referential indices of time and/or place. These indices enable the hearer to identify an object or a person (or a class of objects or persons) not yet delimited. (5) a. b. c.

U n singe a été attrapé hier soir 'A donkey has been caught yesterday evening' Quelqu'un frappe à la porte 'Someone is knocking at the door' Quelque chose est tombé par terre 'Something has fallen on the floor'

In fact, any NP is acceptable w i t h this type of predicate. The analysis of a wide range of data reveals a striking parallelism between these three NP-classifications which, as noted above, were established on the basis of quite different criteria. According to the division-criteria put forward in this section the French NPs can be classified as follows: (6) a.

NPs containing a W E A K D (hencefort^: WEAK NPs): un N 'a/one N', deux/trois/... N 'two/three/... N', quelque N 'some N (sg.)', des N 1 ( I A ) 1 , quelques N 'some/a few N', plusieurs N 'several N', beaucoup de N 'many/much N', peu de N 'few/little N', trop de N 'too many/much N', aucun N 'no N', etc.

169 (6) b.

NPs containing a STRONG D (henceforth: STRONG NPs): le N 'the N ( s g . ) \ les N 'the N (pl.)', ce N 'this/that N', ces N 'these/those N', tous les N 'all N', tout N 'every N', chaque N 'each N', les deux/trois/... N 'the two/three/... N', l'un et 1' autre N 'both N', la plupart des N 'most N', beaucoup des N 'many of the N', ni l'un ni l'autre N 'neither N', etc.

2.The exceptional position of des N among the weak NPs In the lists of (6) des N has been classified as a weak NP because of its modeltheoretic definition which is as in (7) and because of its possible occurrence in existential sentences and its unacceptability as the subject of non-specifying predicates (cf. (8) and (9)). (7) [ d e s Ni = { x £ E / card ( X i O M J (8) a. Il y a des visiteurs dans le salon 'There are (IA) visitors in the drawing-room' b. Il est arrivé des étudiants 'There arrived (IA) students' (9) a. *Des hommes sont grands/gentils/chauves '(IA) men are tall/friendly/ bald' b. *Des professeurs sont assommants '(IA) teachers are boring' (7)-(9) suggest that des N behaves semantically like the other weak NPs. In this section I want to show however that des N does not function analogously to the other weak NPs in all respects. First it will be shown that there are contexts where the distributional properties of des N are quite different from those that can be attributed to the other weak NPs. Secondly, the interpretation of certain types of sentences is essentially different according to the use of des N on the one hand and that of the other weak NPs on the other hand. 2.1. Distributional differences From a distributional point of view, des N differs from all the other weak NPs in that it can be used in predicate position: 2 (10) Ces cinq gens sont des/*quelques étudiants sérieux 'These five people are (IA)/ some serious students-' (11) C'est tous des/*quelques menteurs 'They are all (IA)/ some liars' Further, des N is the most likely weak NP to be chosen in constructions containing a quantity-specifying or a quality-specifying PP: (12) (13) (14) (15)

Des/*Quelques librairies ont fait faillite en masse '(IA)/ Some/A few bookshops went bankrupt on a large scale' Des/*Quelques moutons ont traversé la rivière par centaines '(IA)/ Some/A few sheep crossed the river by hundreds' Ils ont des/*quelques chiens de toutes les formes, de toutes les origines 'They have (IA)/ some/a few dogs in all shapes, of all origins' Des/*Quelques employés sortaient par petits groupes '(IA)/ Some/A few employees were leaving the building in small groups'

These examples suggest that of all the weak NPs des N is the most a-specific NP with respect to quantity and quality. That is why all sorts of specifications can perfectly well be added to sentences containing des N.

170 A phenomenon that in a sense is connected with the examples (12)—(15) is the possible occurrence of des N with verbs whose semantics involve the formation or the decomposition of a group or a collection. Examples of these verbs are grouper 'group', masser 'mass', accumuler 'accumulate', affluer 'flock in', disséminer 'disseminate/disperse', éparpiller 'scatter'. The weak NPs, w i t h the exception of des N, are all excluded from sentences containing these types of verbs. (16) (17) (18) (19)

Ce parti groupe des/*quelques mécontents 'This party groups (IA)/ some/a few discontented people' Des/*Quelques problèmes s'accumulèrent '(IA)/ Some/A few problems accumulated' Des/*Quelques volontaires affluaient '(IA)/ Some/A few volunteers were flocking in' Des/*Quelques soldats étaient disséminés sur tout le terrain '(IA)/ Some/A few soldiers were dispersed over the whole area'

So far only those contexts have been considered that permit the use of des N and that exclude the use of the other weak NPs. O n the other hand, there are also contexts where the opposite is true, for example in sentences containing verbs of judgement. (20) (21) (22)

M o n mari déteste *des/ quelques légumes 'My husband dislikes (IA)/ some vegetables' Paul hait *des/ quelques professeurs 'Paul hates (IA)/ some teachers' J'aime *des/ quelques peintures modernes 'I like (IA)/ some m o d e r n paintings'

In most cases,^the permissible weak NPs get the generic or sortal reading in these contexts . Another context that by no means accepts des N while allowing most of. the other weak NPs is the distributive context. (23) (24)

Jean boit *des/ quelques whiskies par jour 'John drinks (IA)/ some/ a few whiskies a day' Dans ce pays il habite *des/ quelques personnages au mètre carré 'In this country there are (IA)/ some/a few inhabitants to the square metre'

This context clearly demonstrates that des N cannot express a quantification of any kind. The last example of a context w h i c h does not allow the use of des N is provided by certain predicational sentences. W i t h respect to the (non-)acceptabillty of weak NPs in subject position, these sentences, which have a simple subjectpredicate structure, turn out to be more complicated from a semantic point of view than often suggested in literature. In section 1, Kleiber's view on this matter was pointed out. Milsark (1977; 1979) also refers to this type of sentence in order to define a restriction on existential sentences which discriminates among instances of predicates; some predicates are tolerated in existential sentences, others are not. The analysis of a wide range of these subject-predicate constructions teaches us that some of these constructions differentiate among the weak NPs. This result is predicted neither by Milsark nor by Kleiber. Milsark predicts that the so-called property-assigning predicates do not accept any weak NP as their subject. Kleiber's hypothesis is that no weak NP is tolerated in the subject position of sentences containing non-specifying predicates. It should be noted here that Kleiber's non-specifying predicates include Milsark's property-assigning

171 predicates. Both predictions turn out to be only partially correct. In predicative sentences in which the N of the subject NP and the predicate are both general terms, weak NPs are not easily accepted. (25) *Des/?Quelques/?Plusieurs/?Beaucoup d'hommes sont grands 'CIA)/ Some/ Several/ Many men are tall' Most weak NPs can be used, however, as soon as the predicative sentence contains terms which are more particular. It is striking that des N again is deviant in that it can never occur in these sentences . (26) *Des/ Quelques écrivains modernes sont illisibles '(IA)/ Some/A few m o d e m writers are unreadable' (27) *Des/ Quelques basketteurs sont très grands '(IA)/ Some basketballplayers are very tall' (28) *Pes/ Quelques savants sont des bienfaiteurs de l'humanité '(IA)/ Some scientists are (IA) benefactors of society' Des N is not only excluded from these sentences, which contain property-assigning predicates, but also from sentences containing predicates which Milsark would have called 'state-descriptive'. Although Kleiber (1981) does not deal with these predicates in an explicit way, I suppose that he would classify most of them as non-specifying. So in this case Milsark predicts the opposite of what Kleiber would have predicted. The fact is that, according to Milsark, any NP, weak or strong, can be used with these predicates, while Kleiber would exclude the weak NPs, also in this case. Again both views are partially right. Whereas des N cannot occur with these predicates, the other weak NPs combine perfectly well with this category of predicates. (29) *Des/ Quelques élèves sont malades '(IA)/ Some pupils are ill' (30) *Des/ Quelques étudiants étaient ivres '(IA)/ Some students were drunk' (31) *Pes/ Quelques fenêtres sont ouvertes '(IA)/ Some windows are open' Des N as well as the other weak NPs can occur with predicates that would be regarded as specifying by Kleiber. (32) (33)

Des/ Quelques journaux traînaient dans la pièce '(IA)/ Some newspapers lay about the room' Des/ Quelques écrivains modernes sont maintenant au programme des lycées '(IA)/ Some m o d e m writers are now on the program of the secondary schools'

The predicative sentences not only demonstrate that the relationship between subject and predicate is more problematic than was suggested by Milsark and by Kleiber, but they also emphasize once again the peculiar behaviour of des N among the weak NPs. Des N is the weak NP which is most frequently excluded from subject position. The distributional properties that can be attributed to des N reveal some important aspects of its semantics. Intuitively one would say that des N is only used to refer to some entirely indeterminate subset of the set of all Ns. This subset is not only indeterminate with respect to the number of the individual objects contained in it, but also with respect to the 'identifiability' of these individual objects themselves. This idea is reinforced by the interpretative differences which can be observed when the weak NPs are used in certain types of contexts. These differences in interpretation are dependent on the use of des N on the one hand or any other weak NP on the other hand.

172 2.2. Differences in interpretation The first interpretative difference can be found in contexts where the weak NP is used as the object of a verb describing an activity or process. With these verbs only the use of des N gives rise to ambiguities. (34) a. b.

Jean répare des bicyclettes Jean répare quelques bicyclettes

Vet (1980) points out that (34a) is two-way ambiguous. (34a) can get the nonhabitual reading or event reading expressed by (35a) and the habitual reading represented in (35b). (35) a. b.

Jean est en train de réparer des bicyclettes 'John is repairing (IA) bikes' Jean est réparateur de bicyclettes 'John repairs (IA) bikes (for a living)'

Substitution of any other weak NP yields only the event reading, i.e. (34b) can only get the interpretation of (36). (36)

Jean est en train de réparer quelques bicyclettes 'John is repairing some bikes'

The same ambiguity can be found in (37) and (38). (37) (38)

Jeanne plante des bégonias 'Jane is planting/ plants (IA) begonias' Papa fume des cigares 'Dad is smoking/ smokes (IA) cigars'

The ambiguity disappears if another weak NP is used in the place of des N. If certain time adverbials are added to sentences of the type in (34) , the resulting sentence with des N does not suggest an iteration of the activity or process described, while the resulting sentence with any other weak NP has an iterative reading, i.e. it presents the activity or process as being repeated for some time or at different times. (39) a. b. c. d.

Pendant des heures, Jeanne a planté des bégonias 'For hours, Jane planted (IA) begonias' (non-iterative reading) Pendant des heures, Jeanne a planté quelques bégonias 'For hours, Jane planted a few begonias' (iterative reading) Chaque samedi, Jeanne plante des bégonias 'Every Saturday, Jane plants (IA) begonias' (non-iterative reading) Chaque samedi, Jeanne plante quelques bégonias 'Every Saturday, Jane plants a few begonias' (iterative reading)

According to Kroch (1974) and Carlson (1978), who point out a similar phenomenon in English, this difference in interpretation is due to the fact that des N, unlike the other weak NPs, always gets narrow scope with respect to time adverbials. A related set of facts can be observed when des N interacts with opacity-inducing elements, with quantified expressions and with negation. Des N is the only weak NP that consistently fails to exhibit opaque-transparent ambiguities and scope ambiguities. (40) (41) (42)

Jean croit que des/ quelques fascistes ont lancé les bombes 'John believes (IA)/ some fascists to have thrown the bombs' Je cherche des/ quelques livres traitant de ce sujet 'I am looking for (IA)/ some books on this subject' Des/ Quelques hommes marcheront un jour sur Mars '(IA)/ Some men will walk some day on Mars'

173 (43) (44)

Tous les linguistes ont lu des/ quelques livres de Chomsky 'All linguists have read (IA)/ some Jiooks of Chomsky' Il n'est pas venu des/ quelques amis '(IA)/ Some friends did not come'

The sentences w i t h des N always get the opaque or narrow-scope reading, whereas the versions containing any other weak NP are in principle ambiguous between the opaque and transparent reading with an opacity-inducing element like croire 'believe', or between the narrow-scope and the wide-scope interpretation with intensional verbs, quantified expressions and negation. Under wide-scope reading, these versions can be paraphrased by existential sentences. For instance (43), with quelques, can be paraphrased by (45) in its wide-scope reading. (45)

Il y a quelques livres de Chomsky que tous les linguistes ont lus 'There are some books of Chomsky all linguists have read'

A similar paraphrase cannot be given for any of the des-versions. The distributional and interpretative differences we have noted in this section strongly suggest that des N does not belong to the class of weak NPs.

3. Possible explanations The data we have examined so far suggest that one may regard the semantics of des N merely as an N-denotation, without any kind of specification. Pes N has been shown to exhibit an 'unquantifier-like' or 'unspecifier-like' behaviour with respect to several phenomena. In a first explanatory attempt, I propose to treat des N as the name of a kind of things, a view developed by Carlson (1978) with respect to the bare plural in English. According to Carlson, bare plural NPs have to be treated semantically as names of kinds of things. These kinds must be considered as individuals in their own right. In this view, the bare plural dogs functions semantically in the same way as the proper name John. They both denote an individual thing; dogs denotes an individual kind while John denotes an individual object Carlson's semantics accounts for the possibility that the bare plural can get a universal and an existential reading by allowing for apparent shifts in meaning, without giving different interpretations to the bare plural itself. These shifts are brought about by the introduction of different levels of N P denotations. Carlson distinguishes three of these levels: a kind-level, an object-level and a stage-level. These different levels are tied together in the following way:

O n the lowest, i.e. the stage-level, we have to do w i t h spatially and temporally bounded manifestations of a n individual object or kind. O n the objectlevel, stages are tied together into objects. It can be seen in (46) that kinds have two levels of organization: they may tie together stages and they may tie together objects. The existential use of the bare plural arises w h e n ever there is an existential claim being made about stages. W h e n there are no elements in the sentence that can express such a claim, the bare plural will get the universal reading.

174 Looking at des N in the way Carlson does with respect to the bare plural in English, we can understand many of the observations made in section 2. The obligatory narrow-scope reading of des N, for instance, can be explained by assuming that des N denotes an individual kind. The scope ambiguity that arises with the other weak NPs is due to the fact that these NPs denote sets of individuals and not single individuals. Carlson's three-level system can also explain why, in some contexts, des N gets an existential reading. This is the reading des N has for example in sentences containing specifying predicates (cf. (5), (32), (33)). This reading arises in these sentences because the specifying predicates of Kleiber can be defined as just those predicates that make existential claims about stages of individuals. Carlson's solution, however, leaves some questions unanswered. The possible occurrence of des N in attributive or predicate position is not explained, nor is it explained why des N is unacceptable in subject position of non-specifying predicative sentences and as the object of verbs of judgement. A further factor which seems to play an important role in the semantics of des N^ is put forward by Strawson (1974) who introduces the notion of 'identificatory force'. Every natural language term can be characterized by a certain degree of identificatory force. Some terms have a greater identificatory force than others. Strawson uses this notion in his discussion of simple subjectpredicate sentences. He states that in any sentence in which two terms are linked together - one in subject position and one in predicate position - the term which is the most appropriate for the subject position is, other things being equal, the term with the greater identificatory force. Strawson proposes the following hierarchy of terms indicating different degrees of identificatory force: (47) a. b. c.

individually identifying terms, i.e. any definite term kind-identifying terms, i.e. any sortal; roughly equivalent to the class of weak NPs non-identifying terms, i.e. any term which is neither individually identifying nor kind-identifying

Strawson argues that the terms of a. have a greater identificatory force than the terms of b. and that the same thing can be said with respect to the b - and c-terms. Strawson further mentions the possibility of distinguishing different subcategories in the c-class, again on the basis of differences in degree of identificatory force. In my view, the terms of the a - and the b-class have to be subcategorized in the same way, i.e. according to the criterion of identificatory force. This view would enable us to look at des N as the kind-identifying term with the weakest identificatory force. If Strawson's thesis is correct, i.e. if it is true that the term in subject position always is the term with the greater identificatory force, and if it is true that des N is the identifying term with the weakest identificatory force, it is explained why des N can occur in predicate position, not in subject position, in sentences where other identifying terms occupy the subject position. This other identifying term can be an individually identifying term (cf.(10)) as well as another kind-identifying term (cf.(28)). But considering des N as the weak NP with the weakest identificatory force does not yet explain why the other weak NPs are not allowed in predicate position and why des N is less often tolerated in subject and object position than the other weak NPs.

175 There are arguments supporting the hypothesis that the predicate position always can be viewed as the non-referential position, whereas the subject position can be regarded as the referential position. It is even plausible to look at the object position in VPs containing verbs of judgement as a referential position. Carlson (1978), for instance, points out that these transitive verbs denote a relation between two individuals. The notion of referential position can be defined with the help of the notion of referring expression (Hurford and Heasley 1983: 35). Hurford and Heasley define this notion as any expression used in an utterance to refer to something or someone (or a clearly delimited collection of things or people), i.e. used with a particular referent in mind. A referential position can then be defined as the position requiring a referring expression. The identificatory force of des N is apparently so weak that it cannot function, by itself, as a referring expression. As such it cannot occur in referential positions, unless the context contains elements that strengthen its identificatory force in such a way that it can be used in these positions. Such reinforcing elements are among others specifying predicates and existential constructions. Unlike des N, the other weak NPs can be regarded as referring expressions by themselves in almost every context in which they occur. 4. Conclusion According to certain distributional and model-theoretic properties which can be attributed to des N, this NP should be classified as a weak NP or as an expression of cardinality. In doing so, we have suggested that des N functions in the same way as NPs like quelques N 'some/a few N', plusieurs N 'several N', beaucoup de N 'many/much N', etc., which, on the basis of the same criteria, also have to be classified as weak NPs. In this paper, it has been demonstrated, however, that, from a semantic point of view, des N should not be treated in the same way as the other weak NPs. It has been shown that des N can be regarded as the name of an individual kind, whereas none of the other weak NPs can be regarded as such. Further, it has been argued that des N is the weak NP with the weakest identificatory force, and that, as such, it cannot function, by itself, as a referring expression. In some contexts, however, it can function as a referring expression. These contexts are those which make existential claims about stages of individuals. It is only in these contexts that des N has a semantic function that can be considered analogous to that of the other weak NPs.

Notes *

I wish to thank Co Vet for his helpful remarks on the first version of this article. This research was supported by the Foundation for Linguistic Research, which is funded by the Netherlands Organization for the Advancement of Pure Research, ZWO.

1. Throughout this article I give approximate translations of the French examples. No judgements have been given of the grammaticality or well-formedness of the English translations. 2. In all the examples of this section I have taken quelques N 'some/a few N' as the representative of the class of weak NPs minus des N. Thus, by using quelques N as opposed to des N, I indicate the opposition of des N to all the other weak NPs. Although I have consistently used quelques N, the exam-

176 pies, sometimes, become clearer when another weak NP is used in its place. 3. An NP of the form D N has the generic or sortal reading if it can be paraphrased by an NP of the form D types/sorts/classes/... of N (in French: D types/sortes/classes/... de N). 4. The intended reading of the quelques-versions of these examples is not the reading where quelques gets the interpretation of 'quelques mais pas tous' 'some but not all' or 'quelques mais pas autres' 'some but not other', i.e. the quantificational reading. See Milsark (1977: 18) and Milsark (1979: 199-200) for a discussion of this reading. 5. For some readers, the much' or a numeral is ting sentence is more more easily the wide-

example is perhaps clearer when beaucoup de 'many/ substituted for quelques. With these D's, the resuleasily interpreted in two different ways, i.e. it gets and the narrow-scope reading.

References BARWISE, J.& R. COOPER 1981 Generalized quantifiers and natural language, in: Linguistics and Philosophy 4, 159-219 CARLSON, G.N. 1978 Reference to kinds in English. Dissertation UCLA HURFORD, J.R.& B. HEASLEY 1983 Semantics: a coursebook, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press KLEIBER, G. 1981 Relatives spécifiantes et relatives non-spécifiantes, in: Le Français Moderne 49, 3, 216-233 KROCH, A.S. 1974 The semantics of scope in English. MIT-dissertation MILSARK, G. 1977 Toward an explanation of certain peculiarities of the existential construction in English, in: Linguistic Analysis 3, 1-30 1979 Existential sentences in English, New York and London, Garland STRAWSON, P.F. 1974 Subject and predicate in logic and grammar. London, Methuen VET, C. 1980 Temps, aspects et adverbes de temps en français contemporain, Genève, Droz

Frits Stuurman

Big a Puzzle 0. Summary Traditional X-bar theories allow the surface distribution of Spec's (specifiers) to be rigidly stipulated at the level of PS (Phrase Structure). In this paper, a minimal X-bar theory causes Spec's to be overgenerated at PS: for instance, a in b i g a puzzle of the title alongside of regular a big puzzle. However, a non-PS process of 'q-interpretation' can filter out the Spec's overgenerated. By w a y of q-interpretation accounts of Spec distribution as in b i g puzzle and that big a puzzle, the paper ends in a case w h e r e big a puzzle is grammatical. O n its basis, I reaffirm a flexible account of Spec distribution, as it can be provided by modular interaction of m i n i m a l ized PS and q-interpretation.1

1. Introduction It is commonly assumed that the distribution of Spec's m a y be accounted for in a generative grammar o n the basis of a PS schema like (1). (1)

x

m

> S p e c

_

xm-l

In (1), Spec stands for Specifier, X for a set of lexical categories that take Spec's, and m for the maximal number of primes that a lexical category projects up to. A n effect of (1) m a y be seen in (2), w h e r e it is assumed that £ = Spec, big ^ Spec, and puzzle = N, a possible value of X. (2) a. he solved [a big p u z z l e ! b. sthe solved [big a p u z z l e ] For the bracketed constituents of (2), consider PS representations

puzzle

a

(3).

puzzle

Only (3a) satisfies (1); in (3b) N m is not consistent w i t h (1), because N m dominates big ^ Spec. Thus, (1) w o u l d account for Spec distribution at PS: (2a) is grammatical w h e n analyzed as in (3a); and (2b) w i l l be ungrammatical under a n analysis as in (3b). The PS schema (1) is compatible w i t h a fairly wide range of X-bar.theories, in particular as regards various choices for the value(s) of m. However, if constituents other than lexical categories have at least one prime, then (1) does require that m be at least 2 primes. That is, m-1 prime w i l l hold in (3a); and hence m ^ 2 primes. I w i l l refer to constituents w i t h different numbers of primes, such as X', X'', etc., as 'projection-types' of X. (1) presupposes that X-bar theory allows PS the expressive power of

178 distinguishing b e t w e e n projection- types, m $ m - 1 . Stuurman (1985) explores whether X-bar theory should indeed admit of distinctions b e t w e e n projection-types, X', X'', etc., at PS. Consider instead the minimal X-bar theory (4). (4)

v

(4) specifies a single projection-type X' over X; accordingly, (4) w i l l be referred to as the 'single projection-type hypothesis', SPTH. Under SPTH, vertical hierarchy in projections does n o t ari^e from projection-types w i t h increasing numbers of primes, X over X , X'' over X', etc.; instead, vertical hierarchy arises from recursive tokens of X', X ' over X ' ... For instance, under SPTH PS representations as in (5) w i l l replace those in (3). (5) a.

IT

b.

Spec

Of the PS representations in (5), each is equally consistent w i t h SPTH. Both SPTH and (1) generate PS representations to underlie (2a), viz"! C5a) and (3a); only SPTH overgenerates (5b) to underlie (2b). Under the minimal X-bar theory SPTH regular Spec distribution as i'- \2) cannot be accounted for at PS. In this paper, I uphold m i n i m a l i z a t i o n of PS b y SPTH and the overgeneration of Spec's at PS that it entails. In section 2, I describe the role that Spec's play in an independently motivated non-PS process of 'q-interpretation' . In section 3.1, I illustrate how distribution of Spec's as in (2) follows from q-interpretation: it filters out PS representation (5b), b u t not (5a) (or (3a)). It is therefore appropriate for SPTH to overgenerate (5b) (and redundant to disallow (3b) at PS by (1)). In 3.2 and 3.3 I then extend interaction of PS under SPTH w i t h q-interpretation as a filter to the distribution of Spec's in (6) and (7). In a context like (6), the constituent of (2a) becomes ungrammatical unless it SHEDS the Spec £ ; in (7), the constituent of (2b) becomes grammatical provided it PICKS UP a Spec such as that. (6) a. * [ a big puzzle as it is, he solved it b. [big puzzle] as it was, he solved it (7) a. Jthe couldn't solve [big a p u z z l e ] b. he couldn't solve [that big a p u z z l e } In relation to the distribution of Spec's in (2), (6) and (7), it seems problematic to have also data as in (8) (examples from authentic sources are cited in encyclopedic grammars of English; cf. Jespersen 1927:176, Poutsma 1929:710). (8)

[big a p u z z l e ] as it was, he solved it

The constituent ungrammatical in (2b) emerges as grammatical in (8); nor does the constituent in (8) shed a_ or pick up that, the conditions that apply in (6) and (7). In section 4, I first discredit (1) o n the basis of (8); next I tackle (8) w i t h PS under SPTH and q-interpretations as a filter. I argue that then (8) does not remain the puzzle it seems, b u t is in fact

179 a piece that fits in nicely w i t h (2), (6), and (7).

2. Q-interpretation Q-interpretation integrates the process in w h i c h Spec operates in Montague grammar w i t h the fact that Spec is quantitative in nature; these are independently motivated in for example Verkuyl (1981). Thus, Spec operates in the process of Term-formation (9). (9)

Spec

=

T/CN

(9) specifies that a non-referential common n o u n CN is turned into a referential term T w h e n Spec is added. For instance, in (10) puzzle is CN; Spec every turns the bracketed constituent into T. (10)

he solved [ every p u z z l e ]

To capture constraints on a process like (9), it m a y be translated into the restrictive Government-Binding (GB) framework (cf. Chomsky 1981) as q-interpretation. In q - (for 'quantification') interpretation, w e can exploit the quantitative nature of Spec's: as such they need to have their scope specified. In GB, the scope of Spec will be defined o n the basis of government configurations, w h i c h then act as a filter o n the configurational output of PS. For appropriate q-interpretation, e.g. as referential term, ' a constituent needs to be properly quantified, i.e. to be in a proper configuration w i t h Spec in terms of government. Let us represent the quantitative nature of Spec's by lexically assigning to them 'Q-indices'. Thus in (11a) the Spec _a carries the Q-index 'Qa'. Correspondingly, the lexical head w h i c h takes a Spec carries the 'invariable' 'xQ' in (lib). The modifier big in (11c) carries neither a Q index nor a Q-variable. (11) a. b. c.

a : puzzle: big :

Spec(Qa) N(xQ) A

Q-interpretation m a y now proceed as in (12). (12) a. b.

co-Q-index Spec(QiJ w i t h its scope X n co-Q-index X (Qi) w i t h its heads

By virtue of (12b) eventually a lexical head is re-indexed w i t h the Q index of its Spec: the Q-variable xQ is interpreted as Qi. In the GB framework, co-Q-indexing by (12) m a y be constrained b y the definitions and conditions of (13) (cf. Chomsky 1981:165, 188). (13) a.

b. c.

the scope of Q-index Qi is the minimal category X that contains Spec(Qi) and X(xQ) or X(Qj_), Q i > Q ^ , that governs Spec(Qj-) . X governs Spec iff Spec is dominated by X projected from X X is minimal w i t h respect to Spec iff, beside its head, (i) X immediately dominates Spec (ii) X only contains Spec

Consider b y w a y of a n example how q-interpretation translates Term-formation (9) as it applied in (10). In (10) Spec (Q every) is dominated by the bracketed constituent, N 1 projected from N(xQ) puzzle; by (13b) N(xQ) therefore governs Spec(Q every). The N 1 projected from N(Q every) immediately is the minimal category N of (13c) since it also only contains

180 Spec (Qevery) beside the h e a d puzzle. By (13a) N n every puzzle is then the scope of Spec(Qevery), and will be co-Q-indexed w i t h it, as N n ( Q e v e r y ) , by (12a). A n d from M n ( Q e v e r y ) , Qevery percolates downwards to N(xQ), interpreting its Q-variable by re-Q-indexing it as N(Qevery), by (12b). In N n ( Q e v e r y ) the Q-index Qevery then represents that by q-interpretation the constituent N is properly quantified, i.e. can act as a referential term. M o r e elaborate illustration of q-interpretation arises in the d i s cussion of sections 3 and 4. What is important here is that (9) and the quantitative nature of Spec's, and hence their GB translation into q interpretation (12), (13), can be taken from Verkuyl (1981) as independently motivated.

3. Specifier distribution originating in q-interpretation In section 3 I consider various cases of Spec distribution in English as they c a n be accounted for o n the basis of q-interpretation. In section 4 I then turn to the case of Spec distribution that this paper more specifically addresses itself to.

3.1. 'a big puzzle' Consider the application of q-interpretation to PS representations as i n (5) (or in (3)). In (14) the lexical specifications of (11) have b e e n added to (5). F r o m (14), co-Q-indexing of the scope b y (12a) leads to (15). A n d next co-Q-indexing of heads by (12b) leads to (16). (14) a.

Spec(Qa) a (15) a.

N(xQ) puzzle

jr^qa) Spec(Qa)

N* N'(xQ)

big

Spec(Qa)

puzzle

a

N(xQ) puzzle

(16) a. Spec(Qa) big

N'(Qa)

big N'(Qa)

puzzle

N'(Qa) Spec(Qa) a

N(Qa) puzzle

In (16a) the process of q-interpretation is successful: introduction of a Spec serves its purpose of turning the entire constituent into a referential term, because the top-node N' obtains a Q-index. But (16b) is not properly interpretable as a referential term. Here the constituent as a whole remains without a Q-index in spite of the introduction of a Spec, because the top-node N' is not minimal w i t h respect to the Spec according to (13c), clause (i).

181

Spec's regularly behave as in (2). (14) through (16) accordingly illustrate the case where q-interpretation independently accounts for distribution of Spec's, even if they are overgenerated at PS under SPTH. W i t h SPTH thus licensed, in 3.2 and 3.3 q-interpretation w i l l be made to account also for Spec distribution w h e n the regularity of (2) is deviated from b y shedding Spec in (6) or picking up Spec in (7).

3.2. 'big puzzle' The context in w h i c h a constituent sheds its Spec is characterized by a COMP(lementizer) that follows the constituent: as^ in (6), that, or though. The subclause S-bar that this COMP projects (cf. Chomsky 1981:300) is a token of COMP' b y SPTH. We m a y then take the structure of (17a) to be the output of a derivation whose input incorporates the structure of the subclause (17b); transformational changes are triggered by the adjunction of an antecedent in (17c), a structure reminiscent of Topicalization (cf. Chomsky 1977). (17) a. b. c.

puzzling though it is, ... though it is puzzling, ... puzzling though it is puzzling,

...

A PS representation of (17b), consistent w i t h SPTH and omitting irrelevant details, is (18), w h e r e INFL' is S-bare (cf. Chomsky 1981:300).

(18)

COMP' COMP

INFL'

though A' puzzling Adjunction of a n antecedent to (18) yields PS representation (19a) of (17c) (differences as in (19) and henceforth b e t w e e n antecedent x ! and subsequent A ^ are for expository convenience only). F r o m (19a), (19b) derives b y syntactic movement to COMP, as in Topicalization. (19b) is the stage of derivation relevant to shedding of Spec; subsequently, the constituent A! adjoined to COMP is deleted to avoid the doubly-filled COMP filter; recoverability w i l l be ensured by the antecedent X | in COMP'. COMP'

(19) a. X! 1 pUZZli

b.

COMP'

COMP' "g

COMP

INFL'

puzzling

though

puzzling

puzzling though ^

In (19) X ' in COMP' can be interpreted as occupying a Spec position. For instance, X' cannot co-occur w i t h a(nother) Spec of COMP such as even. Compare (20) and (21). (20) a. b i g puzzle as it was, he saw a solution b. even as it w a s , he saw a solution (21) a. *big puzzle e v e n as it w a s , he saw a solution b. Jteven b i g puzzle as it was, he saw a solution

182

Similarly, in descriptions of English one will find paraphrases as in (22), where the constituent at issue in (22a) has two Spec's as its reflexes in (22b) (cf. Leech & Svartvik 1975:98). (22) a. b.

much as I would like to help, ... even though I would like to help very much, ...

On the basis of (21), (22), let us represent X' in COMP' as a Spec by assigning to it the Q-index QCOMP, thus X' ( QCOMP)-.- Corresponding to (19b), representations for (6a) and (6b) are then (23a) and (23b) respectively (for the structures of N' cf. (14a): they are themselves deleted to avoid doubly-filled COMP, but survive transitively in the structures of the antecedents X' that surface in (6a) and (6b) respectively). COMP1

(23) a.

b.

X|(QCOMP) ^ ^ C O M P ^

COMP' X^(QCOMP)

COMP

COMP'

COMP

N: Spec(Qa) -

N' big

big N(xQ)

N(xQ) puzzle

puzzle As part of the head of COMP', N! in COMP, and hence its head N(xQ), governs X!(QCOMP) in each of (23) (cf. (13b)). In (23a) N(xQ) also governs Spec(Qa). Tft us N(xQ) governs two Q-indices, Qa. and QCOMP. Either of the Q-indices in (23a) will interpret the Q-variable xQ and therefore prevent the other Qindex from interpreting the Q-variable by which it is governed; as such, (23a) remains uninterpretable, and (6a) is ungrammatical. But there is no such problem in (23b), where N(xQ) governs only one Q-index, QCOMP, because N' has with the Spec shed the competing Q-index. (23b) thus underlies grammatical (6b), where X^ agrees with N^ in having shed Spec.

3.3. 'that big a puzzle' (7) represents another context with special Spec distribution. A' tthat big precedes a in (7b); but if it does not pick up Spec that, A' big cannot precede a in (7a). Moreover, no adnominal Spec can be followed or, except for a, preceded by A' that big. Paradigm (24) extends (7) accordingly ((24a) = (7b); (24b) subsumes (7a)). (24) a. he couldn't solve b. *he couldn't solve c. *he couldn't solve d. *he couldn't solve

[that big a puzzle] [(very) big a puzzle] [a / every / ... that big puzzle] [that big one puzzle]

Consider first analyses of (24) along the lines of (14) in (25).

183 (25) a.

N'

N'

b. N'

Spec(Qi)

Spec(QjO

N' A'

N' N(XQ)

N' I

that big

N(xQ)

puzzle

puzzle (25a) w i l l be anomalous for any choice of A' or Spec, exactly as (16b). Spec(Qi) fails to fulfill its purpose: it cannot license the top N' as referential term because it does not assign its Q-index to the top N', w h i c h is not minimal w i t h respect to Spec b y (13c). Thus (25a) accounts for ungrammatical (24b), (24d); (24a) can only be grammatical under another analysis than (25a). W i t h regard to (25b), the ungrammaticality of (24c) w h i c h (25b) underlies arises w h e n A' picks up the Spec that, w h i c h c a n also occur in N 1 ; if A' picks up a Spec like very, a / every / ... very big puzzle is not ungrammatical. We can thus distinguish a 'strong' Spec like that from Spec's like very. As it w o u l d in N', strong Spec that also assigns its Q-index in A' by (12) and (13), yielding A'(Qthat); b u t A' very b i g remains without such a Q-index. In (25b) N(xQ) then governs two Q-indices: Qi^ w i t h Spec and Qthat w i t h A'; either Q-index will then be anomalous, as in (23a). Such a problem does not occur w h e n very leaves A' a modifier without Q index to N(xQ). As for an alternative analysis to (25a) under w h i c h the grammaticality of (24a) w o u l d b e accounted for, consider now (26a), from w h i c h (26b) derives b y q-interpretation. N'

(26) Spec I , Art'

N(xQ)

__A'

Art'

Spec(Qthat) that

puzzle

I Art(Qa) a

A(XQ) big

N1(Qthat)

b. Spec

N'(Qthat)

Art'(Qthat) A' (Qthat) Spec(Qthat) that

A' (Qthat) A(Qthat) big

N(Qthat)

Art'(Qthat) Jrt(Qthat) -

puzzle

184 F r o m (26a) Qthat permeates (26b) by q-interpretation as follows. First strong Qthat gets assigned to A'/A(xQ) as Qa is assigned to N'/N(xQ) in (14a) - (16a). Next the clause 'Qi^>Qj/ in (13a) becomes operative. We can assume this to be a marked option, beside standard interpretation by Qi of a Q-variable xQ; the child will not attain differences in strength between Q-indices unless presented w i t h positive evidence. Thus, instances like (7a) trigger Q t h a t > Q a (the relative strength of Qthat is also apparent in (24c), though not to the child; the weakness of Qa is perhaps related to the fact that a is phonologically a 'weak' form, of one). Therefore, Qthat can also from A' (Qthat) co-Q-index Art'/Art, re-Q-indexing Art(Qa) as Art(Qthat); effectively, this turns that into the current Spec of N(xQ), and ji into its ex-Spec. Finally, Spec Art', w i t h Qthat rather than Qa, then interprets xQ w i t h N, again as in (14a) - (16a). Thus q-interpretation in (26) accounts for the possibility for A' to precede a once A' has picked up a strong Spec like that in (24a). Contrary to (24a), if (24b) or (24d) were analyzed as in (26a), they w o u l d still not lead to q-interpretation as in (26b). There is no evidence for the child to attain *Qthat^>Qone, etc.; one is not weak like a_y and Qthat will not turn one = Spec(Qone) into ex-Spec(Qthat).

4. 'big a puzzle' I have now shown how q-interpretation filters Spec's (over-)generated at PS under SPTH, to account for regular distribution of Spec's as in (2); I have also extended the account to the shedding or picking up of Spec's in special contexts (6) and (7). Thus, in the relevant contexts, two analyses for big a puzzle consistent w i t h SPTH at PS w o u l d be filtered out by q interpretation: (16b), and (26b) if it lacked a strong Spec like that to license A' as Spec to ja. Y e t big a puzzle is grammatical in (8) , repeated below for convenience. (8)

big a puzzle as it w a s , he solved it

I now turn to this ostensible puzzle. It is h a r d to think of yet a third PS analysis of big a puzzle w h i c h w o u l d go through the filter of q-interpretation. Rather I w i l l show that the applications of q-interpretation in the contexts of (6) and (7) interact to let big a puzzle in (8) through under PS analysis along the lines of (26). It m a y be n o t e d beforehand that big a puzzle in (8) serves to invalidate an argument for (I), w i t h a distinction between projection-types m vs. m - 1 that SPTH abolishes. Culicover (1982) proposes, essentially, that constituents before COMP only arise b y move-alpha w h e n alpha = X r a - 1. Since (1) specifies that Spec be dominated by X m , m o v e - X m 1 w i l l not take along any Spec, w h i c h is then shed in (6b). But under an analysis of big a puzzle consistent w i t h (!) as in (27) (cf. (26a)), big a puzzle could not arrive before COMP in (8) by m o v e - X m - l » only by m o v e - X m . (27) Nm_1

Spec I I big

puzzle Art a

185 However, raove-Xm w o u l d also^ajlow the X m of (3a) to appear before as_ in (6a); the account b y move-X of Spec shed in (6b) w o u l d thus be circumvented. A n d w i t h this, the distinction between projection-types m and ili-l is left unsupported. Move-X' yields exactly the same results, moving b o t h X' w i t h Spec in (6a) and X' without Spec in (6b) as tokens of the single projection-type that SPTH allows. To return therefore to SPTH, a PS analysis it assigns to (8) is (28), a combination of relevant parts of (23) and (26). (28)

COMP'

A

Art

big

a

If one compares (28) to (23), the puzzle appears to be that Spec is not shed in (28) as in (23b), to prevent N(xQ) from governing two Q-indices, Qa beside QCOMP. But if one also compares (28) to(26b), one will observe that in (28) N(xQ) w o u l d not govern Q a in any case, but rather some Q-index arising from A', Qthat in (26b). Correspondingly, in (28) a Q-index on A' rather than Qa would be in excess beside QCOMP, and hence should be shed. This is in fact just w h a t has happened in (8); it is indeed w h a t m u s t happen, since (29) is ungrammatical. (29)

*[that b i g a puzzle ] as it was, he could solve it

In (29), from A' that big, Qthat w o u l d re-Q-index Art(Qa) as Art(Qthat), as in (26b), leaving an innocuous ex-Spec. But N(xQ) puzzle w o u l d then still anomalously govern both Qthat and QCOMP, as it governs b o t h Q a and QCOMP in (23a). Accordingly, in (28) current Spec that rather than ex-Spec a has b e e n shed, as in (23b) (constant, hence current) Spec a was shed.

5. Conclusion This brings the present discussion of the distribution of English Spec's to a conclusion. The discovery of d a t a as in (8) throws serious doubts on rigid accounts of Spec distribution at PS, as by multiple projection-types in (1). But if q-interpretation operates as a flexible filter o n Spec's (over-)generated as PS under the single projection-type of SPTH, then the absence of d a t a as in (8) should have b e e n puzzling. The independent q interpretation account of regular distribution of Spec's as in (2) c a n be extended to Spec's shed in (6) or picked up in (7). But if q-interpretation can operate w i t h the latter effects, it m u s t be possible for one and the same Spec to be first picked up and then shed again. Q-interpretation therefore predicts constituents as in (8), where in the course of picking up and then shedding a strong Spec like that, a_ is turned into an ex-Spec

186

and can thus be retained. Such constituents had not yet penetrated into the generative literature. But since authentic instances are cited in descriptive grammars of English, they confirm the X-bar theory SPTH and q-interpretation as the origin of Spec distribution.

Notes 1. This paper is closely linked to Stuurman (1985). In sections 2 and 3 I condense and somewhat rework relevant parts of the latter w o r k ; section 4 extends it. In preparing the present paper, I have benefitted from comments by Peter Coop mans and Ans v a n Kemenade, the audience at the 1985 'TIN-dag', and especially the anonymous reviewer of a n earlier version for Linguistics in the Netherlands 1985. 2. In this paper I ignore how and w h y Term-formation and/or q - i n t e r p r e t a tion should (not) be extended from nominals to other categories, for w h i c h (non-) referentiality as such is hardly a relevant distinction. I merely note that some such extension seems more natural under q - i n t e r pretation, for instance w h e n q-interpretation as in N' applies also in A' in (26).

References CHOMSKY, N. 1977 O n wh-movement, in P. Culicover, T. Wasow & A. Akmajian (eds) Formal syntax, New York, Academic Press 1981 Lectures on government and binding, Dordrecht, Foris CULICOVER, P. 1982 Though-at tract ion, distributed by the Indiana University Linguistics Club JESPERSEN, 0. 1927 A M o d e r n English grammar o n historical principles Vol. Ill, London, George A l l e n & U n w i n LEECH, G. & J. SVARTVIK 1975 A communicative grammar of English, London, L o n g m a n OUTSMA, H. 1929 A grammar of Late M o d e r n English Part II second half, Groningen, Noordhoff STUURMAN, F. 1985 Phrase structure theory in generative grammar, Dordrecht, Foris VERKUYL, H. 1981 Numerals and quantifiers in X-syntax and their semantic interpretation, in J. Groenendijk, T. Jansen & M. Stokhof (eds) Formal methods in the study of language Part 2, Amsterdam, Mathematisch Centrum

Ron Verheijen

Antecedent-reflexive agreement 0. Introduction * My m a i n concern in this paper is with the specification of the relation b e t w e e n antecedent NPs and reflexives in m o d e r n English. With Bach and Partee (1980: henceforth B&P) we might distinguish roughly two different approaches to the description of antecedent-reflexive relations: the Revised Extended Standard Theory (REST) approach, as exemplified in among others Chomsky (1981) and Koster (1984), and the Extended Montague Grammar (EMG) approach, as illustrated in B&P and Gazdar and Sag (1981). We might characterize the REST-approach as configurational, that is, the concepts available for the description of antecedent-reflexive relations are 'definable on "geometrical" properties of phraseTnarkers (precede, various types of prominence relations such as dominate, c-command)' (B&P 1980:4-5). It is precisely because of the configurationality of the REST-approach, B&P suggest, that 'it is necessary to enrich purely syntactic structures w i t h traces and other phonologically null anaphors as parts of p h r a s e markers' (B&P m O t S ) 1 . I shall illustrate B&P's remarks concerning the RESTapproach w i t h the help of examples (l)-(3). (1) Jim likes himself (2) *Himself likes J i m (3) Pictures of himself surprise Jim In a REST-approach the asymmetry of the relation between antecedent and reflexive illustrated by (1) and (2) may be captured in the requirement that antécédents c-command their reflexive: in a tree structure of (1) J i m c-commands himself, which is as required, but in a tree structure of (2) the reverse holds, and (2) is therefore ungrammatical. Because Jim does not c-command himself in a tree structure of (3), one is compelled to introduce an empty category (PRO) in the picture-noun phrase of (3) in order to continue to be able to m a i n t a i n the c-command requirement o n antecedent-reflexive relations. Of course, w i t h the introduction of such a PRO element, the need arises for conditions on possible interpretations of such elements. The EMG-approach (as discussed in B&P 1980) to antecedent-reflexive relations is not to enrich syntactic structures, but rather to enrich w h a t B&P call "functional structure". I n EMG, reflexives are treated as operators on verb-phrase meanings: Whenever a reflexive is added into a translation, an arbitrary new pronoun meaning is put into its place in the translation and a special pronoun m e a n i n g is put into STORE along w i t h the index of the variable used in the pronoun m e a n i n g 'left behind'. Two special rules (IVP=>IVP, TVP=>TVP) allow the retrieval of the reflexive pronoun meaning for the result, using lambda abstraction on the stored indexed variable (B&P 1980:9) In addition to requiring a STORE mechanism, the EMG-approach in B&P (1980) thus requires a special set of rules which affect the placedness of a semantic predicate: a two-place predicate becomes one-place, a three-place predicate becomes two-place. Now note the following examples: (4)a John divorced Mary b *John divorced himself

188 c *John perjured Mary d John perjured himself The predicate in examples (4a)-(4b) is two-place, and cannot become one-place (witness the ungrammaticality of 4b), whereas the predicate in (4c)-(4d) is oneplace, and cannot be two-place (witness the ungrammaticality of 4c). If one were to take these details of English into account, one would have to find a way of catering for exceptions to B&P's rules that affect argument structure. In this paper I wish to propose a third approach to antecedent-reflexive relations. The approach that I propose has the following properties: first, it makes use of a context-free phrase-structure syntax of the kind developed in Gazdar and Pullum (1982) and Farkas et al.(1983). The assumption of such a syntax disallows the use of traces and PRO, and therefore obviates the need for conditions on coindexing. Second, I shall use acyclic digraphs as a representational format for semantic structure: the adoption of this format foregoes the need for a STORE mechanism. Third, I shall distinguish predicates in terms of placedness rather than relate n-ary place predicates to n-l-ary place predicates, so that the details of English illustrated in (4) can be accounted for. It should be noted that my aim in offering an alternative account of antecedentreflexive relations is a modest one. Due to limitations of space I shall refrain from fully evaluating my own approach with respect to other approaches. Nor will I make an attempt to evaluate the use of acyclic digraphs in linguistics in general. Within the restricted space of this paper I content myself with a formally explicit account of antecedent-reflexive relations.

1. The Representation of Antecedent-Reflexive Relations My analysis of antecedent-reflexive relations is formulated partly in terms of a standard Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar (GPSG) syntax. In GPSG a rule of grammar is an ordered triple which consists of a rule number, a PS rule and a semantic rule. The rule number is used to identify a set of lexical elements which subcategorize the syntactic environment given in the rule. The syntactic part of a rule of grammar is a PS rule which must be interpreted with respect to a number of well-formedness conditions. Generally speaking, a PS rule A + B C is in the grammar iff all the conditions in (5) apply to it. (5)

A phrase-structure rule A + B C is well-formed iff

a.A,B and C are all syntactic categories of which the values of specified features accord with any values specified in an Immediate Dominance (ID) rule; b. there is an ID-rule A •*• B , C or: c. there is a metarule which induces A -»• B , C; ¿.feature coefficients of A, B and C are instantiated in accordance with the Head Feature Convention (HFC), the Control Agreement Principle (CAP), the Foot Feature Principle (FFP) and Default assignment; e.there is a Linear Precedence (LP) rule B < C For a formal definition of the notions mentioned in (5), see Gazdar and Pullum (1982) and Farkas et al.(1983). For the semantic part of a grammatical rule I shall use a notation which slightly simplifies the intensional logic customary in GPSG. In (6)-(8) there are a number of grammatical rules, together with some examples. (6)a. b.

< 1; smiled

V

] ; Q^x) >

189 (7)a.

< 2 ; [-

b. (8)a.

likes Tarzan < 3 ; Ly V , NP , NP

b.

V , NP

] ; ]

;

tyx,y,z)>

gave Tarzan a rope

The rule in (6a) gives the structure of intransitive verbal expressions, while the rules in (7a) and (8a) give structures for transitive verbal expressions. For the sake of perspicuity I have refrained from representing the argument w h i c h is expressed by the syntactic subject by means of lambda-abstraction. The transitive verbal expressions in (7a) and (8a) correlate w i t h semantic predicates w h i c h have referentially non-identical arguments (giving rise to 'disjoint reference'): I shall label such semantic predicates referentially transitive. The subscript v on a semantic predicate indicates that that predicate interprets a syntactic verbal expression. F r o m a syntactic point of view structures w h i c h contain reflexive forms are maximally simple: one just needs rules w h i c h introduce a category w h i c h dominates a reflexive as a substring. In English there are only two such categories, namely V and P ( the [-N]categories). For b o t h syntactic categories I propose a syntactic feature [+R] w h i c h correlates w i t h a semantic property [R] (this semantic property will be discussed below). The rule which spells out a [-N,+R] category as a lexical element and a reflexive form is the rule in (9). (9)

< 4 ; [ L [-N,+R]

REFL

] >

where L is the lexical element that instantiates X[-N,+R], and REFL e {myself,...,themselves} I assume that [+R] is a syntactic HEAD-feature, so that the H F C (as defined in Farkas et al. (1983) can guarantee that a L+R]-mother passes on the [+R]-feature to its head. Note that the reverse does not hold: a [+R]-daughter does n o t pass on its [+R]— feature to its mother. I shall giv^, rather than motivate the rules w h i c h expand reflexive V and P categories. They are listed in (10)—(13). (10)a.< 5 ; [ -

[?R]

]

;[0R](x)

>

where P e {of, about, t o , on,...} [+R] b. (11)a.

of himself, about himself, to himself,... < 6 ; [V ]; Q (x) > V [+R] [R]' where V e {perjure, like, wash,...} [+R]

b. (12)a.

perjured himself, w a s h e d herself,... < 7 ; [= V , NP ]; Q (x,y)> V [+R] [R] v where V e {give, write, show,... } [+R]

b. (13)a.

gave himself a banana, showed Bill herself,... < 8 ; [V , V ]; Q v ( x , Q'(x,y))> V V [ + R]_ [INF] LR] _ where V e {believe, w a n t , promise, persuade,...} [+R] b. believed himself to have won;wanted himself to w i n ; persuaded himself to w i n ; promised himself to win,...

Some short remarks need to be made about the rules in (10)—(13). First, they can

190 interact with other rules already in the grammar. In (14)-(17) I give some examples of this interaction (important ID-rules are given). (14)

[picture of himself ] : [—

N

,

P ] [of] [want to perjure themselves ] : [ rr V , N

(15)

They

(16)

They

(17)

He

V ] [INF] [talked to themselves about themselves] : [— V , V

[promised to himself to leave early] : [=• V

P , P ] [to] [about] , P V ] [to] [INF]

Secondly, in GPSG syntactic features which can be spelled out as strings (terminal symbol features) can only be employed for logically constant elements, that is to say, forms of which the interpretation is invariant with respect to possible worlds. In my analysis reflexive forms are terminal symbol features, and I thus claim that the interpretation of reflexive forms is logically invariant (I shall return to this point below). Thirdly, one might consider objecting that the rules in (10)-(13) seem to complicate the syntax because the rules in (6)-(8) are already in the grammar, and that consequently verbs have to be given — at least — two different subcategorization frames (under a Chomsky 1965 conception of subcategorization). However, such an objection is without force. In my analysis reflexives are not categorized as NPs, and can therefore not occur in subject or genitive slots, because these slots can only be occupied by NPs. Predictably, then, the examples in (18)-(20) are not induced by the grammar. (18) (19) (20)

*Himself likes Bill *John likes himself's pictures of Mary/Bill *John knows that himself likes Bill

In addition, the rules in (10)-(13) are necessary in any fully explicit grammar of English, because English contains a large number of verbal expressions which can only be used in tandem with reflexive forms. The rules in (10)-(13) are thus not only possible, but also necessary. And under standard GPSG assumptions about subcategorization a syntactic rule is associated with an integer which identifies a list of lexical elements that can act as terminal strings for that rule, so that the extra "complication" of the grammar that the incorporation of (10)—(13) in a grammar might seem to entail thus can be seen to consist solely in allowing the name of a verb to occur in more than one list of verbs. If we turn to the semantics of the rules in (6)-(8), we note that — in addition to the simplification mentioned above — there is a semantic [R]-feature, and that I have used subscripts on the predicate labels. The semantic [R]-feature is my notation for the fact that one argument receives more than one thematic role from one and the same [R]-predicate. Predicates which have the [R]-feature by definition do not relate two non-identical arguments, and are therefore referentially intransitive. Note that when I say that an argument receives thematic roles from a particular predicate, I do not wish to imply that I adhere to a particular theory of thematic types: for my analysis it is important only that such a thing as a thematic role exists. The subscripts on predicate labels indicate which syntactic category the particular predicate interprets. Before I give a formally explicit definition of possible antecedent-reflexive relations in terms of semantic predicates, I propose that we make the notation of predicates a little more rigorous. I shall represent them as acyclic directfed graphs (digraphs, for short), a specific kind of tree structure. In (21) I give the definition of the notion predicate in terms of acyclic digraphs.

191 (21)

A predicate

is a quadruple

< V, R, r,f > , where

V is a set of vertices, R is a relation over r is a vertex in V , such that there is a path from r to each vertex in V, f is a function from V to the set of predicate names (Q , Q , Q , Q ) — v p a n and set of argument

names

There is a path in an ordered set of vertices if

R= { < 1, 2>,


,},!,{ , , ,}5

d. Reflexive }, 1,{
, }> [R]

[R] The occurrences of Q in (22) represent predicates, whereas x,y and z represent arguments. The arrows in the graphic representation in (22) are mnemonic for the direction in which the thematic roles are assigned. I propose that a well-formed predicate invariably realized one of the basic types in (22). With the help of the definition in (23i) and (23ii) it can b e determined whether a given predicate is indeed a basic type, and which basic type it is. (23)

Given a predicate Q'

: -,r} .,y> .,n}

where m ^ n / o ^ p ^ q ^ r

>2

Note that the index sets for reflexives are taken to be logically invariant, w h i c h tallies w i t h their expression as terminal symbol features in the syntax. A n antecedent NP agrees w i t h a reflexive form if the index set of the NP is contained in the index setsof the reflexive form. Examples w h i c h illustrate this definition of agreement are (39)-(32). (30) (31) (32)

Y o u like yourself {2} {2} John likes himself {27} {m,...27,...n} Y o u like yourselves {2,27} {2,...,27}

In order to define the locality of the agreement-relation b e t w e e n antecedent and reflexive we need only require that the argument w h i c h the antecedent NP expresses be an argument of the predicate of w h i c h the reflexive form spells out the reflexivity. This requirement can b e expressed as a limitation on the length of the path between the antecedent argument and the reflexive predicate concerned. Agreement and its concomitant locality are defined in (33). (33)

Agreement and Locality Let {a} be the index set of some NP, and let {y} be the index set of some reflexive form p , then the NP has a correct agreement-relation w i t h the reflexive form, iff

194

(i) and (ii)

{a} E

{y}

p expresses the reflexivity of a predicate path between

Q

Q such that the [R] and {a} has length 1 (cf.21)

[R] Note that the restriction on path-length in (33) is not to be interpreted as a restriction on the syntax of acyclic digraphs: rather, it should be taken to be a restriction on the interpretations of reflexive predicates w h i c h are represented by means of acyclic digraphs. In the analysis of the antecedent-reflexive relation given in this paper, the correctness of all of the examples in (34) — (39) is predicted. (34) (35) (36) (37) (38) (39)

John likes himself John likes Mary's pictures of herself John likes pictures of himself John believes himself to have w o n John showed Mary a picture of himself/herself Pictures of himself surprise John

As can be observed from the examples in (34)-(38), m y analysis has as a natural consequence the assymmetry of the antecedent-reflexive relation w h i c h is — in REST-approaches — captured by the assumption that antecedents should c - c o m m a n d reflexives. Moreover, m y analysis has this consequence without having to accept that (39) is a problematical example, or w i t h o u t having to complicate the syntax w i t h PRO-antecedents and interpretational mechanisms. Nor is there any n e e d for a STORE mechanism, or for rules that affect the placedness of a predicate (B&P 1980). Also, m y analysis has the advantages of formal rigour: its syntax is explicit and can be interpreted w i t h respect to a framework in w h i c h the n o t i o n possible syntactic rule is more than a convenient fiction (cf. Gazdar and P u l l u m 1982), and in w h i c h the representation of some individual predicate can b e interpreted w i t h respect to the typology of basic predicate types it provides. Lastly, it provides an extremely simple and elegant w a y of stating antecedentreflexive relations. If nothing else, the analysis in this paper illustrates that formal precision is no b a r to linguistic elegance.

Notes *

Questions by Martin Everaert, Teun Hoekstra, Johan Kerstens and Jan Koster have made me formulate certain issues more precisely. Colin Ewen, Robert Lankamp, Martina Noteboom, Martine Veenhof, and, last b u t certainly n o t least, Bob Rigter, all scrutinized an earlier v e r s i o n of this paper. For each of them, there will be some aspect of this paper that they like, while it is probable that none of them likes all aspects of this paper. I thank and absolve all.

1. Bach and Partee (1980) seem to suggest that phrase markers are of m a j o r concern to proponents of REST. This suggestion is not unequivocally correct: Koster (1984), for instance, is concerned w i t h the properties of an abstract formal relation R of which the antecedent-reflexive relation is only one instance. In fact, one might criticize Koster (1984) as n o t relating his relation R to an explicit syntax at all. That there is a need for such a relation becomes clear if one realizes that Roster's R is satisfied if each reflexive form has a sister constituent w h i c h is PRO: as far as I can tell, there is nothing in Koster (1984) that disallows such a possibility.

195 2. The analysis presented here is motivated in detail in V e r h e i j e n

(1983).

3. For ease of exposition, the index sets of yourself (generic) and oneself have b e e n left out. For an approach to those index sets, see V e r h e i j e n (1983: chapter VI).

References AHO, A., J.HOPCROFT and J.ULLMAN 1983

D a t a Structures and Algorithms, Reading (Mass.), Addison-Wesley

BACH, E. and B.PARTEE 1980 Anaphora and Semantic Structure, in J.Kreiman and A . O j e d a (eds.) Pronouns and Anaphora, Chicago Linguitic Society, p.1-28 CHOMSKY, N. 1965

Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, Canbridge

(Mass.), M I T Press

CHOMSKY, N. 1981 Lectures on Government and Binding, Dordrecht, Foris FARKAS, D., D.FLICKINGER, G.GAZDAR, W.LADUSAW, A.OJEDA, J.PINKHAM, G.PULLUM and P.SELLS 1983 Some Revisions to the Theory of Features and Feature Instantiation, in Proceedings of the ICOT workshop o n Non-Transformational Grammars, Tokyo, Institute for New Generation Computer Technology, p.11-13 GAZDAR, G. and I.A.SAG 1981 Passive and Reflexives in Phrase Structure Grammar, in J.Groenendijk, T.Janssen and M.Stokhof (eds.) Formal Methods in the Study of Natural Language, Amsterdam, Mathematical Centre Tracts, p.131-152 GAZDAR, G. and G.PULLUM 1982 Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar, Bloomington, Indiana University Linguistics Club KOSTER, J. 1984

On Binding and Control, in Linguistic Inquiry

15-3, p.417-459

VERHEIJEN, C.R. 1983 Reflexives and Intensifiers in Modern British English, Leiden, dissertation

Elseline

Vester

Latin relative clauses and the notion of specificity* 1. Introduction In Latin, as in later Romance languages, relative clauses may have their predicates in the indicative or in the subjunctive mood. The difference is that the indicative (ind) is used in a normal relative clause (RC), but the subjunctive (subj) gives some extra value to the clause. The translation is seldom problematic. Consider the examples (1) - ( 3 ) : (1)

(deus) qui omnem mundum regit (the-god) who whole universe rule-3-sg-ind '(the god) who rules the whole universe' Cic.Rep.6,13 ea est Romana gens quae victa quiescere nesciat one is Roman race that defeated to-be-still knows-not-3-sg-subj ' the Roman race is one that knows not how to be still when defeated Liv.9,3,12 amant te omnes mulieres, qui sis tam pulcher love-3-pl you all the-women who are-2-sg-subj so handsome 'all the women love you, since you are so handsome' , PI.Mil.59

(2)

(3)

As far as the RCs with a subj mood are concerned ((2) and (3)), that in (2) has what is traditionally called a consecutive value, while the clause in (3) has a causal value . Especially because a RC with a subj mood is open to various translations - though not in all contexts - a number of scholars have tried to discover one or two general values. In this paper I shall show that the subj mood in RCs corresponds with two different values, one of which will be d i s c u ® ed more extensively. Before discussing these two values I will consider whether a classification of NPs based on definiteness or restrictiveness of Attributes is relevant to the ind vs. subj opposition.

2. Restrictive vs. non-restrictive Although the restrictive vs. non-restrictive opposition is relevant to the description of NPs with a RC Attribute, students of Latin agree that this opposition does not coincide with the ind vs. subj opposition.(Lavency 1981: 455; Lehmann 1984: 156; Touratier 1980: 342f). This may be illustrated by the following examples: (4) a

b

(5) a

hostes qui fugiunt non sunt timendi enemies who fly-3-pl-ind not are-3-pl to-be-feared 'enemies who fly are not to be feared' hostes qui fugerunt non sunt timendi the-enemies who fled-3-pl-ind 'the enemies, who fled, are not to be feared' cum eo hoste res est qui nec bonam nec malam ferre with that enemy the-case is-3-sg who neither good nor bad bear fortunam possit fortune can-3-sg-subj 'we have to deal with an enemy who can bear neither good fortune

198 nor bad' Liv.27,14,1 barbari dissipati sunt , quibus duces the-barbarians were-thrown-into-confusion-3-pl who-dat commanders non essent not were-3-pl-subj 'the barbarians were thrown into confusion, because they had no commanders' Liv.7,24,8

b

The RCs in (4 a-b) are both in the ind mood; nevertheless (4 a) will normally be interpreted as a restrictive RC, whereas in (4 b) a non-restrictive reading is at least possible. The RCs in (5 a-b), on the other hand, are in the subj mood; yet the RC in (5 a) is restrictive and the RC in (5 b) is non-restrictive. It will be clear from these examples that restrictiveness as such is not related to the ind vs. subj opposition. Still, I do believe that the value of a subj in a restrictive RC differs from its value in a non-restrictive RC; therefore I consider the distinction as such to be relevant to the description of the subj in RCs.

3. Definiteness A feature which plays an important part in the description of NPs is definiteness. It could, therefore, be useful to consider whether this feature has any relevance at all to the ind vs. subj opposition. In accordance with Dik (1978:61) it may be stated that 'by means of a definite term the Speaker expresses the fact that he acts on the presupposition that the Addressee can identify the particular intended referent(s) of the term in question; by using an indefinite term the Speaker expresses the fact that he does not act on this presupposition'. In languages which use articles the kind of article, definite or indefinite, indicates the definiteness of the NP, although not all terms which behave as (in)definite terms have an overt (in)definiteness marker. Latin has, as will be known, no articles, yet usually it is not difficult to decide whether a NP is used as a definite or an indefinite term. Example (4 b) is a sentence with a definite NP(noun), and therefore with a non-restrictive RC, and so is (6): the two nouns have referents known from the context. (6)

aurum sumpsit quod servis daret the-gold took-3-sg which the-slaves-dat gave-3-sg-subj 'the gold he took to give to the slaves' Cic.Cael.51

Both the ind mood (in (4 b)) and the subj mood (in (6)) occur in this kind of RC. Especially in the case of NPs with a restrictive Attribute, however, it is not always easy to know whether the NP is definite or not: (7 a) is clearly definite, since a demonstrative pronoun is used, (7 b) is probably definite and (7 c) is probably indefinite: (7) a b

c

illi qui absunt those who are-absent-3-pl-ind 'those absent' Cic.Cat.4,21 eum ipsum , qui fraudandi causa latitet he-acc himself who to-cheat-gen for-the-sake-of be-in-hiding-3-sg-subj invitum de praedio detrudi vetat against-his-will from property to-be-ejected forbids-3-sg 'even the man who keeps out of the way with fraudulent intent cannot be ejected from his property against his will' Cic.Quinct.84 ista sententia ea est quae amicos non parat that policy one is-3-sg which friends-acc not win-3-sg-ind 'that is a policy that does not win men friends' Liv.9,3,12

199 The examples show that there is no clear parallellism between the definite vs. indefinite and ind vs. subj oppositions. 4. The distribution of RCs As stated in section 2 it seems useful to assume two different values for the subj mood in RCs depending on their occurrence within restrictive or non-restrictive RCs. Before I discuss this point any further, I want to compare the distribution of RCs with the distribution of adjectives and participles which show-a similar syntactic behaviour. Cf. also Fugier (1973: 105ff). The syntactic functions which can be fulfilled by adjectives and by participles are: Head of a NP, restrictive and nog-restrictive Attribute, Praedicativum (exx.(8 a-c)), and Subject Complement . (8) a b c

Galli laeti ad castra pergunt the Gauls cheerful to the-camp make-their-way-3-pl 'the Gauls cheerfully make their way to the camp' puer flens abiit the-boy weeping went-away-3-sg 'the boy went away weeping' Aristides patria pulsus Lacedaemonem fugit Aristides from-the-country expelled to-Sparta fled-3-sg 'when Aristides was expelled from his country he fled to Sparta'

Let us now consider the distribution of RCs. We have seen that a RC may function as a restrictive and as a non-restrictive Attribute. An example of a RC which is itself Head of the NP (an 'autonomous' RC) is (9 a); an example of a RC as a Subject Complement is (9 b): (9) a

b

qui diligebant hunc , illi favebant who were-devoted this-one-acc, that-one-dat favoured-3-pl 'all who were devoted to this one, favoured the other one' Cic.Q.Rosc.29 ego sum qui nullius vim plus valere volui quam I am who nobody-gen violence-acc more to-prevail wanted-1-sg than honestum otium honourable-acc peace-acc 'I am he who desired that no autocrat's violence should prevail over peace with honour' Cic.Fam.5,21,2

On account of the parallellism of adjectives, participles and RCs the possibility of a RC occurring in the function Praedicativum cannot be ruled out. In fact I agree with Lavency that a RC which is not restrictive has the function Praedicativum, if the subj mood is used. An example is (3): (3)

amant te omnes mulieres, qui sis tam pulcher

The semantic interpretation of this type of RC is dependent upon context and situation, in the same way as that of a participle with the function Praedicativum. Cf. Vester (1983: 121ff). The distribution of adjectives, participles and RCs is given in Fig.l. I shall not dwell on the relation between Praedicativum and subj mood, but will restrict myself to the subj mood in restrictive RCs.

200 Fig.l The distribution of adjectives, participles and RCs adjective

participle

RC

Head of the NP

boni 'the good

vieti 'the vanquished'

ex.(9 a)

Attribute restr.

puer flens Galli laeti 'the cheérful Gauls' 'the weeping boy'

ex.(4 a)

non-restr.

Galli laeti puer flens 'the,cheerfui.Gauls' 'the,weeping,boy'

ex.(4 b)

Praedicativum

ex.(8 a)

exx.(8 b-c)

ex.(3) subj

Subject Compi.

puer est bonus 'the boy is good'

rosa est florens 'the rose is flowering'

ex.(9 b)

5. Specificity In examples (2) and (5 a) we hare seen restrictive RCs with a subj mood. Especially for this type of subj a number of terms are used such as categorising, defining, qualifying, determining etc., all of which indicate that qualities or features of a referent are emphasized by the subj RC, rather than the identifiability of one specific referent. I would like to suggest that this type of RC occurs in a non-specific NP and that the subj is the marker of non-specifity of the NP. I prefer the term non-specific to any other one, since it is a term which is useful for NPs as such, and is not especially developed for the description of one use of the subj mood. Note that the term is often used to describe the subj in RCs in Romance languages (Harris 1978:216; Rivero 1975:34). As is well-known, the example in (10) (10)

John wants to marry a Norwegian

has a specific reading - one specific girl, who happens to be Norwegian and a non-specific reading - any girl as long as she is Norwegian. I use the term specific or non-specific for both definite and indefinite NPs (cf. e.g. Jackendoff 1971 and Lehmann 1984: 259f), although this is not always done (e.g. Hawkins 1978: 203ff, who uses specific/non-specific only for indefinite NPs). One of the reasons for this is, as I have illustrated in section 3, that in Latin the difference between definite and indefinite NPs is not always clear. As is also well-known, there are certain contexts in which NPs can be ambiguous as to specificity, or in which only specific or non-specific NPs are possible (Jackendoff 1971). The rest of this paper is devoted to a discussion of some of the relevant Latin contexts and the occurrence of subj RCs within them.

6. NPs with a demonstrative pronoun and a RC It is to be expected that NPs which contain a demonstrative ptonoun are specific, since the value of the demonstratives, which imply the existence of an identifiable referent, is in contradiction with the feature non-specific (cf. Hawkins 1978: 152). This means that NPs with a demonstrative pronoun and a restrictive RC will always be specific and the RC, consequently, is always expected to have the ind mood. This is indeed the case; we only find sentences such as (7 a): (7) a

illi qui absunt

201 W h e n a NP occurs w i t h a demonstrative pronoun and a subj RC, the RC is not restrictive, but has the function of a Praedicativum. An example is (11): (11)

iste , qui aliquanto plus cogitasset , dixit he(=Verres), who a-good-deal more had-in-his-mind-3-sg-subj, said-3-sg 'Verres, who had a good deal more than that in his mind, said...' Cic.Ver.1,140

7. NPs w i t h an indefinite pronoun and a RC Reasoning along the same lines, the use of indefinite pronouns in NPs w i t h a RC is instructive. As a matter of fact, Latin has two indefinite pronouns w h i c h differ from each other in that the one, quidam ('a certain'), has the feature specific, and the other, aliquis ('an arbitrary, any'), the feature non-specific. Cf. Lyons (1977,11: 759) and Orlandini (1983: 232f). In keeping with our hypothesis about the subj mood in restrictive RCs we would expect a NP with a restrictive RC and quidam never to have a subj, unless for some other reason (cf. note 1), and a NP with a restrictive RC and aliquis always to have a subj. This is confirmed by the data: (12) a emit aliquid , quod multo pluris esset bought-3-sg something that m u c h more-worth was-3-sg-subj 'he was buying something that would be w o r t h m u c h more' Cic.Flac.91 b est quiddam , quod ita dicet , ut... is-3-sg a-certain-thing, which in-such-a-way shall-say-3-sg-ind, that 'there is one thing, w h i c h he shall say in such a way that...' Cic.Ver.3,223

8. Autonomous RCs If the hypothesis about the subj as a marker of non-specificity holds true, it has to be valid for autonomous RCs or RCs functioning as Head of a NP as well. This seems to be the case, both for real autonomous RCs (exx.(13 a-b)) and for semi-autonomous RCs with a form of the pronoun jis (exx.(14 a-b)). In such cases I assume that the occurrence of a specific caseform of is^ serves to indicate the function of the whole NP within the sentence. Cf. Lehmann (1984: 308ff) and Touratier (1980: 139ff). (13) a b

(14) a

b

(=(9 a)) qui diligebant hunc, illi favebant qui accuset , non deerit who accuses-3-sg-subj, not will-be-no-lack-3-sg 'there will be no lack of men to accuse them' Cic.S.Rosc.91 pervellem adessent ei , qui adfuerant I-should-want were-present-3-pl those, who were-present-3-pl-ind antea before 'I should be very glad to have those present who were present before' Cic.Ver.2,72 ei , qui hunc accuset , possim ignoscere he-dat, who he-acc accuses-3-sg-subj I-could to-pardon 'I could pardon one who accuses him' Cic.S.Rosc.55

In (13 a) and (14 a) the RCs are specific NPs, and have the ind mood; in (13 b) and (14 b) the RCs have the subj mood and the NPs have no specific reference.

202 9. RCs in the function Subject Complement I will briefly discuss one last context in which RCs both w i t h an ind and with a subj may occur. The difference is again due to the presence or absence of the feature specific. Consider (15 a-b): (15) a

b

tu es is , qui me tuis sententiis saepissime you are-2-sg the-one who me-acc your vote-abl repeatedly ornasti complimented-2-sg-ind ' for you are the m a n who has so repeatedly complimented me in recording your vote' Cic. Fam.15,4,11 domus est quae nulli mearum villarum the-house is-3-sg which no-one-dat my-gen villas-gen cedat is-second-to-3-sg-subj 'my house here is as comfortable as any of my villas' Cic.Fam.6,18,5

In both sentences the RCs (with or without the pronoun is) have the function of Subject Complement. In (15 a) both Subject and Subject Complement have a specific referent and these referents are identical; moreover, the RC has the ind mood on account of the specific reference. In (15 b) the Subject Complement predicates something about the rereferent indicated by the Subject, the Subject Complement itself has no specific referent, and the RC has the subj mood. Lyons (1977,1: 185) calls these types of sentences equative (=(15 a)) and Predicative (=(15 b)). Compare also a similar difference between the D u t c h examples in (16 a) and (16 b): (16) a b

mijn zusje is de dokter my sister is the doctor m i j n zusje is dokter my sister is a doctor

(equative) (predicative)

10. Conclusion In this paper I have tried to show that there are two types of RCs w i t h a subj mood: restrictive and non-restrictive RCs. In RCs which are not restrictive the subj is a marker of the function Praedicativum; in the restrictive RCs the subj indicates that the NP is non-specific. I have illustrated the relevance of specificity with the help of some contexts which give an indication about presence or absence of the feature specific. It may be concluded that in Latin specificity is a relevant feature at least for NPs which contain a RC. Consequently, in a model such as Functional Grammar (Dik 1978) specificity has to be included as a term operator.

Notes *

This paper is part of research project no. LETT/83/9, Free University, Amsterdam

1. I will not discuss RCs w i t h a subj mood w h i c h can be explained in another way, such as subordinate clauses in indirect specch, w h i c h are always in the subj mood, and clauses in which the subj mood is caused by so-called attraction, i.e. the RC is a subordinate clause within another subordinate clause with a subj etc. Kuhner-Stegmann II: 199ff.

203 2. For the function Praedicativum see Pinkster 1984: 179ff. 3. I can not go into the problem that not all adjectives and participles occur in all these different functions. Especially participles do not occur very often as Subject Complement, although it is not excluded. 4. Presented in a lecture given at the University of Amsterdam in 1984.

References DIK, S.C. 1978 Functional Grammar, Amsterdam, North-Holland FUGIER, H. 1973 L'apposition en Latin, in La Linguistique 9,97-113 HARRIS, M. 1978 The evolution of French syntax. A comparative approach, London, Longman HAWKINS, J.A. 1978 Definiteness and Indefiniteness, London, Croom Helm JACKENDOFF, R.S. 1971 Modal Structure in Semantic Representation, in Linguistic Inquiry 2,479-514 KÜHNER, R.- C.STEGMANN 1912 Ausfuhrliche Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache II, Satzlehre 2 vols, Hannover (repr. Darmstadt, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft 1962, abbrev. Kuhner-Stegmann) LAVENCY, M. 1981 La proposition relative du Latin classique, in Antiquité Classique 50, 445468 CHR. LEHMANN, 1984 Der Relativsatz, Tubingen, Gunter Narr LYONS, J. 1977 Semantics, 2 vols, Cambridge, U.P. ORLANDINI, A. 1983 Une Analyse semantique et pragmatique des pronoms indéfinis en Latin, in H.Pinkster, Latin Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, Amsterdam, Benjamins, 229-240 PINKSTER, H. 1984 Latijnse Syntaxis en Semantiek, Amsterdam, Gruner RIVERO, M.-L. 1975 Referential properties of Spanish noun-phrases, in Language 51, 32-48 TOURATIER, CHR. 1980 La relative, essai de théorie syntaxique, Paris, Klincksieck VESTER, E. 1983 Instrument and Manner Expressions in Latin, Assen, Van Gorcum

Jip Wester

Language technology as linguistics: A phonological case study of Dutch spelling 0. Introduction Recent work on the construction of text-to-speech systems has shown that grapheme-to-phoneme grammars can be very fruitfully modelled after theoretical generative phonologies. The major technological advantages of the phonological approach to grapheme-phoneme work have been explicated e.g. in Hertz (1979, 1982), Kerkhoff et al. (1984), and Wester (1984). The present paper will try to establish a major non-technological reason for this 'applied phonology' to work along theoretical lines. It will be argued that a theory-based version of a text-to-speech rule system can function as a restrictive, and non-trivial theory of the formal relation between spelling and speech, and, more generally, harbors the promise of a scientific theory of the formal properties of human secondary language systems (as opposed to the primary language systems which are the usual object of research in generative grammar). The structure of this paper is as follows. In the first section we will elaborate on the theoretical parallel for applied phonology, focussing on the relation between the 'deep structure component' and the 'rule component' of the grammar, and on the notion of 'linear rule ordering'. In the second section we will sketch an interesting problem for a formal theory of Dutch spelling, and offer an analysis of the phenomena presented, on the basis of an applied phonology of Dutch. In the third section some potential wider implications of this (type of) analysis will be indicated.* 1. From spelling to deep structure: a rewrite component The grapheme-phoneme enterprise can to a large extent be viewed as 'normal phonology', basically because the problem for the applied grammarian can quite naturally be defined as follows: what should the phonological component of a language look like if we would take the orthography of that language to be the relevant 'underlying form'? This same definition, however, also reveals what seems to be a fundamental difference between theoretical and applied phonology: applied phonology, working from standard orthography, has an a priori fixation of its input structure, whereas theoretical phonology has not. Applied phonology thus seems to lack a possibility which is essential to normal phonology: the possibility of theorizing about its input, in search of the most elegant and insightful co-operation of the deep structure component and the rule component, together constituting the phonology of the language. At second glance, however, this difference appears to be less dramatic. If we adopt the modular generative approach, applied phonology allows for deep structure manipulation as well, via a logically necessary 'mapping phase' at the first stage of the grammar. In its most elementary form, the 'mapping phase' is fully implicit in the grammar, and merely constitutes the working strategy that the mapping of graphemes onto deep structure phonemes will be regarded as 1:1. That is to say, the spellingcharacters will be assumed to correspond in a one-to-one fashion to the phonemes traditionally symbolized by the same typographical characters. It should be clear, however, that there is no a priori reason to take this

206 traditional parallellism as linguistically significant. Rather, on the basis of the 'non-phonetic' complexity of many spelling systems, one would expect the linguistically significant mapping to be less obvious in terms of traditional symbolism, and more straightforward in terms of the linguistic 'behaviour' of the graphemes in the text-to-speech process. In other words, one would expect a series of explicit base rules at the beginning of the grammar, which specify the most useful grapheme-to-deep-structure-phoneme correspondences. These base rules rewrite the letter-string into the most efficient input to the phonological rule component. A very elementary example of such a base rule in several Indo-European languages is, of course, the mapping of the grapheme a: onto the deep structure phonemestring /ks/, by the simple rewrite rule (1). (1)

x

ks

In Dutch applied phonology for example, the generalization expressed by this rule is needed at several levels of the grammar. Not only does rule (1) eliminate the need of an extra and very ad hoc 'phoneme' /x/, it also produces the necessary input for several phonological rules of the spelling-grammar (Wester 1984). In a similar vein, a second important task for the Dutch rewrite component is solving the problem of 'logical ambiguity' in vowel sequences in spelling. The Dutch spelling system has a number of digraphs and trigraphs for long vowels and diphthongs, which might be captured by the set of schematic rewrite rules of (2). The trees over the grapheme sequences indicate their 'constituent-hood' in terms of letter-to-sound relationships. 1) [ +VOC ] . [ +VOC ]. •*• [ +VOC ] . [ +VOC ] .

6)

au

A au

2)

oei

/K •* oei

7)

ou

A ou

3)

ei

A •* ei

8)

oe

• Plli nikkha 'gold ornement' Skr. akgi Plli akkhi 'eye' Many analyses have been proposed to account for this change, but they are all unsatisfactory insofar as none of them has been able to explain why the change, s ^ h, naturally entails the gemination of the stop. It is the objective of our paper to study the relation between aspiration and gemination, on the basis of data from the phonology of Sanskrit, Ancient Greek, Andalu cian Spanish and Modern Icelandic. The results of this crosslinguistic survey will provide the clue for a proper analysis of the Pali facts. 2. The development of intervocalic consonant clusters in Pali In Pali, non-homorganic consonant clusters are virtually nonexistent. Both morpheme-internally and across morpheme boundaries the only possible combinations of consonants are the following: nasal + homorganic stop stop + homorganic aspirate geminates The Pili constraints on consonant clusters result from a number of diachronic changes, which thoroughly altered the phonotactics of Indie, in which nonhomorganic consonants could freely combine into clusters. Combinations of nonidentical consonants were eliminated in the history of Pali by one of the following processes: (1)

Vowel epenthesis 0.1. sneha Pili vaj ra + tikgija ->plakga ->-

(2)

sineha vaj ira tikhina pilakkhu

'affection' 'diamond thunder' 'sharp' 'name of tree'

Place assimilation (persistent) 0.1. ar|ka -¡- Pali anka 'hook' paqka ->par)ka A 'five' amra amba « ambra) 'mango' syandana ->sandana 'running' mantra -> manta 'saying (subst.)'

(3)

Complete assimilation 0.1. rajna

->. Pali ranna

'king, (instr. sg.)'

214 mukti svapna sldvala sakya takra nimna ramya kilbiga bilva Irya bhavya -y

mutti soppa saddala sakka takka ninna ramma kibbisa billa ayya bhabba

'relief' 'sleep' 'grassy' 'possible, capable 'whey' 'low-lying' 'graceful' 'sin' 'a fruit' ' favorable ' 'in condition to'

Traditionally, the direction of complete assimilation is explained by referring to the degree of sonority of the individual consonants forming the cluster. Thus Geiger states: "Sie {= assimilation, L.W., B.H. ] erfolgt in der Weise, dass der Konsonant von geringerer Widerstandskraft sich dem Konsonanten von stärkerer Widerstandskraft angleicht. Die Widerstandskraft nimmt ab in der Reihenfolge Mutae - Zischlaute - Nasale - 1, v, y, r. ... Wo Muta mit Muta oder Nasal mit Nasal verbunden ist, assimiliert sich der erste Konsonant dem zweiten" (1916: 63). So, if the consonants are of unequal sonority, assimilation proceeds from the stronger to the weaker; if the consonants are of equal sonority it is regressive. Obviously convinced by Geiger's description of complete assimilation, Hankamer and Aissen (1974) used the Pali facts to launch an attack against the distinctive feature system as proposed by Chomsky and Halle in The Sound Pattern of English (1968). More specifically, Hankamer and Aissen blamed the 'standard' phonological theory for not being capable of expressing phonological processes which depend on hierarchical relations among phonological classes. According to them, the changes which affected intervocalic consonant clusters in the history of Pali represent a process which can be adequately stated only by referring to the hierarchical relation among classes of consonants, expressed in terms of their relative sonority. Given the hierarchy (4)

stops 1

s 2

nasals 3

1 v 4 5

y 6

r 7

vowels 8

the process of complete assimilation can be stated by the rule (5)

[ m son ]

> [Ot V ] %

[ ^

s

° n ] where 7 > m

2

>n

In Wetzels and Hermans (forthcoming) Geiger's analysis, and thereby Hankamer and Aissen's proposal, which is based on that analysis, has been strongly challenged. With regard to the historical facts the reasons for their dissatisfaction with the proposed description can be summarized as follows: a. It is only through a number of ad hoc decisions in determining the rank of the various consonants on the sonority hierarchy that rule (5) reaches a relative degree of observational adequacy. What is surprising about the sonority hierarchy stated in (4) is that 1 and r are defined as constituting different natural classes. Moreover, no independent motivation is given for the different rankings of v_ and I n other words, what is the independent motivation for not having one class of liquids and one class of glides, just as we have one class of stops, of sibilants and of nasals? This is especially surprising in the light of the fact that in the history of Pili original 1 could be replaced by r, and vice versa: 0.1. pari ->• Pili pali or pari 'around' and 0.1.

215 kila ->• Plli kira (particle). Likewise, Pali v often goes back to Indie Pali 2 and vice versa: 0.1. ayudha -»-Pali avudha 'weapon' and 0.1. dava daya 'garden1. This strongly suggests that in the history of Pili liquids and glides functioned as natural classes. b.

Combinations of dental stop + dental nasal are exceptions to rule (5) and are argued away in an unconvincing manner (cf. Hankamer and Aissen, 1974: 135). For example, 0.1. nudna Pali nunna 'removed', not *nudda as predicted by (5).

d.

No explanation is given for the fact that homorganic nasal + stop sequences do not participate in the process of complete assimilation (cf. examples given in (2)).

The essential claim made by Wetzels and Hermans is that sonority considerations belong to the subcomponent of the phonology where the notion 'well-formed syllable' is defined. Therefore, the changes that Hankamer and Aissen present as a rule, such as (5), should instead be stated as a change in syllable structure. Indeed, a restatement of the changes affecting consonant clusters in Pali in terms of syllable structure can adequately account for the facts, whereas Hankamer and Aissen's deficient proposal could not. The real generalization underlying complete assimilation seems to be the following: (6)

An intervocalic sequence C C^ changes into C.C. if word-initial cluster, it changes into C^C^ if C j ^ word-initial cluster

a Possible not a possible

With regard to the syllabification of consonant groups in Sanskrit, Varma states: "The most general rule is that the first member of the consonant-group will belong to the preceding vowel: thus pitre will be divided as pit/re and not pi/tre, mukta- will be divided muk/ta and not mu/kta" (1929: 62). Therefore, at one point in the history of Pali the following words had the syllable structure indicated below: 0 (7)

0

a

a

a

A

a

A A e v e e v

A c c v c c v

A e v e e v

mI uNk It !i

sM v aI pInI a I

I nIaI nI iIr a

a

a

/ K /I v v e e v aV IrIy Ia

The changes in syllable structure which occurred subsequently can be formally stated as follows:

(8)

Resyllabification

V

C,

(9)

Coda deletion

V^C

C^

V

condition: is a possible word-initial cluster

;

t ] Rule (8) will create ambisyllabic consonants in structures where the resyllabification condition is met:

ifîrrt fft'ft s v a p n a

b i l v a

b

a v y à

216

Since £11, lv and are possible word-initial clusters in Sanskrit (cf. e.g. Skr. lvinati 'to go'; Skr. pni 'the braided hair of Siva'; Skr. vyadhi 'illness'), £, 1 and v are made ambisyllabic. The structure~^j/ triggers a rule of consonant doubling, which,^if Vogel (1982: 69) is right, might be achieved by a universal principle . Whenever rule (8) is inapplicable, rule (9) comes into action and deletes a coda consonant, as in (11).

(li)

a a A \ / \ c v c c v

a a A \ A c v c c v

a a v\ yA v c c v

a a / N yl c v c c v

m u k t i

n i m n a

a r y a

n u d n a

11111

11111

nil

m i l

As predicted by the universal spreading conventions elaborated in Clements and Keyser (1984-), the C-slot vacated by Coda deletion will be filled by a contiguous matrix containing the feature [ + consonantal ], yielding mutti, ninna, ayya, nunna. In the foregoing analysis the only rule which refers to sonority — o n the assumption that the Sanskrit syllable-structure constraints evaluate possible onsets in terms of specific sonority requirements holding between adjacent consonants— is a rule of resyllabification. All other rules or mechanisms involved in generating the phonetic outputs are stated without any reference to sonority. Direct evidence for the correctness of the present analysis is provided by its being able to offer a solution that is not marred by the weaknesses formulated in a and b above: the sequences kt, mn, and dn are impossible onsets in Sanskrit. No ad hoc decision needs to be taken to guarantee the dominancy of jr ovgr r, and the fact that dn yields nn instead of dd is equally predicted . Moreover, a rather hybrid rule like the one proposed by Hankamer and Aissen can be dispensed with.

3. The evolution of sibilant + stop and stop + sibilant clusters Let us turn next to the main topic of this study, which concerns the evolution of Indie sibilant + stop and stop + sibilant sequences. Consider the following changes: (a)

sibilant + oral stop 0.1. asti puspa nisko

(b)

(12) (c)

•*• -»-*•

'he is' 'flowes' ' gold ornament'

Pali akkhi acchi accharâ kucchita

'eye' 'nymph' 'contemptuous'

oral stop + sibilant 0.1. aksi apsaras kutsita

sibilant + nasal stop 0.1. asman trsnâ slesman

(d)

Pâli atthi puppha nikkha

nasal stop + sibilant 0.1. triiisat

'stone' 'thirst' 'slime'

Pili ammhan tannha semmha

-*•

lO

Pali tiüisa [tisa]

'put to proof'

217

mi-maA-sa-ti

->-

w vlmaitisati [ vimasati]

Whereas combinations of sibilant and liquids and sibilant and glides develop according to the principles in the preceding section, the examples in (12) show that a different process affects sibilant and stop clusters. The following analysis, taken from Junghare (1979: 124) illustrates the traditional way of accounting for these data:

s-softening (13) metathesis h-assimilation

as+ti ah+ti at+hi at+thi [ atthi ]

'he is'

The evolution of consonant clusters containing a sibilant is quite similar in outcome to the evolution of consonant^clusters in general. Since we can safely assume^tjiat a sequence of the type CC is the necessary phonetic realization of a C C phonological sequence, genuine geminates are again created. However, there is something particular about the mechanism by which these geminates have come about. The geminate has all the phonetic characteristics of the original stop, except for the aspiration of the first element. One way to account for the aspiration consists of positing a rule of s-softening prior to gemination, as proposed by Junghare in (13) above. What would remain unexplained,however, is why the change ^ > h has the same effect on the neighbouring consonant as the rule of coda-deletion given in (9). Stated differently, it seems that h functions as an empty C-slot, which can be linked to an adjacent consonant. That this is a typical characteristic of h will be shown on the basis of a cross-linguistic survey, which we will undertake next.

4. h as an empty C Clements (1980) proposed that laryngeal glides be specified for no features other than glottal features. Phonetically this is motivated by the observation that h and 7. always pick up their supralaryngeal features from the vowels that flank them. In autosegmental phonology, which provides multilinear phonological representations, this property of laryngeal glides can be elegantly expressed by recognizing an independent laryngeal tier, as in the following representation of the English word hat:

(14)

\

Clements furthermore explored the phonological consequences of representations such as (14) on the basis of Klamath data. One of the implications of (14) is that we expect to find languages where laryngeal features are set afloat and show up in a position which is different from their original location. This happens precisely in Ancient Greek, where h, originating from wordinternal s, can show up at the beginning of a word as in hemai< *ehmai < ^ *esmai 'I sit'. This process can be given the following formal representation :

218

t\

/N,

(15) V C C V C

—

>

yf\

Ni

c vY cc V C C

h

4

IN.

e s m a i

e m a i

(a)

a

° C V c

Ve m a i

(b)

(c)

After s has b e e n turned into Ji, it is set afloat (15b) and finally docked on a C-slot introduced by rule (16):

(16) 0

»

C /

__ _h — ' V ~

Representations like (15) also predict that h functions as an empty C-slot w i t h respect to the spreading of the features contained within the melodic core. The marked option seems to be that C is linked to a contiguous v o w e l matrix, operation w h i c h needs to be achieved by rule. The unmarked o p t i o n consists of spreading the consonantal matrix, w h i c h is achieved through the application of universal spreading conventions. As a matter of fact, sonorant + h and h + sonorant sequences yield long consonants in the Aeolic dialects, and long vowels in all other dialects of Ancient Greek. *ekrinsa Lesb/Thess ekrinna, elsewhere ekrina CI 71 *bolsa *esmi _ *selasna

" " "

bolll " emmi " selanna, Ion/Att

Since p r e - and postsonorant hs following series of changes: emensa ->. emenha esmi _>. ehmi

bola emi selaenae

!l judged' 'council' 'I am' 'moon'

are treated alike, one might suspect the

emehna

+ e m e n a w emenna emi csj emmi

In the non-Aeolic dialects the timing point occupied by h is absorbed by the tautosyllabic vowel, w i t h concomitant deaspiration. In Lesbian and Thess., the unmarked option has b e e n chosen by the lengthening of the sonorant, which subsequently loses its aspiration by a demarking rule. Just as in Plli, we observe that ¿ - s o f t e n i n g triggers the lengthening of a contiguous segment. Whereas in Ancient Greek geminated sonorants lost their aspiration, Sanskrit, w h i c h has a similar process of consonant doubling, preserves the aspiration. The following example is taken from A l l e n (1972: 93). When, in the sentence phonology of Sanskrit, a word-final stop is followed by an initial h, the stop is voiced. The voicing of word-final stops is part of an independently motivated process of Sandhi voicing w h i c h turns all word-final consonants into their voiced counterparts w h e n the next word begins w i t h a voiced segment. The same change affects word-initial h, realised as a gesture of b r e a t h y voice. More often, however, the consonant is doubled, as in the following examples tat+hi sat+hota + anustup+hi _>. vak+hutah ^

taddhi saddhoti anustubbhi vigghutah

Allen's explanation of this process is especially revealing: "There w o u l d

219 be a tendency for the biconsonantal sequences £ - h etc. to be reduced to uniconsonantal g h etc. w i t h h here forming simply the aspirated component of the stop. The biconsonantal structure of the sequence w o u l d then be preserved ... by gemination" (1972: 93). Indeed, it seems that h functions as an empty C-slot, as formally rendered below: . + spr g l , + voice -

(20) C V C + I I I - " t a t

- 1

C V • i

[ taddhi]

The same phenomenon w h i c h occurred in Ancient Greek and Sanskrit can be observed in the Andalucian variant of Spanish. Compare the following pairs of words (taken from Whithley (1978: 119)): Castilian Sg estupido la (Iota la f ó t a la o uca (21) la pata la téla la kóla la mano la n o t a

Andalucian Pi

sg

estúpiSos laz |ìótas laz Votas laz S u c a s las patas las telas las kólas laz manos laz notas

tttúpiSo la Pota la y ó t a la 5 uca la pàta la téla la kola la mano la nòta

Pi sttúpi^D(h) l a f $ 0 tae (h) laxxátae(h) la0Qúcae (h) lappátae(h) lattélae(h) lakkólae (h) laBmána(h) laBnátae(h)

'stupid' 'the boot' 'the drop' 'the shower' 'the paw! 'the ¿loth' 'the tail' 'the hand' 'the grade'

Andalucian has a rule w h i c h turns s into h in coda position. A g a i n we see that word-internally as well as across w o r d boundaries the position occupied by h is absorbed by the contiguous consonant w h i c h turns into a voiceless geminate. One last illustration of this phenomenon is taken from the analysis of Icelandic preaspiration, along the lines of Hermans (1985). The following alternations, illustrated by the infinitive, past tense and perfect participle forms of the verb klaerda 'to dress' are typical for Icelandic: Infinitive (22) klae&a [ klai&a]

Past tense

Perf. participle

klaeddi

klaett

[ klaittj]

'to dress'

[ klaiht ]

Given the lexical representation as indicated in (23), the phonetic forms can be derived as in (24): root (23) c c V C I l A I k l a i t

perf.

part. suff. h I C I t

past suff. C V J I ti

220 inf.

past

perf.

(24) C C V C I I A I k l a i t

+ V I a

C C V C M A I k l a i t

1) Obligatory contour principle

+ CV ll ti

h C C V C + C I 1 A l I k l a i t t h

e

V ^

2) C_—> [+cont]/V

6

k

S x ' 't

—

The output of the perf. part., which is phonetically realized as [klaiht] , representing an instance of the well-known Icelandic preaspiration, is especially interesting for our discussion of the Plli aspirated geminate. In Trainsson (1978) and Hermans (in press) convincing evidence is given for the underlying representation of phonetically preaspirated consonant s as aspirated geminates. For example, Hermans gives the following lexical representations for phonetically preaspirated t and k:

h (25)

ty

V

X C

h V ,C

f

[y]

C | ixi

5. The analysis of the Pili aspirated geminates On the basis of the cross-linguistic data surveyed in the preceding section

221

we conclude that h functions as a n empty C. Moreover, examples have b e e n given to show that the location of the empty C w i t h respect to the geminating consonant is irrelevant; both right- and leftward association is possible. If we now return to the evolution of Pali clusters containing sibilants, we w o u l d predict geminated consonants as a result of s softening. Let us first formulate the rule w h i c h turns s into h as follows. h

h

(28) C I

^ _ '

I%

[+ cons]

In (28) the mirror image notation is used to guarantee that s is changed into h b o t h on the right and o n the left of a [+ consonantal] element. The specification [+ consonantal] assures that s be preserved next to liquids and glides, w h i c h could b o t h be syllabic in Indie, and w h i c h are categorized by Indian grammarians as vocalic elements. Moreover, it is assumed that s was inherently aspirated in Indie. The relevance of that assumption becomes evident if we consider the changes occurring in the words given in (12b), where we see that £ , t and k (optionally) are turned into c c (= [tts]) before s. Given the phonological representation of s as proposed in (28) these changes can be accounted for by the following rules: (29) Assimilation

p, t, k

(30) Affrication C

^ C

t /

=[tts

s

]

If we make rule (30) precede the s-deletion rule (28), s as represented in (30) will not be affected because it is part of a branching structure and does not, therefore, fit the structural description of (28). Moreover, the assumption about s's being inherently aspirated assures that the geminated affricate resulting from (30) shows up as an aspirate. At this point the way is free for an extremely simple analysis of the evolution of Pali stop + sibilant and sibilant + stop clusters. We assume that the following formalization provides a n accurate account of the historical events:

a s t i

a k s i

h

h

s deletion

I V C C V I I tI i a

I 1 1 1i a k

spreading

V C C V

V C [ V

V C C V

h

V

i

i yk !i

a

222 h

convention (26)

A V C C V IVI

h

A V C C IV

Notice that the only language-particular fact about the analysis given above is the rule si ) h. Once this change is triggered, the universal spreading conventions and convention (26) yield automatically aspirated geminates. 6. Conclusion The universal spreading conventions proposed by Clements and Keyser (1984) predict that the deletion of phonetic material contained in the melodic core, in the absence of any other rule reassociating or deleting the vacated C-slot, leads to the reassociation of that slot with a contiguous [+consonantal] matrix. In this study we have shown that the simplest analysis of the evolution of nonhomorganic clusters in the history of Pali consists of a rule of coda deletion, triggering compensatory consonant lengthening, and a rule of ambisyllabic consonant assignment, creating geminates as the result of resyllabification. The exceptional behavior of clusters containing a sibilant, which evolved into geminated aspirated stops, has been shown to result from natural and fully understandable changes, especially if the traditional description, which treats these changes as instances of metathesis followed by feature copying, is abandoned. The essential change rather amounts to a process of £ deletion. The lengthening of the consonant is a structure-preserving change, which assures the stability of the original syllable weight.

Notes 1. Also, according to Hankamer and Aissen, in synchronic Pali, similar rules account for morphophonological alternations. Synchronically, however, many irregularities exist. It is questionable therefore whether exactly the same rules should be part of the synchronic phonology of Pali. See Wetzels and Hermans (forthcoming) for details. 2. The y notation is introduced to allow quantification over all features of a segment (cf. Hankamer and Aissen (1974: 139)). The mirror-image notation should be interpreted in such a way that the first expansion is in the order indicated by the environment bar. This assures regressive assimilation when the consonants involved are equal in sonority (cf. Hankamer and Aissen (1974: 136)). 3. According to Vogel (1982: 69) an ambisyllabic consonant is interpreted as a double consonant in languages with a long-short contrast in consonants. This is the case of both historical and synchronic Pali. 4. How homorganic nasal + stop sequences fit into the proposed analysis is shown in Wetzels and Hermans (forthcoming). 5. Although geminated aspirated nasal stops are written in Plli as simple aspirated nasal stops, we follow Junghare (1979: 125), who gives convincing evidence that they are in fact geminates. 6. For a detailed analysis of the Ancient Greek data see Wetzels (in press).

223

References ALLEN, W.S. 1972 Sandhl, the theoretical, phonetic and historical bases of word-junction in Sanskrit, The Hague, Paris: M o u t o n CHOMSKY, N. and M. H A L L E 1968 The sound pattern of English, New York: Harper and Row CLEMENTS, G.N. 1980 The representation of laryngeal glides, paper presented at Nels XI, November 7, 1980 (Cornell University) CLEMENTS, G.N. and S.J. KEYSER 1984 CV - phonology: a generative theory of the syllable, Cambridge MIT Press

(Mass.):

GEIGER, W. 1916 Pili; Literatur und Sprache, Strassburg: Verlag v o n Karl J. Trübner HANKAMER, J. and J. AISSEN 1974 The sonority hierarchy, in A. Bruck et al. (eds.) Papers from the parasession on natural phonology, Chicago Linguistic Society HERMANS, B. (in press) The relation between aspiration and preaspiration in Icelandic, in H. v a n der Hülst en N. Smith (eds.) Advances in nonlinear phonology, Dordrecht: Foris JUNGHARE, J.Y. 1979 Topics in Pali historical phonology, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass TRAINSSON, H. 1978 On the phonology of Icelandic preaspiration, in Nordic Journal of Linguistics 1, p. 3-54 VARMA, S. 1929 Critical studies in the Phonetic Observations of Indian Grammarians, London: The Royal Asiatic Society VOGEL, I. 1982 L a sillaba come u n i t à fonologica, Bologna:

Zanichelli

WETZELS, W.L. (in press) Phonological timing in Ancient Greek, in W.L. Wetzels and E. Sezer (eds.) Studies in compensatory lengthening, Dordrecht: Foris WETZELS, W.L. and B. HERMANS _ (forthcoming) From Indie to Pali; the development of intervocalic consonant clusters WHITLEY, M.S. 1978 Generative phonology workbook, The University of Wisconsin Press

Melchior D. de Wolff

Irony and lexical meaning 0. Introduction From time to time, it is claimed in the philosophical and linguistic literature that a fair number of the concepts developed in the paradigm of rhetoric, such as metaphor, oxymoron, and irony, are from the ontological point of view of a problematic and highly indeterminate status. The study of metaphor provides a nice example: there has been lively and widespread disagreement among philosophers of language about the question whether metaphorical language as suoh exists and whether it is recognizable as an independent phenomenon, or not. On the latter, nominalist, assumption, the word metaphor is merely a cover term applicable to a vast set of mutually related but different entities and since termina sine theoria nihil valent it is for the scientific enterprise to determine the proper intension of the concept in relation to its extension. The idea that verbal metaphors constitute a natural class, clearly distinguishable from other sets of possible expressions, has, I think, turned out to be of no practical importance to the problem of what actually is at stake in uttering a metaphor. The same goes for irony. It has been suggested (e.g. in Groeben and Scheele, 1984: 3) that virtually all sentences of a natural language are capable of being interpreted as ironical, and it seems bad essentialism to maintain that irony exists out there, in some world W, as has often and sometimes surreptitiously been argued in studies devoted to the subject. It will not be my intention, in this paper, to make a contribution to the perennial debate about the "essence" of irony. Rather than attempting a new definition, or engaging in a struggle with the "enigma" of irony, I will endeavour to demonstrate how the specific regularities of a small subset of the expressions generally identified as being ironical can be captured, in a not altogether trivial way, by making use of a number of ideas concerning the problem of word meaning. The set of utterances this paper purports to explain contains those mentioned lexical items (i.e. mentioned units as opposed to their used counterparts) that are in written language, and at times in oral, indicated by quotation marks. Since the days of Tarski (1956: 156 ff), we have known that the sentence 'it is snowing' is true if, and only if, it is snowing. However, if one says 'it is "snowing"', one conveys that the proposition is at least not quite true, or even false, for some particular reason. This paper consists of two parts. The first section will be devoted to a brief discussion of the shortcomings and deficiencies from which descriptions ("theories") of irony have so far been suffering. For reasons of space, this discussion will be limited to an overview of classical rhetoric tradition, speech act theory, and pragmatic theory respectively. It will be argued that neither the notion of implied negation, nor the assumption of reinterpretation or cooperative conversational principles provide a sufficient and insightful explanation of the way in which ironical utterances convey their specific meaning. Furthermore, I will consider the significance of the suggestions due to Sperber and Wilson (1981) who emphasized for the first time the mention-like character of ironical expressions. Adopting this idea, I will show in the subsequent sections how a versatile model of word meaning provides an explanatory account of the "quotation marks" cases of ironic language. In this connection, something will be said about Hilary Putnam's notion of stereotype, and about the arguments concerning lexical analysis

226 as they have been incorporated in Jackendoff's (1983) valuable considerations in the area of word meaning. 1.

On the Significance of Previous Accounts

1.1. Rhetoric The common trait to be observed in standard analyses of irony reaches back to the framework of classical rhetoric. A case in point is the definition in Quintilian's Institutio Oratoria which describes edpooveun as an expression which "diversum ei quod dicit intellectum petit" [asks to be understood differently from what it says] (VI, 2, 15). Although the notion of diversion is far from unequivocal, it appears to have a striking number of adherents. In this respect the essentialist circumlocutions {per genus proximum et differentias specifiaas) of dictionaries are exemplary (cf. for instance the Concise Oxford Dictionary in which irony is defined as an "expression of ones meaning by language of opposite or different tendency [...]"). The difficulty with this class of definitions is that they only tell us what kind of things are called ironical, rather than specify which relevant principles are involved. In many respects they also apply to lies or euphemistic expressions. It is evident, however, that the rhetorical traditions do not pretend to explain what irony really is. To condemn them on methodological grounds is, therefore, too severe a sentence. 1.2. Speech Act Theory The problem of irony has been addressed in what is customarily designated as the Speech Act framework. In a couple of papers by John Searle (1979a, 1979b) and Alice Davison (1975), an impilicit rule of interpretation is assumed to underlie the computation of irony. This rule is believed to compel the hearer of an ironical utterance to reinterpret it in terms of the opposite of its literal meaning. Searle introduces the notions of 'sentence meaning' and 'utterance meaning', in order to account for the contrast between underlying and superficial interpretations or readings. In the case of irony, the speaker is assumed to arrive at utterance meaning "by going through sentence meaning and then doubling back to the opposite of sentence meaning" (Searle 1979a: 115). It is unclear, however, how the nature of this opposite, or the implied contradictory proposition. is to be comprehended, and by what means the "doubling back" is carried out. The idea that ironic language involves negation appears to be endowed with a peculiar survival capacity. Working with a semantic-feature analysis, Amante(1975: 29ff), whose dissertation is founded on the priciples of traditional Speech Act Theory, seeks to elucidate the case in which a man (+ HUMAN, + MALE, + ADULT) is ironically referred to as a "boy" (- ADULT, ceteris paribus). Surely, one of the differences between man and boy centers around the valency of the marker ADULT. Amante claims the ironic tenor in such an utterance to inhere in the 'misinterpretation' of that semantic component. However, what does this explain? In effect, calling a man a "boy" implies metaphorical usage, and in many ways Amante 's story resembles the analysis of metaphors in terms of semantic-feature exchange which was common several years ago. Referring to a man in the above way does not necessarily constitute an ironic meaning and the appropriate explanation seems to be looked for elsewhere. Central to Amante's conception of irony is the idea of so-called negative producing devices, i.e. those resources that help to convey the opposite meaning of a literal form. With reference to Edward Klima's (1964) NEG component, a rather troublesome notion in itself, Amante con-

227 tends that "the principle of absorption of the NEG component [a belief which was hold in those olden times with respect to lexical items such as seldom and not often - MdW] helps to explain why most readers can very clearly understand the unstated negative meaning present in verbal irony" (1975: 71). Thanks to this negative particle absorption the meaning of practically each word can be understood in terms of its opposite. Perhaps this assumption was imaginable in the early 1960s. Today's syntactic theory, however, will exclude such impressionistic and belief-defying analyses: negations apply directly to the basic form of a sentence and no rule involves the hidden attachment of invisible negative elements to surface structure units. In consideration of the well-known methodological restriction of descriptive adequacy, as defined by Chomsky (1964: 28), a theoretical account of irony should draw a sharp demarcation line between ironical utterances on the one hand, and different, though maybe closely related, utterances on the other: an exhaustive description of ironic speech acts, and an explanation of the procedures involved, will be seriously deficient if it also applies to completely different types of expressions. On this argument, the analyses presented in Speech Act Theory are in no way adequate enough to explain all intricacies of ironic phrasing. 1.3. Pragmatic Theory An approach which seems prima facie a promising one is embodied in the pragmatic theory of H.P. Grice (1967, 1975, 1978). To give only a short characterization: on the assumption of a cooperative principle, a set of conversational maxims is proposed which govern ordinary discourse in terms of the quantity, quality, the relevance of what is said, and the manner in which something is said. If one of these maxims is violated ("flouted"), an utterance will not necessarily be inappropriate or deficient. Rather, the hearer will reconstruct the speaker's message by means of the rules of an independently motivated category of non-conventional implicatures, so-called conversational implicatures, in order to consider it as relevant as possible. By means of this reconstructive participation, the hearer is, in most cases, wholly capable to infer what is meant, implied and suggested, and to determine the relevant presuppositions and implications. On Grice's account, ironical language involves the violation of the maxim of quality ("do not say what you believe to be false"): if one says 'X is a fine friend', one conversationally implies the opposite of that utterance. What we have seen, however, is a kind of pseudo-explanation. If we ask how people are able to remember, it is rather silly to answer that people possess a memory device. Gravitation is not elucidated by saying that bodies have a natural tendency to fall in a certain direction. In no way, Grice explains how the contradictory meaning of an ironical utterance, its presupposition, is arrived at. Besides, it is not altogether clear why an ironical utterance should be interpreted in terms of the contradiction of its literal meaning. As Harnish (1976: 340ff) properly observes, to say ironically of someone that he is 'a fine friend' not necessarily entails that the person referred to is an enemy, rival or villain. Moreover, as has correctly been argued by Sperber and Wilson (1981), the above analysis does not demonstrate how the implicatures that determine the understanding of ironical sentences are related to those implicatures involved in more standard conversational patterns. But this should not mean that these axioms should be cancelled from pragmatic theory altogether. As Jackendoff (1983: 155f) has pointed out, it is conceivable that Grice 's maxims of conversation be recast in terms of rules incorporated in a system of preference semantics. These rules, in turn, should express the derivation of quasi-determinate results, i.e. the most fitting interpretations, from unreliable and inconsistent data (cf. also Fass and Wilks, 1983, on preference rule systems for artificial intelligence manipulation of metaphors).

228 The final contribution to be discussed here is the paper by Sperber and Wilson (1981) which I have already been referring to. Their crucial assumption can be paraphrased as follows: whereas utterances normally involve reference to what is being referred to, or an attitude towards what is being referred to, ironical utterances involve reference to the utterance itself and express an attitude towards the content or proposition of that utterance. This distinction, drawn from the logical difference between the use of an expression (making an assertion, asking a question, etc.) and the mention of a propostition, provides the outlines of an elegant descriptive system: rather than comitting itself to the contradictoriness conception, it engages in an account of the echoic character of ironic expressions. In doing so, Sperber and Wilson advance a neat conceptual distinction between irony and the other types of "false" speech (e.g. lies) which are, unlike irony, neither informative, nor relevant. 1.4. Synopsis It is obvious, from the above, that analyses of irony depending on the postulation of oppositional meanings, antonymic patterns, or negation, sooner or later will meet with serious difficulties. Although on superficial consideration many instances of ironical language might contain an implicit form of negation, there is a whole range of ironical expressions which simply can't be interpreted in terms of a contradictory meaning. Consider, for example, the utterance 'What a nice dress.' In the context of a negatory judgement this sentence can reflect a virtually immense number of propositions: 'What an awful dress, what a bad, nauseating, horrible, ugly, bourgeois, middle-class, vulgar, worn out, disastrous, etc. dress'. In ordinary parlance, nice has an enormous number of possible antonyms (this example makes clear that many cases of irony cannot be understood by virtue of antonyms sensu stricto), and it seems hopelessly futile to look for a substitution mechanism that governs all possible interpretations. Nevertheless, it is clear that the ironic value of the above example is due to the word nice: the utterance 'What an electric dress' makes no sense at all and is clearly not ironical. Sir Karl Popper, writing about Hegel in The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945: 27), refers at a given moment to Schopenhauer, who is introduced with the sentence "Schopenhauer who had the pleasure of knowing Hegel personally ...". Unquestionably, the ironical tenor, here, centers on the word pleasure, but to explain this instance by suggesting that we are to negate pleasure and to interpret it in terms of an antonym (misfortune, rotten luck or whatever) is just too simple ana platitudinous. In the two above examples we have seen an ironical voice concentrated in the words nice dress and pleasure. It is apparent, however, that this ironical tone undoubtedly disappears when we speak of misfortune or an awful dress. Obviously, the ironical tenor has something to do with a value contained in the lexical meanings of nice and pleasure. In order to account for the peculiarity of these terms, or other terms in related examples, I will first have something to say about word meaning in general. 2. The Problem of Lexical Meaning The past few years have seen some interesting and spectacular departures from the traditional static and rigid conceptions of word meaning. Semantic-feature analyses as introduced by Katz and Fodor (1963) are all but extinct, but their appropriateness is no longer taken for granted. In the following subsections (2.1. and 2.2.), I will briefly consider two different (though in some way related) viewpoints concerning lexical meaning: Putnam's stereotype approach on the one hand, and, on the other, Jackendoff's theory of variable conditions.

229 2.1. Putnam's Theory of Stereotypes Roughly, Putnam's views are based on the conviction that semantic theory, with respect to the description of lexical meaning, appears to be in a rather distressing position, which is due to the fact that it generally gives the specification of a lexical meaning in terms of conjunctions of properties, concepts, or semantic features. The lexicon of a natural language contains, on the one hand, baohelor—type words whose meanings derive from a categorical (yes-no) definition. On the other hand, there is an enormous collection of lexical elements (e.g. lemon) whose definitions are non-categorically formulated. If bachelors get married, they no longer remain bachelors, but a lemon with a blue peel will still be a lemon. Traditionally, however, lemon has been analysed like bachelor: as the set of criteria that specify all properties of lemons. On this analysis, the statement that a lemon possesses such a specific property constitutes an analytic truth. But why? Suppose, one day it turns out that lemons actually are blue by nature. Of course, there are also yellow lemons, but these are, in fact, rare failures, an extinct species, and not "real" lemons in the first place. Yet we will still refer to these queer yellow specimens by means of the term lemon, although the statement 'lemons are yellow' no longer counts as an analytic truth. In case cats turn out to be robots remotely controlled from Mars (the example in Putnam, 1970), we still refer to them using the natural-kind term oat. The same goes for what have been called artificial-kind terms (cf. Salmon, 1984: 42). If pencils appeared to be intelligent self-generating organisms (Putnam, 1975a: 244ff), they would still be called pencils, although it would be absurd to say that they are artificial pencils. Obviously, the complexities of words like lemon, oat, or penoil cannot be captured in an analytic definition. The alternative Putnam puts forward centers around the notion of stereotype. In this connection, we cannot do better than give an extensive quotation from Putnam's (1970: 148) argument vis a vis the term tiger: [...] there is somehow associated with the word 'tiger' a theory, not the actual theory we believe about tigers, which is very complex, but an oversimplified theory which describes a, so to speak, tiger stereotype. It describes [...] a normal member of the natural kind. It is not necessary that we believe this theory, though in the case of 'tiger' we do so. But it is necessary that we be aware that this theory is associated with the word: if our stereotype of a tiger ever changes, then the word 'tiger' will have changed its meaning [italics in original]. It is important to notice that Putnam makes a claim about the linguistic competence of the individual speaker: to know the meaning of a term is subject to the requirement of knowing the stereotype (or the core faots contained in the stereotype) associated with that term.

2.2. Semantic Conditions and Preference Rules: Jackendoff While Putnam (1975a: 227) maintains that "'meanings' just ain't in the head", Jackendoff (1983, 1985) assumes that word meanings are expression:» of conceptual structure. The world (i.e. the real world) consists of objects, reflected in the human brain as mental information about OBJECTS. However, what this information really is about, i.e. the reference of linguistic expressions, is not the objects of the real world, but the #objects# of the world as it is projected by conceptual structure. The real world consists, inter alia, of ceramic products, the world as we organize it, the projected world, contains a great deal of different categories like cups, vases, bowls, etc. (but cf. Labov 1973).

230

As Jackendoff argues, for any adequate theory of word meaning it does not suffice to decompose lexical units into semantic primitives (the necessary and sufficient conditions of Katz and Fodor, 1963). The analysis of colour terms is a case in point: once the marker COLOUR has been removed from red, nothing further is left to be decomposed. Invoking the mathematical notion of fuzzy sets, the members of which are non-categorically defined in terms of degree or probability, Jackendoff, therefore, postulates a second, less rigid type of semantic conditions: aentrality conditions specifying focal or central values for continiously variable attributes. It is worth noticing that fuzziness is an essential property of word meaning, and not so much a deficiency of language. As yet, it is unclear, however, in which way these aspects of lexical meaning can be adequately controlled in the theory. Referring to Wittgenstein's (1953) well-known observation of the family resemblances within the word game ("board-games, card-games, ball-games, Olympic games, and so on"), Jackendoff introduces a third category, typicality conditions, describing the typical characteristics of the objects denoted by a term, such as stripedness in tigers (notice the correspondences with Putnam's theory of stereotypes). These conditions are subject to exceptions, and, hence, vairable: a tiger with no stripes on it may still be a tiger. Tolerating variable conditions does not mean for a semantic theory to lack specific constraints on the application of word meanings. Following suggestions from the psychology of perception (Max Wertheimer's principles of reinforcement and conflict), Jackendoff postulates a system of preference rules in which the semantic conditions are embedded. These rules should indicate relative preferences among logically possible alternatives: "Items that satisfy all or most conditions receive the most stable analyses and are judged more stereotypical instances of the concept in question. Items that fail more conditions receive less stable analyses; depending on what other analyses are possible, such items may be judged dubious instances or noninstances of the concept" (1983: 140). The psychological reality of preference rules, the way the human brain computes word meanings, is, of course, surrounded by a veil of mystery. 3. Word Meaning, Quotation Marks, and Irony The traditional accounts of irony indicate, albeit in a rough and very implicit way, the fact that ironical language involves a relational comparison between systems of values. On the assumption that irony is a case of mention (as we have seen in Sperber and Wilson, 1981) we can describe this comparison in the following way. In referring to an object, an ironical utterance measures first of all the inherent values of this object and compares them, secondly, to a specific set of values that are presupposed. The important thing is that the outcome of this comparison does not turn out to the advantage of the object in question: there is no one-to-one relationship between the values distinguished in the object in question and the values contained in the conceptual idea of what such an object should really look like. In this respect, ironical expressions fully differ from normal matter-of-fact statements in which there is no question about the relation between the objects themselves and the presuppositions or expectations we have about them. To say non-ironically (i.e. without any "negative" intention) 'What a nice dress' means to describe the dress in question as corresponding to what has presupposedly been contained in the meaning of the word dress: the utterance confirms the dress to be perfectly fulfilling the intension of its concept. In value logic, or axioloy, as developed in Hartman (1967), an axiom of value has been formulated in order te define the concept of "goodness". "Good" is defined as a logical term, "namely as the predicate of any subject said to fulfill the intension of its concept" (Hartman, 1967: 153). Thus, to say declaratively of something

231 (i.e. to use the expression) that 'it is a good dress', or 'a nice dress' means, first, that the thing in question is what it is (a member of the set of dresses D which has as its intension 4>d) , second, that 4>d contains a virtually infite set of predicates {a, 3, y, 6, ...} which describe all properties for every member of D, and, third, that every predicate of 4>