Syntax of Verbal Affixation (Linguistische Arbeiten) 3484302313, 9783484302310

Citation preview

Linguistische Arbeiten

231

Hera asgegeben von Hans Altmann, Herbert E. Brekle, Hans Jürgen Heringer, Chris tian Rohrer, Heinz Vater und Otmar Werner

Frank Drijkoningen

The Syntax of Verbal Affixation

Max Niemeyer Verlag Tübingen 1989

CIP-Titelaufnahme der Deutschen Bibliothek Drijkoningen, Frank : The syntax of verbal affixation / Frank Drijkoningen. - Tübingen : Niemeyer, 1989 (Linguistische Arbeiten ; 231) NE: GT ISBN 3-484-30231-3

ISSN 0344-6727

© Max Niemeyer Verlag, Tübingen 1989 Das Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlages unzulässig und strafbar. Das gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen, Übersetzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und die Einspeicherung und Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen. Printed in Germany. Druck: Weihert Druck-GmbH, Darmstadt.

Ac knowledgements

This monograph is a basically unchanged version of my doctoral dissertation, which I defended in Utrecht (The Netherlands) in november 1987. The research reported in the thesis had financially been made possible by the Netherlands Organization for Pure Scientific Research (Z.W.O.) by their acceptance of the project "French participle constructions" of the Linguistic Foundation (Stichting Taalwetenschap). I wish to thank here, first of all, Wiecher Zwanenburg, Ger de Haan and Aafke Hulk: Each of them contributed to the fulfillment of my thesis in his or her own enthusiastic and critical ways; without their support this monograph would not exist. Further, Henk van Riemsdijk and Ivonne Bordelois supported me throughout the project and participated in my thesis-committee, in which Henk Schultink and Henk Verkuyl made positive contributions as well. For linguistic advice, friendship, stimulating discussions, moral support, the correction of my English, and other activities surrounding my work, I wish to thank - in addition to the core mentioned above -: Peter Coopmans, Jan Don, Joke Dorrepaal, Bert-Jan Dijenborgh, Martin Everaert, Arnold Evers, Tilman Höhle, Riny Huybregts, Ans van Kemenade, Hans van de Koot, Steven Krauwer, Jan Odijk, Louis des Tombe, Frits Stuurman, Fred Weerman, and last but not least Coby Verheul.

Contents Acknowledgements Contents

v vii

0. 1.

1 5 5 6 6 7 9 10 11 11 12 12 13 20 20 20 25 26 29 36 38 39 40 41 51 54 55 56 60 60 66 71 71 72 80 81

Introduction The Framework 1. General background 2. An outline of the theory 1. The organization of the grammar 2. X-bar theory 3. Transformations 4. Projection Principles 5. Theta theory 6. Case theory 7. Empty categories 8. Binding theory 9. Definitionsandillustration 2. Morphology and INFLection 0. Introduction 1. The initial classification of syntactic affixes 2. Morphological generalities 1. Derivational morphology 2. Compound morphology 3. Inflectional morphology 4. X-bar properties 5. Questions concerning syntactic affixes 3. Present participles 1. Present participles in non-argument position 2. Present participles in argument position 3. Conclusion 4. Standard INFLection 1. Verbal and Prepositional INFLection 2. Present participles and TENSE 3. TENSE and CP 5. Conclusion to chapter 2 3. Levels of Syntactic Affixation 0. Introduction 1. Passive and perfective participles 2. Auxiliaries and licensing 1. Elements for a theory of auxiliaries

vii

1. Auxiliary theory 2. The status of the proposed theory 2. Licensing Verbal projections 3. Syntactic affixes and morphology 4. Nominalizations in English 5. Some remarks on syntactic compounding 6. Conclusion to chapter 3 4. Syntax and the Relations between V, I and C 0. Introduction 1. Extended chains as relevant for NP-movement 2. Extended chains as relevant for WH-movement 3. On the nature of extended chains 1. The definition of extended chains 2. Prepositional Phrases 3. Reconsidering the definition of extended chains 4. WH-islands 5. Superiority 6. Conclusion to chapter 4 5. Specifier-Head AGReement in IP and CP 0. Introduction 1. Verb-First 2. Deletions in CP 3. The Verb-Second parameter 4. On the informational surplus of root-C 5. INFL and Specifier-Head Agreement 6. Predication and Specifier-Head Agreement 7. Conclusion to chapter 5 6. Conclusion

81 91 94 99 106 112 116 118 118 119 122 132 133 135 136 142 145 147 150 150 152 154 159 161 165 173 175 177

Notes Chapter 0 Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapters

181 181 181 181 183 184 185

Bibliography

187

viii

0. Introduction

In this monograph we wish to present the results of research initially formulated as a project on French participle constructions. The following three underlined verb forms with some participial ending formed the starting point: (1)

(a)

past participle with passive value Jean a 6t6 tu6. John has been killed.

(b)

past participle with perfective value Jean est arrive". John has arrived.

(c)

present participle L'homme parlant quatre langues est venu. The man speaking four languages has come.

In traditional grammars these participial forms have often been described as "adjectival forms of the verb" (e.g. Grevisse (1969), p.566)). In the framework of transformational generative grammar which we adopt, such a characterisation is too vague and requires formalization. First of all, applying the notion "adjectival form of the verb" to the three participles in question obscures the differences among them. Second, the term "adjectival form of the verb" could also be given to deverbal adjectives like derivable (derivable). Third, which grammatical concept lies behind the notion "adjectival form of the verb"? And most importantly, how can the notion "adjectival form of the verb" be adequately formalized? This type of problems and questions will be addressed in this book. Confronted with the second objection formulated above, one is tempted to answer that the word dorivable is created in the lexicon and is hence formed by a different type of rule, a morphological rule, while the participles are created by syntactic rules. Formulated differently, the affix -able is a lexical affix, while the participial endings illustrate syntactic affixes. We fully agree with such a difference between lexical and syntactic affixes - which we will amply use and formalize. However, it should not be overlooked that -able and the

participial endings share morphological properties: they are all suffixes - a generalization we also wish to express. Within the formal framework of generative grammar, essentially two types of approaches to the notion "adjectival form of the verb" have been proposed. On the basis of the approach of Jackendoff (1977) this notion can be formalized as "adjectival affixes attached to different levels of the verbal structure"; the associated process is called deverbalization. On the basis of the approach in Chomsky (1981) the notion can be formalized as "a category in between the verb and the adjective"; the associated process is referred to as neutralization. Both approaches agree that participial forms are some sort of dual forms. The difference of opinion concerns the formalism: neutralization essentially entails a new category with mixed properties, while the deverbalization approach entails a complete change of category. There is no mixture but rather a verbal constituent up to a certain point and an adjectival constituent onwards. We will defend the approach of Jackendoff in this monograph for reasons to be made clear below. Starting with the present participle, it has been noted in traditional grammars that it is some sort of alternative for a tensed verb, on the basis of the parallel in (2). (2)

(a)

L'homme parlant quatre langues est venu. The man speaking four languages has come,

(b)

L'homme qui parle quatre langues est venu. The man that speaks four languages has come.

Although Williams (1975) has convincingly shown that (2a) should not be transformationally derived from an underlying (2b), this does not mean that the present participle is not an alternative to the tensed verb. Following Rizzi (1982) and Reuland (1983) we will argue below that the present participle falls in the same class of affixes as the tensed verb, the class of elements called INFLection. The difference will be attributed to the categorial indication: following the approach of Jackendoff, the present participle instantiates an adjectival INFLection. A more elaborate comparison of tensed verbs, present participles and infinitives will lead us to a view in which all types of INFLections bear categorial indications. The differences between the different types will be shown to lie not only in their categorial indication, but also in their specifications with respect to TENSE. Whereas TENSE-bearing verbs may generally be supplemented by a specific class of complementizers, participles will be shown to be quite different. Within the syntactic structures defined in generative grammar, analyzing the present participle as an adjectivally specified INFLection entails that it is followed by a VP. Put in

other terms, INFLection is an affix adjoined to VP. From the theory defining syntactic structure it follows that there are two more levels within the verbal projection to which affixes may be adjoined. We will argue that past participles are attached lower than INFL and that the past participle with passive value is attached lower than the past participle with perfective value. In this way the notion "adjectival form of the verb" is formalized as the adjunction of adjectival affixes to the different syntactic projections of the verb. The unifying concept of "participle" is made visible via the natural class of the adjectival affixes which adjoin to syntactic verbal projections, while the differences among the participles follow from their difference in level of adjunction to the verbal projection. It will be shown that the theory of nominalizations lends additional support to the proposal that affixes attach to different levels of the verbal projection. Our proposals will lay the burden of the explanation of the syntactic behaviour of syntactic affixes on the affixes themselves rather than on the auxiliaries that may accompany them. More importantly, we will argue that auxiliaries are of secondary importance in that generalizations with respect to analytic and synthetic languages can only be captured in terms of affixation theory. Our proposal based on levels of affixation will be seen to conflict with standard assumptions concerning the position of the subject. For the theory of levels of affixation one would like to maintain that the subject is contained within the VP, while it has been standard - at least for French and English - to argue that the VP does not contain a subject. We will propose that in these languages, too, the subject is internal to the VP at the level of deep structure, and argue that the subject must move to its superficial position in order to satisfy a specific relation in the clause, called Specifier-Head Agreement in Chomsky (1986b). At this point several proposals start to interact. The proposal that INFLection is adjoined to a VP containing a subject needs the theory of NP-movement in order to move the subject to the superficial subject position. In Chomsky (1986b) this movement depends on a specific type of chain-formation; the chain depends on the relation between INFLection and the Verb, as well as on Specifier-Head Agreement. A more complete study of these relations will lead us to a specific view on NP-movement, WH-movement and their interaction with the relations proposed between INFLection and the Verb as well as with the relations proposed between INFLection and TENSE. We will deal, among other things, with the inversion phenomena in questions in Dutch, French and English and with the parameter that accounts for Dutch Verb-Second. The order of presentation in this introduction corresponds only globally to the structure of the book. In chapter 1 we will sketch the necessary syntactic theoretical background.

As we will first be concerned with syntactic affixes, we will start chapter 2 with a general classification of these elements. In order to be able to consider the difference between lexical and syntactic affixes and in order to be able to generalize their common properties afterwards, we will continue the chapter with an overview of morphology. The rest of chapter 2 is dedicated to the study of the present participle in relation to adjectives, verbs in general and to tensed verbs and infinitives in particular. Chapter 3 takes up the two other participles and presents our arguments against neutralization as well as our alternative in terms of levels of affixation. As the past participles are generally accompanied by auxiliaries, auxiliary theory is taken up next. After the discussion of the present participle and the two past participles, we will present our full theory and integrate it in the morphological theory of affixes. In the next section our theory will receive additional support from the theory of nominalizations, while the chapter ends with a brief section on syntactic compounds. In chapter 4 and 5 purely syntactic issues are addressed. In chapter 4 we will discuss the relation between INFLection and the Verb and follow Chomsky (1986b) in his argument that this relation is relevant for NP-movement. We will argue moreover that the relation between INFLection and TENSE in the COMPlementizer is relevant for WH-movement. These proposals in the field of movement theory both involve Specifier-Head Agreement, a relation which is crucial in accounting for the possibility of movement. The rest of the chapter is dedicated to the consequences of these proposals, and more in particular to the exact definition of the chains that are built. In chapter 5 the Specifier-Head Agreement relation is studied independently of movement. It will be parameterized in order to capture the differences between a number of languages, in particular Dutch, French, English and Italian. The rest of the chapter contains some remaining issues, such as the deletion rules we need, the exact trigger for Verbmovement to COMP and the difference between Specifier-Head Agreement and predication. Chapter 6 will summarize our proposals. The material we started to work on originally came from French. French will therefore be the dominant language in the exposition. Two other languages are regularly discussed as well: Dutch and English. They will have the function of confirming or discontinuing the generality and the parameterizability of our proposals. They will also be used if some specific argument cannot be illustrated on the basis of French data. For the illustration of several specific arguments other languages proved to be useful. With respect to the glosses, note that English examples without numbers are glosses. If an English example is numbered, it has its own status or, if it is combined with examples of e.g. French or Dutch, it has a dual function, example and gloss at the same time.'

1. The Framework

This monograph falls within the framework of transformational generative grammar, as it has gradually developed from Chomsky's Syntactic Structures (1957) via the contributions of a large number of adherents and via Lectures on Government and Binding (1981) towards the theory outlined in Barriers (1986b). In the first section we will sketch the leading ideas behind this theory. The second section explains a number of general principles and conditions of the framework we adopt.

1.1. General background

As opposed to, say, a monkey or a bee, every normal human is genetically equipped to learn a language. That is, from a biological point of view the human child has an innate capacity to learn a language, the language faculty. If no special circumstances prevent him from doing so, the child will gradually develop a grammar for the language he has come into contact with. For a linguist the learning process in itself is not overwhelmingly important: attention focuses on the grammar. However, the fact that the child comes to develop a complex grammar on the basis of limited, scattered and unselected material imposes a restriction: as the child manages astonishingly well to fulfill this task, we must assume that he did not start with nothing at all. Rather, the language faculty must supply him with some initial possibilities for structuring language material. In other words, some rough grammatical structure is present. This is generally called Universal Grammar. As there exists a rather large number of human natural languages on our globe, Universal Grammar must allow for variation next to the truly universal properties of language. In other words, Universal Grammar must allow for choices to be made. As the grammar of (a) language is the research field of the linguist, efforts are directed towards stating the properties of Universal Grammar, as well as those of the grammar of particular languages. In recent variants of the transformational theory, Universal Grammar contains a set of rules, principles and parameters and is highly modular in nature. Via the interaction of relatively simple principles and subtheories - modules - the complexity of linguistic data can

be accounted for. Inside these modules choices can be made - often referred to as the fixing of parameters. In the next section we will list a number of these rules, principles, conditions and parameters.

1.2. An outline of the theory

As a grammar is a device that accounts for the linguistic knowledge of a native speaker and as the native speaker has intuitions about facts relating to the phonology of his language, to its syntax and to its semantics, these three correspond to different components of the grammar. This type of modularity has generally been recognized from the start of linguistics: a sentence is a combination of sound, structure and meaning, in which each aspect can be studied independently of the others, while the aspects are combined and interact in the complete analysis of the sentence. Within traditional syntax, for example, one could make a distinction between a categorial analysis (X is a Noun, Z is a Verb) and a functional analysis (X is a subject, Z is a predicate). Within transformational syntax the modular concept has a much broader range. A number of subtheories have been proposed, each relatively simple and each covering a certain range of data and they all interact. In this way the complexity of the syntactic facts is explained by the interaction of several modules. In the next paragraphs we will discuss a number of these modules.

1.2.1. The organization of the grammar

We will assume that the grammar is basically organized as in (1). (1)

D-structure S-structure

D-structure and S-structure constitute two syntactic levels of representation. PF constitutes the level of phonological representation, Phonetic Form, and LF the level of semantic representation, Logical Form. The levels are connected: D-structure is connected to Sstructure by syntactic movement rules, S-structure is connected to the ultimate phonetic representation by deletion rules, stylistic rules and phonological rules, and S-structure is connected to logical form by rules interpreting specific classes of elements.

1.2.2. X-bar theory

X-bar theory defines the global characteristics of syntactic structure in that it determines and constrains the form of syntactic projections. A head (X) is the starting point for projections (X', XP) along the lines of (2). (2)

(a)

XP

>

SpecX'

(b)

X'

>

XCompl

"Spec" is an abbreviation for "specifier", a rather functional notion without categorial relevance here: in principle any category may occupy the specifier position. "Compl" is an abbreviation for "complement", again without categorial relevance. Once a structure has been generated and once lexical items have been inserted in this structure, we arrive at the level of D-structure. As X-head in (2) qualify the four major lexical categories, Verbs, Nouns, Adjectives and Prepositions. It is generally assumed that these categories can be analyzed in terms of features, as in (3): (3)

V N

Verb

+ -

Adjective

+ +

Noun

- +

Preposition

- -

Such a feature-system allows for generalizations: V and P generalize as [-N], N and P as [—V], A and N as [+N] and V and A as [+V]. V, A and N may generalize with respect to P

in that V, A and N are specified positively for at least one feature, while P has two negative values. In other words, P is the least lexical of these four. Besides these four lexical categories, there are two non-lexical categories which function inside X-bar theory, Inflection (abbreviated I or INFL with IP as its maximal projection) and Complementizer (abbreviated C or COMP with CP as its maximal projection). IP corresponds to S, and CP to S', cf. Chomsky (1986b). We will make a terminological distinction between AP, PP, NP and VP, which are the lexical maximal projections, and IP and CP, which are the non-lexical maximal projections. There is one other type of projection which does not completely conform to X-bar theory, the so-called small clauses. They involve a further projection of a lexical maximal projection, indicated by XP'.1 In Chomsky (1986b) a special relation between Specifier and Head is proposed, called Specifier-Head Agreement. This relation determines e.g. the choice of the article inside the NP (cf. (5) below) and, more indirectly, subject-verb agreement (via SpecifierHead Agreement in IP). Universally speaking the order of the elements in (2) is not fixed. For (2b) a parameter will be needed in order to distinguish French and English from Dutch, as illustrated in the case X=V: (4)

(a) (b) (c)

acheter un bouquin. een boek kopen. buy a book.

The parameter distinguishing head-initial from head-final languages makes the relevant distinction. On the other hand, (2a) does not give as many differences in these three languages, because specifiers precede heads, as illustrated in the case X=N: (5)

(a) (b) (c)

I'homme. de man. the man.

This entails that both levels of (2) are subject to parametric variation. Some low-level parametric variation must be allowed by the general scheme. In particular, specific categories must be permitted to deviate from the overall pattern. For example, Dutch has specifiers to the left and complements to the left too, but the complement-IP is to the right of C.

Also, a structure may involve more than one complement or elements like adjuncts that are not readily represented in the X-bar skeleton in (2). In order to avoid a situation in which the number of bars becomes underdetermined by the facts (cf. Stuurman (1985)), we will assume that the exact number is not really relevant, but that for syntax the lowest level, XO or X, and the maximal level, Xmax or XP, are relevant. The intermediate levels are neither minimal nor maximal: we will use X' for them. Similar to Muysken (1982) we adopt (6). (6)

X: XP:

Head Maximal projection

X [-max,+min] X [+max,-min]

X':

Intermediate projection

X [-max,-min]

1.2.3. Transformations

Transformations are the rules that move elements from their positions in D-structure to their positions in S-structure. All transformations should conform to the general format "Move a". In principle a may be any minimal or maximal projection. In other words, only minimal and maximal projections (X and XP) are visible for the rule "Move a". Both types of movement are constrained. First, there are conditions on the position to which the element in question may be moved (landing site theory). Second, there are conditions on the position from which the element is moved (an origin theory like the Empty Category Principle). And third, there are conditions on the distance between the origin and the landing site (a distance theory like Subjacency). Much recent research has been devoted to reducing the second type and the third type of conditions (e.g. Kayne (1984)). When an element is moved, it leaves behind a coindexed trace in the position in which it originates. Trace-theory allows the information stated at D-structure to be read off at the level of S-structure, but it also allows us to check the conditions on movement at some level of representation, often S-structure, but also LF. Consider then movement of X. It is conditioned by the Head-movement constraint, which globally states that a head X may only move to the position of a head Υ if Υ governs X. In terms of the landing site, an XO may only move to another XO position. In terms of the origin, the trace left behind must be "properly governed". In terms of the distance, X° and its trace may not be separated by any other maximal projection than the maximal projection of

the moved element. The type of "proper government" needed and the distance condition probably coincide. With respect to movement of XP, we will generally be concerned with only two types: "Move NP" and "Move WH". With respect to the landing site, the NP lands in an Aposition and the WH-element in an A-bar-position. Α-positions are the positions in which the base rules allow "arguments" to occur, while A-bar-positions are the other positions. A supplementary distinction can be made between Α-positions and theta-positions. Thetapositions are the positions to which Θ-roles like "agent", "theme", "goal" etc. are concretely assigned. All other positions are theta-bar positions. From this point of view, Α-positions are positions to which a Θ-role could in principle be assigned, in principle rather than in practice. With respect to the origin, the trace left behind must be "properly governed". The distance between the landing and the origin site is constrained by the theory of "barriers", which will be considered in paragraph 1.2.9., where we will also state the conditions under which an element is "properly governed" (the Empty Category Principle). In a theory of landing sites a distinction is often made between substitution and adjunction. Substitution is movement of an element to a position where the base-rules could base-generate it for independent reasons. Movement of a NP from object to subject position is a clear example: in subject position NPs may be independently generated. Adjunction does not conform to this property: adjunction creates new structure as it copies a node: for example [vp x [VP ]]· The base-rules create the lower VP, while the second VP is created by adjunction of x. The consequences of adjunction need special attention as to the question whether x is "inside" or "outside of VP. For this we refer to the definitions in paragraph 1.2.9..

1.2.4. Projection principles

The projection principle states informally that representations at each syntactic level are projected from the lexicon in that they observe the subcategorization properties of lexical items. In most cases this is information about the thematic grid of the verb in its relation to its complements. This is the standard projection principle. The extended projection principle essentially states that the specifier position of IP (or S) must be filled. In more general terms, it states that every clause must have a subject.

10

1.2.5. Theta theory

Each lexical entry has a number of Θ-roles associated with it, like "agent", "theme", "goal", "experiencer". These roles must be associated with elements in the syntactic structure and form the basis of the Θ-criterion. The Θ-criterion states that each argument bears one and only one Θ-role, and that each Θ-role is assigned to one and only one argument.

1.2.6. Case theory

The theory of abstract Case restricts the positions in which nominal constituents may occur. Every phonetically realized NP must and may bear exactly one Case. For a formal interpretation of Case theory, see Vergnaud (1985). We distinguish two types of abstract Case, inherent and structural. Inherent Case is assigned at D-structure and only appears on NPs with one of a number of specific Θ-roles. Structural Case is assigned at S-structure. Although there is some variation, at least nominative and accusative Case may be considered structural. V and P assign Case to their complements in a direct way, while N and A often assign Case via a Preposition. Nominative Case is assigned by TENSE, and genitive Case by nouns. Accusative Case is quite generally assigned by verbs, but in some languages P may assign it too. P generally assigns oblique Case. These Cases are abstract in the sense that they do not necessarily correspond to a morphological distinction. Case-theory, Θ-theory and movement interact, as illustrated here for NP-movement. Suppose some NP is at D-structure in a position to which no abstract Case is assigned. For Case reasons it must be moved to a position to which Case is assigned. In D-structure the NP has received a Θ-role, so in order for the ©-criterion not to be violated, the position to which the NP moves may not be a ©-position. For the landing site theory on the other hand, the landing site must be an Α-position. As a result, NP-movement is highly restricted.

11

1.2.7. Empty categories

There are several empty categories, that is elements without phonetic content. Chomsky (1982) distinguishes four, the trace of a moved NP, the trace of a moved WH, PRO and pro. These four can be distinguished in terms of the features [lanaphoric] and [±pronominal] in the following way: (11)

[anaph.] +

[pron.]

(a) (b)

NP-trace WH-trace

(c)

PRO

+

+

(d)

pro

-

+

The features refer to the binding theory sketched in 1.2.8.. The two types of traces generalize as being non-pronominal: in 1.2.9. we will discuss the ECP, to which these traces are subject. PRO is the element found in the subject position of infinitives, while pro is the non-lexical element in the Α-position of a language allowing subjects (or perhaps also objects) to be absent.

1.2.8. Binding theory

The features in (11) have consequences for the binding theory. Binding theory essentially regulates the links between several nominal elements. The features used for the empty categories are also used for the non-empty, lexical, categories, as in (12). (12)

[anaph.] (a) (b) (c)

anaphors pronouns lexical NP

+ -

[pron.] +

The binding theory depends on a general rule of coindexation, which assigns indices to the nominal constituents in a structure, and determines which elements may bear identical indices. If for some element there is no other element bearing the same index, that element is

12

free. An element is bound if that element bears the same index as some other element. Informally, then, an element marked [+anaph] must be bound in some restricted domain, an element marked [+pron] must be free in a similar restricted domain, but may be bound outside this domain. Elements having [-anaph,-pron] must be free in every domain, while elements having [+anaph,+pron] lead to contradictory domains. In a theory in which the domains are defined in terms of governing categories, the relevant element, PRO, may not be governed.

1.2.9. Definitions and illustration

In this paragraph we will give an illustration of a number of the modules discussed above, as well as a number of important formal definitions. We will gradually come to a more complete sketch of the "barriers" framework. Consider first the standard structure (13). (13)

IP/S

/\INFL' /\ VP INFL

NP

Jean TENSE John As an illustration of X-bar theory (cf. paragraph 1.2.2.), we have in this structure two heads, V and INFL, of which V is lexical and INFL non-lexical. V has a complement, a direct object NP. INFL has a complement, the VP, and a specifier, the subject NP. In the language under consideration complements occur to the right of the head and specifiers to the left. The two heads ultimately project to maximal projections, VP and IP. Specifier-Head Agreement in IP takes care of copying the features of the subject, so that INFL contains [TENSE + third person singular] in this example. As INFL is an affix, it will ultimately be related to the Verb, yielding the amalgamated element [V+TENSE+AGReement].

13

As an illustration of Case theory (cf. paragraph 1.2.6.), TENSE in (13) assigns nominative Case to the subject, while the verb assigns accusative Case to the object. These Cases are abstract in the sense that no morphological differences are visible in this case. As for Θ-theory (cf. paragraph 1.2.4.), in (13) the Verb has assigned the "theme" role to the object and the "agent" role to the subject. The projection principle (cf. paragraph 1.2.5.) globally states that this type of information may not get lost, in particular when one moves elements. The extended projection principle is somewhat more general in that it states that the subject must be present even in cases in which no Θ-role is assigned to this position. On the basis of the structure in (13), the definition of c-command given in (14) (cf. Reinhart (1976)) can be illustrated. (14)

a c-commands b iff a does not dominate b and every c (c a branching category) that dominates a dominates b.

Taking the NP-subject in (13) as a, it c-commands every element that is dominated by the first branching node, in (13) the IP, which therefore functions as c. As the IP dominates every other element of the clause, the NP-subject c-commands every element in this sentence: every other element may be b. However, as the IP dominates the NP-subject, a, the IP may not be b. If we would have started with the NP-object in (13), the first branching node is the VP, and hence only the Verb is c-commanded by the object. The definition of c-command is used in the binding theory (cf. paragraph 1.2.7. and 1.2.8.) for stating e.g. that the antecedent must c-command the anaphor. Taking reflexives to be illustrative for the anaphors, they must be bound within the clause by a c-commanding antecedent, cf. (15). (15)

(a)

Jeani si'est vu.

(b)

Johnj saw himselfi.

The reflexive is bound because it bears the same index as the subject and because the subject c-commands the object reflexive. In case the subject were reflexive and the object an ordinary noun bearing the same index, the structure would be ungrammatical because the antecedent would not c-command the reflexive, or, alternatively, because the element that needs to be free (the antecedent) would be bound by a c-commanding reflexive (cf. * Si'est vu Jean; / * Himselfi saw John;). If a change is made with respect to the element c in the definition of (14) one gets the definition of m-command, (16).2

14

(16)

a m-commands b iff a does not dominate b and every c (c a maximal projection) that dominates a dominates b.

The difference between the two types of command again can be illustrated on the basis of (13). Suppose we take INFL as a. Then INFL c-commands the VP, the verb and the NP object, but it doesn't c-command the subject, as INFL' functions as c. In the definition of mcommand however, c is the maximal projection, hence the IP. So INFL m-commands the subject. This could be useful for Case theory, as INFL needs to reach the subject in order to assign nominative Case to it. The two definitions (14) and (16) generalize in the concept of "command": command has as a general property that no limit is imposed on the distance of the element a with respect to the element b. As an illustration of this, both INFL and the NP subject command the NP object irrespective of the question whether c-command or m-command is used, and no importance is attached to the fact that a maximal projection, VP, intervenes. In this sense command differs from "government" which takes into account the maximal projections, which may function as "barriers" in a number of cases. Government, then, is more local than command, cf. the definition of Chomsky (1986b), (17). (17)

a governs b iff a m-commands b and there is no c, c a barrier for b, such that c excludes a.

That is, government is essentially m-command with no barriers. If we assume that in (13) the VP is a barrier, and thus c for the NP-object, b, then the NP-subject, a, does not govern the NP-object. Neither does INFL govern the NP-object. Only the verb governs the direct object. Crucial is, however, what counts as a barrier. Barrierhood is determined in the following way, cf. Chomsky (1986b): (18) (19)

c (c a maximal projection) is a Blocking Category for b iff c is not L-marked and c dominates b. c is a barrier for b iff (i) or (ii). (i) c immediately dominates d, d a BC for b;

(ii) c is a BC for b, c is not IP. Starting with (18), every maximal projection is taken into consideration. Hence, in (13) the maximal projections NP, VP and IP are potential Blocking Categories. They are BCs, that is

15

potential barriers, if they are not L-marked. L-marking is defined as in (20), and the notion of Θ-government which it uses is defined in (21). (20)

a L-marks b if a is a lexical category that Θ-governs b.

(21)

a Θ-govems b iff a is a zero-level category that Θ-marks b and a,b are sisters.

According to (21), the Verb, a zero-level category, Θ-governs the NP-object in (13). The Verb does not Θ-govern the NP-subject because this node is not its sister. Neither does INFL Θ-govern the subject, as it is not its sister either. One could differ of opinion as to whether INFL Θ-governs the VP, but this is irrelevant for the barrier system at this point3: the definition of (20) excludes INFL, because it is not lexical. According to (20) a Θ-governed maximal projection is L-marked if it is governed by a lexical category. Hence, in (13) the direct object is L-marked, while the VP and the subject are not. L-marking of IP depends on whether the clause is governed by V or not: if it is, then IP is L-marked; if it is not, it is not L-marked. According to (18) then, all maximal projections that are not L-marked are Blocking Categories. While (18) determines which maximal projections count as Blocking Categories, the potential barriers, (19) determines which of the EC's count as actual barriers. According to (19ii) every Blocking Category is a barrier, except IP. (19i) essentially states that maximal projections which dominate barriers become barriers too. The barriers theory is best illustrated with movement. While movement of a category across zero or one barrier is acceptable, the result of movement gets worse if movement is across two or more barriers. The notion of L-marking captures a number of conditions which were developed in order to explain the ungrammaticality of certain movements, in particular the subject condition and the adjunct condition, which both state that no element may be extracted out of a subject or an adjunct. On the other hand, extraction out of constructions in object position is quite generally allowed. Hence, L-marking is relevant for the following examples: (22)

(a)

* Quei [ Jean a-t-il lu un livre [pendant que tu regardais tj] ?

(b)

* Whati did [ John read a book [ while you looked at ti ]] ?

(c)

* Whati did [ [John's winning tj bother us]?

(d)

Quei [ disait-il [que Jean avait achete ti]]?

(e)

Whati did [ he say [ that John had bought tj]?

As the adjuncts and subjects in (22a/b/c) are not Θ-governed according to (21), they are not L-marked according to (20). Hence, they become Blocking Categories according to (18) and

16

barriers according to (19ii). As the movement has also crossed the IP of the higher clause, this IP becomes a barrier as well, according to (19i). Therefore, the moved element is separated from its trace by two barriers, a bad result. As the clause in object position in (22d/e) is Θ-governed according to (21), and therefore L-marked according to (20), it is not a Blocking Category according to (19) and therefore no barrier. As a consequence the higher IP is not a barrier either. Therefore, the moved element in (22d/e) is not separated from its trace by any barrier, a good result. With the examples in (22) we have illustrated some distance condition in the terminology of paragraph 1.2.3.. The standard distance condition is subjacency, which states that movement may cross at most one "bounding" node. Though bounding nodes are not equivalent to barriers, the line of argument is comparable: just as crossing two bounding nodes is prohibited by subjacency, a trace and an antecedent separated by two barriers is a bad result. Let us turn our attention now to the other condition that must be satisfied if elements are moved, that is the Empty Category Principle. The ECP restricts the positions in which traces may occur in the sense that traces must be properly governed. The ECP is formulated in (23):

(23) a properly governs b iff a Θ-governs or antecedent-governs b. Let us take up (13) again and add some structure, the CP, as in (24).

(24)

CP/S' Spec

C

NP

INFL'

AVP /\NP V

INFL

The direct object is Θ-governed, as we have seen above. Therefore moving the direct object leaves a trace which is properly governed, as in the passive example (25).

17

(25)

(a) (b)

Jeaiii a 6t6 tuo ti. Johni has been killed ti.

The same is true if WH-objects are moved to the specifier position of the CP in (24), with the result in (26). (26)

(a) (b)

Quii as-tu vu tj? Who, did you see ti?

However, as subjects and adjuncts are not Θ-govemed, they need another type of proper government, called antecedent-government, illustrated here for subjects in embedded clauses. (27)

Quij pensez-vous ti qui ti est venu. Who do you think has come.

The trace in subject position is antecedent-governed by the complementizer. While the complementizer C generally contains que (that), it has undergone a change into qui in order to be able to function as the antecedent-governor for the trace. We will discuss these facts more extensively in chapter 4. Let us now return to the barriers theory in order to sketch how it functions with respect to WH-movement in (26)-(27). Moving the direct object in (26) directly to the specifier position of CP entails that both the VP and the IP are crossed. As the VP is a barrier, IP will be one too by inheritance. As a consequence two barriers appear to be crossed. Yet, (26) is perfect. However, Chomsky (1986b) assumes that WH-elements may adjoin to the VP and that adjunction to a category voids it of barrierhood. As an adjunction structure of the type [VP x [VP ]] contains two occurrences of VP, one a copy of the other, the VP has two "segments". According to the definition in (28), χ is not out of VP. (28)

a excludes b if no segment of a dominates b.

This is integrated in the definition of government (given in (17)) via the part "such that c excludes a". The effect is that the VP does not count as a barrier. VP not being a barrier, IP cannot inherit barrierhood, such that the movement in (26) is optimal. In other words, the trace is 0-subjacent to its antecedent, according to the following definition: (29)

b is η-subjacent to a iff there are fewer than n+1 barriers for b that exclude a.

18

The subjacency condition itself is formulated as in (30), where a chain is constituted by an antecedent, the trace in the original position and any intermediate traces. (30)

If (aj.aj+i) is a link of a chain, then aj+i is at most 1-subjacent to aj.

Let us continue with (31), the English parallel of (27). (31)

(a)

* Whoi do you think ti that ti left,

(b)

Who, do you think ti ti left.

The antecedent-government of the trace in subject position in (a) is blocked by the presence of that: the lexical nature of that is relevant. For this Chomsky invokes the Minimality Condition (32): it installs a barrier (C') if that is lexical. (32)

c is a barrier for b if c is the immediate projection of d, a zero-level category distinct from b.

We will return to the facts in (31) in chapter 4. Finally, consider NP-movement in (25). Moving an NP from object position to subject position entails crossing the VP, a barrier. This suggests that Θ-government is not sufficient for the ECP and that antecedent-government must obtain as well, so that the ECP essentially requires 0-subjacency. The relevant barrier is circumvented in another way, via the fact that the subject is related to INFL and INFL to the Verb: a special type of chain is formulated for these cases. Because this chain invokes a relation between a syntactic affix and a verb, we will not discuss this type of chain here any further, but first go into the details of our study on the relation between syntactic affixes and verbs.

19

2. Morphology and iNFLection

2.0. Introduction

In this chapter we will first give an overview of the elements that can be classified as syntactic affixes in French (section 2.1.). In section 2.2. we will discuss some general properties of morphology as relevant for lexical affixes. The primary purpose of this section is to specify which types of questions with respect to lexical affixes are addressed and which types of solutions are proposed. This setting will enable us to integrate syntactic affixes in our account in a compatible way afterwards (section 3.3.). In section 2.3. we will discuss the present participle and show that it is a verb form with an adjectival INFLectional ending. In this section we will also consider the verb forms with a nominal INFLectional ending. In section 2.4. we will discuss the differences between adjectival and nominal INFLections on the one hand and the more standard ±TENSE INFLections on the other. We will argue that these standard INFLections involve verbal and/or prepositional affixes. We will argue moreover that these standard INFLections are accompanied by a TENSE-operator in COMP, as opposed to the adjectival and nominal INFLections.

2.1. The initial classification of syntactic affixes The grammar of French has a number of syntactic affixes which can be attached to a verb. At first sight, a division such as in (1) can be made, with the corresponding examples in

(2). (1)

(a) (b) (c)

INFLection PRESent PARTiciple PAST PARTiciple

20

(2)

(a)

(i) (ii)

D vient.

(indicatif)

He comes,

(indicative)

Π promet de venir.

(infinitif)

He promises to come,

(infinitive)

(iii) Je veux qu'il vienne. (iv) (v)

(subjonctif)

I want that he comes,

(subjunctive)

Viens!

(imporatif)

Come,

(imperative) (pass6 simple1)

II vint. He came.

(b)

(i)

Un homme parlant quatre langues. A man speaking four languages,

(ii)

Je le vois lisant un livre. I see him reading a book.

(c)

(i)

H a chante* une chanson. He has sung a song,

(ii)

Π sera tuo par son voisin. He will be killed by his neighbour.

The indicative in (2a(i)) has the four standard possibilities in French: (3)

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Π vient.

(present)

He comes.

(present)

II venait. He came.

(imparfait) (simple past)

Π viendra.

(futur)

He will come.

(future)

II viendrait.

(futur du passe")

He would come.

(past future)

Besides properties in terms of tense, the indicative has endings indicating agreement with the subject in person and number. We indicate this with the feature [+AGR]. The indicative is thus captured by (4), cf. Ruwet (1967). (4)

TENSE

> (PUT)

{ PRES } { IMPF }

21

[+AGR]

Together with the composed verb forms with auxiliaries and verbs bearing the PERFective participle ending, (4) creates the eight basic tenses. As for the 'passo simple' (cf. (2a(v)) ), it is special in several ways. First, it is only used in written language and literature. Second, it does not represent the full range of tenses: it has only past value. The 'pass6 simple' is essentially an indicative, suggesting that this is best captured by a reformulation of (4), (5). (5) TENSE

> { (PUT) { PRES } } { { IMPF } } { PASSESIMPLE }

[+AGR]

In the traditional view the subjunctive (cf. (2a(iii))) has four tenses. It has two tenses in our approach, if we omit the composed forms. These two are termed the 'present du subjonctif and the 'imparfait du subjonctif. This term is not quite appropriate as it implies a link with the 'imparfait' which does not seem to exist. First of all, the 'imparfait du subjonctif only occurs in the same registers as the 'passe" simple', and even there it is very restricted in use. Pragmatically speaking the 'imparfait du subjonctif' is in fact the 'passo simple du subjonctif. This is confirmed by morphological evidence: the 'imparfait du subjonctif is not formed on the basis of the 'imparfait', but on the basis of the 'pass6 simple'. Therefore we indicate the subjunctive as a feature on the two cases of (5), as in (6). (6)

TENSE

> { (PUT) {PRES { {IMPF { PASSESIMPLE

} [±subj] } [±subj]

} } }

[+AGR]

In the nonliterary standard case then, the French subjunctive has only one tense, as is also evidenced by examples of the type illustrated in (7). (7)

II fallait qu'il parte. It was necessary that he leaves.

The infinitive (cf. (2a(ii)) ) does not show any differences in TENSE. Rather, it is untensed. Neither does the infinitive show agreement in person and number. We therefore characterize the infinitive as [-TENSE] and [-AGR]. With respect to the rule in (6) one needs a term generalizing over + and - TENSE. The term INFLection, abbreviated as INFL or I, is standard. (6) can then be reformulated as (8).

22

(8)

INFL

>

{ +TENSE

{(PUT)

{PRES}

{

{

(IMPF)

{

{ PASSE SIMPLE

[±subj]

} [+AGR] }

[±subj]

{ -TENSE

}

}

}

} [-AGR] }

In this book we will not further discuss the 'pass6 simple', as it is rather typical for French and, more importantly, because no specific consequences follow from this tense. This restriction has an important consequence. If we omit the 'passo simple' from (8), we also omit its feature for the subjunctive. The immediate consequence is that the remaining cases of the subjunctive have become completely identical to the infinitival cases as far as their tense-specifications are involved.2 Just as the infinitive is untensed, the subjunctive is untensed: there is only one paradigm, that of the 'pre*sent du subjonctif, used for the expression of the four basic tenses. The subjunctive remains different from the infinitive in that it shows overt agreement. This leads us to the formulation in (9).3 (9)

INFL

>

{ +TENSE

{(FUT)

{PRES}}

[+AGR] }

{

{

{IMPF}}

}

indicative

{ -TENSE

[+AGR] }

subjunctive

{ -TENSE

[-AGR] }

infinitive

We consider the imperative (cf. (2a(iv)) ) to be analyzable as a special case of the subjunctive. It has no tense and it shows agreement.4 Now consider the remaining forms, the participles in (2b) and (2c). The perfective participle may cooccur with INFL, as in (2c(i)), the passive participle may too, as in (2c(ii)). The perfective and the passive participles may be present together alongside INFL (cf. Jean a 6t6 tu6). Therefore, the perfective participle, the passive participle and INFL are not part of the same system, as is the case with for example infinitives and tensed forms. With respect to the present participle, it may cooccur with the perfective or the passive participle, but not with tensed forms or infinitivals. Therefore, the present participle is initially classified in the INFLectional paradigm, as e.g. also in Rizzi (1982). Our initial classification of syntactic affixes, therefore, is (10):

23

(10)

Syntactic affixes (a) INFL { +TENSE [+AGR] { -TENSE [+AGR] { -TENSE [-AGR] { present participle (b) Perfective participle (c) Passive participle

} } } }

(indicative) (subjunctive) (infinitive)

Of this scheme the relation of the present participle to the other forms contained in the same class should be studied first. This will be the subject matter of sections 2.3. and 2.4.. Before continuing however, let us go into the historical background of the notion INFLection. In his Syntactic Structures. Chomsky accounted for the intricate problem posed by the supportive verb do in English. His analysis can be illustrated on the basis of (11). (11)

(a) (b) (c)

John sees Bill. John doesn't see Bill. Who did John see?

In an affirmative declarative clause the main verb bears the endings for tense and agreement. In negative declaratives and in questions, however, these endings occur on do. while the main verb is an infinitive. The solution he proposed was to consider the verb and its ending as discrete syntactic entities at an abstract level called deep structure. The affix is subsequently attached to the main verb by a process called Affix Hopping, as in (1 la), except if some other element intervenes. In (lib) not blocks Affix Hopping, and in (lie) the subject. If the affixmovement rule is blocked, one is confronted with an affix which lacks a bearer. This is an untenable situation from a morphological point of view. As a consequence, some supportive verb must be inserted to provide this affix with a bearer: do. This analysis still stands in its essentials. Its consequence for syntax is that INFL is an independent syntactic entity in the structure, as illustrated in (12).

(12)

24

The structure (12) has subsequently undergone some changes. On the basis of the hypotheses (i) that INFL is the head of the clause S, (ii) that INFL should be completely integrated as a head into X-bar theory and (iii) that binary branching structures are preferable in general, (12) now looks like (13) in Chomsky (1986b).

"A

VP

V

s NP

In terms of X-bar theory this means that the subject occupies the specifier position of the projection headed by INFL. A special relation exists between the subject and INFL, which we formalized with the feature [±AGR]. In terms of X-bar theory this is an instance of Specifier-Head Agreement. Notice, however, that the agreement between Specifier and Head is more abstract than the relation expressed by the feature [±AGR]: in particular, the subject of an infinitive enters into the Specifier-Head Agreement relation as well, even though there is no overt agreement. In sections 2.3. and 2.4. we will return to INFL and the predictions that can be made on the basis of (13). Before we can properly address a number of questions with respect to syntactic affixes, we must first turn our attention to the lexical affixes and see what type of questions these raise and what type of solutions are offered by morphology.

2.2. Morphological generalities

The standard and conceptually clear difference between syntax and morphology is that syntax is concerned with the structure of phrases and sentences, while morphology is concerned with the structure of words. The model of grammar given in chapter 1 is primarily inspired by the study of syntax. Syntax proper consists of two levels, S-structure and D-structure, linked by movement rules. S-structure is interpreted by two components, giving rise to PF and LF representations.

25

It has been observed that the two interpretative components, PF and LF, play a role in morphology as well. Various phonological rules may apply inside a complex word, and affixes influence stress patterns. Also, as shown by Pesetsky (1985), affixes may have a scope, which is properly accounted for at LF. It seems, therefore, that the model does not need to be changed in order to integrate morphology: the syntax of morphology can be allowed the same position as the syntax of syntax. However, it is less clear whether the morphological syntactic component contains two distinct levels, corresponding to D-structure and S-structure. As transformational rules are of the format "Move a", morphological syntax might have a rule like "Move Affix". We will return to this question in section 3.3., where we will argue that the "old" rule of Affix Hop relates morphological D-structure to morphological S-structure. The lexicon contains the primitive elements, the morphemes which may be combined into complex words. Roughly, one can distinguish two types of morphemes, words and affixes. A word may occur on its own, an affix may not. Besides phonological and semantic information, the lexicon contains information about the categorial status of the primitive elements, their subcategorization frames and other, diacritic, features like e.g. [Hatinate]. Globally speaking, two types of combinations are possible: word plus affix and word plus word, affix plus affix being impossible. A distinction is thus made between affixational and compound morphology, where affixational morphology is concerned with word plus affix, and compound morphology with word plus word. Within the class of affixes, a division must be made between derivational and inflectional affixes. Derivational affixes give rise to new words, while inflectional affixes do not create new words, but spell out specific properties of a word, like [±plural]. We will briefly discuss each type of morphology: in paragraph 2.2.1. derivational morphology, in paragraph 2.2.2. compound morphology and in paragraph 2.2.3. inflectional morphology. In paragraph 2.2.4. we will give a summary, which will help us to formulate in paragraph 2.2.5. the questions we will address concerning the syntactic affixes in (10).

2.2.1. Derivational morphology

Derivational morphology defines the possible word-affix combinations, where the affix is derivational. Within the class of derivational affixes there is a bifurcation between suffixes, which attach to the right of the word and prefixes, which attach to the left of the word. We will only consider suffixes here.

26

In principle a word of a suffix may be of any lexical category. We can thus make a scheme, as in (14), where the vertical line corresponds to the categorial status of the word, and the horizontal line to the categorial status of the suffix.

N

(14)

d6riv+ation

de"riv+able

derivation

derivable centr+al

tyrannise

championn+at championship

noir+cir

absurd+ite"

blacken

absurdness

jaun+atre yellowish

—

N

tyrann+iser

—

—

central

A first gap is noted immediately: prepositions are exceptional. There are no suffixes which subcategorize for P, and there are no suffixes with prepositional status.5 This gap can be related to the lexical feature-system given in the first chapter, where - as we noted - the Preposition stands out as the least lexical of the four lexical categories considered. Another gap is found in the combinations of verbs with verbal affixes. There are however a great number of affixes which subcategorize for a verbal word. One could think of the present participle (parl+ant (speaking)), a tensed verb (parl+ons (speak)) or a passive participle (parl+6 (spoken)). These affixes are just the type of affixes we will be concerned with in this monograph, and hence we did not integrate these affixes in this scheme. However, let us point out an important

difference between lexical affixes and

syntactic ones. Suppose a noun must be inserted in a syntactic structure. In principle every unit which is morphologically defined as nominal is a candidate. The same holds for verbs. If a verb must be inserted, the verbs in the left column (tyranniser or noircir) are allowed as candidates. However, not any verb that bears a verbal affix may be inserted. One would derive e.g. the ungrammatical *L'homme qui parlant quatre langues (The man that speaking four languages) or *Je veux viendrai (I want shall-come) etc.. In other words, the syntax is partly responsible for the suffixation of verb forms that appear in the syntactic structure. We conclude that these syntactic affixes are not part of morphological derivation; one could use the term syntactic derivation for the processes involving syntactic affixes.

27

In combining words and affixes, new structures are created in accordance with X-bar theory in word-syntax, for which Selkirk (1982) gives the general schemata in (15), with the assumption that there are two levels for what we previously called words: (15)

(a) (b) (c)

Word Word Root

> Root > Word Af/Af Word > Root Af/Af Root

Nothing is said in these rules about the categorial status of the elements and the newly created complex words. Take for example (16), in which a verb combines with an adjectival affix, (a), and with a nominal affix, (b):

(16)

(a)

A

(b)

/\A

V de"riv

N

/\N

V de"riv

able

ation

An important property of word syntax is that the categorial status of the whole is determined on the basis of the suffix. This very general phenomenon has been captured in the righthand head rule, which globally states that in morphology the right-hand member of a complex word is the head (e.g. Williams (1981)). Such a rule not only predicts the categorial status of the whole, but also determines other properties, like for example the gender of the derived word. The noun in (16b) is [+feminine], because -ation is [+feminine]. Likewise -eur in chanteur is [-t-masculine]. As shown in (17a) and (17b) respectively, these features affect the choice of the article. (17)

(a) (b)

la derivation. the (fem) derivation, le chanteur. the (masc) singer.

We will, however, concentrate largely on the categorial relevance of the Right-hand Head Rule (RHHR), formulated as in (18). (18)

In derivational morphology the categorial status of a complex word is determined by the rightmost element.

28

This rule is quite general. It holds in French independently of whether the derivational process takes place at the level of the root or the word. (18) also holds in Dutch and English for the same class of examples.

2.2.2. Compound morphology

Under the assumption that there are two levels of compounding (cf. Selkirk (1982)), the general schemata are (19). (19)

(a)

Word

> Word Word

(b)

Word

> Root

(c)

Root

> Root Root

Consider first some examples in a reduced field illustrating Word-Word compounding in French, (20), where the category of the leftmost element is given vertically and the category of the rightmost element horizontally.

(20)

N

N

A

chou+fleur

coffre+fort 6

A

cabbage flower

case strong«

gris+perle

aigre+doux

grey pearl

sour sweet

In these compounds the head is on the left branch. For combinations of two different categories, the category of the whole is determined by the element on the left branch. If the combined elements are of the same category, other tests for headedness may be applied. As chou is [+masculine] and fleur [+feminine], the compound chou-fleur is [+masculine], cf. (2la). Also the plural ending occurs on the head-noun, and only optionally, subject to various factors, on the non-head, cf. (22). (21)

(a)

le chou + la fleur = le chou-fleur the(masc) cabbage + the(fem) flower = the(masc)

29

(b)

le timbre + la poste = le timbre-poste the(masc) stamp + the(fem) post = the(masc)

(22)

(a)

chou-fleur + plural = choux-fleurs cabbage[+plu] flower[+plu]

(b)

timbre-poste + plural = timbres-poste stampt+plu] post[-plu]

There are some exceptions, like grand-pere (grand-father). These exceptions do not come alone: other examples are beau-fils (son-in-law), belle-mere (mother-in-law), grandsparents (grand-parents). We immediately note that these adjectives are exactly the adjectives that may precede the head noun in syntax. In French syntax adjectives follow the head noun, but there is a small list of adjectives which obligatorily precede the head noun in the unmarked case, and beau is in this list. Grand may precede or follow the head. If it follows the head, it takes its literal meaning (big), and if it precedes the noun it takes a figurative meaning (great). The compounds with grand do not have the literal meaning. Some other adjectives may follow this pattern too. So there are reasons independent of syntax or morphology for these adjectives to be on the left of the noun. The level of root-root compounding can be illustrated on the basis of learned composition like mono-syllabe (monosyllable), auto-mobile (automobile). In these cases the categorial status of the combined primitives is not always very clear. Nevertheless the righthand part is the head, as evidenced by (23): (23)

(a)

de"mocrate, francophone. democrate, francophone.

(b)

la democratic, la francophonie. the(fem) democracy, the(fem) francophony.

(c)

automobile + plural = automobiles: auto[-plu] mobiles[+plu] * autosmobile: auto[+plu] mobile[-plu]

So for French we observe that root-root compounds are right-headed, while word-word compounds are left-headed. For Dutch and English the same examples can be used. There is no difference with respect to the root-root compounds: the examples corresponding to the ones in (23) are also right-headed. However, if we consider examples parallel to the ones in (20), word-word compounds, we find an important difference, cf. (24) and (25).

30

(24)

N

A

N

school+teacher

olive+green

A

high+school

dark+blue

N

A

sport+veld

olijf+groen

(25) N

sport A

field

olive green

groot+vader

donker+blauw

grand father

dark blue

English and Dutch have right-headed compounds as opposed to French. The other tests confirm this, despite the absence of distinguishing articles in English,

cf. (26) and

Trommelen & Zonneveld (1986). (26)

(a)

de sport + net veld = het sportveld the (non-neuter) + the (neuter) = the (neuter)

(b)

sportveld + plural = sportvelden: sport[-plu] veld[+plu]

(c)

* sportenveld: sport[+plu] veld[-plu] schoolteacher + plural = schoolteachers: school[-plu] teacher[+plu] * schoolsteacher: school[-i-plu] teacher[-plu]

The contrast between French on the one hand and English and Dutch on the other confirms the two-level analysis of morphology in (19) in that something like a "directionality parameter" can be set independently for the two types of compounding. Let us turn our attention now to the word-word compounds of the other categories, the compounds containing a verb. Let us start with some Dutch compounds which combine V with N or A. Again the horizontal line represents the element to the right, and the vertical line the element to the left.

31

(27)

V

N

vind+plaats find spot N

plaats+vinden place take slaap+wandelen sleep walk

A

hard+lopen fast walk snel+wandelen quick walk

piep+jong peep young

It is not accidental that (27) has two examples of compounds with the V on the right: they are different with respect to their separability. For the plaatsvinden-type compound the first element (N or A) is left behind when the verb is moved and remains independent when the verb receives an affix, while the slaapwandelen-type compound can never be split up. This phenomenon is illustrated by (28) and (29). (28)

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h)

Met vindt plaats. It takes place. * Het plaatsvindt. It placetakes. Het heeft plaats gevonden. It has place taken. * Het heeft geplaatsvonden. It has placetaken. * Hij wandelt slaap. He walks sleep. Hij slaapwandelt. He sleepwalks. * Hij heeft slaap gewandeld. He has sleep walked. Hij heeft geslaapwandeld. He has sleepwalked.

32

(29)

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h)

Hij loopt hard. He walks fast. * Hij hardloopt. He fastwalks. Hij heeft hard gelopen. He has fast walked. * Hij heeft gehardlopen. He has fastwalked. * Hij wandelt snel. He walks quick. Hij snelwandelt. He quickwalks. * Hij heeft snel gewandeld. He has quick walked. Hij heeft gesnelwandeld. He has quickwalked.

One can describe these differences by saying that for the separable compounds the elements are independently visible for syntactic processes. By contrast, syntactic rules cannot analyze the elements of non-seperable compounds and they will always consider the whole compound one unit rather than two. Consider, then, the compound plaatsvinden and its French and English literal counterparts: (30)

plaatsvinden = take place = avoir lieu

Observations parallel to Dutch can be made for English and French, as in (31) and (32). (31)

(32)

(a) (b) (c) (a) (b) (c)

De gebeurtenis vindt plaats / *plaatsvindt. The event takes place / *take places. L'eVinement aura lieu / *avoir lieura. De gebeurtenis heeft plaats gevonden / *geplaatsvonden. The event has taken place / *take placed. L'dvdnement a eu lieu / *avoir lieue".

33

In familiar terms, the affix realizing tense or perfective is realized on the V contained in the compound [N V]y or [V N]y, rather than on the compound V as a whole. In this respect Dutch separable compounds are on a par with French and English idioms.7 Are we confronted with a level difference? To answer this question, consider the headedness in syntax and morphology for the three languages, and compare it to the headedness of the compounds in (30): (33) Dutch French English

syntax

compounding

(30)

Right Left Left

Right Left Right

Right Left Left

No argument for a level difference can be based on French or Dutch, as the examples in (30), compounding and syntax have the same directionality. English, however, is illustrative, as take place patterns with the syntax with respect to directionality. It therefore seems to be the case that a level difference must be postulated between the true unseparable compounds (morphological) and the syntactic separable ones, idioms.8 Until now, we have not considered Prepositions, which do play a role in compounding. First consider some more Dutch examples. (34)

op+bellen, over+leven up phone, over live (survive)

These two verbs display the same contrast with respect to their separability, cf. (35). (35)

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

Hij beide mij op. He phoned me up. * Hij opbelde mij. He upphoned me. Hij heeft mij opgebeld. He has me up phoned. * Hij heeft mij geopbeld. He has me upphoned. Hij overleefde de ramp. He overlived the disaster.

34

(f)

* Hij leefde de ramp over.9 He lived the disaster over.

The contrast can be observed in English as well, cf. (36), so that the parallel in (37) can be drawn: (36) (37)

(a)

He phoned me up.

(b)

* He lived me out.

(a)

opbellen separable = phone up

(b)

overleven non-separable = survive/outlive.

With respect to directionality, we observe the same differences as above. We have not found similar examples in French: French does not exhibit Verb-Particle constructions.10 Further, survivre is not a clear case of compounding. Neither is survive for that matter. In the field of the compounds, then, there exist three types: root-root compounds, word-word compounds type a (non-separable) and type b (separable), which correspond to idioms. We argued that these three types correspond to different levels of compounding. Hence, we propose (38). (38)

Three types of compounding: (a) Syntactic compounding: X°-XO (b) Morphological compounding: Word-Word (c) Morphological compounding: Root-Root As for figuring out what is the head of a compound, we have made a theoretical

switch: the head of compounds is no longer determined by the RHHR but rather by global directionality parameters, to be fixed at several levels. In other words, we propose (39), but we do not expect more than one direction switch per language. (39)

In compound morphology the categorial status of a complex word is determined by language-specific directionality fixation at each level. If we subsume the X-bar directionality parameters proposed in syntax under our

proposal, then we have the following levels with the following directionality fixation for the languages considered.11

35

(40) Syntax ΧΟ-ΧΟ compounding Word-Word compounding Root-Root compounding

Dutch

English

French

Right Right Right Right

Left Left Right Right

Left Left Left Right

2.2.3. Inflectional morphology

Several elements have standardly been analyzed as inflectional. They involve at least the affixes realizing person, number, gender and case. Let us briefly consider (41), in which the inflectional affixes realizing number and gender are attached to a Noun and an Adjective, respectively.

(41)

(a)

N Ν chien

(b) Af s

A / >v A grand

Af Af e s

This type of elements creates problems for morphology in general (cf. Anderson (1982)), and in particular here for the RHHR, as the affixes on the right are not the categorial heads of the whole. Observationally speaking, we are confronted with (42): (42)

Affixes realizing person, number, gender and case do not participate in the determination of the categorial status of the derived word.

Formally one could incorporate this in the RHHR by saying that these affixes do not bear a categorial indication at all and by making the RHHR sensitive to the rightmost element bearing a categorial indication. We do not follow this route here because it has been argued that features like person, number and gender are intrinsically nominal. This leads to a situation in which these affixes may bear a categorial indication, but still do not project into a category.

36

There is an alternative, but it has the same effect. It might be proposed that inflectional affixes of this type copy the category of the element they arc attached to. This entails that the inflectional affixes can only bear a categorial status that is non-distinct from the head. The informational content of the affixes, however, must be visible for several purposes. In particular, syntactic processes like predication and subject-verb agreement act on a morphologically defined N with the relevant features. We therefore assume that the properties expressed by the inflectional affixes may percolate to several other syntactic nodes, as exemplified in (43).

(43)

(a)

INFLection

(b)

-S^ plu,3p,nom Art' N' plu,fem N AP plu I 3p A fern plu,fem nom Les femmes heureuses viendront. The happy women will come.

plu, 3p

These relations are created by two types of rules. We assume that the properties person, number and gender originate in the Noun femme. Specifier-Head Agreement inside NP supplies the article with its correct specification, whereas this relation in IP gives the INFLnode the relevant features. We assume that the adjective gets its specification via a rule of predication. The nominative Case-feature on the NP and on the Noun is assigned by the TENSEd INFLection. Though it is certainly interesting to formalize our observations, we do not pursue this line because it is not our primary concern in this book. The observations above, however, play a major role in what follows.

37

2.2.4. X-bar properties

Let us now summarize our results. We adopted the following rule schemata for morphology, cf. (15) and (19). (44)

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

Word Word Word Root Root

> > > > >

Root Word Af/Af Word Word Word Root Af/Af Root Root Root

The possibility of Χθ-XO compounding we proposed leads to the extension in (45).i2 (45)

(a)

XO

>

Word

(b) χο —>

χοχο

With respect to the categorial headedness of complex forms we adopted the following system: (46)

(a) (b) (c)

In derivational morphology the categorial status of the complex word is determined by the rightmost element. In compound morphology the categorial status of the complex word is determined by language-specific directionality fixation at each level. In inflectional morphology the categorial status of the complex word is not influenced by the attachment of elements realizing person, number, gender or case.

As we remarked in the introduction to this chapter, we undertook this study of lexical morphology in order to be able to formulate the proper questions for syntactic affixes and to propose solutions which are compatible with morphological affixation. We are now in a position to formulate these questions. Morphology poses the following type of questions with respect to affixation:

38

(47)

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

Of which category is the affix? For which category does the affix subcategorize? At which level does the attachment take place? To which side is the affix attached? Is the category of the complex word determined by the affix or not?

2.2.5. Questions concerning syntactic affixes

As follows from (47) we will address the questions in (48) for the syntactic affixes initially classified in (10). (48)

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

Do syntactic affixes bear categorial indications? If so, which categories correspond to which elements? Do syntactic affixes subcategorize for certain categories? If so, which elements subcategorize for which categories? Are syntactic affixes attached at different levels? If so, which affix is attached at which level? To which side are syntactic affixes attached? Do syntactic affixes determine the category of the resulting constituent or not?

As is clear from our initial classification, (10), and from the title of this monograph, we will only consider the affixes that attach to or subcategorize for verbal elements. In this sense the second question will not be further considered. Put in other terms, one could propose the general rules for syntactic affixation in (49). They illustrate affixation to the levels defined by X-bar theory in syntax. (49)

(a) (b) (c)

XP X' XO

> AfXP/XPAf > AfX'/X'Af > AfX°/XOAf

We restrict our attention to a subset of (49), the cases in which X corresponds to V, cf. (50).

39

(50)

(a) (b) (c)

XP X' XO

> AfVP/VPAf > AfV'/VAf > AfV°/VOAf

If we generalize these rules, we get the deverbalization rule proposed by Jackendoff (1977): (51)

Χ"

>AfVn/VnAf

In the next section (2.3.) we will discuss the present participle. In section 2.4. we will consider the standard ±TENSE INFLections. In section 3.1. we will discuss the past participles, while in section 3.3. we will formulate our answers to the questions posed in this paragraph. Finally, in section 3.4., we will show how English nominalizations provide independent evidence for our analysis.

2.3. Present participles

In this section we will consider the present participle, which we initially classified as an alternative for the more standard ±TENSE INFLections. The constructions headed by verb forms with the present participle ending -ant/-ing occur in essentially three types of positions, as shown in (52). (52)

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

L'homrne [parlant quatre langues] est arrive". The man [speaking four languages] has arrived. [Parlant quatre langues] il a pu aller partout. [Speaking four languages] he could go everywhere. Je vois [Jean lisant un livre]. I see [him reading a book].

In (e) and (f) the construction with the present participle occurs in an argument position, while in (a), (b), (c) and (d) it occupies a non-argument position. In (a) and (b) it functions as a modifier internal to NP, while in (c) and (d) it is a free adjunct. In fact (e) and (f) are ambiguous between the argument and the adjunct reading, as they may have the interpretation (53a/b) as well as (53c/d):

40

(53)

(a) (b) (c)

Je vois Jean lire un livre. I see him read a book. Je vois Jean pendant qu'il lit un livre.

(d)

I see him while he reads a book.

We will consider the argument and the non-argument constructions separately (2.3.1. and 2.3.2.), and consider afterwards what they have in common (2.3.3.).

2.3.1. Present participles in non-argument position

Traditionally the present participle has been classified as the adjectival form of the verb (cf. Grevisse (1969), p.566). This very common intuition can be translated formally by saying that the present participle instantiates a verb form with adjectival INFLection. We will show here that the present participle marker -ant is indeed the adjectival variant of INFLection. In the initial classification (10) we gave some distributional evidence that the present participle is INFLectional: the cooccurrence restrictions of -ant are equivalent to those of ±TENSE. Let us turn our attention now to other empirical sorts of evidence. In order to substantiate our claim that -ant instantiates the adjectival variant of INFLection, several types of evidence are needed. If one considers a constituent headed by INFLection to have the general form in (54) and a constituent headed by an Adjective to have (55a) or (55b), several differences and similarities are predicted to occur, if the present participle is the adjectival variant of INFLection. (54)

IP

Α

NP

Γ

(55)(a)

AP

(b)

AP'

/Χ Λ \ Λ Λ A ,

Spec

A'

A

NP

Comp Co

AP

Spec

A

41

A'

Comp

The types of empirical evidence we will need can be ordered as in (56). (56)

(a)

-ant has properties of I.

(b)

-ant has properties of A.

(c)

the projection headed by -ant has INFLectional properties.

(d)

the projection headed by -ant has Adjectival properties.

(e)

the complements in (54) are different from the complements in (55).

(f)

the specifiers in (54) are different from the specifiers in (55).

(g)

the subject in (54) is different from the subject in (55b).

Let us proceed to establish (56a). In French the Verb is raised to INFLection, as proposed in Emonds (1978) and confirmed by Taraldsen (1983). Both proposals largely rely on facts adduced by Kayne (1975). Consider first the position of adverbials in relation to INFL. Assuming a bifurcation between VP-adverbials like attentivement (attentively) and toujours (always) and Sadverbials like probablement (probably) and abstracting away from the position in COMP, the following judgments hold: (57)

VP-adverbials class A. (a) * Jean attentivement lit la lettre. (b)

% Jean lit attentivement la lettre.

(c)

Jean lit la lettre attentivement. John (Adv=attentively) reads (Adv) the letter (Adv).

(58)

(d)

* Jean attentivement a lu la lettre.

(e)

% Jean a attentivement lu la lettre.

(f) (g)

% Jean a lu attentivement la lettre. Jean a lu la lettre attentivement. John (Adv) has (Adv) read (Adv) the letter (Adv).

VP-adverbials class B. (a)

* Jean toujours raconte la meme histoire.

(b)

Jean raconte toujours la meme histoire.

(c)

% Jean raconte la meme histoire toujours. John (Adv=always) tells (Adv) the same story (Adv).

42

(59)

(d)

* Jean toujours a raconte la meme histoire.

(e) (f) (g)

Jean a toujours racont6 la meme histoire. % Jean a raconto toujours la meme histoire. % Jean a raconto la meme histoire toujours. John (Adv) has (Adv) told (Adv) the story (Adv).

S-adverbials. (a) (b) (c)

% Jean probablement lit un livre. Jean lit probablement un livre. % Jean lit un livre probablement.

(d) (e) (f) (g)

John (Adv=probably) reads (Adv) a book (Adv). % Jean probablement a lu ce livre. Jean a probablement lu ce livre. * Jean a lu probablement ce livre. % Jean a lu ce livre probablement. John (Adv) has (Adv) read (Adv) this book (Adv).

In structural terms the following schemes obtain, in which 0 stands for the neutral position and 1 for the %-positions. The %-positions are subject to stylistic variation.13 (60)

VP-adverbials IP

XN * Γ

NP

1 0 (61)

V

1 NP 1

0 class A 1 class Β

S-adverbials IP

43

The fact that all adverbials regularly follow the finite verb can be accounted for if one assumes that V moves to I. The same patterns can be observed with floating quantifiers. If the quantifier is linked to the object, it may occur in the same positions as VP-adverbials, cf. (62) and (63). If the quantifier is linked to the subject, then it is associated with positions in which S-adverbials may occur, cf. (64).14 (62)

(a) (b)

* II tout voit. II voit tout. He (Q=everything) sees (Q).

(63)

(64)

(c) (d)

* II tout a vu. II a tout vu.

(e)

II a vu tout. He (Q) has (Q) seen (Q).

(a) (b)

* II tous les aide. II les aide tous. He (Q=all) them-helps (Q).

(c) (d)

* II tous les a aide's. II les a tous aide's.

(e)

II les a aides tous. He (Q) them-has (Q) helped (Q).

(a) (b)

* Mes amis tous dorment. Mes amis dorment tous. My friends (Q=all) sleep (Q). * Mes amis tous ont dormi. Mes amis ont tous dormi. % Mes amis ont dormi tous. My friends (Q) have (Q) slept (Q).

(c) (d) (e)

Another characteristic of inflected verbs is that they behave in a specific way with respect to negation. French has two types of syntactic negation, one featuring pas, used primarily in non-verbal environments, and one featuring ne...p_as, used in ±TENSE environments, cf.: (65)

(a)

Je ne viendrai pas. I not will-come not.

44

(b)

* Je viendrai pas.15 I will-come not.

(c)

Un homme pas malade. A man not sick.

(d)

* Un homme ne pas malade. A man not not sick.

(e)

* Un homme ne malade pas. A man not ill not.

So the mere possibility of using ne suffices to show that some element is INFLectional. Ne is a clitic that may only occur in environments with INFLection. The general pattern for infinitives is different from that of finite verbs. The VPadverbials class B may precede the infinitive, and so may quantifiers floating from objectposition: (66)

(a)

II a decide" de toujours sourire. He has dediced always to-smile.

(b)

II a decide de tous les aider. He has dediced all them-to-help.

(c)

II a docide" de tout conside"rer. He has decided everything to-consider.

The negation facts are even clearer: (67)

(a)

Je te promets de ne pas venir. I promise you not not to-come.

(b)

* Je te promets de ne venir pas. I promise you not to-come not.

If we look at verbs with the present participle marker now, the forms turn out to behave like inflected forms, and if there is a difference between tensed forms and infinitives, they even behave more like tensed forms. They allow the type of negation with ne, cf. (68a), which shows that INFLection is involved, and the position of pas shows that they are more like tensed forms than like infinitives, cf. (68b). The argument is confirmed by the possibilities for VP-adverbials class B and Quantifiers floating from object-position, which are different in the present participle and the infinitival constructions, cf. (69).

45

(68)

(a)

Un homme ne parlant pas quatre langues. A man not speaking not four languages,

(b)

* Un homme ne pas parlant quatre langues. A man not not speaking four languages.

(69)

(a)

* Un professeur tous les aidant. A teacher all them-helping.

(b)

Un professeur les aidant tous. A teacher them-helping all.

(c)

* Un professeur tout voyant. A teacher everything seeing.

(d)

Un professeur voyant tout. A teacher seeing everything.

(e)

* Une personne toujours arrivant en retard. A person always arriving too late.

(f)

Une personne arrivant toujours en retard. A person arriving always too late.

Especially the contrasts between (66-67) on the one hand and (68-69) on the other are illustrative for the present participle. They show that the verb bearing -ant is a verb bearing INFLection, a finite INFLection. These patterns thus give us crucial evidence of the type needed in (56a). As present participles have now been shown to be INFLected, and as the structure of clauses headed by INFLection have the structure (54), let us proceed to compare (54) to (55) with respect to the other elements contained in them. In particular, let us turn our attention to the evidence needed for (56e), (56f) and (56g), that is to the differences between I and A with respect to the specifiers, complements and subjects contained in their projections. As I is followed by VP, the complements in the present participle construction should correspond to the complements of the verb. Verbs in French assign accusative Case, whereas Adjectives do not: they assign Case only via an intermediary preposition, just like Nouns, as illustrated in

(70). (70)

(a)

Jean a vu un film. John has seen a film.

(b)

Jean a vu la destruction de la ville. John has seen the destruction of the city.

(c)

Jean est fier de son frere. John is proud of his brother.

46

(71) testifies to the fact that the complement of a present participle is essentially like the complement of a verb rather than like the complement of an adjective. (71)

(a)

Un homme parlant quarre langues. A man speaking four languages,

(b)

* Un homme parlant de quatre langues. A man speaking of four languages.

This type of evidence may be classified under (56e). Consider next the specifiers. Adjectives may have degree specifiers, as in (72), while Verbs do not allow this type. (72)

(a)

Jean est tres content. John is very satisfied,

(b)

* Jean tres voit un film. John very sees a film.

As shown by (73), the present participle parallels the verb, thus giving evidence for (56f). (73)

* Un homme tres parlant quatre langues. A man very speaking four languages. As we have shown (56e) and (56f) to be true, (71) and (73) disconfirm the structure

(55a) for the present participle construction. As (55a) is partly repeated in (55b), (55b) is discontinued too. However, we must still allow for a difference with respect to the NP subject. The difference can be traced to Θ-theory: Adjectives never assign an external role 'agent', while verbs readily do. Again the present participle patterns with the verbal variant in that the external role 'agent' is present: (74)

(a)

Π ('agent') parle quatre langues. He speaks four languages.

(b)

Un homme PRO ('agent') parlant quatre langues. A man speaking four languages.

This constitutes the evidence needed for (56g). Our initial claim that the participial marker itself is adjectival (as needed to establish (56b)), cannot be easily confirmed on the basis of French. -Ant bears a morphological

47

similarity to a derivational affix, which turns verbs into adjectives, a process which is not completely productive. The problem is that the endings which normally occur on adjectives (number, gender) do not show up with present participles. Prescriptive grammars of French have a rule which states that the deverbal adjective shows agreement, but that the present participle does not. This rule differentiates for example oboissant (obedient) as a deverbal adjective from obdissant (obeying) as a present participle. However, other languages do not make such a prescriptive distinction. A clear case is German, where the participial marker receives the endings normally visible on adjectives. These are features of number, gender and case, as exemplified in (75)-(76), cf. Van Riemsdijk (1983). (75)

(a)

Ein kleiner Mann, (nom, masc, sing)

(b)

Einen kleinen Mann, (ace, masc, sing) A little man.

(76)

(c)

Eine kleine Frau, (nom/acc, fern, sing) A little woman.

(a)

Ein mehrere Sprachen sprechender Mann.

(b)

Einen mehrere Sprachen sprechenden Mann. A [several languages speaking] man.

(c)

Eine mehrere Sprachen sprechende Frau. A [several languages speaking] woman.

The relevant fact here is that standard (tensed) inflected forms in German show distinctions for person and number, while standard adjectives show distinctions for number, gender and Case. Though both exhibit some sort of agreement, the realizations differ, and the present participle takes the agreement-type related to adjectives. The participial marker shows the set of affixes related to A rather than to TENSE. This is the evidence of the type needed to establish (56b). Another sort of evidence can be found in German, and also in Dutch. Distributionally speaking, PPs and clauses occur to the right of the head noun in German and Dutch, while adjectives precede, cf. (77). (77)

(a)

De man op straat. The man on the street,

(b)

* De op straat man. The [on the street] man.

48

(c)

De man die vier talen spreekt. The man that speaks four languages.

(d)

* De die vier talen spreekt man. The [that four languages speaks] man.

(e)

* De man ziek. The man ill.

(f)

De zieke man. The ill man.

Clauses headed by the participial marker are similar in distribution to the adjectives, as illustrated by (78): (78)

(a)

De vier talen sprekende man. The [four languages speaking] man.

(b)

* De man vier talen sprekend. The man [four languages speaking].

This type of evidence ((56d)) does not show up in French, because all major categories, including adjectives, occur to the right of the head noun. A minor argument can be made for French though. In stylistic environments all adjectives may occur to the left side of the head noun. But present participles may never occur in this position: this shows that the category to the left may only be the lexical adjective, cf. (79). (79)

(a)

Les terribles propositions. The terrible proposals.

(b)

Les propositions terribles. The proposals terrible.

(c)

Les propositions portant sur 1'enseignement. The proposals bearing on the education.

(d)

* Les portant sur 1'enseignement propositions. The bearing on the education proposals.

This argument is rather weak because there could be an independent reason for this pattern, related to the presence of complements, as in (80). (80)

(a)

L'homme fier de sä femme. The man proud of his wife.

49

(b)

* Le fier de sa femme homme. The proud of his wife man.

In Dutch such a conjecture is confirmed, if lexical adjectives are involved, cf. (81). (81)

(a) (b)

De man, trots op zijn vrouw. The man proud of his wife. ? De op zijn vrouw trotse man. The on his wife proud man.

(c)

* De trots op zijn vrouw man. The proud on his wife man.

However, the pattern does not hold for present participles, cf. (82). (82)

De op zijn vrouw rekenende man. The on his wife counting man.

The contrast in grammaticality between (81) and (82) allows us to make another point. Whatever the ultimate explanation for (80) and (81) may be, it cannot always extend to present participles. This entails a distinction between lexical adjectives and present participles. As present participles are inflectional, they are not lexical and will thus not necessarily be treated in a way parallel to adjectives. In other words, verbs with participial endings are not lexical adjectives. This type of evidence falls under (56c). Consider now our final arguments for the distinction between a projection headed by a lexical adjective and a projection headed by an adjectival inflection. As evidenced by (83), lexical adjectives may be the head of a larger projection, a small clause. (83)

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Ikmaak[Janziek]. Je rends [Jean malade]. I make [John ill]. Ik beschouw [Jan ziek].

(e) (f)

Je considere [Jean malade]. I consider [John ill].

Present participles may not occur in these constructions, cf. (84).

50

(84)

(a)

* Ik maak [Jan vier talen sprekend].

(b)

* Je rends [Jean parlant quatre langues].

(c)

* I make [John speaking four languages].

(d)

* Ik beschouw [Jan vier talen sprekend].

(e)

* Je considere [Jean parlant quatre langues].

(f)

* I consider [John speaking four languages].

The same patterns show up with raising verbs: (85)

(86)

(a)

Jan is ziek.

(b)

Jean est malade.

(c)

John is ill.

(d)

Jan lijkt ziek.

(e)

Jean semble malade.

(f) (a)

John seems ill. * Jan is vier talen sprekend.

(b)

* Jean est parlant quatre langues.

(c)

* John is speaking four languages.16

(d)

* Jan lijkt vier talen sprekend.

(e)

* Jean semble parlant quatre langues.

(f) * John seems speaking four languages. The patterns entail a difference between XP' and IP. Subcategorizing for an AP' does not entail subcategorizing an Adjectival IP. This constitutes our distributional evidence for (56c). In conclusion, empirical evidence supports our initial claim that the present participle is a verb form with adjectival INFLection. We will have to consider the differences between the present participle marker and standard INFL in more detail. We will return to this matter in section 2.4..

2.3.2. Present participles in argument position

The present participles in non-argument positions were shown to be instances of an Adjectival INFLection. One of the main characteristics of this type of constituent is that it never receives a Θ-role, and hence functions like an adjunct. Exceptions to this rule can be

51

found in English and French, but not in Dutch. In English and French the participial marker may occur in the complement of perception verbs: (87)

(a)

Je le vois lisant un livre.

(b)

I see him reading a book.

In French this construction is limited to perception verbs, while in English other verbs allow participial complements as well: (88)

(a)

I remember John singing this song,

(b)

I count on Peter singing this song.

We will quicky run through the arguments, which are similar to those in the preceding section. If we consider the type of specifiers, complements and subjects that occur in these participial complements, we conclude that the constructions show the verbal paradigm. Parallel to (71), (73) and (74) we have (89). (89)

(a) (b)

* Je le vois lisant de ce livre. * I see him reading of this book.

(c)

* Je le vois tres lisant ce livre.

(d)

* I see him very reading this book.

(e)

Je le ('agent') vois lisant ce livre.

(f)

I see him ('agent') reading this book.

In French, one may apply the tests for INFLectionhood. Parallel to (68) and (69) we have (90). (90)

(a)

Je le vois lisant toujours le meme livre. I him-see reading always the same book.

(b)

* Je le vois toujours lisant le meme livre. I him-see always reading the same book.

(c)

Imaginez-vous les ordinateurs ne fonctionnant pas. Imagine the computers not functioning not.

(d)

* Imaginez-vous les ordinateurs ne pas fonctionnant. Imagine the computers not not functioning.

52

(e)

Je vois mes amis allant tous au meme endroit. I see my friends going all to the same place.

(f)

* Je vois mes amis tous allant au meme endroit. I see my friends all going to the same place.

(g)

Je vois mon ami les aidant tous. I see my friend them-helping all.

(h)

* Je vois mon ami tous les aidant I see my friend all them-helping.

The evidence we adduced on the basis of German (cf. (75)-(76)) is found in Classical Latin in the so-called accusativus cum participio construction: (91)

Video eum currentem. (ace, masc, sing) I-see him running.

The marker agrees in number, gender and Case, but not in person, as one would expect if the verb form were tensed. Distributionally speaking, the construction is limited to argument-positions, and the projection cannot be a simple NP', as shown by (92), which parallels (83)-(84).i? (92)

(a)

Jean est un bon guide.

(b)

John is a good guide.

(c)

Je considere Jean un bon guide.

(d)

I consider John a good guide.

(e) (f)

* Jean est un bon guide parlant quatre langues. * John is a good guide speaking four languages.

(g)

* Je considere Jean un bon guide parlant quatre langues.

(h)

* I consider John a good guide speaking four languages.

We conclude from the preceding discussion that the present participle is nominal in nature in these cases rather than adjectival (cf. also Reuland (1983a)). As far as English is concerned, we will make a comparison in the next chapter (section 3.4.) between the type of nominal INFLection considered here and the gerund with a genitive subject.

53

2.3.3. Conclusion

In the two preceding subsections we have presented several arguments in favour of our claim that the present participle marker -ant is an INFLectional element. We have postulated a nominal and an adjectival marker as the head of the participial construction in argument and in adjunct position respectively. In structural terms, we propose (93a) for the present participle in non-argument position and (93b) for the present participle in argument position.

(93)

(a)

IP

x\

NP

(b) Γ

I [+N+V]

VP V

NP

The two INFLectional heads in (93) are both specified as [+N] with respect to the lexical feature system. This generalization is reflected in the affix that is used. The subject position of (93) will generally be filled by the empty element PRO, which will generally be linked to an antecedent by the rule of predication (for details see Williams (1980) and/or section 5.6.). The so-called 'construction absolue' in French or the 'absolute construction' in English involve lexically realized subjects, as illustrated in (94). (94)

(a) (b)

Dieu aidant nous vaincrons. God helping we will win.

In one of the paragraphs of the next section we will account for the possibility of this lexical subject receiving a Case-feature. In the next section we will discuss the differences between the structures in (93) and those headed by the standard ±TENSE INFLections. Several questions will be addressed. First of all, postulating adjectival and nominal variants of INFLection predicts verbal and prepositional variants. We will link these two variants to the standard INFLectional elements. A second question concerns the status of adjectival and nominal INFLection with respect to their specification in terms of TENSE and AGR. Are they exactly like infinitives,

54

that is [-TENSE-AGR], or do they have a different specification? We will argue that the question is irrelevant for AGR and that they are not specified for TENSE, neither positively, nor negatively. A related question is whether these participial IPs may be accompanied by a Complementizer Phrase (CP). As tensed and infinitival IPs generally allow their projection to be introduced by a CP, one might wonder if the constructions headed by a present participle show the same or similar restrictions with respect to a dominating CP. We will argue that the constructions with a present participle do not have an accompanying CP. Our argument will be related to the absence of TENSE.

2.4. Standard INFLcction

In this section we will consider a number of questions that emerge directly from our proposal in the preceding section. The structures in (93) raise the questions in (95), as was explained above. (95)

(a)

Which elements correspond to verbal and prepositional INFLection?

(b)

How are the adjectival and nominal INFLections characterized in terms of TENSE and AGR?

(c)

How do the different variants of INFLection behave with respect to an accompanying CP?

Question (95a) will be dealt with in paragraph 2.4.1, question (95b) in paragraph 2.4.2, and question (95c) in paragraph 2.4.3.. In these paragraphs a number of related questions, such as the categorial status of the Complementizer and the relevance of the Righthand Head Rule, will be discussed too.

55

2.4.1. Verbal and Prepositional INFLection

Analyzing the present participle construction as an IP with an adjectivally or nominally specified head predicts the existence of verbally and prepositionally specified heads. With respect to the standard rule for INFLection (INFL > ±TENSE ±AGR), it has often been alleged that INFL is Verbal (e.g. Koopman (1984)). As we have already distinguished nominal and adjectival INFLections, we gratefully accept the idea that the standard cases are instances of verbal INFLections. For us [+TENSE+AGR] is Verbal INFLection. Notice that this entails that we claim that an ordinary clause is verbal, a position which has been defended by Jackendoff (1977) and Emonds (1985) among others. However, they argue that the Verb itself is the head of the clause. We differ of opinion in that we consider INFL to be the head of the clause. We agree with them in that we, too, claim that the clause is headed by a verbal element. Let us begin by considering the possibility that [-TENSE-AGR] is connected with prepositional INFLection. In English and Dutch the infinitive is quite generally indicated by a preposition, as in (96). (96)

(a) (b)

Hij wenst te komen. He wishes to come.

We might therefore propose that the prepositions to and te instantiate prepositional INFL: the four lexical categories, then, may all be present inside INFL. We believe this claim is valid, but we wish to restrict its consequences: to and te may well be prepositional INFL, but this does not entail that [-TENSE-AGR] is prepositional. To see why, consider the French parallel example (97): (97)

II souhaite venir.

In other words, French does not have prepositional INFLection.18 If one wishes to maintain the claim that [-TENSE-AGR] is prepositional in nature, one is led to the conclusion that French -ir in (97) is prepositional. This seems a rather awkward position to defend. What seems at stake in (96) and (97) is that French morphology is richer: infinitivals are uniquely identifiable by their endings, -k is a marker which uniquely identifies infinitives. The

56

corresponding Dutch and English infinitival forms, come and komen. occur quite generally as instances of [+TENSE+AGR] as well. We are therefore not confronted with a difference in categorial status of INFL, but with a difference linked to the richness of the morphology of the language in question. We therefore consider the prepositional INFLection in Dutch and English to be merely a language specific infinitive marker. For -TENSE we maintain that it is verbal in nature. We thus propose (98): (98)

(a)

-TENSE is verbal.

(b)

if -TENSE is to be spelled out, P is selected, where the need for lexical marking depends on the richness of the available morphological markers.

The special position of P in (98b) is not surprising. We have already noted that P is the "least lexical" lexical category and that it is rather defective in derivational morphology. Moreover, (98b) can probably be extended to NPs in the sense that if a language loses morphological markers for Case, then P is often used as a substitute (cf. Emonds (1985)). A supplementary argument for the syntactic irrelevance of the preposition can be based on the Righthand Head Rule. The RHHR is clearly observed in the complex unit V+INFL, as evidenced by (99). (99)

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

V+Verbal INFL [+TENSE+AGR] chant+e/zing+t/sing+s V+Adjectival INFL chant+ant/zing+end/sing+ing V+Nominal ENFL lis+ant/read+ing V+INFL[-TENSE-AGR] ven+ir INFL[-TENSE-AGR]+V te+komen/to+come

The claim that -TENSE is verbal in nature can be confirmed on the basis of (99d) and (99e). Applying the RHHR to the output predicts that infinitivals are verbal in all three languages: (100)

(a) (b)

INFL-P + V V + INFL-V

> V (English and Dutch) > V (French)

57

In English and Dutch P is on the left hand and V on the right hand, so the result is verbal. In French -TENSE is on the right hand and verbal, so the result is verbal too. In a theory in which -TENSE is prepositional, one would get (101). (101)

(a)

INFL-P + V

> V (English and Dutch)

(b)

V + INFL-P

> P (French)

With (100) a generalization can be made across Dutch, French and English infinitivals. With (101) no generalization can be made. Another argument may be used against (lOlb). As we noted in section 2.2., there are no prepositional suffixes in affixational morphology, -ir in (lOlb) would constitute the only exception. We thus generally have Verbal INFL, Adjectival INFL and Nominal INFL, but not Prepositional INFL. We consider Prepositional INFL a syntactically irrelevant instance of a spelled out verbal INFL. We conclude that all four major types may be spelled out on INFL, but that one of them is defective. If we take (98a) together with the position that [+TENSE+AGR] is verbal, we are led to the position that TENSE is verbal, where it doesn't matter if TENSE is specified positively or negatively. Another question must be addressed then. Inside INFL we have features for TENSE and AGR. Which of these must be considered the 'true* verbal element, and the head of the constituent? Chomsky (1981) remarks that AGR is nominal in nature. As it is AGR that receives an interpretation in terms of the lexical feature system, it has been proposed that AGR itself contains the four possibilities we globally accept. Reuland (1983b), for example, states that AGR may have the four lexical values, as in rule (102). (102) INFL

> ±TENSE AGR[±N±V]

Similarly, De Haan (1984) proposes that AGR is verbal. As we neither reject the possibility of giving INFL the four lexical interpretations, nor the idea that [+TENSE+AGR] is verbal in nature, the question with respect to AGR must be settled. Inside the complex [+TENSE+AGR] we consider TENSE the head rather than AGR. We have one strong morphologically oriented argument. As we saw in section 2.2.3. agreement features may percolate, but are never the categorial heads of the unit: Adjectives with feminine agreement remain adjectives (grand-He (big+[fem]]). Nouns with plural

58

agreement remain nouns (chien+s {do_g+[plu])). Nouns with morphological Case-markers remain nouns (mensae (table+fgenitive])), present participles with Case and/or agreement markers remain present participles. Though the relevant features may percolate, they are not the categorial heads. On the other hand, we have analyzed these types of agreement as some sort of nominal agreement. That is, an agreement marker on an adjective, for example, is a nominal feature copied from the head by predication or by Specifier-Head Agreement. The same argument extends to AGR with +TENSE. A tensed form remains a tensed form independently of the associated Case and/or agreement markers. Note also that the argument does not crucially depend on the irrelevant categorial status of agreement and case-markers. An alternative, e.g. that plural -s or feminine -e copy the categorial status of their heads (chienN+SN and grandA+CA). would lead us to the same conclusion. If the categorial status of AGR is verbal and if AGR is a copy of the categorial status of its head, TENSE, then TENSE itself must be considered verbal (TENSEy+AGRy). If we consider a pro-drop language like e.g. Italian, the argument gets more force. As AGR is "strong" in Italian, it suffices for the identification of the subject. But how can AGR identify intrinsically nominal properties if it is verbal? In our view, AGR is a bundle of nominal features with no further relevance in determining the category of the element it is attached to. Our final argument comes from the syntactic nature of AGR. As we have shown in sections 2.1. and 2.2.3., AGR is essentially a copy of a number of properties of the subject. Agreement is a result of Specifier-Head Agreement in IP. Being a copy entails that it is nonexistent at a more abstract level. It seems rather difficult to maintain that a clause is headless at this abstract level. Taking TENSE to bear the categorial indication, we can maintain two claims at the same time: INFL can be characterized in terms of the lexical feature-system and AGR is nominal in nature. To sum up, we have argued that AGR is irrelevant for the determination of the categorial status of INFLection. We take TENSE to be verbal in nature, irrespective of the question whether it is specified positively or negatively. In some languages -TENSE may be spelled out via a prepositional INFLection.

59

2.4.2. Present participles and TENSE

Our claim that TENSE is verbal in nature and that it may be spelled out as a preposition if it is -TENSE does not yet tell us anything about the tense-specification of the present participle. As participles do not bear tense-indications, they are rather like infinitivals, as e.g. in Beukema's (1984) rule: (103)

-TENSE

> -ing

Nevertheless, a distinction must be made. We think this distinction is best considered a difference between a negative value for TENSE and no value for TENSE. Infinitives are specified negatively, while participles do not have any specification.1? This entails that negative values generally have corresponding constructions with positive values, while for present participles such a correspondence is completely irrelevant. We then have:

(104)

(a)

tensed verbs:

+ TENSE

(b)

infinitivals:

-TENSE

(c)

participles:

0 TENSE

Specification for TENSE is usually represented by a TENSE-operator. This TENSEoperator is generally postulated to occupy the governing Complementizer position. Therefore, we will consider the CP in more detail in connection with the three types of inflected verbs in (104) in the next section. There we will find confirmation for our assumption that present participles are not specified for TENSE.

2.4.3. TENSE and CP

Tensed or untensed INFLections are generally accompanied by a specific class of complementizers. On the basis of (104) we predict that present participles cannot be introduced by the complementizers specific for ±TENSE. Put in other terms, the presence or absence of specific complementizers can shed light on the TENSE-specification of the present participle.

60

Clauses with tensed inflection are usually introduced by que/that/dat. as in: (105)

(a)

Jepromets queje viendrai.

(b)

I promise that I will come.

(c)

Ik beloof dat ik kom.

With respect to (104) this means that Verbal INFLection may be accompanied by a CP containing finite complementizers, if +TENSE is involved. Not surprisingly, if -TENSE is involved, Prepositions are chosen in CP; Huot (1981) has argued that French de is in COMP, whereas the same argument has been made for Dutch om (e.g. De Haan & Schölten (1984) and Bennis & Hoekstra (1985)). (106)

(a)

Je te promets de venir.

(b)

Ik beloof je om te komen. I promise you to come.

English is special in this respect: it chooses prepositions, but they assign case: (107)

I prefer for John to be in time.

Now, present participles may never be introduced by such elements: (108)

(109)

(110)

(a)

* Un homme que parlant quarre langues

(b) (c)

* Un homme de parlant quatre langues * Een dat vier talen sprekende man.

(d)

* Een om vier talen sprekende man.

(e)

* A man that speaking four languages.

(a)

* Que parlant quatre langues, il a voyage.

(b)

* De parlant quatre langues, il a voyago.

(c)

* Dat vier talen sprekend, heeft hij gereisd.

(d)

* Om vier talen sprekend, heeft hij gereisd.

(e)

* That speaking four languages, he travelled.

(a)

* Je vois que rhomme lisant un livre.

(b) (c)

* Je vois de rhomme lisant un livre. * I see that John reading a book.

(d)

* I see for John reading a book.

61

This confirms (104): if + or - TENSE is involved, the CP contains corresponding elements, that is, the CP contains a TENSE-operator. This TENSE-operator with its lexical realizations is absent in case the EP has a 0TENSE INFLection, that is, in case of participles. On this view we might say that clauses with participles are similar to small clauses. They are similar to small clauses in that no TENSE-operator is present, and they are different from them in that INFL is involved. We have the following parallels: (111)

small clause

no TENSE-operator

no INFL

participles

no TENSE-operator

with INFL

fmite/inf

with TENSE-operator

with INFL

We could thus define two types of small clauses: (112)

(a)

A small clause is a maximal projection containing an external argument position without INFL.

(b)

A small clause is a maximal projection containing an external argument position without TENSE.

According to (112a) only XP"s are small clauses, while according to (112b) constructions with participles are too. Our point is related to the often noted absence of COMP. In a theory having one node, COMP, it is rewritten as in (113). (113)

COMP

>±WH

We considered the [-WH] variant above. As Stowell (1982) shows, [+WH] elements must also be absent in participle constructions: (114)

(115) (116)

(a)

I don' t remember who we should visit.

(b)

I don't remember who to visit.

(c)

I don't remember visiting John.

(d)

* I don't remember who visiting.

(a)

The table on which you should put your coat

(b)

* The table on which putting your coat.

(a)

La table sur laquelle tu peut mettre ton imper.

(b)

* La table sur laquelle mettant ton imper.

62

(l 17)

(a) (b)

De tafel waarop je je jas kunt leggen. * De tafel waarop je je jas leggend.

In our system this entails that only an IP headed by verbal INFL can be accompanied by a full CP. In Chomsky (1986b) rule (113) is replaced by (118), so that we can explain (114)(117) as a consequence of (108)-(111). (118)

CP C'

> SpecC > CIP

If we assume that the TENSE-operator occupies the Head-position of CP, then absence of a TENSE-operator entails absence of the elements in specifier-position, and hence absence of WH-elements. This entails that the feature [±WH] of the COMP in (113) must be replaced by (119), in which [WH] is an optional feature in the Spec of CP:

(119)

CP

A A

(WH)

C'

C

IP

We will be amply concerned with this structure in the syntactic chapters, chapters 4 and 5. With respect to the categorial status of C, we claim that the TENSE-operator in C is verbal in nature, just like INFLection specified for TENSE. Hence it is spelled out as a verbal or prepositional element. We consider quc. dat and that in (105) to have verbal features. This is confirmed by the fact that only Verbs may move to the head of C, as in (120). (120)

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

Waarom is hij vertrokken? Pourquoi est-il parti? Why did he leave? Is hij vertrokken? Est-il parti? Did he leave?

63

We will discuss Verb-movement in the syntactic chapters. Note that root-clauses give direct evidence for structure (119). As for the prepositional variant of C, we have already considered some examples in (106) - (107). With respect to the English example, (107), repeated here as (121), a question arises. (121)

I prefer for John to be on time.

The question is whether for is connected with the TENSE-operator or not. If it is, then for must be absent in present participles and small clauses. The evidence in (122) shows that for must indeed be linked to the TENSE-operator. (122)

(a)

* For John standing in the corner.

(b)

With John standing in the corner.

(c)

With John in the comer.

(d)

* For John in the corner.

(122) entails that small clauses as defined in (112b) may not use for as a Caseassigner for the subject. They rather use with, cf. e.g. Beukema (1984). This is not restricted to English, as French and Dutch use the "exact" translation in the parallel examples, cf. Ruwet (1982) and Van Riemsdijk (1978). (123)

(a)

Avec Jean marchant dans la rue, eile n'ose pas sortir. With John walking in the street, she doesn't dare go out.

(124)

(b)

Avec Jean malade, eile n'ose pas partir.

(a)

With John sick, she doesn't dare to leave. Met die hond los over straat lopend dürft zij niet naar buiten. With that dog running free on the streets she doesn't dare go out.

(b)

Met mijn broer in de auto rijd ik siecht. With my brother in the car I drive badly.

We conclude therefore that for is a spelled out -TENSE feature in C, which shows up for purposes of Case-assignment. If there is no TENSE-operator, the prepositions avec, met and with are inserted. As for the so-called 'absolute constructions' illustrated in (94), we consider these to be derived in a way parallel to the constructions with with, via either a deletion or an empty preposition. For French this proposal can be motivated on independent grounds: the absolute

64

constructions have lexical subjects but they may not have nominative clitics, as illustrated in (125). (125)

(a)

Dieu aidant, nous vaincrons. God helping, we will win.

(b)

* II aidant, nous vaincrons. He-helping, we will win.

If pronominale are used, the strong forms are chosen, cf. (126). (126)

Lui aidant, nous vaincrons. Him helping, we will win.

Though the form of the pronominal in (126) does not differ from standard examples with avec (Je suis sortie avec lui (I went out with him)), this is not sufficient as strong pronouns do not show differences in morphological form in French. What is relevant, however, is that (125b) shows that the Case of the subject in the absolute construction cannot come from a nominative Case assigning INFLection; if INFLection assigned nominative Case, we would expect nominative clitics. It follows that the Case of the subject in the absolute construction comes from "elsewhere", where we take "elsewhere" to be the governing preposition avec. whether phonetically present or not.20 Returning then to the spelled out features in C, we argued that -TENSE may be spelled out as a preposition in French, Dutch and English (de,om and for respectively) with a difference in Case-assigning properties (for does assign Case, de and om do not). On the other hand, we argued in section 2.1. that the French subjunctive also is specified as TENSE. As noted by Kayne & Pollock (1978), the subjunctive is a feature in COMP.21 As (127) shows, que is used in these cases: (127)

Je voulais que pane Jean. I wanted that leaves John.

Clearly, then, there is some variation as to the possible contents of C in the languages under consideration, as in (128), where 0 indicates "non-attested" rather than "empty".

65

(128)

Lexical content of C in non-movement environments :22 (a)

English

-TENSE

-Case

0

-TENSE

+Case

for

+TENSE (b)

Dutch

that

-TENSE

-Case

om

-TENSE

+Case

0

+TENSE (c)

French

dat

-TENSE

-Case

de

-TENSE

+Case

que

+TENSE

que

On the basis of (128) we conclude that C can only be verbal or prepositional. As with INFL, we claim that the TENSE-operator in COMP is Verbal.»

2.5. Conclusion to chapter 2

We began this chapter with an initial classification of syntactic affixes in French (section 2.1.). After we had studied some general properties of morphology in section 2.2., we formulated some questions with respect to syntactic affixes (paragraph 2.2.5.), repeated here for convenience: (48)

(a)

Do syntactic affixes bear categorial indications? If so, which categories

(b)

correspond to which elements? Do syntactic affixes subcategorize for certain categories? If so, which elements subcategorize for which categories?

(c)

Are syntactic affixes attached on different levels? If so, which affix is attached on which level?

(d) (e)

On which side are syntactic affixes attached? Do syntactic affixes determine the category of the resulting constituent or not?

We then turned our attention to the properties of the present participle with respect to INFLection and the constructions it may appear in. We argued that the present participle is an adjectival or nominal variant of INFLection.

66

In section 2.4. we continued with the standard INFLections and argued that they were verbal even though they are sometimes spelled out as prepositions. A comparison of the adjectival and nominal variants of INFLection on the one hand and the verbal and prepositional variants on the other hand, led us to claim that the most important difference between them lies in their properties with respect to TENSE. Whereas verbal and prepositional INFLections relate to some TENSE-specification, either positive or negative, the adjectival and nominal INFLections were argued to be not specified for TENSE. We subsequently argued that these differences with respect to TENSE find a reflex in the CP: INFLections being specified for TENSE are governed by a CP with the TENSEoperator in its Head-position, while INFLections with 0 TENSE are not accompanied by such a CP. Hence, we gave the following answers to the questions in (48) for the elements initially - and still - classified as INFLectional. With respect to question (a): Yes, INFLectional affixes bear categorial indications. The element -ant and its Dutch and English equivalents (-end, -ing) are adjectival affixes. The element -ant and its English counterpart -ing also function as nominal affixes. The elements realizing ±TENSE are verbal affixes even though they may be spelled out as prepositions (to and te). With respect to question (b): All INFLectional affixes subcategorize for Verbal categories. With respect to question (c): INFL is attached to the level of VP, that is the highest syntactically defined level for Verbs. This is an immediate consequence of the structure in (12) and (13) rather than something we argued for explicitly. We will return to this question shortly below, in the next chapter (3) and in the last syntactic chapter (5). With respect to question (d): INFLectional affixes are generated either to the left or to the right of the verb, as determined by syntactic parameter setting. That is, [INFL VP] in French and English and [VP INFL] in Dutch, because of [V NP] in French and English and [NP V] in Dutch. This is the position they occupy in D-structure. Once INFL and V have merged (S-structure), INFL occurs to the right side, except for the prepositional elements, they occur to the left side. With respect to question (e): All INFLectional affixes are the head of the defined constituent, via X-bar theory in D-structure, as illustrated in (13), and via the Righthand Head Rule at S-structure. We will return to the exact implementation of this idea in chapter 3, section 3.. Taking up the structures of constituents headed by INFL, we argued for the following two generalized possibilities.

67

(129)

(a)

Verbal and/or Prepositional INFLections. CP Spec

(b)

C'

Adjectival and/or Nominal INFLections. IP

/\Γ

NP

I

VP

[+N±V] On the basis of (129) we conclude that the IP may function as a constituent independent of CP. In other words, IP has a status of its own with respect to CP. On the other hand, a CP with a TENSE-operator entails an IP with affixes realizing ±TENSE. We consider TENSE in C the syntactic-semantic manifestation of TENSE (see chapter 5 section 4 on a more semantically oriented view on TENSE), while TENSE in I rather is the syntactic-morphological manifestation of TENSE. In section 2.4. we also argued that IP is different from a small clause and gave the following picture, repeated here for convenience. (Ill)

(a) (b) (c)

small clause participles finite/inf

no TENSE no TENSE with TENSE

noINFL with INFL with INFL

The situation in (111) invites an analysis in terms of layers of projections, along the lines of inclusion:

68

(130)

(a) (b)

(c)

[CP[IP[XP'[XP]]]] where: (i) CP entails IP (ii) IP entails XP' (in) XP' entails XP but not necessarily the reverse variants: (i)XP doesn't entail XP' (ii)XP'doesn't entail IP (iii) IP doesn't entail CP

(130) would entail a structure like (131), where the order of the elements with respect to each other may be considered irrelevant. (131)

CP

/\C

Spec

\ IP /N Spec

Γ VP'

/\ NP

VP S NP

The inclusion of IP in CP is ensured already by (129a), as CPs universally entail IPs. But IP does not yet entail VP'. The problem this proposal encounters centers around the fact that it is generally assumed that I subcategorizes for a VP in French and English, where the VP does not contain a subject On the other hand, the possibility of a subject contained within the verbal projection has been argued for independently, cf. Bennis (1986) and Koopman & Sportiche (1986). In the next chapters we will try to give more motivation for this structure. In chapter 3 we will argue that it gives the best results for the analysis of syntactic affixes. In chapter 5 we will consider the relation formalized as Specifier-Head Agreement and argue that this relation causes elements to move to the Specifier-position of IP and the Specifier-position of CP,

69

respectively, subject to parametric variation. We will continue to assume that in French and English the subject occupies the specifier position of IP; we will argue, however, that this is its S-structure position rather than its D-structure position.

70

3. Levels of Syntactic Affixation

3.0. Introduction

In this chapter we will first consider the two remaining participles, the past participle with a passive value (PASS) and the past participle with a perfective value (PERF) (section 3.1.)· In this section we will argue against a neutralization analysis and in favour of an analysis using levels of affixation, where the three syntactically defined verbal levels are in principle open to affixation, as illustrated in (1) as a generalization of (2). (1) (2)

X" (a) (b) (c)

> AfVn/VnAf XP > AfVP/VPAf X' > AfV'/VAf XO > AfV°/VOAf

In section 3.1. we will concentrate the discussion on the effects of these affixes within the theories of Case and Θ-role. This will enable us to give a specific view on the verbal projections in section 3.2., in line with (131) of the preceding chapter. In section 3.2. we will discuss the auxiliaries related to the affixes PERF and PASS, as well as a licensing theory proposed by Fabb (1984), which shows the desirability of the structure (131) of chapter 2, henceforth indicated by (2.131). However, as we put the accent on affixes rather than on auxiliaries, we will revise Fabb's theory and argue that auxiliaries are to be considered secondary elements from the point of view of universal grammar. In section 3.3. we will formalize our theory of syntactic affixation in a way compatible with both our syntactic results and lexical morphology. In section 3.4. we will show that English nominalizations confirm our proposals. In section 3.5. the question will be addressed whether there exist processes of syntactic compounding which can be analyzed along the lines we suggested for syntactic affixes. We will suggest an affirmative answer, but not enter into more detail.

71

3.1. Passive and perfective participles

In this section we will consider two affixes with an identical morphological form, as illustrated in (3). (3)

(a)

Jean a chant6 une chanson. John has sung a song,

(b)

La chanson a 6t6 chante"c. The song has been sung.

The affixes create perfective participles and passive participles respectively. We will distinguish these two terminologically as PERF ((3a)) and as PASS ((3b)). We consider these two affixes, PERF and PASS, to generalize in morphology rather than in syntax. We will give syntactic arguments for this view in this section, while the formalization of the morphological generalization will be given in section 3.3.. Though it cannot be denied that these affixes are syntactic, they do not fall in the class of the INFLectional elements discussed earlier. On the basis of the initial classification in (2.10) we noted that INFLectional elements do not cooccur in the same clause, while PERF and PASS may freely cooccur. On this view a clause may contain one INFL, one PERF and one PASS: distributionally, these three affixes do not fall in the same class. There are some concrete arguments showing that PASS and PERF do not fall within the class of INFLectional elements. As we showed earlier, ne, the negative marker, can only be attested in INFLectional environments, cf. (4). The pattern in (5) can therefore be explained by the non-INFLectional status of PERF and PASS.1 (4)

(a)

Jean ne vient pas.

(b)

John not comes not. Un homme ne venant pas. A man not coming not.

(c)

II m'a promis de ne pas venir. He promised me not not to-come.

(d)

* Un homme ne pas malade. A man not not ill.

(5)

(a)

* Un homme ne pas tue". A man not not killed.

72

(b)

* Un homme ne tu6 pas. A man not killed not.

(c)

* Un homme ne pas arriv6. A man not not arrived.

(d)

* Un homme n'arrivo pas. A man not arrived not.

In order for the verb with PERF or PASS to cooccur with ne, some verb bearing INFL must be inserted, as in (6): (6)

(a)

L'homme n'e"tant pas arrive" hier. The man not having not arrived yesterday,

(b)

L'homme n'6tant pas tu6 hier. The man not being not killed yesterday.

A similar argument can be based on clitics. As shown by (7), clitics in French only attach to Verbs bearing INFLection and never to other affixed verb forms or other categories. The contrast between (7) and (8) illustrates, therefore, that the PERFective and the PASSive participle are not INFLectional. As before, the structures can be saved by the insertion of a verb bearing INFL, as in (9). (7)

(a)

Je le connais. I him-know.

(b)

Je 1'ai connu. I him-have known.

(c)

Un homme le connaissant. A man him-knowing.

(d)

Un homme 1'ayant connu. A man him-having known.

(e)

Je veux le connaitre. I want him-to-know.

(f)

Je veux 1'avoir connue. I want her-to-have known.

(g)

* Un homme y malade. A man there-sick.

(h)

* Un homme en malade. A man of-it-ill.

73

(8)

(a)

* L'homme y arrivo. The man there-arrived,

(b)

* L'homme y tu6.2 The man there-killed.

(9)

(a)

L'homme y e*tant αττίνέ. The man there-having arrived,

(b)

L'homme y 6tant tu6. The man there-being killed.

We thus consider PERF and PASS not to fall in the class of INFLectional elements. Let us then consider the effect that the affixes have in Case theory and Θ-theory. The bifurcation between INFL on the one hand and PERF and PASS on the other will be confirmed, but more importantly, PERF and PASS will be shown to be different too. With respect to Case theory we assume that nominative Case is assigned by TENSEd INFLection and that Verbs may assign accusative Case. With respect to Θ-theory we assume three types of verbs here: transitive verbs with an agent and a theme (chanter (sing)), verbs with an agent only (dormir (sleep)) and verbs with a theme only (arriver (arrive)). Now consider the examples in (10), (11), (12) and (13): (10)

(a)

Jean chante une chanson. John sings a song.

(b)

Jean veut chanter une chanson. John wants to-sing a song.

(c)

Jean a chanto une chanson. John has sung a song.

(d)

Jean veut avoir chanto une chanson. John wants to-have sung a song.

(11)

(a)

La chanson est chantoe. The song is sung.

(b)

La chanson doit etre chantie. The song must be sung.

(c)

La chanson a 6t6 chantie. The song has been sung.

(d)

La chanson doit avoir 616 chantoe. The song must have been sung.

(12)

(a)

Jean arrive. John arrives.

74

(b)

Jean veut arriver. John wants to-arrive.

(c)

Jean est arrivo. John has arrived.

(d)

Jean veut etre arrivo. John wants to-have arrived.

(13)

(a)

Jean dort. John sleeps.

(b)

Jean veut dormir. John wants to-sleep.

(c)

Jean a dormi. John has slept.

(d)

Jean veut avoir dormi. Jean wants to-have slept.

In all the (a) examples, the tensed verb has assigned nominative Case to the subject, while in all the (b) examples nominative Case cannot be assigned, because of the infinitival nature of the verb. If one adds the affix PERF, as in all (c) and (d) examples, the situation in terms of Case of the subject does not change: the (c) examples are parallel to the (a) examples, while the (d) examples are parallel to the (b) examples. If one adds the affix PASS, as in (11), the situation in terms of Case of the subject does not change either. Therefore the Case of the subject is the exclusive domain of INFL. Put in other terms, the affixes PERF and PASS do not influence Case-assignment to the subject. Reversing the same picture shows that the Case of the object is not influenced by INFL: the question whether the object bears accusative or not is not influenced by whether Case is assigned by INFL or not. Put in other terms, the Case of the object is out of the domain of INFL. So the Case of the subject is within reach of INFL, while out of reach of PERF and PASS. The Case of the object is out of reach of ENFL. We now expect the Case of the object to be within reach of PERF and PASS. Let us then compare PERF and PASS. One easily notes that adding PERF does not provoke a change with respect to the Case of the object: if accusative is assigned in the (a) and (b) examples, so it is in the (c) and (d) examples. If accusative is not assigned in the (a) and (b) examples, it is not assigned in the (c) and (d) examples either. The Case of the object is not affected by PERFective participle. Adding PASS however causes a change with respect to the Case that is assigned: while accusative is assigned in (10), it is not in (11). Therefore

75

the Case of the object is within reach of PASS, although the influence PASS has is a negative

one. The examples in (12) and (13) show a bifurcation in the class of traditionally intransitive verbs, between the true intransitive verbs (13) and the so-called ergative verbs (12). As Burzio (1981) shows, ergative verbs are best considered parallel to passivized transitive verbs. We will return to his generalization in 3.2. and 5.5.. With respect to Θ-theory similar differences between INFL, PEKF and PASS exist, though they are show up slightly differently. We generally accept that every verb has an associated Θ-grid. INFL and PERF pattern alike in that they do not affect the Θ-grid. PASS is different in this respect: the realization of the 'agent'-role of the grid has been changed. Whereas the 'agent' normally occurs in subject position and whereas it is obligatory, with PASS the 'agent' is realized in a PP headed by par (by) and is optional. (14) summarizes our observations schematically. (14)

Influence on

Case-subj

INFL

+

PERF

-

PASS

-

Case-obj

Θ-grid

-

-

+

+

If we return then to the initial schematisation of the possibilities for levels of affixation in syntax (cf. (2) of this chapter), (14) reads as (15), where the horizontal lines represent a domain delimitation. (15)

NP-subj

INFL

VP

PERF

V

PASS

V

NP-obj

In (15) INFL is an affix adjoined to VP, PERF an affix adjoined to V, and PASS an affix adjoined to V°. The domain limitations indicated by the horizontal lines translate the observations in (14): the Case of the subject is within reach of INFL, the Case of the object within reach of PASS, while none of these is within reach of PERF. The Θ-grid is associated with the Verb, such that only PASS may influence it. In structural terms (15) amounts to (16).

76

(16)

Notice that the horizontal lines in (15) are not just some sort of delimitation we propose to get our argument to work, but that these domains are defined independently by the barrierstype definitions of government. Government in its "wide" variant is blocked by a maximal projection, in (16) by VP. Government in its "minimality" variant is blocked by an intervening (closer) governor. INFL is separated from the object by VP - a barrier -, PERF and PASS are separated from the subject by VP - a barrier. And PERF is separated from the object by V, a barrier by the minimality condition, as V is closer to the object. The domains in (15) are therefore independently motivated. Our proposal entails that we claim that the different levels of X-bar theory in syntax are visible for the syntactic affixes. Syntactic affixes differ from morphological affixes in that they subcategorize for the syntactically defined projections rather than for the morphological projections, if one considers the levels of root and word to involve projections (for the purpose of terminological comparison here). We will exploit the consequences of this in 3.3.. The absence of Case-marking produced by affixation of PASS led Chomsky (1981) to propose feature-neutralization. As Verbs and Prepositions (generalized as [-N] ) assign abstract Case to their complements and as Nouns and Adjectives (generalized as [+N] ) generally do not, the verb with the affix PASS is characterized by Chomsky as a Verb without the feature relevant for Case-assignment: [+V-N] minus [-N], hence [+V]. He points out a number of important differences between passive participles that are created lexically and those that are syntactic. He assumes that the lexical passive participles are fully Adjectival, while syntactic passive participles are [+V], a class in which the difference between Verbs and Adjectives has been neutralized. Moreover, [+V] gives formal content to the semi-verbal semi-adjectival nature of the verb form. We fully accept the arguments which suggest that there are differences between lexical and syntactic passivization. However, we have objections to feature-neutralization. Allowing the theory to neutralize lexical features entails a new system with nine possibilities, as in (17), where we use 0 to indicate the neutralized feature.

77

(17)

V +V-N

+V0N

A +V+N

0V-N

0V0N

0V+N

-V-N P

-V0N

-V+N N

We doubt whether this increase of possibilities is warranted: a theory using four possibilities is more restrictive in principle. Formally, (17) is quite different from a system in which the alfa may be used, as in

(18):

(18)

V +V-N

A

+VaN

+V+N

aV-N

aVaN aV-aN

aV+N

-V-N P

-VaN

-V+N

N

In (18) a may be either + or -, but not 0. The two systems, (17) and (18), do not differ in that they consider V, N, A and P to be the four major categories. At first sight, both systems work equally well when generalizations are involved. As an example of this consider the relevance of the features for Case theory: V and P assign Case to their complements, A and N do not. In terms of (17) the generalization reads as: [0V-N] assigns Case, [0V+N] does not. In terms of (18) this gives: [aV-N] assigns Case, [ocV+N] does not. Both systems state that the Verbal feature is irrelevant for the theory of Case. As they are irrelevant, the notational shorthand [N] or [+N] may be used. The fact that such shorthands can be used does not yet entail that one is confronted with neutralization: the use of these features is in itself irrelevant for the choice between (17) and (18). The two systems thus seem to work equally well when generalizations are involved. Let us look however in the center of the blocks, [aVaN], [aV-oJ*I] in (18) and [0V0N] in (17). (18) allows for generalizations across P and A via [aVaN], and across V and N via [aV-aN]. Even though these types of generalization may perhaps be rare, they can be stated in a satisfactory way. For (17) the opposite is true: with [0V0N] one is unable to state

78

generalizations over P and A or over N and V. In fact, the features do not differentiate between P,A and N,V, as every property is neutralized. However, this problem can be circumvented by allowing (17) to exist next to (18). In other words, α in (18) can be proposed to be +, - and 0. However, we think there are a number of practical problems with neutralization. Consider again the center of the block in (17) and keep in mind that passive participles have been proposed to constitute the "halfway" between V and A. The center of the block refers to "halfways" between V and Ν or "halfways" between A and P. The neutralized system entails that all relevant properties are absent, the properties that are connected with [±V] are absent, just as those connected with [±N]. This is a rather absurd entailment and the least that it suggests is that there are no plausible candidates to fill this position. Do we have plausible candidates for the "halfways" between V and N, that is constructions or elements with mixed Verbal and Nominal properties? The "plausible candidate" in question is in fact a wellstudied construction, the one illustrated in (19). (19)

John's destroying the city.

The mix referred to is clearly visible: accusative Case is assigned by Verbs and genitive Case by Nouns. Therefore the construction has standardly been analyzed as a nominalization of the VP. Though we will return to this construction and related ones in section 3.4., we can remark here that a neutralization analysis of this construction is impossible in principle, as the "halfway" between V and Ν has no properties whatsoever in (17): no predictions are made at all by this system. The fact that nominalizations will never be adequately described by a neutralization analysis already casts great doubts on the desirability of neutralization, but it does not yet entail that the passive participle is inadequately described by [+V]. Therefore our principled objection, based on the fact that no predictions are made, must be related to facts about passive participles. In theory the objection can be formulated as follows: the system makes no predictions with respect to the properties that are connected with either + or - Ν if the element is characterized as [+V0N]. Finding an example of this is easy: in French adjectives, nouns and verbs bear endings related to the expression of person, number and gender. Adjectives and Nouns take affixes for number and gender and Verbs for person and number. Passive participles show agreement too. Now, what prediction is made by the neutralization system? Does the participle show adjectival agreement or verbal agreement? With [+V] no answer can be given to this question. On the basis of this failure we conclude that the neutralization system should be abandoned in favour of an analysis using levels of affixation, as defended above. We analyze

79

the passivizing affix as an adjectival affix, as has been proposed by Fiengo (1974), Jackendoff (1977) and Vergnaud (1985) among others. We predict that passive participles in French agree in the adjectival way, as they in fact do.3 As the neutralization analysis was proposed in order to account for the differences between the lexical passive and the syntactic passive, we must come up with an alternative account for these differences. We will show a very simple way to do this in section 3.3., which is motivated independently of passive. We will distinguish between two types of affixes, lexical and syntactic, on general grounds. We will also have to come up with an alternative explanation for the fact that no accusative Case is assigned by a Verb bearing a passivizing affix. This explanation will be given in 3.2. and 5.5. in relation to general properties of NP-movement. The neutralization analysis has been used also for the affix we called PERF. Analyzing the PASSivized Verb as [+V] and noting that the PERFectivized Verb uses the same affix, Hoekstra (1984) proposes that the Verb bearing PERF also has [+V]. In this way the differences between PERF and PASS we noted above with respect to their influence on the theories of Case and theta-role are obliterated. The alternative he presents is that auxiliaries take over the Case-properties. The verb avoir (have) which accompanies Verbs bearing PERF assigns the accusative Case to the direct object, whereas etre (be) accompanying Verbs bearing PASS does not have this property. A similar analysis is found in Roberts (1985) and Fabb (1984). What these analyses have in common is that they largely rely on the presence of auxiliaries, whereas our theory puts an enormous accent on the affix. This calls for "a theory of auxiliaries" compatible with our view. This will be taken up in the next section. We will continue to argue that the affixes are relevant rather than the auxiliaries. To this end we will adduce empirical evidence and we will show that affixes PERF and PASS have exactly the same function in languages and constructions without auxiliaries.

3.2. Auxiliaries and licensing

In this section we will consider two questions which are at first sight unrelated. We will develop a theory of auxiliaries, as well as link the theory of levels of affixation to a theory of licensing verbal projections. The relation between these two is that they depend on the same formalism. We will take Fabb's (1984) theory of licensing and modify it in a way in

80

which we can account for auxiliaries while retaining the licensing theory. This licensing theory will then be used more independently.

3.2.1. Elements for a theory of auxiliaries

As is clearly visible in the examples we gave in the preceding section (cf. (10) - (13)), the morphemes PERF and PASS are quite generally accompanied by auxiliaries. In this section we will try to formulate a theory that accounts for auxiliaries. The following questions will be adressed in paragraph 3.2.1.1.: (20)

(a)

When do auxiliaries occur?

(b)

Why do auxiliaries occur?

(c)

How many auxilaries occur in a given situation?

(d)

How can the order of auxiliaries with respect to the verb and other auxiliaries be predicted?

In paragraph 3.2.1.2. we will consider the status of the proposed theory with respect to languages using no or less auxiliaries.

3.2.1.1. Auxiliary theory

Fabb (1984) develops a visibility theory of syntactic elements. As a starting point he uses the visibility requirement for Nouns, which need to have abstract Case in order to be visible. He extends this notion of Case to the other major categories, i.e. to Verbs, Adjectives and Prepositions. As a consequence he speaks about Verbal Case, Adjectival Case and Prepositional Case. This extended notion of abstract Case is intended to express a generalization across different types of licensing, where 'being licensed' means that the element in question is allowed to assign the Θ-roles it has in its Θ-grid. Nevertheless, the Cases radically differ in nature.

81

We will not discuss the Cases assigned to P and A, while the discussion of Case assigned to N serves only illustrative purposes. We are concerned mainly with the Case assigned to V. In order to see how Fabb's extended Case-system works, let us consider the Case assigned to Nouns. The general pattern for Case-assignment is that some element, call it X (e.g. V or AGR) assigns nominal Case (e.g. accusative or nominative) to an NP, as in (21). (21)

X

Nominal Case

> NP

While changing a bit the formulation and the formalism one could say that the Case-feature of the assigner, X, must correspond to the Case-feature of the assignee, NP, as for example in (22), where Cn stands for nominal Case. (22)

NP

AGR

V

NP

Cn(nom)

Cn(nom)

Cn(acc)

Cn(acc)

In such a formulation Case-assignment is subject to a one-to-one restriction in the sense that one Case-feature of the assigner must be matched with one Case-feature of the assignee. For Fabb the question then becomes which elements license Verbal projections. In other words, which elements classify as X in: (23)

X

Verbal Case

>V

He makes the following claim (p.69): (24) We claim that certain verbs, prepositions and AGR would be marked to assign 'verbal Case' to a verb stem (by assigning Case to the VP, which then percolates down to the head), and that a verb stem needs verbal Case. In (25) are given examples of the three types he mentions, where Cv(x) is the (nameless) verbal Case. (25)

(a)

I want

(b)

I want

(c)

They

to run. Cv(x) Cv(x) to see him Cv(x) AGR

run.

Cv(x)

Cv(x)

run. Cv(x)

82

These three verbal Cases share the property that they have no visible reflex. In all cases the Verb has its 'bare' form. As similar observations can be made for NP's (not all nominal Cases lead to different forms), the fact that the verb is in its bare form is not surprising. As far as French is concerned, a comparable situation holds for NP's, but not for these instances of verbal Case. In French we find, parallel to (25): (26)

(a)

Je veux chanter. I want to-sing.

(b) (c)

Je le vois courir. I him-see to-run. Us courent. They run.

So in French we find an infinitival form of the verb twice, and endings indicating person and number in the case of AGR. In English AGR is only visible in the third person singular, as in (27) in Fabb's view. (27)

He

AGR

run

s

Cv(3s)

Cv(x)

Cv(x) Cv(3s)

(27) has a peculiar property: the system works highly indirectly. AGR matches its Casefeature with -s and -s matches its Case-feature with run. We prefer a more direct verbal Caseassignment, yielding (28): (28)

He

AGR Cv(3s)

runs Cv(3s)

This entails that we claim that -s is not crucial for English, but rather some spelled out feature of the Cv(3s). For (25c), for example, we have (29). (29)

They

AGR

run

Cv(3p)

Cv(3p)

It is now accidental that Cv(3p) receives no realization in English. The advantage of (28) and (29) over (25c) and (27) lies in the possibility to relate the differences between French and English not to differences in the licensing system for Verbal projections, but rather to

83

differences in the morphological system for these Cases, which happens to be richer in French than in English. Also, the situation now becomes similar to the situation found across languages with respect to nominal Case. Moreover, the Verbal Case-system gains in simplicity. Let us then turn our attention to the main topic of this section, auxiliaries. Fabb gives the representation (30b) for (30a). (30c) is our simplified version of (30b). (30)

(a) (b)

I am running. I AGR am Cv(ls)

run

Cv(ls) Cv(prog)

Cv(prog)

Cv(x) (c)

I

ing

AGR

am

Cv(ls)

Cv(ls) Cv(prog)

Cv(x)

running Cv(prog)

In more familiar terms, INFL licenses the auxiliary be and be licenses the progressive ending on run. The same system is used for the examples in (31), which will be considered in more detail below: (31)

(a)

Ilacouni.

(b) (c)

He has run. II est battu par son adversaire.

(d)

He is beaten by his adversary.

(e)

II a 6t6 battu.

(f)

He has been beaten.

In (a/b) have/avoir assigns a verbal Case, which is realized as the perfective participle on run/courir. In (c/d) bc/etre assigns a verbal case, realized as the passive participle on beat/battre. In (e/f) have/avoir assigns the perfective participle to be/etre and be/etre assigns the passive participle to beat/battre. We find the INFLectional affix TENSE+AGR on have/avoir in (31a/b), on be/etre in (31c/d), on have/avoir in (31e/f) and on run/courir in (26c) and (28). In Fabb's system INFL assigns a Case, but is not licensed itself. One could say that this is a special property of INFL, which is true in a sense, but a problem arises if we consider the triples in (32):

84

(32)

(a)

have/avoir

V+PERF

(b)

be/etre

V+PASS

(c)

INFL

V+INFL

In (32) the assigner and the assignee differ in the case of auxiliaries (e.g. have assigns PERF), while with INFL the assigner and the assignee are the same (INFL assigns INFL). This lack of generality in the system for verbal Case can be mended, if we translate Fabb's approach into a system stated in terms of affixes: (32) is coherent if the accent is put on the part to the right (V+PERF, V+PASS, V+INFL), the affixed verb forms, rather than on the part to the left (have, be, INFL), Fabb's licensers. In other words: On the right-hand side we have a homogeneous class of verbs with affixes, while on the left we have a heterogeneous class. Let us then put an accent on the affixed verb-forms, and consider the notion verbal Case to be synonymous with the more conventional affix. In other words, Verbs are licensed by syntactic affixes. For nominal Case Fabb postulates a one-to-one restriction. Transposing this restriction to affixes and verbs, we get the following conditions: (33)

(a)

* Verb without an Affix

(b)

* Affix without a Verb

(c)

Affixes and Verbs are one-to-one

(33) has the same effects as Fabb's system, but differs in that no reference is made to the assigner of the affix. In (33) affixes are the 'primitives'. (33a) is the verbal licensing part, (33b) is a morphological requirement that affixes may not be stranded, while (33c) is Fabb's one-to-one restriction. Let us then give an illustration of what (33) amounts to. Suppose one freely associates the affixes in (34) with one main verb, yielding (35). In (36) we indicate how (33) excludes or accepts them. (34)

(35)

(a)

INFL

(b)

PERFective participle

(c)

PASSive participle

(a)

V0

(b)

V INFL

(c)

V INFL PERF

(d)

V INFL PASS

(e)

V INFL PERF PASS

85

(36)

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e) (f)

(g)

(h)

Π travaillHe workV0 II travaillait He worked V+INFL II travaillaite' He workeded V+INFL+PERF Π tuaito He killeded V+INFL+PASS V+INFL+PERF+PASS II INFL travail^ He INFL worked V+PERF II INFL tuo He INFL killed V+PASS II INFL PERF V+PASS

*for(33a)

ok

*for(33c)

*for(33c)

* for (33c) * for (33b)

*for(33b)

*for(33b)

If one departs from (35), then (33) filters out all incorrect forms. Of course, it is not impossible to use INFL and PERF or PASS in the same sentence, but then one has to use auxiliaires, as in (37): (37)

(a)

(b)

(c)

Π a travail!6. He has worked. AUX+INFL V+PERF II est tu6. He is killed. AUX+INFL V+PASS II a έΐέ tuo. He has been killed. AUX+INFL AUX+PERF V+PASS

As for the original questions (20) (a), (b) and (c), we answer them as follows:

86

(38)

(a) (b) (c)

One uses auxiliaries when there is more than one affix present in a given clause. Auxiliaries must be used in order to get a one-to-one correspondence between affixes and verbs. The number of auxiliaries is the number of affixes minus one.

(38a) and (38c) refer to respectively "more than one" and "minus one", because of the standard case with V+INFL: for (38a): INFL is present, so no auxiliary is needed. For (38c): V is present, so one auxiliary less is needed. Let us then consider the remaining question, (20d), the question of the order of the auxiliaries. Alongside the examples given in (36) more can go wrong if one freely associates verbs and affixes. To give a few examples: (39)

(a)

(b)

(c)

* II eu travaillait * He had works AUX+PERF V+INFL * II eu tuait * He had kills AUX+PASS V+INFL * II eu ite tuait * He had been kills AUX+PERF AUX+PASS V+INFL

ok for (33)

ok for (33)

ok for (33)

The only correct order is, if the three affixes considered are all present: (40)

II avail έΐέ tue*. He had been killed. AUX+INFL AUX+PERF V+PASS

On the assumption that the occurrence of auxiliairies is predictable on the basis of the affixes, the only correct order is (41), where < means "closer to": (41)

INFL Vmax

GERUND, [N] LEXNOM, [N]

> V NP [\0-agent > V NP Θ-theme

PERF [A] PASS [A]

K

116

With respect to structure (2.131), this entails that our theory of levels of affixation, and more in particular the licensing part, confirms it. We will return to the fact that clauses generally have subjects, as stated by the Extended Projection Principle. With respect to morphology we showed in section 3.3. that the information carried by syntactic affixes may be easily formalized, once it is accepted that affixes may subcategorize for syntactically defined projections. We allowed the affixes to adjoin at D-structure on the side which correspond to the syntactic parameter-setting, while we also argued that the morphological unit verb+affix follows the Right-hand Head Rule. As the same elements are involved we proposed a rule relating the affix to the verb, where this rule is kept as simple as possible in order to account for the fact that some languages (e.g. French) move the Verb towards the affix, while other languages (e.g. English) move the affix towards the V. We briefly looked at the possibilities of syntactic compounding and showed the need for such a rule on the basis of French clitics. However, syntactic compounding seems to involve more elements than one would initially expect on the basis of syntactic affixation. In the next two chapters we will not return to the relation between Affix and Verb as an independent issue. We will turn our attention to the relevance of our system in its interaction with syntactic movement.

117

4. Syntax and the Relations between V, I and C

4.0. Introduction

In the preceding chapters we discussed syntactic affixes, their properties, their influence in terms of Θ-roles and Case-marking and their relations to verbs. Taking INFL as an example, we showed that it may be specified in terms of the four lexical categories, that two of these categories relate to ±TENSE, that the constructions headed by ±TENSE are regularly introduced by a COMPlementizer, that INFL licenses a verbal projection containing an agent in D-structure and that it comes to form a complex unit with a verbal element on a more superficial level. We did not discuss the interaction of these affixes with NP- and WHmovement. Taking PASS as an example, it has been shown to influence the Case of the object. Generally, this has been assumed to be the reason for the movement of the object to a position in which it receives Case. It is this type of movement that has not been discussed. In this chapter and the next, we will make use of the barriers framework as formulated in chapter 1, and repeated here in (1). (1)

(a) (b)

A maximal projection c is a Blocking Category for b iff c is not L-marked and c dominates b. c is a barrier for b iff (i) or (ii): (i) c immediately dominates d, d a BC for b. (ii) c is a BC for b, and c is not IP.

According to (la) every maximal projection is a Blocking Category or - in other terms - a potential barrier provided that it is not L-marked. Quite generally maximal projections in object position are L-marked, while maximal projections in subject or in adjunct position are not. (Ib) determines the conditions under which Blocking Categories (or potential barriers) become (actual) barriers. According to (ii) every Blocking Category except IP is a barrier, these constitute the intrinsic barriers. According to (i) every maximal projection that dominates a Blocking Category is also a barrier, these are the barriers by inheritance. To see the relevance of this system for the topics of this monograph, consider NPmovement in passives: the object moves to the subject position. In doing so, it crosses a

118

maximal projection (the VP) which is not L-marked (INFL does not L-mark). Therefore, VP is a barrier for this type of movement. Chomsky (1986b) proposes that the barrierhood of the projection is circumvented by the creation of a specific type of chain, an "extended chain". This type of chain makes use of the relation between INFL and V. In other words, this book based on the relation between syntactic affixes and verbs cannot ignore this type of chain in its interaction with movement. We will discuss NP-movement and its link with the relation between V and I in section 4.1.. In section 4.1., we will discuss the relation between V and I with respect to movement to the specifier position of I. In section 4.2., we will consider the relation between C and I with respect to movement to the specifier position of C, that is, WH-movement. We argued in section 2.4. that C and I are related because of their ±TENSE properties. The relation between C and I being relevant for WH-movement will be shown to involve TENSE often, but not uniquely. In this section we will also argue that the special position of IP in the barrier-system of (1) is to be avoided and we will claim that it is an intrinsic barrier just like the other maximal projections. In section 4.3., we will concentrate on the exact definition of the "extended chains". It will be argued that they are best defined as a kind of "composed chains". In sections 4.4. and 4.5., we will consider some other issues in relation to the type of chain we came to defend in section 4.3.: in section 4.4. WH-islands will be considered, while 4.5. discusses some superiority facts.

4.1. Extended chains as relevant for NP-movement

The "extended chains" alluded to above are proposed in section 11 of Chomsky (1986b). The conjecture he makes is that antecedent-government is both a necessary and sufficient condition in order for a moved NP to be connected with its trace. Though VP is a barrier, an "extended chain" can circumvent it. Consider two examples of NP-movement involving raising: (2)

(a)

John; [yp seems [n> tj to have left]],

(b)

Johni [VP is [AP' tj ill]].

Two maximal projections seperate the NP and its trace, the lower IP or XP', and the higher VP. As IP and XP' are L-marked by respectively seem and be, they do not function as

119

barriers. VP however is not L-marked and functions therefore as a barrier. The barrierhood of the VP is circumvented by an extended chain, which can only be created under certain conditions, relying on independently motivated relations. The subject is related to the INFLection via the general Specifier-Head Agreement as explained in 1.2.. We will abbreviate Specifier-Head Agreement as SHAGR. And the Verb is related to INFL via the standard relation we discussed before. The overall picture is thus as in (3), where the SHAGR relation is indicated by literal superscripts and the movement relation by literal subscripts: (3)

1 SHAGR 1 NP I 1 χ

V χ

t 1

The relation indicated by the small χ is one of the two crucial factors in circumventing the barrierhood of VP. From the point of view of the preceding chapters, it is interesting to know whether the relation indicated by the small χ corresponds to "relate affix and verb" or not. On the basis of the simplest case (that of (2)), this question cannot be answered. Let us then consider some more examples. For example, does do-insertion - which breaks the relation between affix and verb - disturb the extended chains of (3)? The standard examples of (4) show that do-insertion occurs when INFL does not contain a Modal (or an Auxiliary) and when the negation marker is added or a question is formed. In other words, do-insertion occurs in questions and with negation if there is only a main verb. (4)

(a) (b) (c) (d)

What can you buy? You can't buy this painting. What did you buy? You didn't buy this painting.

Consider then the examples combining (2) and (4). (5)

(6)

(a) (b) (c) (d) (a) (b)

What does John seem to like? * What seems John to like? John doesn't seem to have left. * John seems not to have left. John isn't ill. * John doesn't be ill.

120

(c)

How ill is John?

(d)

* How ill does John be?

(5) and (6) pattern differently. As (5) and (6) should involve the same type of extended chain, it cannot be just the morphological relation between affix and verb that is accounting for the possibility of the extended chain. Syntactic compounds qualify also. This entails that the extended chain is indeed dependent on morphological relations in a sense in which no difference is made between syntactic affixation and syntactic compounding. Standard passive sentences confirm this line of argument, not only in English, but also in French, cf. (7). (7)

(a)

Johni has been killed ti.

(b)

Jeanj a έίέ tu6 ti.

In other words, as far as NP-movement is concerned, extended chains depend on morphologically defined complexes. In what follows, merely the relation between V and I will be referred to. Note that we differ in this respect from Chomsky (1986b). He assumes that the raising of the verb to INFL L-marks the VP so that no barrier remains. This line of argument can be disconfirmed on the basis of (5) and (6): INFL-movement towards the Verb qualifies too as sufficient for the creation of the extended chain. A similar argument can be based on the lowering of INFL in infinitives, cf. (8). (8) I advise you PROi not to be ti inflexible. As has been illustrated then, for NP-movement the properties summed up in (9) hold with respect to the barrier-system: (9)

NP-movement (a)

crossing of the barrier VP

(b)

landing site Spec of IP

(c) (d)

SHAGR in IP relation I-V

These are the general prerequisite properties of an 'extended' Α-chain, in which antecedentgovernment is a sufficient condition for the satisfaction of the general empty category principle.

121

As seems logical, evidence that Α-chains need antecedent-government poses the question whether the same situation holds for A-bar-chains. We claim that this question deserves a positive answer and we will determine how this can be achieved in the next section. At the same time, evidence for the barrierhood of IP will be given there.

4.2. Extended chains as relevant for WH-movement

In the barrier-system formulated in (1), IP has a special position in that it is not an intrinsic barrier. Conceptually at least a system in which IP is not special would be simpler. In this section, we will present empirical evidence for the barrierhood of IP. We will argue along the following lines. If NP-movement is analyzed as movement to the specifier-position of IP and if at S-structure the extended chain depends on the relation between I and V, the relation between I and V is forced: otherwise, the NP-trace fails to be antecedent-governed. A parallel picture is made for WH-movement. As WH-movement is analyzed as movement to the specifier-position of CP and as at S-structure the WH-trace must be antecedent-governed, relations between C and I become forced if IP is a barrier. If IP is a barrier, an extended chain based on the relation between C and I will be needed to circumvent its barrierhood. As WH-movement causes differences in the contents of C, we will link the filling of C to the way in which extended chains between C and I are created; and these relations become forced if IP is a barrier. In other terms, if one postulates the properties of (9) for Α-chains, for A-bar-chains the properties in (10) hold in a theory in which IP is not special with respect to the definition of barriers. (10)

WH-movement (a)

crossing of the barrier IP

(b)

landing site spec of CP

(c)

SHAGR in CP

(d)

relation C-I

Let us therefore consider the standard cases for WH-extraction in English, Dutch and French, as in respectively (11)-(12), (13)-(14) and (15)-(16).

122

(11)

(12)

(13)

(a) (b) (c) (a)

Who; t; saw Peter? Whati did you see ti? Why, did he leave ti? Whoi do you think ti ti saw Peter?

(b)

Whati do you think ti that he saw ti?

(c) (a)

Whyi do you think ti that he left ti?i Wiei zag tj Peter? Who saw Peter. Watj zag hij tj? What saw he. Waaromj vertrok hij ti?

(b) (c) (14)

(a) (b) (c)

(15)

(a) (b) (c)

(16)

(a) (b) (c)

Why left he. Wiei denk je ti dat ti Peter gezien heeft? Who think you that has seen Peter. Wati denk je ti dat hij tj gezien heeft? What think you that he has seen. Waaromi denk je ti dat hij vertrok ti? Why think you that he left. Quij ti a vu Pierre? Who has seen Peter. Qui'a-t-il vu ti? What has-he seen. Pourquoi, est-il parti ti? Why has-he left. Quij pensez-vous ti qui ti a vu Pierre? Who think-you that has seen Peter. Quei pensez-vous ti qu'il a vu ti? What think-you that he has seen. Pourquoii pensez-vous ti qu'il est parti ti? Why think-you that he has left.

If one distinguishes three types of WH-elements (subjects, objects and adjuncts) and two types of clauses (root and non-root), the extraction facts can be represented as in (17).

123

(17)

(a)

Patterns in root clauses. Extracted WH: English French Dutch

(b)

subject

object

adjunct

deep

0 0 V2

do

do

do

SCLinv

SCLinv

SCLinv

V2

V2

V2

subject

object

adjunct

deep

0 qui dat

that

that

that

que dat

que dat

que dat

Patterns in embedded clauses. Extracted WH: English French Dutch

The first three columns simply repeat the facts in (11)-(16): in English do-insertion takes place in root clauses when the WH-element is an object or an adjunct. The same situation occurs in French with respect to the possibility of subject clitic inversion. In Dutch, the finite verb is fronted irrespective of the status of the WH-element. The situation is comparable in embedded clauses, except for the fact that finite complementizers are used instead of Verbmovements. We have also given a column for 'deep' which captures the cases in which the preposed WH-element does not originate in the same clause, but has been moved via a lower COMP out of an embedded clause. The need for the extra column relates to Lasnik & Saito (1984), who observed that only the first instance of WH-movement meets special conditions for antecedent-government. An illustration of their point can be based on (18). (18)

(a)

Whoi t, left?

(b)

* Who! did tj leave?

(c) (d)

Whoi do you think ti ti left? * Whoj do you think ti that ti left?

(e)

Whoi do you think t, that Mary said tj ti left?

(f)

* Who; do you think ti that Mary said ti that ti left?

All cases are instances of subject-extraction. However, it is only in the first COMP which ccommands the trace that no other element may be inserted. In (18a), do may not be inserted. In (18c), do may be inserted in the root clause, but the lower COMP may not contain that. And in (18e), do may be inserted in the root clause, that in the first embedded clause, but not in the COMP of the lowest clause.

124

In view of the parallel between (9) and (10), we define antecedent-government by means of extended chains, where the extension stems from relations between I and C. Consider first the case of subject-extraction from an embedded clause in French, as in (16a), repeated here as (19). (19)

Quii pensez-vous [ti qui [ti a vu Pierre]]? Who do you think t that+index t has seen Peter.

The embedded subject has a Specifier-Head relationship with the embedded I, indicated by superscripts and SHAGR in (20). The subject moves to the specifier position of CP, where it is again in a Specifier-Head relationship with another element, C in that case. Afterwards, it will move to the VP-adjoined position (not represented in (19)) and land ultimately in the highest CP. The situation arising after the first movement is represented in (20): (20)

1 SHAGR 1 WH

C

1

1 SHAGR 1 t

I

1

We take the change of que to qui to be a morphological reflex of the indexation relation. The change of que to qui is necessary in order for the sentence to be grammatical, indicating that the WH-element properly governs its trace in (19) and (20). A first type of extended chain can thus be based on the sharing of a superscript between I and C, which circumvents the barrierhood of IP in this case: (21)

I and C form an extended chain if they bear the same superscript. This way of creating extended chains is very similar to the COMP-indexing

mechanism of Aoun, Hornstein & Sportiche (1980), but not identical. The COMP-indexing mechanism yields proper government of the trace in subject position, whereas in the present system the trace has a SHAGR relation with I. The difference may seem trivial, but it is crucial. Making use of extended chains between I and C to account for antecedentgovernment of the trace in subject position predicts interaction with other types of relations between I and C. Another type of relation between I and C is the one created by movement of a verbal element to C, a process which occurs in Dutch root clauses. In such clauses, the inflected verb is always moved into COMP. Extraction of a subject then gives picture (23) for (13a), repeated here as (22).

125

(22)

Wie, zag tj Peter. Who saw t Peter.

(23)

l SHAGR l WH l

C

l SHAGR l t

I

V+I l

t

2

2

This example shows the viability of an other type of extended chain, defined in (24): (24)

I and C form an extended chain if V+I moves to C. With two types of extended chains available, (21) and (24), let us now turn our

attention to English, in particular to the phenomenon of do-insertion. The examples given in (11)-(12), repeated here as (25), give rise to the generalization in (26) concerning doinsertion. (25)

(26)

(a)

Whoj t! saw Peter?

(b)

WhatI did you see tj?

(c)

Whyj did he leave ti?

(d)

Whoi do you think ti ti saw Peter?

(e)

What, do you think tt that Peter saw ti?

(f)

Whyj do you think ti that Peter left ti?

Do-insertion is obligatory in every WH-question, except when the subject of the root clause is questioned.

We interpret do-insertion as a movement of I to C (cf. Den Besten (1977)) together with the insertion of a dummy verb. Of course, if I contains an Auxiliary or a Modal, it is that element that is preposed such that do need not be inserted. Let us first consider (25a), yielding (27): (27)

1 SHAGR 1 WH 1

C

1 SHAGR 1 t

I

1

In this situation, do-insertion is prohibited, that is, movement of I to C does not occur. In other words, the extended chain formulated in (24) is not needed. On the other hand, the extended chain defined in (21) is created because I and C bear the same superscript. Because

126

of the general assumption that movement must be forced, we may say that in English there is no need for I to move to C (and hence, for do-insertion) if I and C have already formed a chain by superscripts. The second part of the generalization about do-insertion is explained along the same lines, but with the opposite effect. Consider the situations in which do-insertion is obligatory: (28)

2 SHAGR 2 1 SHAGR 1 WH C NP I 2

t 2

In (28), WH ranges over objects and adjuncts that originate in the same clause (cf. (25b) and (25c)), and over subjects and other elements from embedded clauses (cf. (25d)-(25f))· They all end up in VP-adjoined positions, and are moved from there into the specifier position of CP. The subject of the root clause holds the Specifier-Head relationship with I. The WHelement holds the Specifier-Head relationship with C. As a consequence I and C will never bear the same superscript, which means that an extended chain of this type cannot be created. As a consequence, IP remains a barrier. Therefore, I must be moved to C (hence do-insertion) in order to create an extended chain allowing for proper government of the elements in the chain. The following situation then arises: (29)

2 SHAGR 2 1 SHAGR WH C NP 2 do+I 3

1 I t 3

t 2

The extended chain of the movement type functions as the default procedure in English, in that is it is only used if the other one does not work. To explain the pattern for English (cf. (17a)), we can say: (30)

(a) (b)

In English, sharing of a superscript is a necessary and sufficient condition for the creation of an extended chain between I and C. In English, movement of I to C is used as a default procedure for the creation of an extended chain between I and C.

For Dutch (cf. (17a)), the chain construction in terms of superscripts is never needed, that is, movement of I to C is the overall procedure to avoid the barrierhood of IP, hence:

127

(31)

In Dutch, movement of I to C is the only procedure creating an extended chain between I and C.

If we now reconsider the scheme for the root clause in (17a), and compare it to the scheme for the embedded clause in (17b), one immediately notes that they have similar patterns. That is, the situation in embedded clauses is essentially similar to the one in root clauses. The root clause pattern given in (27) for (25a) corresponds to the one in embedded clauses; corresponding to (25a) and (27), we thus have picture (33) for (12a), repeated here as (32). (32) (33)

Whoi do you think ti ti left? 1 SHAGR 1 1 SHAGR 1 WH C t I 1 1

On the other hand, corresponding to (25b)-(25c) and (28), we have (35) for the examples in (34). (34) (35)

(a) Whatj do you think ti that Peter saw ti ? (b) Why, do you think ti that Peter left ti ? 2 SHAGR 2 1 SHAGR 1 WH C NP I t 2 2

(33) needs no further comments. With (30a) available, there is no need to insert that in the embedded clause containing the trace in subject position, parallel to the absence of deinsertion. The extended chain is created by means of the superscripts. For (35) we propose that the extended chain is created by the insertion ofthat in C, thus making a link with the I, a link of the same type as the link created by movement. The situation then becomes parallel to the one in (27): (36)

2 SHAGR 2 1 SHAGR 1 WH C NP I 2 that 3 3

128

t 2

We can regard this special type of chain-extension as a case of TENSE-extension, similar to the I-C path in Pesetsky (1982). The implied claim is that the relation of the complementizer to the finite verb in embedded clauses is of the same type as the relation between a finite verb in COMP and its trace, as we have argued for independent reasons in chapter 2. The Dutch pattern in (17b) receives the same explanation: with (31) available, dat must always be present. Summarizing then, we have outlined two possible ways to create an extended chain. They are repeated in (37), together with the way they work for English and Dutch. (37)

I-C chains: (a)

via identical superscripts.

(b)

via TENSE = (i) movement of (V+)I to C in root clauses. (ii) via TENSE in C and TENSE in I in embedded clauses.

(38)

(a)

English: I-C chain via (37a). If not (37b).

(b)

Dutch: I-C chain via (37b).

Let us finally return to French, which seemed the most simple case. This is no longer true. Examples such as in (19) do not pattern with the Dutch equivalents, nor do they pattern with the English ones. Consider (39) again: (39)

(a)

Wiej denk je ti dat ti Peter zag?

(b)

Whoi do you think ti ti saw Peter?

(c)

Quii pensez-vous ti qui ti a vu Pierre?

In English, the superscript relation is sufficient, and in Dutch the TENSE relation is sufficient. In French, however, neither one is sufficient, que alone is not sufficient, but the superscript alone is not sufficient either. For French, then, we have to say that an extended chain for I and C always depends on the TENSE-relation. For subject-extraction the superscript relation is a necessary (but not sufficient) obligatory correlate. In other words: (40)

French: I-C chain via (37b), plus (37a) if possible.

This entails that que must always be realized one way or another and that que is required to share the superscript with I in case the subject has been extracted. With this in mind, let us now turn to the cases of complex inversion in French. As can be observed in (17a), French clitic inversion occurs in exactly the same environment as

129

English do-insertion. Complex inversion is prohibited if the WH-subject of the root clause has been moved, whereas it is obligatory (modulo other interrogative constructions) in all other cases. Consider the following examples: (41)

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

Quandj Jean2 est-Ü2 venu ti? When John has-he come. Quandj est-il venu tj? When has-he come. Quij ti est venu? Who has come. * Quii est-ili venu? Who has-he come. Quj'a-t-u fait tj?2 What has-he done.

In (4la) and (41b), quand occupies the specifier position of CP. It has an index, it is related to a trace inside the IP, and it has a SHAGR relation with C. As far as quand is concerned, the picture is: (42)

2 SHAGR 2 1 SHAGR 1 quand C NP I 2

t 2

In (42), quand has crossed one barrier, namely IP. The chain extension through superscripts will not work, and therefore an extended chain must be created through movement. Thus, the verb bearing the I moves to C, yielding (43): (43)

2 SHAGR 2 1 SHAGR quand C NP 2 V+I 3

1 I t 3

t 2

As the surface order of (4la) shows, the NP subject has been moved to a position preceding the preposed verb. It is not entirely clear why this movement has to take place.3 The subject lands in the CP, thus crossing IP. The subject-clitic on the other hand does not move, cf. (41b).4 For (4la) the situation becomes:

130

(44)

2 SHAGR quand 2 NP 4

2 l SHAGR C NP V+I 3 t 4

l I t 3

t 2

However, movement of the subject leaves an empty category in subject position. Is the empty category properly governed in an extended chain? C bears the superscript of quand. excluding the possibility of creating an extended chain via superscripts. The superscript chain is a necessary prerequisite in French for subject-extraction, which means that the extended chain does not yield proper government of the subject. The extended chain is only correct for the other elements. Therefore, the empty category left behind by movement of the subject will violate the ECP, but the structure can be saved by the insertion of a dummy clitic,* cf. alsoEvers (1981) and Kayne (1984). This discussion illustrates a point of theoretical relevance. It shows that extended chains are formulated in relation to a particular configuration. That is, the extended chains defined here hold for the element that determines the SHAGR-index of C, rather than that they void IP of barrierhood for other elements. The point is that it cannot be maintained, on the basis of (43), that movement of I to C obliterates the barrierhood of IP blindly. It does obliterate barrierhood, but only for quand. In principle, the same occurrence of IP blocks extraction of a subject. (41a) and (41b) have been explained then. (41e) can be explained along similar lines. For (41c) the relevant picture seems to be: (45)

1 SHAGR 1 qui C 1

1 SHAGR 1 t I 1

Recall, however, that for the extended chain in French to be correct, a superscript relation between I and C is a necessary, but not sufficient correlate. Therefore, we assume that the verb bearing I must still move to C in French. In that case the extended chain satisfies the conditions defined in (40). Satisfaction of this condition obliterates the need for the insertion of a dummy clitic, which explains the ill-formedness of (4Id). In conclusion, we have provided evidence that IP is an intrinsic barrier. There are two ways to avoid the barrierhood of IP, both realized by the creation of an extended chain between I and C. The first type of extended chain shares a crucial similarity with the COMPindexing mechanism, whereas the second type is very much similar to movement of a verb to

131

C or to the relation between the lexical filler of the complementizer in an embedded clause and the finite verb in that clause. The crucial difference between this account and others is that there is a theoretical link between the two types, and that therefore interactions of several types can be expected. The interactions do indeed occur and explain the patterns of English do-insertion, French (complex) clitic inversion and Dutch Verb Second, as well as their embedded counterparts. To be precise, we showed that Verb-movement to C is forced if IP is a barrier. Were IP not a barrier, then the patterns of Verb-movement and their embedded counterparts could not receive an unitary account. For extended chains the following general scheme can now be made:

(46) γ

(

—

)

Τ

VP

V

/~ι

ΤΓ»

Τ

The X, the (intermediate) antecedent, and the small x, the (intermediate) trace, are connected in an extended chain. The extended chain links I and V, or C and I, and is possible only if X is SHAGR-related to I, or to C. The system entails that NP-movement necessarily passes via the specifier position of IP. Otherwise, the I will bear a different index, such that VP remains a barrier. For WH-movement a similar argument is made. Successive cyclic application of WHmovement is necessary, otherwise the IP will remain a barrier. As far as Specifier-Head Agreement is concerned, the relation is obligatory, otherwise extended chains are not created. Formally, one can maintain however that SHAGR is optional, because not applying it would result in violations of the ECP. We will return to these SHAGR-relations below.

4.3. On the nature of extended chains

In this section, we will consider some more general properties of the extended chains as used in the preceding sections. We will first consider their definition. Then we will integrate some simple data in the field of extractions out of PP. These facts point out a simple generalization concerning the circumvention of barrierhood: next to L-marking and adjunction, Head-Head relations are relevant in the barrier-system. Taking advantage of this generalization, we will then define extended chains in terms of chain-composition.

132

4.3.1. The definition of extended chains

Chomsky (1986b) gives the following definition of an extended chain: (47)

C = (ai... in, b) is an extended chain if (ai... an) is a chain with index i and b has index i.

In the case of NP-movement we have a standard chain consisting of the NP-antecedent, the NP-trace and possible intermediate traces: (ai... an). Besides this chain, there is an element b, I in the case of NP-movement. Globally, the antecedent of the standard chain is connected to INFL, INFL is connected to V and V governs the trace. In our system WH-movement has the same standard chain (ai... an) while in this case it is C that constitutes b. As we have shown, b cannot just be I or C alone: The extended chains depend on both V and I or both I and C. We therefore slightly revise (47) in the following way: (48)

C = (ai... an, bl. b_2), in which both b's are heads, is an extended chain if (ai ...an) is a chain with index i and bl has index i.

For NP-movement, bj. represents I and b_2 V, whereas for WH-movement b_l represents C and b_21. Note that b_l and b_2 must not be allowed to be unrelated heads. In the preceding sections we did not discuss explicitly cases in which the standard chain involves more than two elements. Consider then (49) and (50). (49)

(a)

Johnai seems ta2 to be beaten ta3.

(50)

(b) Johnai seems ta2 to be ta3 ill. * A manai seems there to be killed ta3.

In (49), al is related to a2 in an extended chain, b_l being the I in the root clause, while a2 is related to a3 in an extended chain, bl being the I in the embedded clause. As witnessed by (50), aj. cannot be directly related to the position occupied by a3: the lower VP remains a barrier for the relation between ai and a3 because al_ does not determine SHAGR of I in the lower clause. This fact is not accounted for in the definitions (47) or (48): only the I of the root clause is embodied in the definition. In fact, every link in the standard chain has to conform to antecedent-government in an extended chain. So we postulate:

133

(51)

Every link in a standard chain must conform to antecedent-government with 0 barriers.

The definition of an extended chain is revised accordingly: (52)

C = (§j, ai+i, bl. b2), where both b's are heads, is an extended chain if bl bears the same index as a. For WH-movement, then, a similar argument must be found. In particular, what is our

evidence for the fact that all links conform to antecedent-government with zero barriers? Consider again some examples in the field of do-insertion and presence of that with the exact trace-configurations : (53)

(a) (b) (c)

WhOal did [n> you [vp ta2 [VP see Whoal did [ip you [VP ta2[VP say [CP ta3flP ta4 left]]]]. Whoai did [IP you [VP ta2 [VP think [CP ta3 that [IP Peter [VP ta4 [VP saw tas]]]]].

The links between a2 and a3 instantiate VP-adjunction, so no barrier is crossed. The same holds for the link between a4 and a5 in (c). The link between a_l and a2 crosses one barrier, namely IP. The same holds for the link between a3 and a4 in the examples (b) and (c). The extended chain defined above is created to circumvent this barrier. The link between aj. and a2 conforms to subjacency if IP has remained a barrier. Subjacency being an instantiation of the crossing of one barrier, the obligatoriness of do-insertion shows that no barrier may remain between ai and a2. The link between al and a2 must, too, conform to antecedentgovernment with no barriers. Do-insertion thus provides evidence for (51) to hold for WHmovement. The same argument can, of course, be based on French (complex) clitic inversion or on the parallel embedded cases, that is, for the link between a3 and a4 in the examples (b) and (c). In other terms, we will lose our explanation of do-insertion, (complex) clitic inversion and Verb Second and their embedded counterparts if we do not, at the same time, maintain time that every link in a WH-chain must satisfy antecedent-government with zero barriers. We therefore conclude that (51) also holds for WH-movement. One question, however, remains with respect to the definitions: why do we have to say bj, and b_2 rather than (b_i ... b_n)? This question will be dealt with below. We will approach it after considering some facts in the field of extractions out of PP, which will prove to be relevant in this respect.

134

4.3.2. Prepositional Phrases

In this subsection, we will digress briefly on PPs in order to determine globally how they behave with respect to the barrier system, with the more remote purpose to define extended chains in another way. We will take the relevant examples from Van Riemsdijk's (1978) study of the behaviour of PPs with respect to the general condition of subjacency. First note that in none of the three languages Dutch, French and English movement occurs out of an adjunct PP: (54)

(a)

* Whoi did you leave after tj.

(b) (c)

* Quii es-tu parti apres t;. * Wiej ben je na ti vertrokken.

The PPs are not L-marked in the barrier-system, so they block movement. However, English contrasts with Dutch and French in allowing movement if the PP is an argument of the verb: (55)

(a)

Whoj did you talk to ti.

(b)

* Quij as-tu parli ä ti.

(c)

* Wiei heb je met ti gesproken.

This contrast can be explained by reanalysis of the Verb and the Preposition, taking place in English only. One could wonder whether the notion of L-marking is parameterizable, but we think this is a rather awkward position to defend. We prefer to say that PP is universally not L-marked, and that some languages may use other mechanisms to circumvent its barrierhood. In our approach the type of reanalysis attested in English can be considered a sort of extended chain, for which the picture (56) is proposed, in line with the general approach of e.g. Hornstein & Weinberg (1981).

(56) X

i

—

i

V

PP

P

That is, reanalysis circumvents the barrierhood of PP in English. French and Dutch do not reanalyze PPs in this way. Dutch however uses another type of circumvention of barrierhood, namely adjunction. Adjunction independently occurs with the so-called R-pronouns. From this position WH-elements may be freely moved.

135

(57)

(a) (b)

De heb εη over ti gedacht I have there-over thought, Waari heb je ti over ti gedacht. Where have you over thought.

The three languages show comparable paradigms6 for NP-movement: (58)

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Johni was taken advantage of ti. * Jani werd over ti gesproken. John was over talked. * Jeani a έίέ parle" de t;. John has been spoken of. ΕΓΪ werd tj over ti gesproken. There was over talked.

So, the three languages do not L-mark PPs. English reanalyzes V and P, thus circumventing the barrierhood of PP. Dutch does not reanalyze, but circumvents the barrierhood of PP via adjunction, independently attested only for the so-called R-pronouns. French does not use these circumvention mechanisms. Let us now turn our attention to the more general implications of these extraction facts for the barrier-system.

4.3.3. Reconsidering the definition of extended chains

While observing the patterns of the schemes in (46) and (56), we notice that the barriers are circumvented if V relates to I, if I relates to C or if P relates to V. This situation allows us to make a generalization across these cases: in all the cases a Head is related to an other Head. These Head-Head relations apparently form a special way to circumvent barrierhood. This entails that Universal Grammar allows for three ways of escaping the barrierhood of a maximal projection:

136

(59)

A maximal projection is not a barrier if: (a)

it is L-marked.

(b)

adjunction has taken place.

(c)

its Head is related to another Head.

Head-Head relations correspond to what we considered extended chains. However, Head-Head relations are slightly more general than what is covered by the definition of extended chains. As can be observed by comparing (46) and (56), reanalysis does not depend on the SHAGR relation, whereas I and C do. We think that this difference is linked with the non-lexical status of I and C with respect to the lexical status of V and P. For non-lexical maximal projections then the Head-Head relation in itself is not sufficient. Let us then proceed to take advantage of this generalization. In the definition (48), we referred to b_l and b_2 rather than to (b_i ... b_n). The definition involved I-V and C-I. On the basis of PPs we added V-P. One can wonder then if there is evidence for the Head-chains to be transitive. May the simple Head-chains involving two elements be combined into longer Head-chains? If this is allowed, the following longer Head-chains are expected:

(60)

(a)

I-V-P

(b)

C-I-V

(c)

C-I-V-P

Consider first the case of (60a). As the extended chain will end in the specifier position of IP, it should relate to NP-movement, as in (61). (61)

(a)

Johni was taken advantage of ti.

(b)

The problem! was looked into ti.

As adjunction is not allowed for NPs, both to PP and to VP, movement must have been direct. VP and PP are not L-marked either, so the extended chain must necessarily instantiate (62).

(62) NP l

( — SHAGR I VP

V

— PP

) P

137

t l

We conclude therefore that a Head-Head chain of the type (60a) must be allowed. (60b) is a Head-Head chain terminating in the specifier position of CP, so it is related to WHmovement, as in the case of object-extraction (63) with picture (64) if (60b) is allowed. (63)

Whoi did you see tj.

(64)

(

WH SHAGR C

IP I

—

)

VP

V

2

t 2

If we allow for (64), VP-adjunction will not be necessary for WH-movement. Similarly (60c) is related to (65) and (66). (65)

Whoj did you talk to tj.

(66)

(

WH SHAGR C

IP I

—

-

—

)

VP

V

PP

P

2

t 2

For (66), a remark similar to the one related to NP-movement can be made. The PP is not Lmarked and adjunction cannot be allowed either: if they were, French extractions should be allowed, as well as the Dutch equivalents. The subpart of (60c) is parallel to (60a), so WHmovement too depends on longer Head-Head chains. (64) and (66) both use a long extended chain, a chain in which VP-adjunction is not necessary. Though we have no specific evidence7 against the possibility of VP-adjunction, the Dutch facts concerning the R-pronouns suggest adjunction is not possible in some blind way: adjunction has taken place in Dutch on the basis of an independent property of some subclass of elements. Dutch then suggests that adjunction is impossible unless specific independent evidence is found. However, we cannot bar VP-adjunction theoretically. As we will see below, we will need it as a possibility in LF. Notice that we cannot omit the possibility of adjunction from the list of ways of circumventing a barrier either, because of Dutch crucially. But we still can give the alternative in terms of extended chains of the type (60b) or (60c). Let us then define extended chains in order to account for the different possibilities in (60). We saw that extended chains involve each link of a standard chain. A standard chain has been defined as in (67). On the other hand, a chain accounting for parasitic gaps is defined as in (68). (67)

C = (ai... an) with conditions.

138

(68)

If C (a t ... an) is the chain of the real gap, and C'(bi...bn) is the chain of the parasitic gap, then the composed chain (C,C) = (a_i...an, b_i...b_n) is the chain associated with the parasitic gap construction.

(68) entails that in general a chain of some type can be related to another chain. With parasitic gaps these chains are of the same nature, that is a_l and b_l are of the same nature. In the case of extended chains the chains are rather different in nature. They combine a chain of a normal type with an Head-Head chain. We wish to define our extended chains then in terms of chain-composition: (69)

If C (§j, u+i) is a link of a chain and C (b_i... b_n) is a chain of Heads, then the composed chain C,C' ( , ai+i, b_i... b_n) is an extended chain provided that qui) in

French if the subject has been extracted. The adjuncts and subjects essentially have a chain of the same type. This might explain the fact that the Dutch and French sentences are better than the English ones. To conclude, superiority facts do not present a principled problem for a variant of the ECP in which antecedent-government in extended chains is used, though a difference between the ECP at S-structure and at LF is maintained: the first link of a chain satisfies 0subjacency, while all other links satisfy 0-subjacency only in cases of syntactic movement.

4.6. Conclusion to chapter 4

In this chapter, we have been concerned with the barriers framework and in particular with the extended chains Chomsky proposed for circumventing the barrierhood of a given projection. In section 4.1., we discussed his proposals with respect to NP-movement. A three fold explanation was given for the fact that NP-movement may cross the barrier VP: the landing site is related to INFL, INFL is related to V and the origin site is in the domain of V. In section 4.2., we discussed WH-movement in relation to the proposal that IP is not a special type of Blocking Category. If it is a Blocking Category, it is also a barrier. We motivated this alteration of the system by the fact that in this way, relations between I and C must be created in order to account for antecedent-government, as illustrated in (98).

147

(98)

(a) (b)

i SHAGR i WH C i X V+I dat index

IP —

I χ

t i

t V+I index

The way these relations are created gave us the opportunity to give a principled explanation of the patterns of English do-insertion, French (complex) clitic-inversion and Dutch Verb Second, as well as their embedded counterparts. These explanations would not have been reached without the barrierhood of IP. In section 4.3., we modified the definition of the extended chains. We essentially proposed that an extended chain is a composed chain. For NP-movement the chain of the NPantecedent and the NP-trace is combined with a Head-Head chain, the relation I-V generally. For WH-movement, the chain of the WH-antecedent and the WH-trace is combined with another Head-Head chain, the relation C-I generally. The major difference between Chomsky's definition and ours is that we do not claim the coindexing to be unique. We rather consider composed chains to involve two different types of chains: A Head-Head chain as a path leading from the trace to the antecedent, a path which is created if the antecedent is related to the highest head of the Head-Head chain. As the Head-Head chains stop with I if Α-positions are involved, and as they stop with C if A-bar-positions are involved, successive cyclicity is derived. In section 4.4. we showed that the WH-islands can still be explained in the new system; section 4.5. concludes that the superiority condition does not cause principled problems either. In section 4.3., we claimed that every link of a standard chain must conform to antecedent-government with 0 barriers. This was crucial for our explanation of the Verbmovements to C given in section 4.2.. Or, in other terms, subjacency is too weak to explain these phenomena. In this respect, note that the Chomskyan definition already reduced a number of cases falling under subjacency to cases with 0 barriers, as illustrated on the basis of the abstract structures (99) and (100). (99) [s-WH[ S [s't[st]]]] (100) [CP WH [n> [Vp t [VP [CP t [IP [VP t [VP t ]]]]]]. If S is the bounding node in (99), both the first and the second step of WH-movement cross one bounding node. If S' is the bounding node, only the second step crosses a bounding node.

148

In the parallel structure (100), no barriers are crossed. The first step is VP-adjunction, the second step does not cross the barrier either: in Chomsky's variant because EP is not a barrier, in ours because the barrierhood of IP is circumvented by means of a composed chain. The third step does not cross a barrier because the CP is L-marked, while the fourth step is parallel to the second. In other words, crossing one bounding node in (99) corresponds to no barriers in (100). Theoretically, therefore, the reduction of subjacency to 0 barriers has already taken place. Within the barrier-system, one problem solved by subjacency remains: that is the way in which the parametric variation of the bounding nodes is embedded. Let us consider the problem more carefully for a moment. Take Italian as the example. Italian allows for (99) the bounding node S', such that movement out of the embedded clause directly to the higher clause should be allowed by the subjacency-theory. In the barrier-system, IP and CP are the relevant nodes. As it seems rather awkward to say that L-marking does vary across languages, the CP should be L-marked in both English and Italian: the difference cannot be accounted for on the basis of CP. The difference in IP therefore is relevant. For English, extended chains are needed to circumvent the barrierhood of IP, forcing the element to pass through the specifier-position of CP. In Italian, this is apparently not necessary. Descriptively speaking, we could capture this by the definition of barriers: Chomsky's overall proposal for the non-barrierhood of IP only holds for Italian. The part "c is not IP" is parameterizable. From a descriptive point of view, this parameterization is acceptable, but no answer is given to the question why. Since in Italian movement is only possible if the subject comes from the VP-adjoined postverbal position (cf. Rizzi (1982)), the non-barrierhood of IP is related to free inversion. As free inversion illustrates the absence of movement to the specifier position of IP, as we will argue in the next chapter, it is this property that might account for the non-barrierhood of IP in Italian. 10 In this chapter, we have used Specifier-Head Agreement as a relation relevant for the definition of composed chains. In the next chapter, we will consider this relation in a more independent way and use it as a parameterizable relation functioning as the trigger of movement, rather than being its result.

149

5. Specifier-Head AGReement in IP and CP

5.0. Introduction

In the preceding chapter we extensively used Specifier-Head Agreement as a relation between the NP in subject position and the head I, as well as between the WH in specifier position of CP and the head C in order to create composed chains. We showed there, for example in (4.46), that SHAGR is a necessary relation in order to circumvent the barrierhood of some maximal projection governed by a non-lexical head. As the preceding chapter was concerned with movement only, SHAGR was shown to be a relation obtaining after the relevant movement. However, does SHAGR necessarily arise only with movement? The answer is obviously negative. An NP base-generated in subject position holds the SHAGR-relation in IP, just as an NP moved to this position. Likewise, a WH-element base-generated in the specifier position of C (whether) holds the SHAGR-relation in CP, just as a WH-element moved to this position. It is clear that SHAGR is a relation independent of movement, yet interacting with it. In the preceding chapter it was shown that the creation of a composed chain using SHAGR was necessary in order to circumvent the barrierhood of a maximal projection. As some element moved across a barrier, the movement triggered the creation of a composed chain. The question arises now whether the element holding SHAGR in the base still functions as the trigger for the creation of the composed chains. Put in other terms, the fact that some element is base-generated in the specifier-position of IP or CP could be sufficient to create composed chains. With this change of perspective, one might say that if the head C bears an index, then a relation must be established with I. We can capture this by the following filter: (1)

χ SHAGR χ C

* where C is not in a composed chain with I The cases captured by such a filter do not differ from the ones in chapter 4. But there we saw that the composed chain was necessary to satisfy antecedent-government. (1) is more general

150

in that it also captures base-generated elements in the specifier of C, like the WHcomplementizer. We will show in section 5.1. that (1) captures Verb-movement to C in the absence of an overtly moved WH-element, the phenomenon known as Verb-First. The explanation of this phenomenon will run parallel to the explanation of the WH-island constraint we gave in section 4.4.. Similar to (1), one could propose (2): (2)

χ SHAGR χ I * where I is not in a composed chain with V

As the relation between I and V will obtain independently because I is an affix, nothing crucial seems to be derived. It remains true however that (2) captures cases in which the subject has not reached the specifier position of I via movement. One might claim for example that (2) is necessary for the non-moved subject to receive its Θ-role. In what follows, however, we will not use (2). Section 5.2. formulates the deletion rules we need to operate inside CP. Though these might have been formulated earlier in this book, we insert this section here because it allows for the integration of the data advanced in section 5.1.. The filters in (1) and (2) essentially state that if SHAGR is realized, then some relation must be built. What then if SHAGR is not realized? The answer should be that no composed chain needs to be built. This is correct: if there are no WH-elements in, e.g., the CP of the root clause, there is no need to move the finite Verb. However, the mere possibility of SHAGR not being realized entails that constructions or languages may behave differently in this respect: some language or construction may realize SHAGR inside IP or CP, while other languages or constructions may not. Viewed in this way, SHAGR may be used for parametric differences: some language allows SHAGR in IP or CP to remain unrealized, while other languages may stipulate that SHAGR must be realized. If we formulate these differences as filters, we get (3) and (4). (3) (4)

* C without SHAGR-index * I without SHAGR-index

If some language has (3), it does not allow SHAGR in C to remain unrealized. That is, C demands some filler of its specifier position. Some other language may lack this filter. If a language has (4), it does not allow SHAGR in I to remain unrealized. Again some filler is

151

required, in the specifier position of I. As such (3) and (4) should rather be seen as triggers for movement: in order to satisfy (3) or (4) some element must be put in the specifier position. In section 5.3. we will show that (3) captures the languages with Verb-Second, with Dutch as the language used for illustration. As Verb-Second primarily occurs in root clauses, just as the finite Verb-movements in French and English, a semantic property of TENSE is developed in section 5.4.: one specific semantic property can be postulated to be visible only in the TENSE of the root clause. In section 5.5. we will consider (4) more extensively in relation to the structures (2.131) and (3.114). We argued that in French and in English the agent is contained within the projection of the verb. Here we will argue that these languages have (4), such that the agent will move to the subject position. In the absence of the agent, another argument, generally the theme, will move to this position. We will try to relate this line of argument to the Burzio generalization. Finally, in section 5.6. we will briefly compare Specifier-Head Agreement with Predication and argue that these are different relations.

5.1. Verb-First

In this section we consider the movement of finite Verbs to COMP in the absence of overtly moved WH-phrases, such as in (5). (5)

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Do you come? Viendra-t-il? Will-come-he. Jean viendra-t-il? John will-come-he. Komje? Come you.

As we linked Verb-movement to the need for moved WH-elements to antecedent-govern their traces, and as the examples in (5) illustrate Verb-movement without the need for antecedent-government, an explanation for (5) must be given along parallel lines.

152

For the explanation of the WH-island constraint we proposed that the WHcomplementizer is base-generated in the specifier position of CP, and that it holds the SHAGR relation in that position. As seems fairly logical, an explanation valid for indirect questions should also hold for direct questions. First consider some syntactic evidence that the parallelism holds. WHmovement is both obligatory in indirect questions, (6), as well as in direct questions, (7). (6)

(7)

(a)

* Je me demande si Jean a vu quoi.

(b)

* I wonder whether John saw what.

(c)

* Ik vraag me af of Jan wat gezien heeft.

(a)

* Do you see what?

(b)

* Verra-t-il quoi?

(c)

* Jean verra-t-il quoi?

(d)

*Ziejewat?

Let us thus postulate again a WH-complementizer in the specifier position of C, though this time one which is lexically empty.1·2 This element apparently triggers Verb-movement, giving rise to the following picture: (8)

2 SHAGR 2 WH C

1 SHAGR 1 NP I

V+I

t

3

3

Verb-movement is necessary in all three languages, Dutch, French and English; it is not possible to have an extended chain based on identity of superscripts. The problem however is to exclude a representation like the one in (9). (9)

2 SHAGR 2

1 SHAGR 1

WH

NP

C

I

For overtly moved elements Verb-movement to C was shown to be necessary for the satisfaction of antecedent-government. Although no element has been moved in this construction, a composed chain must, nevertheless, be created. Since representation (9) is ruled out by (1), the latter is empirically motivated by the phenomenon of Verb-First. A supplementary type of evidence for the empty WH to occupy the specifier-position of CP comes from French complex inversion. As we explained in 4.2., complex inversion

153

arises when some WH-element occupies the specifier-position of CP and holds the SHAGR relation. The moved subject then cannot create an extended chain because SHAGR is absorbed by the WH-element. Therefore the trace in subject position is not properly antecedent-governed, such that insertion of a clitic becomes necessary. Example (5c) shows that the same situation holds in the case of Verb-First. Therefore the empty WHcomplementizer must truly be there, otherwise the subject could occupy the specifierposition, hold the SHAGR-relation and obliterate the need for clitic-insertion. For embedded indirect questions this situation entails that the finite complementizer must be present at S-structure, otherwise (1) is violated. We therefore postulate doubly filled COMPs at S-structure: (10)

(a) (b) (c)

I wonder whether that he is ill. Ik vraag me af of dat hij ziek is. Je me demande si qu'il est malade.

(10) will be subject to deletion rules, to whose formulation we will now turn.

5.2. Deletions in CP

The analyses we developed in the preceding sections often led to a CP in which both positions are lexically filled at S-structure. The well-known fact that not all these clauses surface as such can be accounted for by a deletion rule, applying on the left branch of the grammar. Note that the deletion rules we need are only partly related to the system we have proposed. In every theory making use of CPs integrated in the X-bar-system, deletion rules will be needed if both the head and the specifier position are lexically filled. The analysis we have defended gives rise to the following S-structure representations for English, French and Dutch respectively. (11)

(a)

(b)

(1) (2) (3)

[who0]tleft. [ who did ] you see t. [ why did ] you come t. [ WH did ] you come.

154

(c)

(d)

(12)

(e) (a)

(b) (c)

(d)

(13)

(e) (a)

(b) (c)

(d)

(e)

(1) (2) (3) (1) (2) (3) (1) (2) (3) (1) (2) (3) (1) (2) (3) (1) (2) (3) (1) (2) (3) (1) (2) (3)

who did you say [ 10 ] t left. who did you say [ t that ] Peter saw t. why did you say [ t that ] Peter left t. I wonder [ who 0 ] t left. I wonder [ what that ] Peter saw t. I wonder [ why that ] Peter left t. I wonder [ whether that ] you come. [ qui est ] t parti. [ qui as ] tu vu. [ pourquoi es ] tu parti. [ WH partira ] il. Qui penses-tu [ t qui ] t est parti. Qui penses-tu [ t que ] Jean a vu t. Pourquoi penses-tu [ t que] Jean est parti t. Je me demande [ qui qui ] t est parti. Je me demande [ qui que ] Jean a vu t. Je me demande [ pourquoi que ] Jean est parti t. Je me demande [ si que ] Jean est parti. [Wieziet]tJan. [ Wie heeft ] Jan t gezien. [ Waarom is ] Jan t vertrokken. [ WH is ] Jan vertrokken. Wie denk je [ t dat ] t hem gezien heeft. Wie denk je [ t dat ] hij t gezien heeft. Waarom denk je [ t dat ] hij t vertrokken is. Ik vraag me af [ wie dat ] t hem zag. JJc vraag me af [wie dat] hij t gezien heeft. Ik vraag me af [ waarom dat ] hij t wegging. Ik vraag me af [ of dat ] hij komt.

Deletions are subject to the general condition of recoverability, which states that an element may only be deleted if it is part of a finite list of specified grammatical formatives or if its informational content can be retraced on the basis of another element (i.e. if there is a copy). Deletion may never go beyond the limits set by recoverability. Given the S-structures in (11)-(13) and the general condition on recoverability, the WH-elements in the (a) and (d) cases may not be deleted. The finite verbs and auxiliaries in the root CPs of the (a) and (b) cases may not be deleted either: the inflectional information

155

about tense and agreement cannot be recovered on the basis of a copy. The same holds for the cases in French and Dutch where the verb is moved into CP. Deletion of V would entail deletion of the information about the Θ-grid of the clause. In the (e) cases the WHcomplementizer cannot be deleted because it saves information about the status of the embedded clause. All the other lexical elements are deletable in principle. In particular, the information contained in that can be traced back via the finite verb. The following rules can thus be given, similar but not identical to Chomsky & Lasnik (1977): (14)

Delete any lexical element in every CP containing more than one lexical element, (i) English OBLigatory. (ii) French OBLigatory, non-standard OPTional. (iii) Dutch OBLigatory, non-standard OPTional.

(15)

Delete that. English only, OPTional (some additional conditions)

We therefore derive the following surface strings for the examples in (11)-(13): (16)

(a)

(1)

Who left?

(2)

What did Peter see?

(3)

Why did Peter leave?

(b) (c)

Do you leave? (1) (2)

Who did you say left? What did you say that Peter saw? What did you say Peter saw?

(3)

Why did you say that Peter left? Why did you say Peter left?

(d)

(1) (2)

I wonder who left. I wonder what you saw.

(3)

I wonder why he left.

(e) (17)

(a)

I wonder whether Peter will come. (1)

Quiest parti?

(2)

Qui as-tu vu?

(3)

Pourquoi es-tu parti?

(b) (c)

Partira-t-il? (1)

Qui penses-tu qui est parti?

(2)

Qui penses-tu que Jean a vu?

(3)

Pourquoi penses-tu que Jean est parti?

156

(d)

(1)

Je me demande qui est parti. % Je me demande qui qui est parti.

(2)

Je me demande qui Jean a vu. % Je me demande qui que Jean a vu.

(3)

Je me demande pourquoi il est parti. % Je me demande pourquoi qu'il est parti.

(e)

Je me demande s'il est venu. % Je me demande si qu'il est parti.

(18)

(a)

(1)

Wie zag hem?

(2)

Wie zag hij?

(3)

Waarom is hij vertrokken?

(b) (c)

(d)

Is hij vertrokken? (1)

Wie denk je dat hem gezien heeft?

(2)

Wie denk je dat hij gezien heeft?

(3)

Waarom denk je dat hij vertrokken is?

(1)

Ik vraag me af wie hem gezien heeft. % Ik vraag me af wie dat hem gezien heeft.

(2)

Ik vraag me af wie hij gezien heeft. % Ik vraag me af wie dat hij gezien heeft.

(3)

Ik vraag me af waarom hij vertrokken is. % Ik vraag me af waarom dat hij vertrokken is.

(e)

Ik vraag me af of hij ziek is. % Ik vraag me af of dat hij ziek is.

As a consequence doubly filled COMPs are often attested in the root clauses of the three languages considered. Doubly filled COMPs are marginally possible in embedded clauses in French and Dutch, though not in English. This suggests that the fact of having doubly filled COMPs in embedded clauses does not necessarily indicate that the language in question is a V2-language, as has been alleged in e.g. Koopman (1983). We rather defend a position here in which a CP contains two positions in principle, and that there are deletion rules applying to it with considerable variation, where this variation is not syntactically relevant. A supplementary comment must be made. As witnessed by examples of the sort in (19), clitics do not count as lexical for the deletion rule. (19)

(a)

[ Pourquoi ne le lui a-t-il ] jamais explique. Why not-it-him-has-he never explained.

157

(b)

[ Wanneer komt-ie ]. When comes-he.

Therefore the "lexical element" of (14) should be read as "lexically independent element", assuming clitics to be dependent elements. An even stronger violation of the old doubly filled COMP filter is found in the French complex inversion cases: (20)

[ Pourquoi Jean a-t-il ] dit cela. Why John has-he said that.

This triply filled COMP may not be reduced: the presence of the WH-element and the finite verb are accounted for in the way we have suggested above. As for the NP, we note that it cannot be considered recoverable on the basis of the clitic, probably because its referential value is much more specific. This observation may seem not very relevant, but consider (21), where lui is a strong subject pronoun. (21)

* Pourquoi lui a-t-il dit cela. Why HE has-he said that

This aspect of French complex inversion can be explained by the deletion rule. Being being a strong pronoun and hence an NP, lui counts as lexical for the deletion rule. Therefore it must be deleted if it is recoverable. It is recoverable on the basis of the clitic, strong pronouns having an identical referential value to that of weak pronouns.3 The deletion rule can also account for another problem, which is illustrated by (22), cf. Al (1975) and Zwanenburg (1987). (22)

Oil tu vas? Where you go

In (22) WH-movement has applied, such that ou is in the Specifier position of CP. However, no extended chain along the lines defined above is created, such that ou cannot antecedentgovern its trace inside IP. Alongside these examples however there exists (23). (23)

Ou que tu vas? Where that you go

158

On the basis of this example we maintain that an extended chain is created, but in the way it is normally done in embedded clauses. Deletion of que is recoverable on the basis of the finite verb. We therefore derive (22) from an underlying (23). The non-standard status of (22) and (23) is comparable to the non-standard examples in (17).

5.3. The Verb-Second Parameter

In the foregoing discussions we implicitly assumed that Verb-movements to C in French, Dutch and English follow the same pattern. With Weerman (1986) we consider Verb-movement to C in root clauses to be a unitary phenomenon. The difference between V2 and non-V2 languages should therefore follow from another property. Several analyses have been proposed in this respect (see e.g. Haider & Prinzhorn (1986)), but the overall line of argumentation applied to V2-languages is that C contains more information than in non-V2-languages. As we consider Verb-movement to be unitary, and as Verb-movement generally does not occur in embedded clauses, the informational surplus of root-C seems to be rather general, perhaps universal. We will make a suggestion about this type of surplus in section 5.4.. All of this suggests then that an explanation of V2 should not be linked to an account based on this surplus. In chapter 2 we considered the relations between I and C from a rather general point of view. In particular, we noted that C may contain information about the tensed character of the clause, and that I also contains this type of information. From the discussion in chapter 4 it followed that C may bear a SHAGR-index, and that I may do so as well. Both non-lexical categories then contain comparable information: (24)

(a) (b)

I: ±TENSE, SHAGR C: ±TENSE, SHAGR

Analyses based on a different distribution of these elements will fail because they do not properly distinguish between V2 and non-V2 languages. Consider TENSE as an example. A proposal that TENSE is positioned in COMP in V2-languages, while it is positioned in INFL in non-V2 languages will fail because of two reasons. First, it cannot be denied that V2languages have TENSEd INFLs, as these abundantly exist in embedded clauses. Secondly, it cannot be denied that non-V2 languages have TENSEd COMPs for exactly the same reason:

159

they abound in embedded clauses. In other words, because embedded clauses behave exactly alike in V2-languages and in non-V2 languages, the parametric variation cannot be based on differences in I and C. The parametric variation should obtain in the root clause only. But for the root clause we extensively argued that English do-insertion and French (complex) clitic inversion are varieties of finite verb movement to COMP. Therefore the root property which could account for V2 is also present in French and English, such that no parametric variation can be based on differences in root-I and root-C either. Still some property must be involved. The only remaining difference is that V2languages have free topicalization, or rather obligatory topicalization of a (maximal) projection as shown in (25). (25)

(a)

Jan heeft Piet een boek gegeven. John has Peter a book given. Peter has given John a book.

(b)

Een boek heeft Jan Piet gegeven. A book has John Peter given. Peter has given John a book.

(c)

Piet heeft Jan een boek gegeven. Peter has John a book given. Peter has given John a book.

(d)

Morgen zal ik komen. Tomorrow will I come. I will come tomorrow.

(e)

Ik kom morgen. I come tomorrow.

(f)

Er is geen sprake van een vergissing. There is no question of a mistake.

If not filled by a WH-element or by the lexically empty WH-complementizer, Topicalization must take place. Though perhaps not all elements in COMP function as semantic topics, the argument is clear. Whatever one does, the specifier position of C must be filled. We propose to capture this by filter (3), repeated here. (3)

* C without SHAGR-index

This requires that there be 'something' in the specifier position, otherwise the sentence is ruled out. We claim that V2-languages have this filter, while non-V2-languages do not.

160

Note that movement of any element whatsoever will cross IP, such that a composed chain must be created. If some element is directly inserted in the relevant position, the verb must still move, as was shown in section 5.1.. With respect to the exact formal content of (3), we assume that SHAGR is an abstract relation in X-bar theory. As far as the X-bar structure proper is involved, no value is assigned to SHAGR, i.e. an 0-value, as illustrated in (26). (26)

0 SHAGR 0 Spec

C

If the specifier is filled, 0 becomes 1,2,3 etc., as with WH-movement in French, Dutch and English. French and English allow the specifier position to remain empty: an 0-value is not disallowed. Dutch, however, disallows this 0-value so that (3) essentially reads as (27).4 (27)

* C with SHAGR-value 0 Yet, (27) is far too general in its present formulation: it forces topicalization in

embedded clauses in V2-languages. Though one may topicalize out of embedded clauses, there is no principled need for the C of the embedded clause to bear a SHAGR-index. Therefore (27) needs to be interpreted more strictly as (28). (28)

* C with SHAGR-value 0 in root clauses

Clearly, we must find an explanation for the special status of the root-C with respect to the embedded C. The explanation will have to be valid for (28), but also for English and French. In the next section we will formulate a suggestion as to what this special property might be.

5.4. On the informational surplus of root-C

In all three languages considered, Verb-movement is obligatory in root clauses, while prohibited in embedded clauses. This general phenomenon should be related to some informational surplus of root-C not contained in embedded-C. As we consider C to contain information about TENSE, this surplus presumably has to do with a surplus in TENSE-

161

information. The suggestion we have is rather simple, but we give it here because it has some empirical consequences beyond Verb-movement. In semantic studies on tense, tense is often described in terms of S, E and R (cf. Reichenbach (1947) and, for a generative approach, Hornstein (1977)), where: (29)

S = moment of Speech E = moment of Event R = Reference point The eight basis tenses given in (30) can be captured by such a descriptive device.

(30)

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h)

Jean parle. Jean parlait. Jean parlera. Jean parlerait. Jean a parle. Jean avait parle. Jean aura par!6. Jean aurait parle.

(a') (b 5 ) (c') (d') (e') (f) (g') (h')

John speaks. John spoke. John will speak. John would speak. John has spoken. John had spoken. John will have spoken, John would have spoken.

Reichenbach's system has one time axis on which S, R and E are distributed. There are certain problems with such a system, because it has a three-way division: using S, R and E, one theoretically expects three, six or nine tenses. As we have two, four or eight tenses, we prefer a binary system, similar to the one in Vet (1979), the system we adopt here with a minor adjustment. This system has two time axes, one for the Present and one for the Past. We will call this the Primary Reference (PR). On each of these axes a future reference point exists, which we will call the Secondary Reference (SR). From these four points a perfective point of view may be taken, which can be called the Perspective (P). We then get the following semantic time-table, where S is the moment of speech.

162

(31)

S

l

e

VP' VP NP /\ 0-agent V NP 0-theme

The integration of lexical nominalizations (LEXNOM) was merely for the purpose of comparison. In fact, we postulated a bifurcation between lexical and syntactic affixes. In section 3.3. we argued that (1) obtains at the level of D-structure, and that at this level the syntactic affixes are dissociated from the verb. On a more superficial level they appear on the verb, where the verb form verb+affix conforms to the morphologically defined Right-hand Head Rule. With respect to the relation between these two levels we proposed a rule that allows for variation, such as in (2). (2)

D-structure

INFL VP'

Relate Affix and Verb

a.English: INFL moves to V b.French: V moves to INFL

S-structure

V+INFL

As (1) corresponds to a situation in D-structure and as the verb form V+INFL is created on a more superficial level, we proceeded in chapter 4 with the discussion of the question whether the creation of this verb form is relevant for other movements in syntax. We argued that this was indeed the case and that the relation is necessary in order to allow the subject to antecedent-govern its trace in object position, using the barriers framework. The verb form was shown to participate in the creation of extended chains, as sketched in (3). (3)

1 SHAGR1 NP I 1 χ

VP —

V t χ 1

178

The relation of INFL to V however was not sufficient. Next to this relation we motivated the importance of Specifier-Head Agreement. In section 4.2. we discussed the question whether the relation in terms of TENSE that we proposed in 2.4. might be relevant for movement of elements to the specifier position of the CP, such that extended chains between I and C could be created with TENSE. We showed that this is indeed possible, but that on the other hand another type of relation between I and C exists, the one based on the sharing of the SHAGR-relation. This is illustrated in (4). (4)

(a)

(b)

i SHAGR i WH C

IP

I

t

i

—

χ

i

χ V+I

t

dat

V+I

index

index

The mere possibility of these chains made it possible to make the barrier system more coherent in the sense that IP became fully integrated. The full integration of the IP and the chain in (4) led to an explanation of Dutch Verb-Second, English do-insertion and French (complex) clitic-inversion, as well as their embedded counterparts. In considering the nature of the thus created extended chains, we came to a definition in section 4.3. in which they are defined as composed chains, chains combining two, in principle alien, types of elements: on the one hand, a chain created via movement and on the other, a chain of related Heads. If I or C were involved, the composition itself depended on SHAGR, as this relation linked the moved element to one of the related Heads. In this section we also argued that each link of a chain should conform to antecedent-government with 0 barriers, particularly relevant for WH-extractions. Noting the overwhelming importance of the Specifier-Head relation in the composed chains, we devoted chapter 5 to the discussion of this relation from some more independent point of view. We argued that Verb-Second languages like Dutch have a filter formulated in terms of SHAGR, given here in (5). (5) * C with SHAGR-value 0 in root clauses We also argued that filter (6) is operative in French and English, but not in Italian. (6) * I with SHAGR-value 0

179

This settled a problem we encountered in earlier chapters: the layered structure as well as the levels of affixation gave rise to a subject contained in the verbal projection, while in French and English the subject is in the specifier position of IP at S-structure. (6) triggers this movement. We concluded with a discussion of the relevance of (6) with respect to the Burzio generalization and suggested that it could be derived if we assume that the intermediate projection in (1) functions as a barrier.

180

Notes Chapter 0 1. In (i) the English example has its own status. In (ii) it has the dual function of a gloss and an example, while in (iii) it is only a gloss, (i) John's destroying the city, (ii) (a) Jean a lu un livre. (b) John has read a book, (iii) (a) Jean est arrive". (b) Jan is aangekomen. John has arrived. Chapter 1 1. We follow here the definition of Chomsky (1981) rather than the one of Stowell (1983). 2. The definition is given in the formulation of Chomsky (1986b). It is based on Aoun & Sportiche (1983). 3. See chapter 4 on this issue. Chapter 2 1. The 'passo simple' literally translates as the simple past. However, the English simple past corresponds to the 'imparfait', i.e. (3(b)). 2. The special characteristics of the tense of subjunctives are discussed in Picallo (1985). 3. The theoretical possibility of [-TENSE+AGR] has been proposed for Portuguese, cf. Zubizarreta (1980), and Frisian, cf. De Haan & Weerman (1986). 4. Two observations may be added to confirm this position. First, orders that cannot be expressed via the imperative are expressed via the subjunctive, as illustrated in (i). (i) (a) Viens! Come! (b) Qu'il vienne! That he comes! / He must come. Second, some imperative forms are identical to subjunctive forms rather than to indicative ones, as exemplified in (ii). (ii) (a) Je veux que vous soyez (subj.) heureux. I want that you are happy. (b) Je sais que vous etes (ind.) heureux. I know that you are happy. (c) Soyez heureux! Be happy! We assume that the imperative is derived by Verb-movement to COMP in root-clauses. See also footnote 2 of chapter 5. 5. Van Riemsdijk (p.c.) notes that this observation probably is too strong. Plausible candidates are avancer (P -> V), Ie derriere (P -> N) and pendant (V -> P). 6. The compounds mean cauli-flower and safe respectively. 7. Verb-movement is confirmed in French too, cf. section 2.3.: (i) Us cassent souvent la croüte ensemble. We predict that the N may be moved. This is confirmed in principle, though distinctions will have to be made.

181

(ii)

Jean a rendu justice. Justice a e"te rendue. Jean a casse la croute. * La croute a te cassee. (iii) John took care of his sister. His sister was taken care of. John kicked the bucket. * The bucket was kicked. (iv) Hij besteedde zorg aan de presentatie. Hier werd veel zorg aan besteed. Hij haalde adem. * Adem werd gehaald. 8. A corresponding English Word-Word compound would be globe-trot, with he globe-trots rather than *globes-trot. 9. One could add Hij heeft de ramp overleefd. but this example is not illustrative because of the absence of prefix ge-. 10. The rare cases like courir apres confirm our argument. 11. This theory predicts a number of other directionality differences in compounds across languages. In this respect it seems important to note that the direction of ΧΟ-ΧΟ compounding may also differ from the direction of syntax, which does not immediately follow from the languages under consideration. As an example of this we cite (i), translated from Mohawk (cf.Baker (1988)). (i) I like that house I house-like that 12. The X's may have different categorial specifications, such that one may also read X° YO. 13. The %-positions of S-adverbials are correct if one makes a pause. The %-positions of VPadverbials class A become correct in case some heavy NP has been shifted, or if focal stress is put on the adverbial. The %-positions of VP-adverbials class Β remain generally marked. See Ruwet (1967) and Schlyter (1977). 14. There are some minor differences between the positions of the adverbials and the quantified elements. They are not relevant for the discussion here. 15. In spoken language ne may be superficially omitted. We consider this phenomenon to be irrelevant here. 16. The star refers to the non-progressive 'true' participle reading. 17. The four ungrammatical examples have a structure in which -ant/-ing is the head of the IP, where the IP is a complement to the main verb. The examples become grammatical in a structure in which the small clause is headed by the NP which is subsequently modified by an IP with adjectival -ant/-ing. 18. For French de it has been argued that it is positioned in COMP rather than in INFL, cf. also section 2.4.3.. 19. Stowell (1981) has proposed to use 1TENSE as a categorial feature. For him gerunds illustrate the neutralization of this feature. Though we agree with him with respect to the absence of TENSE, we object to neutralization, cf. section 3.1.. 20. Another possibility for Cases originating "elsewhere" is that there is no governing Caseassigner but rather some general rule of Case-assignment in ungoverned positions. The problem such an analysis would face is similar: why are clitics exempted from this Case? For French at least the analysis with avec can explain this. 21. Subjunctives may trigger stylistic inversion. As stylistic inversion is generally triggered by elements in COMP, the subjunctive must have a feature in COMP. 22. This formulation excludes lexical content in cases of Verb-movement to COMP, as well as in cases in which WH-elements are moved to COMP. These cases will be considered in the syntactic chapters. 23. With respect to (128) there are a number of remaining questions which we will not discuss in this thesis. For example, we have not integrated the possibility of [+TENSE -Case] as argued for by De Haan & Weerman (1986). Neither do we discuss possible

182

correspondences between the classes, as illustrated in (i), where the subjunctive complements take infinitives with de. while the indicative complements correspond to infinitives with no element in COMP. (i) (a) Je lui dis qu'il parte. (subj) I say him that he leaves. (b) Je lui dis de partir. (de) I say him to leave. (c) Je dis que je partirai. (ind) I say that I am leaving. (d) Je dis etre malade. (0) I say to-be ill. Such a parallel may exist, but it will at least encounter the problems in (ii), (iii) and (iv). (ii) (a) Je veux que tu partes. (subj) I want that you leave, (b) Je veux partir. (0) I want to-leave. (iii) (a) Je promets que je viendrai. (ind) I promise that I will-come, (b) Je promets de venir. (de) I promise to come, (iv) (a) J'espere qu'il vient. (ind) I hope that he comes, (b) J'espere venir. (0) I hope to-come. On this type of issues, see Long (1976) or Huot (1981). Chapter 3 1. One might be tempted to base an argument on (i): (i) (a) II ne chante pas. He not sings not. (b) II n'a pas chantd. He not has not sung. (c) * II n'a chante" pas. He not has sung not. (d) II n'a pas έΐέ tue". He not has not been killed. (e) * II n'a &έ pas tue". He not has been not killed. (f) *Iln'a6t6tu6pas. He not has been killed not. (i) shows that pas must follow the finite verb, and also that it immediately follows it In this sense PERFective and PASSive participles are not finite. The argument is not strong enough because INJrl· may also be non-finite, so that PERF and PASS pattern like infinitives in (i). 2. There are some lexicalized exceptions, like y compris and y inclus (both meaning thereincluded). 3. On past participle agreement see Burzio (1981), Lefebvre (1987), Bouchard (1985), Kayne (1985) and Drijkoningen (1985). 4. We considered auxiliary have/be only. With respect to the main verbs have and be, only be behaves in a way parallel to auxiliaries, as opposed to have, cf.: (i) John isn't mad. (ii) * John doesn't be mad. (iii) * John hasn't a house, (iv) John doesn't have a house.

183

On the insertion of main verb be, see Van Gestel (1986). Remark also that the contrast in (iii)-(iv) can be considered counter-evidence for an analysis in which auxiliary have is treated as main verb, as in Hoekstra (1984). 5. The same observation holds for the difference between French and English in (i). (i) (a) John will come. (b) Jean viendra. French has a synthetic future, while English has an analytic one. 6. The analysis of (55) has a consequence beyond our theory. On the basis of (55) a specific argument for Affix Hop can be made, independently of auxiliaries. If we assume that at some abstract level PERF forms a constituent, as well as INFL, (55) illustrates discontinuous morphemes. We propose to give to (55) the D-structure in (i) leading to the structure indicated in (ii) after Affix Hop. (@ indicates the reduplication trigger) (i) IP (ii) INFL VP -"TENSE-Kgi+lu+k+AGl TENSE+AGR PERF V @+k lu Of course, the elements may occur on the other side at D-structure, in which case Affix Hop moves the other elements. 7. We assume this is a theme. For e.g. proud of his brother, fier de son frere. we consider his brother to be the theme, while the PRO in the corresponding small clause is considered to be an experiences On experiencer roles, see e.g. Belletti & Rizzi (1988) or Schroten (1986). 8. One might think of strict cyclicity, or the Head Movement Constraint. 9. French does not have a type of nominalization comparable to the English gerund. Moreover, nominal INFL is very restricted. Only lexical nominalizations are productive in French, cf. Zwanenburg (1983). 10. The examples for PERF parallel to (92) - (93) are: (i) * Have destroyed the city. (ii) * The city have destroyed. (iii) * Have destroyed the city by John. (iv) * The city have destroyed by John. 11. For reasons still unclear to us we have not found any examples of category-changing syntactic compounding. 12. This observation relates to a criticism of a previous version of our theory in Hoekstra (1986). 13. Generally subjects will occur preverbally as INFL needs to receive an index via Specifier-Head Agreement, cf. section 5.5.. Chapter 4 1. Some speakers consider (12c) to be ungrammatical. However, the same speakers consider (lie) acceptable. French que in this case may also be present, cf. (16c), and in fact must be. A generalization across these cases can only be obtained if that in (12c) is allowed to be present at S-structure. We will present evidence that a generalization of this type is indeed an interesting one. 2. For some reason, questions with WH-objects are less grammatical in the variant where a lexical NP is present together with the clitic (? Que Pierre a-t-il fait?). They are readily understood by native speakers, but considered unacceptable. 3. We suggest that V-movement has caused a structural change in the sense that the subject cannot receive nominative Case from the I in C. Perhaps a relation can be made with the marked example in (i). (i) Je vois [Jeanj qui ti lit]

184

4. One could move either a full NP, such as strong pronoun (see also section 5.2.) or a small pro, a possibility suggested by Hulk (1986). Alternatively, cliticization could suffice to bring the subject-clitic in the domain of C and therefore in the reach of I. 5. In order to explain Jean est-il venu. we have to maintain that the NP subject never lands in the Spec of CP, even if this position is not lexically filed by a WH-element. See also section 5.1.. 6. Other differences can be linked to Case theory in the sense that NP-movement is impossible if the preposition assigns inherent Case, whereas WH-movement is possible with inherent Case too, cf. section 5.5.. 7. The independent evidence Chomsky gives depends on Quantifiers. We think the link between WH and Q in this way is rather problematic, as Q may adjoin to IP, but WH may not. We rather prefer a situation in which Q may adjoin to both VP and IP, while WH may not adjoin to either unless in the presence of overt evidence. French has overtly floating Quantifiers, adjoined to VP, as in (i), cf. also section 2.3.: (i) (a) D a vu tout. He has seen everything, (b) II a tout vu. He has everything seen. If WH were similar, it is predicted for French that WH-elements might appear here, which is not the case: (ii) (a) Qui a vu quoi. Who has seen what, (b) * Qui a quoi vu. Who has what seen. (iii) (a) Tu as vu qui. You have seen who. (b) * Tu as qui vu. You have who seen. Also, as the rule CP > Spec C makes WH-movement structure-preserving (cf. Chomsky (1986b) p. 4/5), adjunction to VP does nullify this result. 8. In fact, it seems to us that the stipulation that IP is not a barrier is reduplicated here with the stipulation for C. 9. The explanation given for John; doesn't seem ti to have left relied on the absence of ccommand of INFL with respect to VP. In other words, the VP is not a concrete "sister" in this situation. Still, does and seem are related for the purposes of Head-Head chains. 10. The suggestion which can be made on the basis of chapter 5 is that IP is not a barrier if its specifier position is not filled. When its specifier position is not filled, INFL merely qualifies as an affix rather than the head of a full projection. Chapter 5 1. One might of course formulate a deletion rule. On deletions see section 5.2.. 2. The idea is reminiscent of the illocutionary acts. These can be integrated by a general notion of 'clausal specifiers', more in particular, specifiers of C. In this respect note that the analysis that is sketched in this section extends to Imperatives: (i) Don't you dare come here again, (ii) Köm jij eens hier. Come you here. 3. In sentences like II pense que lui a raison. lui must be considered free for the binding principles, i.e. coreference between the subject of the root clause and the subject of the embedded clause is impossible. So the referential value alluded to in the text is not referentiality in terms of binding, but rather referentiality in domain D (cf. Bouchard (1984)). 4. This proposal is in certain ways similar to Taraldsen's (1986) analysis: he claims that Verb-movement stands in a direct relation with predication inside CP: the moved element

185

needs to be predicated of a verbal element. Though Specifier-Head Agreement for us is not completely on a par with predication (cf. section 5.6.), the idea is comparable. 5. Remark that we have opened the door for different analyses with respect to V2 and non-V2 languages: One might argue that in English and French S is found in INFL rather than in COMP, and that COMP is just a suitable landing site for composed chains when necessary. Similarly, one might argue that S may be "affix-hopped" towards INFL in French and English in case the finite verb has not moved towards it. 6. M-government stands for government according to the Minimality condition. With respect to the definitions given in 1.2.9. we regard M-government as c-command with no barriers. 7. We claim that de and of assign a structural Case. 8. The problem of the Extended Projection Principle shows up here again: is the subject position of a small clause necessary? We think that ultimately this question will receive the same answer. 9. The system may also explain the possibility of stylistic inversion in French, along the lines of base-generation of the subject in postverbal position and along the lines of WH-movement without V2-effect, cf. (i) and/or (ii) (see also Coopmans (1987) and Drijkoningen (1988)). WH[ipI[VP'VPNP]] (i) Quand est venu Jean? When has come John (ii) Into the room walked a man. In other words, stylistic inversion illustrates a restricted variant of free inversion with similar properties: SHAGR-lowering entails the non-barrierhood of IP. So the movement of WHelements does not cross a barrier IP. Therefore there is no need for an I-C composed chain and therefore no (complex) clitic inversion and/or do-insertion.

186

Bibliography AI, B.P.F., 1975. La notion de grammatical^ en grammaire g n rative-transformationnelle. Dissertation Leiden. Anderson, S.R., 1982. "Where's Morphology?" Linguistic Inquiry 13.4., pp. 571-612. Aoun, Y., & Sportiche, D., 1983. "On the Formal Theory of Government". Linguistic Review 2, pp. 211-236. Aoun, Y., Hornstein, N. & Sportiche, D., 1980. "Some Aspects of Wide Scope Quantification." Journal of Linguistic Research 1.3., pp. 69-96. Baker, M.C., 1988. "Morphology and Syntax: An Interlocking Dependence". In: M. Everaert, A. Evers, R. Huybregts & M. Trommelen. (eds), 1988. Morphology and Modularity. Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 9-32. Belletti, A., & Rizzi, L., 1988. "Remarques sur les verbes psychologiques, la 0-th6eorie et le principe de Liage". In: A. Hulk & G. Booij. (eds), 1988. Lexique et syntaxe en grammaire gonoranve. P.U. Lille, pp. 33-59. Bennis, H., 1986. Gaps and Dummies. Foris, Dordrecht. Bennis, H., & Hoekstra, T., 1985. "Een gat in de distributie van om-zinnen". CLOT 8,1, pp. 5-23. Besten, H. den, 1977. "On the Interaction of Root Transformations and Lexical Deleave Rules". In W.Abraham (ed), 1983. On the Formal Syntax of Westgermania. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 47-131. Beukema, F., 1984. Seven Studies on Free Adjuncts. Dissertation Leiden. Bouchard, D., 1984. On the Content of Empty Categories. Foris, Dordrecht. Bouchard, D., 1985. "A Few Remarks on Past Participle Agreement". Unpublished paper. Burzio, L., 1981. Intransitive Verbs and Italian Auxiliaries. Ph.D.Dissertation MIT. Chomsky, N., 1957. Syntactic Structures. Mouton, Den Haag. Chomsky, N., 1972. "Remarks on Norninalization." In: Studies on Semantics in Generative Grammar. Mouton, Den Haag, pp. 11-61. Chomsky, N., 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Foris, Dordrecht. Chomsky, N., 1982. Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding. MIT Press, Cambridge Mass.. Chomsky, N., 1986a. Knowledge of Language; Its Nature, Origin and Use. Praeger, New York. Chomsky, N., 1986b. Barriers. MIT Press, Cambridge Mass..

187

Chomsky, N. & Lasnik, H., 1977. "Filters and Control". Linguistic Inquiry 8.3., pp.425-504. Coopmans, P., 1987. "Where stylictic and syntactic processes meet: inversion in English". Dutch Working Papers in English Language and Linguistics 1, Leiden. Drijkoningen, F., 1985. "L'accord du participe passe en fra^ais moderne". Rapports/ Het Franse Boek 55.1., pp. 22-28. Drijkoningen, F., 1988. "Stylistic Inversion in French and the Extended Projection Principle". In: P. Coopmans & A. Hulk, (eds), 1988. Linguistics in the Netherlands 1988. Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 39-47. Emonds, I.E., 1978. "The Verbal Complex V'-V in French". Linguistic Inquiry 9.2., pp. 151-175. Emonds, J.E., 1985. A UnifiedTheory of Syntactic Categories. Foris, Dordrecht. Everaert, M.B.H., 1986. The Syntax of Reflexivization. Foris, Dordrecht. Evers, A., 1981. "Verb Second Movement Rules". Wiener Linguistiche Gazette 26, pp. 15-34. Evers, A., 1982. "Twee functionele principes voor de regel "verschuif het werkwoord"". GLOT 5.1., pp. 11-30. Fabb, N.A.J., 1984. Syntactic affixation. Ph.D.Dissertation MIT. Fiengo, R., 1974. Semantic Conditions on Surface Structure. Ph.D.Dissertation MIT. Gestel, F. van., 1986. X-bar Grammar: Attribution and Predication in Dutch. Dissertation Utrecht. Grevisse, M., 1969. Le ban usage (9th edition). Duculot, Gembloux. Haan, G.J. de, 1984. "Friese kortstaarten". In: GJ.de Haan, M.Trommelen & W. Zonneveld (eds), 1984. Van Periferie naar Kern. Foris, Dordrecht. Haan, G.J. de & Schölten, T., 1984. "Waarom om?" Spektator 14,3, pp. 203-207. Haan, G.J. de & Weerman, F., 1986. "Finiteness and Verb Fronting in Frisian". In: H.Haider & M.Prinzhorn (eds), 1986. Verb Second Phenomena in Germanic Languages. Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 77-110. Haider, H. & Prinzhorn, M., 1986. "Introduction". In: Verb Second Phenomena in Germanic Languages. Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 1-6. Hoekstra, T., 1984. Transitivity; Grammatical Relations in a Government-Binding Theory. Foris, Dordrecht. Hoekstra, T., 1986. "Passives and Participles". In: F.Beukema & A.Hulk (eds), 1986. Linguistics in the Netherlands 1986. Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 95-104. Hornstein, N., 1977. "Towards a Theory of Tense". Linguistic Inquiry 8.3., pp. 521-557. Hornstein, N. and Weinberg, ., 1981. "Case Theory and Preposition Stranding". Linguistic Inquiry 12.1., pp. 55-91.

188

Hulk, Α., 1986. "Subject Clitics and the PRO-drop parameter". In: P.Coopmans, I.Bordelois & B.Dotson-Smith (eds), 1986. Formal Parameters of Generative Grammar; Yearbook II. Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 107-119. Huot, H., 1981. Constructions infinitives dufrangais; Le subordonnant de. Droz, Geneve. Jackendoff, R.S., 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. MIT Press Cambridge Mass.. Jackendoff, R.S., 1977. X' Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure. MIT Press, Cambridge Mass.. Kayne, R.S, 1973. "L'inversion du sujet en frangais dans les propositions interrogatives". Le frangais moderne 41.1., pp. 10-42 and 41.2., pp. 131-151. Kayne, R.S., 1975. French Syntax; the transformational cycle. MIT Press Cambridge Mass.. Kayne, R.S., 1976. "French Relative 'que'". In: F.Hensey & M.Lujan, (eds), Current Studies in Romance Linguistics. Georgetown University Press, Washington D.C., pp. 255-299. Kayne, R.S., 1984. Connectedness and Binary Branching. Foris, Dordrecht. Kayne, R.S., 1985. "L'accord du participe passe" en franc.ais et en Italien." Modeies linguistiques VII. 1., pp.73-89. Kayne, R.S. and Pollock, J.Y., 1978. "Stylistic Inversion, Successive Cyclicity and Move NP in French." Linguistic Inquiry, 9.4., pp.595-621. Koopman, H., 1983. "ECP Effects in Main Clauses". Linguistic Inquiry 14.2., pp. 346-350. Koopman, H., 1984. The syntax of Verbs. From Verb Movement Rules in the Km Languages to Universal Grammar. Foris, Dordrecht. Koopman, H., & Sportiche, D., 1986. "A Note on Long Extraction in Vata and the ECP". Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 4, pp. 357-374. Lasnik, H. & Saito, M., 1984. "On the nature of proper government". Linguistic Inquiry 15.2., pp. 235-289. Lefebvre, C., 1987. "Past participle Agreement in French: Agreement = Case". In: D. Birdsong & J.P. Montreuil (eds), 1987. Advances in Romance Linguistics. Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 233-251. Long, M.E., 1976. Semantic Verb Classes and Their Role in French Predicate Complementation. IULC, Bloomington. Muysken, P., 1982. "Parametrizing the Notion 'Head'". Journal of Linguistic Research 2.3., pp. 57-75. Pesetsky, D., 1982. Paths and Categories. Ph.D.Dissertation MIT. Pesetsky, D., 1985. "Morphology and Logical Form". Linguistic Inquiry 16.2., pp. 193-246. Picallo, M.C., 1985. Opaque Domains. Ph.D.Dissertation New York.

189

Reichenbach, H., 1947. Elements of Symbolic Logic. Macmillan, New York. Reinhart, T., 1976. The Syntactic Domain of Anaphora. Ph.D.Dissertation MIT. Reuland, E.J., 1983a. "Governing -ing" Linguistic Inquiry 14.1., pp.101-136. Reuland, E.J., 1983b. "Government and the Search for AUXes: A Case Study in Cross Linguistic Category Identification". In: F.Heny & B.Richards (eds), Linguistic Categories: Auxiliaries and Related Puzzles Vol.1. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp.99-168. Riemsdijk, H. van, 1978. A Case Study in Syntactic Markedness: The Binding Nature of Prepositional Phrases. Foris, Dordrecht. Riemsdijk, H. van, 1983. "The Case of German Adjectives". In: F.Heny & B. Richards, (eds), Linguistic Categories: Auxiliaries and Related Puzzles Vol.1. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp.223252. Rizzi, L., 1982. Issues in Italian Syntax. Foris, Dordrecht. Roberts, L, 1985. The representation of implicit and dethematized subjects. Ph.D.Dissertation

use.

Ruwet, N., 1967. Introduction a la grammaire g n rative. Plon, Paris. Ruwet, N., 1982. "Une construction absolue". In: Grammaire des Insultes et autres otudes. Seuil, Paris, pp. 94-145. Schlyter, S., 1977. La place des adverbes en -ment enfranQais. Dissertation Konstanz. Schroten, J„ 1986. "On the Analysis of Spanish Experiencer Verbs". In: P.Coopmans, I.Bordelois & B.Dotson-Smith (eds), 1986. Formalparameters of Generative Grammar; Yearbook II. Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 141-157. Selkirk, E.O., 1982. The Syntax of Words. MIT Press, Cambridge Mass.. Stowell, T., 1981. Origins of Phrase Structure. Ph.D.Dissertation MIT. Stoweil, T., 1982. "The Tense of Infinitives". Linguistic Inquiry 13.3., pp. 561-570. Stowell, T., 1983. "Subjects across Categories". Linguistic Review 2, pp. 285-312. Stuurman, F.J., 1985. Phrase Structure Theory in Generative Grammar. Foris, Dordrecht. Taraldsen, K.T., 1983. Parametric Variation in Phrase Structure: A Case Study. Dissertation Tromso. Taraldsen, K.T., 1986. "On Verb Second and the Functional Content of Syntactic Categories". In H.Haider & M.Prinzhorn (eds), 1986. Verb Second Phenomena in Germanic Languages. Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 7-25. Trommelen, M. and Zonneveld, W., 1986. "Dutch Morphology: Evidence for the Righthand Head Rule". Linguistic Inquiry 17.1., pp. 147-169. Vergnaud, J.-R., 1985. D4pendances et niveaux de rep^sentation en syntaxe. Benjamins, Amsterdam.

190

Vet, J.P., 1979. Temps, aspects etadverbes de temps enfra^ais contemporain. Dissertation Amsterdam. Weerman, F., 1986. "The different faces of Verb Second". Paper Utrecht. Williams, E., 1975. "Small Clauses in English". In: P.J.Kimball, (ed), 1975. Syntax and Semantics 4, pp.249-273. Academic Press, New York. Williams, E., 1980. "Predication". Linguistic Inquiry 11.1., pp. 203-238. Williams, E., 1981. "On the Notions "Lexically Related" and "Head of a Word"". Linguistic Inquiry 12.2., pp. 245-274. Zubizarreta, M.L., 1980. "Remarks on Portuguese Infinitives". Unpublished paper. Zwanenburg, W., 1983. Productive morphologique et emprunt. Benjamins, Amsterdam. Zwanenburg, W., 1986. "Les formes de la question en fransais. Thiorie linguistique et pratique de l'enseignement". Rapports/Het Franse Boek 57.1., pp. 12-19.

191