Verbal Agreement and the Grammar behind its 'Breakdown': Minimalist feature checking 9783110959994, 9783484303645

Citation preview

Linguistische Arbeiten

364

Herausgegeben von Hans Altmann, Peter Blumenthal, Herbert E. Brekle, Gerhard Heibig, Hans Jürgen Heringer, Heinz Vater und Richard Wiese

Elly van Gelderen

Verbal Agreement and the Grammar behind its Breakdown Minimalist feature checking

Max Niemeyer Verlag Tübingen 1997

Die Deutsche Bibliothek - CIP-Einheitsaufnahme Gelderen, Eily van: Verbal agreement and the grammar behind its "breakdown" : minimalist feature checking / Elly van Gelderen. - Tübingen : Niemeyer, 1997 (Linguistische Arbeiten ; 364) ISBN 3-484-30364-6

ISSN 0344-6727

© Max Niemeyer Verlag GmbH & Co. KG, Tübingen 1997 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. Gedruckt auf alterungsbeständigem Papier. Druck: Weihert-Druck GmbH, Darmstadt Buchbinder: Industriebuchbinderei Hugo Nadele, Nehren

Contents Preface

xi

List of Abbreviations

Introduction 0.1 0.2

0.3 0.4 0.5

1 1.0 1.1

1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6

2 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6

xiii

1

Agreement and its Role Transformational Accounts of Agreement 0.2.1 Government-Binding 0.2.2 'Early' Minimalism 0.2.3 'Later' Minimalism Lack of Agreement Features Book Outline

1 2 2 3 5 8 12 15

Lack of Agreement with Verb Subject I: Empty Expletives

17

Outline Arabic 1.1.1 VS and Expletives 1.1.2 Evidence 1.1.3 Further Aspects An Italian Intermezzo Kirundi and two other Bantu Languages Belfast English Modern English Inversion Conclusion

17 18 18 22 23 25 26 28 29 33

Past Participle Agreement: Lack of Agreement with Verb Object

35

Outline Theoretical Background: AGRo and Categorial Features French: D, N and V Features and Object Expletives Some other Romance Languages Scandinavian Participles Urdu/Hindi Participles and Object Expletives O'odham and Hopi Past Participles

35 35 36 40 41 .42 .44

VI

2.7

Conclusion

45

Lack of Agreement with Verb Subject II: Government

47

3.3 3.4 3.5

Outline Dutch, West Flemish and Somali 3.1.1 Spec-Head and/or Government 3.1.2 Agreement under Government: C's Involvement 3.1.3 Evidence for the Involvement of C in Agreement 3.1.4 Phi-Checking Older Varieties of English. 3.2.1 Declarative VS 3.2.2 Interrogative VS 3.2.3 Imperative VS Yiddish: Government as well as Spec-Head Agreement Modern English and French: the Loss of Government Conclusion

47 47 48 51 53 55 55 56 59 60 .61 62 63

4

Lack of Agreement in Wft-Structures

65

4.0 4.1

4.5

Outline Agreement Features 'Float' 4.1.1 Kimball & Aissen (1971) 4.1.2 Dutch Double Object Verbs Relative Clauses in Old, Middle, Early Modern and Modern English 4.2.1 Modern English 4.2.2 Old and Middle English 4.2.3 Demonstratives as Relatives: se, pe, etc 4.2.4 That 4.2.5 Who/m Restrictions on Relative Clauses in French and Modern English Overt versus Covert Wh-Agreement 4.4.1 English 4.4.2 Chamorro: Expletives and WTz-Agreement 4.4.3 Tohono O'odham: WTz-Checking under Government Conclusion

65 66 66 69 71 71 73 74 76 78 79 80 81 83 84 85

5

The History of There

86

5.0

Outline

86

5.1

The Theory of 'Floating' Features

88

3.0 3.1

3.2

4.2

4.3 4.4

Vll

5.2

5.3 5.4

The Introduction of Expletive There 5.2.1 Old English 5.2.2 Early Middle English 5.2.2.1 Layamon's Brut 5.2.2.2 Katherine 5.2.3 The Introduction of Expletive There 5.2.3.1 Wyclif 5.2.3.2 Chaucer 5.2.4 Early Modern English Grammatical ization Conclusion

89 89 91 91 96 100 100 102 104 107 109

6

There-Expletives

Ill

6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5

Outline Transm ission Partitive Case 'Transmission' as LF-Attraction Problem cases: Israeli Hebrew Conclusion

Ill 112 114 116 121 123

7

Expletive It

125

7.0 7.1 7.2

Outline // and CP in Modern English: Evidence from Binding Theory The Features of It and CP 7.2.1 CPs in Government-Binding 7.2.2 Λ as Spec CP 7.2.3 The Checking of Features Argument or Expletive 7.3.1 Extraction 7.3.2 Agreement 7.3.3 The Introduction of Expletive It Base Generation and 'Extraposition' 7.4.1 'SOV Languages 7.4.2 'SVO' Languages Advantages and Solutions 7.5.1 Advantages 7.5.2 Solutions 7.5.2.1 Verb Movement 7.5.2.2 PredPhrase and AP Movement 7.5.2.3 Adverb Placement

125 126 128 129 129 131 133 133 134 136 136 137 139 141 141 142 142 143 144

7.3

7.4

7.5

νιπ

7.6

Conclusion

145

8

Argument It: with and without Features

147

8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4

8.5 8.6

Outline It is me Argument it: Plural and Conjoined NPs Uses of Apparently Pleonastic It 'It are them' Constructions 8.4.1 Dutch Het 8.4.2 French Ce 8.4.3 Chaucer's It Swedish Conclusion

147 148 149 151 152 152 156 157 159 160

9

Indefinites: The Grammaticalization of Nouns

161

9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5

Outline Old and Middle English Early Modern and Modern English: CIS and C16 Modern English: Indefinite but Third Person Masculine Dutch and French Indefinites Conclusion

161 162 166 168 168 196

10

Coordinated Structures

171

10.0 10.1

Outline Asymmetry and Disagreement 10.1.1 Binary, Asymmetrical Conjuncts 10.1.2 Minimalist Checking in Coordinates Word Order: Spec-Head Agreement Percolation 10.3.1 Negation 10.3.2 Animacy: Number and Gender 10.3.3 Person 10.3.4 Natural versus Grammatical Gender Structural Ambiguity: And, With and Broken Conjuncts 10.4.1 English 10.4.2 Lebanese Arabic 10.4.3 Other Languages Conclusion

171 171 172 175 182 185 186 187 188 190 190 191 193 194 195

10.2 10.3

10.4

10.5

IX

11

Conclusion: Further Issues Regarding Agreement

197

11.0 11.1

Outline Overt and Covert Movement 11.1.1 English Focus: No Structural Position 11.1.2 English Topicalization: Optional Functional Categories Spec-Head and Government Grammaticalization Structure Conclusion

197 197 198 199 201 201 203 203

11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5

References Index of Authors Index of Subjects

205 215 219

Preface This book is about what the 'lack' of agreement indicates about the structure of language. Rather than assuming that mistakes occur in languages, disagreement can be seen as an indication of a certain structural relationship. In a Minimalist framework, the partial agreement or complete lack of agreement is determined by when checking of Case and agreement takes place and with what nominal element. My interest in this matter stems from earlier work I have done on the number of functional categories a language activates. If that account is correct, languages with fewer functional categories (Dutch and Old English) will also have fewer Specifiers and therefore less Spec-Head agreement. In these cases, government will play a role in the checking of Case and agreement. There are, however, other reasons for the 'breakdown'. For instance, expletives play a major role and they may only be specified for some features (number or person) and when they agree with the verb, the 'real' subject does not. Two additional reasons are discussed: the impact from grammaticalization and from asymmetrical structures. Parts of this book have been presented at Bordeaux (1993), Berlin (1994), Salford (1994), Groningen (1994 and 1996), Edinburgh (1994), Lawrence, KS (1994), Tucson, AZ (1995), Los Angeles, CA (1995), San Antonio, TX (1995) and Las Cruces, NM (1995). I wish to thank the audiences for helpful comments. I am very much indebted to Harry Bracken for critical comments on various drafts; to Werner Abraham for encouraging the basic philosophy behind this work; to Jan Koster and Jan-Wouter Zwart for many discussions of features; and to Richard Wiese and Hoski Thräinsson for comments on an early draft. Further thanks go to Karen Adams, Calixto Aguero, Gabriela Alboiu, Andy Barss, Dawn Bates, Corinne Cortes, Joao Costa, David Denison, Aryeh Faltz, Gert Jan van Gelder, Luuk Houwen, Jelly Julia de Jong, Bobbie Laffard, Terry Langendoen, Karen Lattewitz, Helene Ossipov, Heidi Quinn, Paulien Rijkhoek, Anna Saraiva, Kim Sauter, Tom Stroik, Viktorija Todorovska, Wei-Tien Tsai, Hanneke Westra, Teresa Wells, Mary Willie, Anko Wiegel and Maarten de Wind.

Apache Junction, AZ August 1996

Abbreviations Note about Glosses I provide two kinds of glosses. The one is a word-for-word gloss, using abbreviated symbols and the other, enclosed in single quotation marks, provides a freer translation. I do not always provide both since the meaning is often clear from the word-by-word gloss; and sometimes a word-by-word gloss is redundant.

Abbreviated Terms

-2S-;-2P-3S-;-3PACC AGRo AGRs ANS AUX C D

[D] -DAT ERG exp F -FFUTI -IMPFLF -M-MP-MSN [N] -NOM -OBL OED OV P

first person singular affix; first person plural second person singular affix; second plural third person singular affix; third plural accusative functional head: agreement with the object functional head: agreement with the subject Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst, see Bibliography. Auxiliary functional head: complementizer functional head: determiner categorial D-features dative Case marking ergative Case expletive functional head: Feature, see 0.4. affix indicating feminine Noun class future functional Head: inflection imperfect affix Logical Form affix indicating masculine Noun class affix indicating masculine Noun class and plural number affix indicating masculine Noun class and singular Noun categorial nominal features nominative Case marking oblique Case marking Oxford English Dictionary, see Bibiliography. Object Verb preposition

XIV

-PPART P.OBj Pass Perf PF -PFphiProg SC S.OBj Spec-Head SV T UG v V [V] VO VS %

plural affix particle plural object marker functional head: to contain passive features functional head: to contain perfect features Phonological Form perfect affix person, number and gender features functional head: to contain progressive features small clause singular object marker Specifier Head Agreement Subject Verb functional head: to contain tense features Universal Grammar light verb, see 0.2.3. Verb categorial verbal features Verb Object Verb Subject unattested

Introduction 0.1

Agreement and its Role

Rules of agreement, or concord1, account for the special relationship between the verb and the 'subject' that exists in most languages. In many traditional grammars, it is taken for granted that this agreement occurs and usually only the cases of 'lack of concord' are discussed. Kellner (1905: 46) writes "[t]he first rule of every syntax, namely, that a finite verb agrees with its subject in number, is very often sinned against in all periods of English ... Of this concession made by grammar to psychology, there are instances from Old English down to our own day" (his italics). Others see agreement as less than essential. For instance, Jespersen (1922 [1959]: 335) remarks that verbal agreement is a superfluity and that languages would do well to get rid of it: "By getting rid of this [agreement] superfluity, Danish has got the start of the more archaic of its Aryan sister-tongues". Nominal agreement is "an heirloom from a primitive age" (p. 352). In the present work, I will examine rules accounting for the agreement phenomena (mostly in a recent Chomskian framework) as well as account for the instances where agreement is 'deficient' and show this is not due to psychological factors but to grammatical ones. Rather than regard the lack of agreement as 'deficient' or as progressive, I will consider it as indicative of syntactic phenomena. For instance, when a verb follows the subject, the verb may display more agreement than when the verb precedes the subject. In languages with object agreement, when the object precedes the (participial) verb, the verb displays more agreement. This indicates that agreement between NP and V occurs when the NP precedes V. In cases where the verb precedes the subject or the object, there may be an expletive agreeing with the verb and, as a result, the agreement may be 'reduced'. Words lose lexical content over time (as noticed, for instance, in Bopp 1816 and von der Gabelentz 1891). This gradual process is referred to as grammaticalization (cf, Heine & Reh 1984) and may also contribute to the 'loss' of agreement since elements that grammaticalize typically lose person and number features. Structural configurations such as coordinate NPs are opaque or nontransparent and are, in many languages, the cause of a 'breakdown' of agreement. In 0.3, I elaborate on these circumstances. I have restricted myself to syntactic structures and do not deal with with collective and special NPs such as army, police, government, alms, bellows, or with agreement as in one kind of people are represented, nor why some languages consider some nouns plural whereas others consider them singular (see e.g. Quirk et al 1985: 757ff; Zandvoort 1945 [1969]: 305313). It seems to me that these phenomena are semantic rather than syntactic.

1

From now on, I use agreement rather than concord to indicate the marking on the Verb caused by the 'subject'. The reason for this is that it is presently fashionable to do so. No principle is involved. In the German literature, Kongruenz is used; in the French literature, accord; in Spanish, concordancia, etc.

In connection with agreement, the roles of subject and Case are important even though this will not be my main focus. The main focus will be the verb. There are languages where the verb agrees with the 'subject' (e.g. English, Dutch, Arabic); those where it agrees (or agrees under certain circumstances) with the Object' (e.g. Basque, Inuktitut, Dyirbal, Urdu/Hindi, Georgian)2; and, those where verbal agreement indicates both subject and object (e.g. Dine3). In this introductory chapter, I will first (0.2) provide an overview of the different accounts of agreement in recent (transformational) syntax. Then (0.3), I show how the lack of agreement comes about in such a framework and why it is relevant and (0.4) how agreement features are represented. Finally (0.5), I provide an outline of the remainder of the book.

0.2

Transformational Accounts of Agreement

In this section, I indicate the changes in Phrase-Structure Rules and agreement that have occurred in recent years. I outline the system of the early 80s and subsequent changes up to Chomsky's 1995 The Minimalist Program. The latter work contains as chapters 2 and 3 a number of articles that circulated earlier, namely "Some Notes on Economy of Derivation and Representation" (1989) and "A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory" (1992). Since chapter 4, "Categories and Transformations", differs substantially from the other chapters, I refer to chapter 2 as Chomsky (1989), to chapter 3 as Chomsky (1992), and to chapter 4 as Chomsky (1995). There is also a Chomsky (1994), "Bare Phrase Structure", which is not included in The Minimalist Program.

0.2.1 Government-Binding In a 'Government-Binding' framework4, verbal agreement is linked with nominative Case. Chomsky (1981: 52) says: "Subjects are nominative when they agree with the verb" and Borer (1986: 378) argues that agreement with the verb is a manifestation of nominative Case. Except under special circumstances (predicative NPs, adjuncts), a non-agreeing NP cannot be nominative. It is unclear in these accounts whether nominative Case is a condition for verbal agreement or vice versa. The Phrase Structure Rules in Chomsky and Borer are as in (1) and all Case is assigned under a sister relationship, i.e. from the verb to the (object) NP and from AUX to the (subject) NP. Agreement is shared by the NPs with the V and AUX. A tree is provided in (2) below:

2

3 4

For Inuktitut, see Bok-Bennema (1991); for Dyirbal, see Dixon (1972); for Urdu/Hindi, see Mahajan (1990) and Butt (1993); for Georgian, see Harris (1981). Cf. Young and Morgan (1987). This term is used for identifying the model of Chomsky (1981). It is, as Chomsky often notes, an unfortunate habit to name a framework for some of its technical characteristics. I will nevertheless.

1.

S = = > NPAUXVP VP = = > V NP

2.

In Chomsky (1986b) and Fukui (1986), Functional Categories such as AUX are considered on a par with lexical categories and head their own projections. Thus, (2) is reformulated as (3), with AUX changed into I(nflection). In (3), I projects to a full maximal projection, namely IP, which also contains a specifier position. The subject occupies the specifier position and is no longer in a sister relationship with AUX, now I(nflection). Therefore, a Specifier-Head (Spec-Head) relationship is introduced to account for nominative Case and verbal agreement between the NP in Specifier position and the verbal element in the Head: 3.

Chomsky (1986b: 24) takes Spec-Head agreement to be "a form of 'feature sharing' [...] in fact, sharing of the features person, number, gender, Case, etc.". So, in (3), the Specifier of IP and the head of IP share features of Case and agreement. If one takes government to be defined as m-command, government is a relation similar to Spec-Head agreement. An element a m-commands b if and only if every maximal projection dominating a also dominates b and vice versa (cf. Aoun & Sportiche 1983). Hence, a Head governs the Specifier position. In addition, however, a Head governs the complement and the definition of government is therefore broader than that of Spec-Head agreement. In the remainder of the book, I use c-command as a condition for government, but this is only crucial in 4.1. In the Chomsky (1986b) framework, as in (3), Case to the object inside the VP remains assigned under government by the sister verb. Hence, c-command would be required for this and mcommand would be too broad. Since Abney (1987), Functional Categories have become relevant to NPs. Most NPs are seen as dominated by D(eterminer)Phrases and as including NumberPhrases and other Functional Categories tied to features. I follow common practice (cf. Chomsky & Lasnik in Chomsky 1995: 59) in continuing to refer to them as NPs.

0.2.2

'Early' Minimalism

Chomsky (1992), based on Pollock (1989) and Chomsky (1989), i.e. 'early' Minimalism, argues that all Case is checked (rather than assigned, see 0.4) in a Spec-Head relationship. For this purpose, several Functional Categories are introduced, such as AGRs and AGRo in

(4). NPs move to the Specifier positions and verbs move to the Head positions. Nominative Case is checked against AGRs and objective is against AGRo: 4.

AGRsP Spec AGRs

Spec

AGRqP AGRo'

Verbal agreement is checked in a Head-Head relationship between V and AGR after the verb incorporates into the AGR Head as in (5). The person and number features of the head are given 'content' by the NP (just as the verb gives 'content' to the Case: if in AGRs, nominative; if in AGRo accusative): 5.

Spec AGR

The checking of Case and agreement occurs either overtly or covertly, depending on whether the features in the functional head are strong or weak. In Chomsky (1992), there are two types of features: N-features or V-features. The first type is responsible for triggering NPmovement and for checking Case; the second type for triggering V-movement and for checking agreement. Overt checking of the NP takes place in a Spec-Head relationship as in (6) before SPELL-OUT (or at s-structure in earlier frameworks); covert movement will mean that the element must wait till LF to check its features because this is 'cheaper'. English is generally assumed to have weak V-features and (6) is listed as an illustration, rather than as a structure for English: 6.

- AGRP __

AGR' Zora

AGR·"

~ ~ ~ ' XP

left

A number of principles regulate whether overt or covert movement occurs, namely 'greed' and 'procrastinate'. 'Greed' says that elements only move because these elements need to check features; they do not move to 'help out' another element. This is where a major problem occurs with strong features. Strong features are illicit at SPELL-OUT and need to

be checked by an NP or V, but the latter elements only move out of self-interest. Wilder & Cavar (1994) call this the problem of 'early altruism'. In 'later' Minimalism, i.e. Chomsky (1995), movement is reformulated as Attraction. Features and lexical items are attracted to a higher Functional Category and Greed and Procrastinate no longer seem to play the same role. Other Functional Categories are introduced. Thus, T(ense)P accompanied by V- and Nfeatures is also included in (7), which is a typical tree structure. Categories such as ASP(ect)P, VoiceP, Perf(ect)P, Num(ber)P, PersonP and others are also possible (cf. Rivero 1990; Mar cz 1991). A debate occurs as to the universality of these (latridou 1991; van Gelderen 1993; 1996a):

7.

CP Spec

" Spec AGRs Spec

ΎΡ ^>T'^ Τ^ NegP Spec Neg' Spec AGRo' AGRo >P

I have argued elsewhere (van Gelderen 1993) that there is no evidence that English has an AGRsP as well as a T(ense)P and this argument still holds5. Chomsky (1995: 349ff.) argues, in a similar vein, that there is no direct evidence for AGRs and AGRo in English. Agreement, tense and Case features would be checked through Head-Head and Spec-Head agreement in the IP in (3). Thus, the tense and agreement features are not necessarily connected to one particular functional head and that is the reason not all projections need be present/ For the purposes of this book, I again assume that there is only one functional position and following Chomsky (1995), I call it IP. However, whether one or two Functional Categories between C and V actually occur in English is not relevant to this work. I do assume AGRo for reasons outlined below.

0.2.3

'Later' Minimalism

In Chomsky (1995), the following modifications relevant to agreement, features and Functional Categories occur: (a) Features are seen as intrinsic or optional; and as Interpretable or non-Interpretable, (b) The V- and N-features are reformulated as categorial

Cf. also Abraham (1993; 1995); Thr insson (19%), etc.

features (only D-features are actually discussed), and Case and phi-features are added, (c) All movement at LF (i.e. covert), caused by weak features of a target, is replaced by feature movement, (d) As mentioned, neither AGRs nor AGRo occur, and (e) Move is replaced by Attract. I will elaborate on each of these changes. There are many types of features: semantic (e.g. abstract object), phonological (e.g. the sounds), and formal (Chomsky 1995: 230ff; 236; 277ff). The formal ones are relevant to syntax and are divided into intrinsic or optional; and into Interpretable or non-Interpretable. The intrinsic ones are "listed explicitly in the lexical entry or strictly determined by properties so listed" (Chomsky 1995: 231) and include categorial features, the Case assigning features of the verb, and the person and gender features of the noun. Optional features are added arbitrarily and are predictable from UG Principles (e.g. nouns need Case). They include the tense and agreement features of verbs and the number and Case features of NPs. The "much more important distinction" (p. 277) is that between interpretable and nonInterpretable. The Interpretable ones are relevant for interpretation at LF and include categorial and nominal phi-features. They are not deleted or erased after they are checked because they are relevant to the interpretative component. Non-Interpretable features are deleted and they involve the Case features of NPs and verbs and the phi-features of verbs. There are a number of reasons behind the distinction. Some features (e.g. phi-features of NPs) remain visible after checking and hence cannot be deleted. This is the reason an NP can move cyclically and provide the phi-features along the way (Chomsky 1995: 282). This is not true for the non-Interpretable Case. Once Case has been checked by an NP that same NP cannot move to check Case elsewhere. The reason for abandoning V- and N-features in favor of categorial, Case and phi-features is that the Extended Projection Principle effects (i.e. that clauses have structural subjects) are accounted for by means of a strong D-feature in I (Chomsky 1995: 232). This is necessary since Minimalist trees do not automatically project a Specifier position and Spec IP must somehow be present. Hence, the assumption that a D-feature exists in I. Wz-movement is triggered by a D-feature in C rather than by a [wh]-feature. The argument that it is D-features that trigger movement comes from expletives. If the expletive there in (8) was present to check the Case features, the Case features of the postverbal five coyotes would not be attracted. As a result, the non-Interpretable Case features of the NP would remain unchecked and the sentence would not be well-formed (the term used for well-formedness is convergence): 8.

There are five coyotes in our backyard.

If the expletive was present to check the phi-features, the Interpretable plural phi-features of the noun would not be attracted to I(nflection) and again, (8) would not converge. Since (8) is grammatical, there is only inserted to check the categorial features. This will be worked out in chapter 6. In chapters 7 and 8, I indicate that languages may vary as to what features they check. NP-movement is deemed not to be economical since it is only the feature of the target that needs to be checked and NP-movement at LF is therefore replaced by feature movement

(Chomsky 1995: 261 ff). Feature movement will sometimes result in non-convergence at PF and then full NP-movement (pied piping) is required. "Just how broadly considerations of PFconvergence might extend is unclear, pending better understanding of morphology and the internal structure of phrases" (Idem: 264). Since what counts as PF-convergence is unclear, I mainly continue to use the (descriptive) phrases overt and covert movement, rather than pied piping and feature movement. Chomsky notes a difference between Functional Categories such as D(eterminer), I(nflection), or T(ense) and C(omplementizer) on the one hand and AGR(eement with the)s(ubject) and AGR(eement with the)o(bject) on the other hand. AGR lacks phi- and Casefeatures since V and T provide the latter by moving to AGR. In addition, AGR never has lexical content, unlike D, I and C. The evidence that AGRs and T both exist comes from the analysis for an Icelandic construction. However, as I have argued in van Gelderen (1993), in most languages there is no evidence for AGRs. Overt object raising as in French (cf. chapter 2 below) and possibly in English (cf. chapter 7 below) provides structural evidence for AGRo. Chomsky argues that the Case to the object features can be present in the light verb v in (9). A similar construction is used in Larson (1988) to account for sentences with three arguments and is adopted by Chomsky for all VPs (cf. Chomsky 1995: 352). I will continue to assume AGRo since that is common in the literature but agree that there is a difference between D, I and C on the one hand and AGR on the other because the former but not the latter are lexicalized in many languages, for instance, the, to and that respectively (cf. van Gelderen 1996a). As a summary I provide an instance of how the features in a Minimalist system work. In (9), an NP (with Interpretable categorial and phi-features, but with non-Interpretable Case) moves to Spec IP overtly to check the strong categorial feature ([D]) in I. The phi-features and Case move along and are checked in due course. For English, assuming the, non-listed, categorial V-features are weak, this is the only overt movement necessary. The phi-features of the verb or Auxiliary are attracted to I at LF. The features of the object NP move to the specifier of v and the main verb adjoins to v. The result is that all the non-Interpretable features are checked:

[Case] [phi]

As in Chomsky (1995: 349), I assume that Functional Categories do not have phi-features but that 1 has Case (when finite). In (9), Chomsky allows for the subject being in Spec vP rather than being in Spec VP.

8 In (9), the Interpretable features are the phi-features of the NPs; the non-Interpretable ones are the features of the targets (C, T and v), the Case features of the NPs and verbs, and the phi-features of the verb. There are a number of matters not discussed in Chomsky (1995). Even though categorial features are introduced, it is only the category of the noun, i.e. the D-feature, that is addressed. Since categorial features are the only ones that can be strong and trigger overt movement, I argue that V-features must be present as well. Otherwise, overt Verb-movement would not take place, as it does in a number of languages. The status of weak categorial features is not clear. Since categorial features are Interpretable, they need not be checked. Thus, weak categorial features might as well not exist since they will never be checked, nor will they trigger movement. There is a certain redundancy about the features. In Chomsky (1981), NPs move to satisfy the Case Filter; in Chomsky (1986a), they must be Case marked in order to be visible for theta-marking; in Chomsky (1995), NPs move to check the categorial features, but the Case features must still be checked. Only in the case of expletives (as explained above) is there a reason to postulate both categorial and Case features in I. When features appear in 'early' Minimalism, they trigger movement. In the present model, most of the features are abstract and most movement takes place at LF. The child acquiring her or his grammar might not find much direct evidence and this is problematic.

0.3

Lack of Agreement

In this section, I discuss the reasons given in this book for the 'breakdown' of agreement. The book is not organized according to these four. Instead, each chapter examines a different set of constructions. A Lack of Spec-Head agreement. It has been argued that some, mainly Older', languages lack certain Functional Categories (cf. Kornfilt 1991 for Old Turkic; Lenerz 1985 for Old High German; Abraham 1993 and 1995 for Modern German; Kiparsky 1995 for Old English and van Gelderen 1993 for Old, Early Middle English and Dutch). If this is true, checking of agreement and Case cannot be under Spec-Head agreement but must take place under government related to theta-marking. The question arises immediately as to why Older' languages display more Case and agreement. For Case, this can be accounted for by assuming Case is very much related to the thematic structure of the verb. For instance, a Goal may get dative and a Theme accusative. There is evidence that some Case in Old English is assigned/checked in this fashion (Mitchell & Robinson 1986: 105ff; van Gelderen 1986b), i.e. that Case is inherent rather than structural. This means government is relevant rather than Spec-Head agreement7 (cf. den Besten 1983 for Dutch). I argue that the agreement, i.e. phi, features are also checked under government.

7

In Chomsky (1995), inherent Case is seen as an interpretable feature which does not need to be checked. It is not further worked out, however.

In 'modern' languages such as Dutch and Middle English, Case assignment under government is not as suited for the transmission of agreement features and a 'breakdown' of agreement is often the result. In (10), from the 15th century, the singular verb precedes the plural subject and in Dutch, Verb-Subject structures also display less agreement. In (11), the second person -t is missing, which can be seen by comparing (11) to a Subject-Verb structure as in (12): 10. 11.

12.

Mandeville's Travels, 71-18 In that cytee was the sittynges of the .xij. tribes of Israel. Veeg jij de vloer even, Wipe-S you the floor PART 'Would you wipe the floor'. Jij veegt de vloer vaak, You wipe-2S the floor often 'You often wipe the floor'.

This absence of Spec-Head agreement will be discussed in chapters 3, 4 and 5. It is also relevant to Case checking since, in many languages, Case is checked under government, as in (13), where the subject deze boeken 'these books' remains inside the VP: 13.

dat mijn oom gisteren deze boeken toegestuurd zijn, that my uncle-DAT yesterday these books-NOM sent are 'that these books were sent to my uncle yesterday'.

I will not examine the oldest forms in detail but will focus instead on when the switch occurs from a system where government plays a prominent role to one in which Spec-Head becomes operative. Kiparsky (1994) calls this change "the rise of positional licensing". I claim this happens when expletives are introduced. After the introduction of Functional Categories e.g. in English at the time of Middle English (cf. van Gelderen 1993), the possibility of SpecHead agreement arises or increases, since it is available in Universal Grammar, in addition to the head-complement relationship. There are still some remnants of Case assignment under government. These are often instances where agreement is 'incomplete'. There are some interesting constructions in Dine, O'odham and Hopi where number is checked under Spec-Head agreement as well as under government. These will be discussed in chapter 10, as will some cases of w/z-checking under government in chapter 4. B C/overt movement and expletives. A language where government is said to bring about different agreement from Spec-Head relationships is Arabic. Koopman and Sportiche (1991) discuss cases where a subject and a verb do not agree (completely) in a VS order as (14) shows, as opposed to the VS-construction in (15):

10 14.

15.

Darab-at/*-na 1-banaat-u Zayd-an, hit-FS the girls Zayd 'The girls hit Zayd'. al-banaat-u Darab-na/*-at Zayd-an, the girls hit-FP Zayd

It is, however, hard for Koopman & Sportiche to account for the fact that the verb agrees in gender but not in number. Therefore, rather than arguing that the difference in Arabic is caused by the difference between government by the V of the subject and a Spec-Head relationship between the subject and the verb, I will argue that agreement can be 'deficient' if NP-movement is covert because the checking of the overtly moved verb will be with an expletive (inserted to check the strong categorial features). Throughout the book, I argue that expletives vary from language to language. Hence, the term 'expletive' is a cover-term for an element 'deficient' in features. For instance, in Arabic, expletives have categorial and number features (cf. chapter 1); in English, there has categorial features (chapter 6) whereas it has categorial as well as person and number features (chapter 7); in Dutch, het 'it' is unspecified for number but is specified for person and gender (chapter 8); and in Middle English, as in (16), an it unspecified for person features occurs: 16.

Chaucer, The Miller's Tale I, 3766 What, who artow? It am I Absalon.

In chapter 2, object expletives are argued to occur in e.g. Swedish (18) but not in (17) where the NP moves to a preverbal position: 17. 18.

?Det blev tre bilder malade, There were three pictures painted-P Del blev mälat tre bilder i söndags, There were painted-S three pictures on Sunday

In French, object expletives have categorial as well person and number phi-features. As a result of the varying nature of the expletives, the agreement will appear 'aberrant' but is in fact regular. C Impact from grammaticalizing processes. Many of the constructions that I examine contain as their subjects, or as part of their subjects, elements that have undergone a process resembling grammaticalization (cf. Bopp 1816; von der Gabelentz 1891; and more recently Heine & Reh 1984; Lehmann 1985), e.g. that in chapter 4, there in chapters 5 and 6, men in chapter 9, and and with in chapter 10. These elements start out as lexical items, specific in meaning, but acquire a much more general lexical meaning and/or a more grammatical function. One could say they lose phi-features and change categorial features. In van Gelderen (1993), I suggest that some grammaticalization results in a reanalysis of these elements as Functional Categories (see also Roberts 1993 and Haspelmath 1993). For instance, to is exclusively a preposition of location in Old English but, I argue, becomes an auxiliary by

11 Middle English. In Minimalism, the emphasis is on feature checking and grammaticalization can be seen as an anchoring of categorial features onto one lexical item (cf. van Gelderen 1996a). The features that are anchored with the categorial ones are the verbal (non-)tense features in Middle English that become associated with to. This is true with other verbal categories: have is associated with verbal perfect features and be with passive and progressive ones. When nominal elements such as there and that grammaticalize, they lose phi-features but not the categorial D-features. In some of the chapters below, I examine ways in which nominals (men), pronominals (there), demonstratives (that, there) and relative elements (that, there) grammatical ize and how they are reanalyzed. For instance, there starts out as a demonstrative and becomes a relative and indefinite pronoun. I will argue (in chapters 4 and 5) that features play an important role. When a lexical item becomes less lexical and more 'grammatical', it loses most of its phi-features. For instance, in (19), that brings about third person singular on loveth, but in the more modern (20), this is not the case (sentence (20) is slightly awkward because pronouns are not modified by restrictive relatives, but the agreement is clearly first singular): 19. 20.

Chaucer, Knight's Tale 1736-7 and it am I That loveth so hote Emelye the brighte. I that am/*is going away still need to do a lot of work.

The grammaticalization of men is unlike that of other elements in that it goes back and forth between singular indefinite as in (22) and plural lexical item as in (21): 21.

22.

Layamon's Brut, Caligula 6869 for men hit saeiden wel iwhaer, because men it said-P nearly everywhere 'because it was said almost everywhere'. Idem, Otho for men hit saide wel i-war, because men it said-S nearly everywhere

D Structural Configurations. Coordinate constructions are intransparent (or opaque) for agreement and Case because of the complexity of the structure. I indicate how, in an asymmetrical structure as in Munn (1992), one of the two NPs as in (23) is in a privileged position and its Case and phi-features are attracted to I(nflection). In (23), the Diuell's Case and phi-features are attracted to C and the verb agrees with this NP rather than with thee (which is accusative):

12

23.

Shakespeare 1 Henry IV i, ii, 126 How agrees the Diuell and thee about thy Soule? (cf. Jespersen 1913: 175; but the First Folio edition is used here8)

This accounts for 'breakdowns' in Case and agreement. Since in English and renders an NP plural (in the same way a negative element renders an NP negative), this asymmetry has no consequences for agreement. In other languages, it does. Coordinate structures are very often ambiguous between and, with and after either being a preposition or a coordinating conjunction or a subordinating conjunction. If they are coordinating conjunctions, the agreement on the verb will be plural; otherwise, it will be singular.

0.4

Features

In this section, I discuss issues relating to features and outline the changes I propose in the theory. The present study indicates that Case and agreement features are separate (cf. also Hulk and van Kemenade 1991; and Kosmeijer 1993), and that agreement, i.e. the phifeatures, is (at least) divided into person and number. (I) I will be assuming, following Chomsky (1992; 1995), that items are selected from the lexicon with their morphological features fully spelled out. (II) I will be making a number of proposals concerning the representation of features. Chomsky (1992; 1995) speaks of phifeatures that a verb checks. I will argue that in fact person and number must be checked separately. I also assume that gender can be part of the phi-features (in Arabic, French and Dutch) but since phi-features are Interpretable, they need not be checked. However, not every feature (person, number, gender) has its own Functional Category (cf. van Gelderen 1993 for a similar argument concerning tense and agreement) but bundles of features are grouped together. In addition, languages differ as to the (phi)-features that are used. For instance, English does not have dual or gender. (HI) Since languages differ as to the realization of features, I propose a number of parameters. I Lexical or derivational. One may argue that items appear unspecified and get their specifications in a particular position. These specification are then spelled out later. This fits Baker's (1988: 13) Mirror Principle which says that "[m]orphological derivations must directly reflect syntactic derivations (and vice versa)". Similarly, Lumsden (1987: 28) argues that in the "underlying representation, syntactic features are underspecified". An early version of underspecification is assumed in van Riemsdijk (1983: 239ff.): "[tjhus a matrix of the type [ + N, -V] is gradually built up to a full morphosyntactic syntax" and the morphological features are contained in "a kind of generalized position" (p. 240) AG(reement) which may be a sister to an N. Similarly, Lumsden (1987: 18) argues that "since the affixes of inflection

8

As is well-known, there have heen many attempts to 'clean up' the grammatical 'errors' in Shakespeare. I use the 1623 Facsimile of the First Folio edition consistently throughout this book.

13

signal syntactic features, they must be the heads of independent phrases in the underlying representation". This might mean that each feature F has its own projection as in (24): 24.

^, FR^ ^FP^^ F ^ FP F NP F N (cf. Lumsden 1987: 19)

Zwarts (1992: 33) puts it this way: "In the ideal case, every functional head has one characteristic feature". In (24), the Ν must move rightward to each of these heads and adjoin to the left of the affix (Lumsden 1987: 19). Lumsden argues that the morphologically complex word is built up through a picking up of the affixes. Movement is to the right since the affixes appear on the right side. Of course, this could be reformulated as movement to the left with left-adjunction of the head to F, and thus, by limiting movement to the left, constraining Universal Grammar considerably. In Chomsky (1992; 1995), as mentioned, a lexicalist position is assumed. The head of a Functional Category contains categorial and Case features and the NP and V (taken fully inflected from the lexicon) check these features. If the categorial D-features are strong, the NP moves (or is attracted) into the Specifier position of the functional projection and the verb adjoins to the Head position. The features causing movement are abstract: strong does not mean that the element is overtly marked morphologically. I will assume that the insight that movement occurs because of having to 'pick' up features is basically correct and is, in earlier work, seen as the determining factor behind Verb-second, but overt morphology is not linked to strong features (since languages such as Swedish and Afrikaans show minimal verbal agreement but display overt Verb-second)9. The most important aspect of features for Chomsky (1992) as well as (1995) is to regulate movement, i.e. movement is necessary when the features are strong. The non-Interpretable features of V and NP also need to be checked explicitly. II Inventory of Phi-features. In earlier work (e.g. Chomsky 1992), V-features trigger movement and the checking of a complex of person, number and gender features as well as finite, tense, aspect and passive ones (to name but a few). One might wonder whether or not they should each have a structural position, e.g. should there be a Person?, Num(ber)P, GenderP, T(ense)P, ASP(ect)P, Pass(ive)P? For some languages, there might be evidence for some of these, but there would have to be evidence (cf, latridou 1990). In a pre-checking framework, there could be separate positions since an item moves to 'pick' up inflection and Case. I previously have argued (van Gelderen 1993) that agreement and tense features can occupy the same position and hence, I continue to assume that there is no necessity to provide

However, in van Gelderen (1992h and 1996h), I have indicated that the opposite might he argued: OV occurs if Case is overtly marked. If one equates morphological strength with strong (functional) features, some of the puzzles regarding VS structures are solved. Pollock (1993: 35) also argues that only morphologically identified functional heads can be checked overtly.

14

each feature with a functional projection of its own. In a checking framework, a lexical item is selected from the lexicon fully inflected and hence, separate positions are not necessary. Based on evidence from Arabic, I will argue that the phi-features related to agreement are divided up into at least gender, person and number, each of which can be strong or weak, but they are clustered in one functional head. Belfast English shows that number and person features are separate. In chapter 7, I will briefly examine some of the other features that trigger verbs to move, e.g. tense, aspect, perfect and passive. Chomsky (1995) does not discuss categorial V-features but I assume that tense, perfect, passive features trigger Vmovement and are therefore best regarded as the categorial V-features. Forchheimer (1953), in a different framework, surveys languages and observes that almost10 all languages have person, but not all have number and gender. There is unclarity as to how many features English has: just number; or person and/or gender as well. Modern English shows number (singular and plural, but not dual) and person (mainly third person -s and first person with the verb to be), but not gender. Kayne (1991b) argues that "[i]f one takes you to always be grammatically plural, somewhat as French vous, despite sometimes referring to a singular, then, if one takes / to be non-singular (there is clearly nothing that / is a true singular of), English -s can be considered to be a pure indication of number (+singular), rather than involving person in any way". Historically, you is certainly plural (accusative plural) whereas thou is nominative singular; thee accusative singular and yee nominative plural. In many languages, the first and second person singular are indistinguishable from the first and second person plural. Kayne's proposal would reduce the features necessary to account for verbal agreement and would mean that in English there is only one feature: number, with / am as the exception. I do not assume Kayne's proposal because there is evidence presented in chapter 4 that both person and number are necessary. Ill Feature Parameters. I assume that a derivation starts with the selection from the lexicon of an NP or NPs and a verb or verbs. Some of their features will be intrinsic; others will be optional. Since some of the features are Non-Interpretable, these must be checked. This much is part of Universal Grammar of which (25) is a principle. Functional Categories such as I are selected (at least in English but as will be shown in chapter 3, not necessarily in other languages) and merged with the NPs and Vs. The parameters to be provided by Universal Grammar are (26) to (30). These differ in a number of ways from Chomsky (1995): 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30.

Non-Interpretable features (Case and verbal phi-features) must be checked. Select Functional Categories, with ±_strong Categorial features: I, AGRo etc. Checking is through: Spec-Head, Head-Head and/or government Select Categorial V-features: tense, perfect, progressive, passive, etc. phi-features are: j+person, ±number, ±gender, etc. Feature χ is: ^independent.

10 Chinese Pidgin English may he an exception, but according to Forchheimer, the data is unreliable.

15 Parameter (26) is the spelled out version of what appears in Chomsky (1995) but will be revised in later chapters by extending it to all features, not just categorial ones. (27) allows government as a checking relation, unlike regular Minimalism. Parameter (28) ensures that tense and perfect are connected to a position with V-features in a particular language. For instance, in English, perfect is connected with have, and be is with progressive or passive. Parameter (29) reflects that phi-features differ among languages and (30) forces a language learner to look for evidence for where they are placed, i.e. how many functional projections there are. In English, tense and the agreement complex are placed independently in a position usually referred to as I or T; in Dutch, tense is arguably placed in C (cf. e.g. den Besten 1983). The task will be to restrict the number of features.

0.5

Book Outline

In chapters 1 to 7, I indicate that Verb-Subject (hence VS), Verb-Object (hence VO) and Vwh structures often display a 'deficient' agreement and that in some languages this is caused by the categorial features in the head of the relevant Functional Category being strong. Hence, empty and non-empty expletives are inserted to check the categorial features but they check other features at the same time. Depending on whether the verb moves overtly (Arabic and earlier English) or covertly, the phi-features of the functional head will be checked with the expletive or with the postverbal NP respectively. In chapter 1, I examine cases of VS that have often been seen as instances where the verb governs the Subject. I argue that empty expletives are present. The same is true in chapter 2 when expletives occur in object position. In chapter 3, I indicate that the loss of agreement can occur because of the checking of Casefeatures under government and the checking of phi-features against C. This happens in Dutch and earlier forms of English. In chapter 4, I argue phi-features are also present in C in certain dialects of English. In chapters 5 and 6, I discuss overt expletives such as there in various stages of English. Sometimes, there is an expletive with fewer phi-features; other times, it is an argument with complete phi-features. In chapter 7, I argue that some instances of it in English are expletives; and, in chapter 8, that other its are arguments. The agreement in the former case can be dealt with if it originates in Spec CP as in Stroik (1991); in the latter case, it has features of its own which determine agreement. Overt w/i-movement brings about agreement more often than does wh-in-situ in English and Chamorro as I show in chapter 4. I try to account for these in the same way as for overt versus covert NP-movement. The w/i-constructions in certain relative clauses show that Case and agreement (phi-features) need not both be checked in a Spec-Head agreement relationship but that one of them may be checked under government. This confirms some of the results of chapter 3. I also demonstrate that relative pronouns in English derive from demonstratives and that as a result they initially have features of their own. The demonstrative that undergoes grammaticalization and gradually loses its features. Thus, differences in agreement can be accounted for in that way. In chapter 7, apart from showing that overt movement results in 'more' agreement, I explore the question of whether it is possible to analyse Extraposition as lack of movement

16

as in Kayne (1994). The reason for such an analysis is that eliminating rightward movement simplifies Universal Grammar. In chapter 9, I discuss the implications of checking for those arguments that can be both plural and singular. The agreement is with the subject but since the subject loses and gains phi-features over time, there is no 'breakdown'. Chapter 10 is a discussion of agreement 'breakdowns' in coordinate constructions. I assume that coordinate structures are asymmetric and that, in some languages, the phi-features of the first conjunct are attracted to I. This results in 'disagreement'. My major conclusions are: (a) verbal agreement differs in languages depending on whether they select Spec-Head agreement or government for checking purposes, (b) phi-features must be divided into person, number etc., (c) expletives differ in feature content across languages (d) c/overt movement (VS versus SV and VO versus OV) is relevant because the features may have been checked by the 'wrong' element (e.g. the expletive), (e) through grammaticalization elements gain and lose features relevant to agreement and may cause structural ambiguity (e.g. is with a preposition or a conjunction?), (f) coordinate structures are asymmetric and this has consequences for agreement. In chapter 11, I outline additional lines of research related to the four causes of breakdown in agreement listed in 0.3.

1

Lack of Agreement with Verb Subject I: Empty Expletives"

1.0 Outline Subject Verb (SV) and Verb Subject (VS) structures differ where agreement is concerned. The question to be answered is why languages display less verbal agreement in VS-structures than in SV-structures. Greenberg (1963) formulates some universals that are relevant here. Universal 33 says: "When number agreement between the noun and the verb is suspended and the rule is based on order, the case is always one in which the verb precedes and the verb is in the singular". Kayne (1994: 51), quoting work by Greenberg, mentions that there are languages such as Arabic in which there is a particular kind of agreement in SV orders but not in VS orders and that languages in which the reverse is the case do not exist. In the present chapter, I claim that in some an (empty) expletive appears that is reponsible for the verbal agreement. Besides Arabic, I select a number of Bantu languages because the system of verbal agreement is different from that in Arabic and in English. Yet, the analysis in some of them can be shown to be similar. I also examine Belfast English because, at first sight, it contradicts Greenberg's Universal. Within a Government-Binding/Minimalist framework, the problem presented in Universal 33 has been accounted for by arguing that there is a real Spec-Head agreement relationship in SV structures (with the subject in the Specifier and the verb in the Head of a functional projection) but a government relationship in VS structures (with the moved verb governing the subject position). Koopman & Sportiche (1991) and others have argued this (cf. section 1.1 below). The transmission of features under the two relationships would be different in such a way as to account for the paucidity of agreement under government. This, I argue in a later chapter, is relevant for languages such as Dutch and is caused by the lack of Functional Categories. However, it might also be possible to explain the different agreement patterns in Arabic in a number of ways through a modification of the Minimalist framework. The first possibility is to link the morphological features with the strong features of the Minimalist framework (which is not explicitly done in Chomsky 1992; 1994; 1995). This will turn out to be too strong a claim, because Arabic does not have a total loss of agreement, just a reduction. Therefore, a second possibility is argued for, one that does not link up morphological strength with feature-strength, but one that differentiates on the basis of where the checking of the verbal agreement features takes place and with what element the verb is checked (an expletive or an NP). If the features on the heads of Functional Categories are strong, NP and V-movement will take place and an SV order will be the result. Since SpecHead agreement occurs between the NP and the verb, there will be full agreement. If NP-

1

' Parts of this chapter were read at a conference organized in March 1994 by the FAS in Berlin and an early partial version appears in Linguistics 34.

18

movement takes place covertly, the verb checks its features, I will argue, with an empty expletive (for the postulation of which evidence will be provided) and the NP will only check its features after SPELL-OUT (at LF). The account that holds for Arabic will be shown to account for VS constructions in Italian and Kirundi in 1.2 and 1.3, and in Belfast English in 1.4. In 1.5, a possible case of empty expletives in English is discussed in 'Stylistic Inversion', but I conclude that such an expletive is not needed. The analysis of expletives presented in this chapter will be argued to also hold for modern English there in chapter 6 and for it in chapter 7. The main points in this chapter will be the following, (a) An explanation of many of the VS and SV differences can be given through differentiating between overt versus covert movement of an NP (e.g., if NP-movement does not occur and if an expletive is inserted, agreement will be with the expletive), (b) I provide evidence that phi-features are not one cluster but that they are separate sets that each must be checked, as in e.g. Rigau (1991), Platzack (1994) and Taraldsen (1995). (c) The specification of expletives varies crosslinguistically.

1.1

Arabic

This section is divided in three parts. In the first (1.1.1), I indicate that in Arabic VS structures there is less agreement than in SV ones. I discuss several analyses to account for these data, before formulating my own analysis, which makes use of expletives. In 1.1.2, I examine the evidence from Arabic; and in 1.1.3, the definiteness restriction on postverbal NPs is discussed and refined. My assumption will be that the notion of 'default' agreement (usually third person, masculine singular) is not permissible in a Minimalist framework because of the emphasis on checking. I therefore focus on explanations using c/overt movement and expletives.

1.1.1 VS and Expletives Mohammad (1989), Koopman & Sportiche (1990), Huybrechts (1991), Aoun et al. (1994), Ouhalla (1994) and others have given evidence that in Standard Arabic in the SV order, the verb and subject display full agreement whereas in the VS order, they do not. This can be explained, as e.g. Koopman & Sportiche do, by arguing that in the VS order, the verb having moved to I(nflection) just assigns Case under government and has default number agreement. In the SV order in (2), the moved verb and the moved subject agree together under SpecHead agreement; in the VS order in (1), there is no such agreement12:

12

Cf. also Fabri (1993) and Abdul-Ghany (1981). More functionalist explanations would say that the base is VSO but that if the function of an element is clear from the ending, then SVO becomes possible (e.g. Bakir 1979: 15). Thus, the unmarked case is the non-morphologically marked one.

19 1.

2.

Darab-at/*-na 1-banaat-u Zayd-an13 hit-PAST-3FS/*3FPl the girls-NOM Zayd-ACC 'The girls hit Zayd'. al-banaat-u Darab-na/*-at Zayd-an the girls-NOM hit-PAST-3fPL/*3FS Zayd-ACC The girls hit Zayd'. (Khalaily 1993, but see also Smart 1986: 79-80; Fassi 1993: 32)

Thus, Koopman & Sportiche (1991: 229) distinguish "between Case by agreement and governed Case". Belletti (1992: 37) argues something similar for Italian: "the SPEC-head relation is ranked as the least marked agreement strategy, and the head-complement relation is left (nearly) unexploited". In Arabic too, Spec-Head agreement would then be more relevant for agreement than a government relationship, and number features might not be transmitted in a government relationship even though gender and person are preserved. For instance, the verb in the VS structure in (1) agrees in gender even though it does not agree in number. In this context, Benmamoun (1992) claims that number agreement only occurs under Spec-Head agreement whereas gender agreement occurs under both government and Spec-Head agreement. That number agreement does not occur under government is problematic in a 'checking' theory, because then in principle the verb should be either singular or plural in (1). The plural is ungrammatical and therefore, I do not accept Benmamoun's analysis. The same problem occurs in Ouhalla (1994). He argues that in Arabic T precedes AGRs and that in VS structures, the verb moves to T and the subject to Spec AGRsP. In these constructions, the subject agrees with the default in AGRs (p. 44). Again this explanation does not account for the agreement that occurs, namely gender agreement. Ouhalla (1994: 70) says in a note: "I will assume here that agreement with postverbal subject in gender and person is only apparent or accidental". Mohammad (1989) is one of the first to account for the lack of agreement in VS structures in a generative framework, but he (like Ouhalla and Koopman & Sportiche) does not pay attention to the agreement in gender. He says: "when the verb precedes the subject, there is no agreement between the two" (p. 169, emphasis added). Mohammad argues in favor of an expletive in VS structures which has third person masculine features. In subjectless constructions such as (3), the verb has similar features as well; i.e. third person singular. Mohammad (1989: 121ff) accounts for this through an expletive: 3.

yabduu ?anna 1-awlaad-a saafaruu 3S-seem that the-boys-ACC depart-3P 'It seems that the boys departed'.

I will adapt Mohammad's idea of an expletive in VS-structures and make use of the difference between overt and covert movement to account for the gender agreement in (1), as well as

13

The symbol D stands for the letter Daad. Since -at and -na are portmanteau affixes, I represent this by not separating number and gender by a hyphen.

20

the lack of number agreement. I first examine some possible Minimalist solutions but reject these. If one assumes, with Kayne (1994), that Specifiers universally precede their heads, there would be no overt Spec-Head agreement between the Specifier and the Head in VS structures. This could be made to account for the differences in agreement. So, if the features that trigger NP-movement are strong, the NP moves to the Specifier and full agreement occurs; if the same features are weak, NP-movement only occurs at LF and since this is after SPELLOUT, the morphological agreement is not present. The general problem in a Minimalist framework is why the Specifier must precede the verb overtly in order for Spec-Head agreement to take place. It should in principle be possible (when the features of I are weak) for the NP subject not to move overtly. This problem would be solved if one were to link up overt movement to overt morphological features. In Arabic, the features triggering the verb to move are strong and hence the verb must move before SPELL-OUT. The subject NP, however, need not be in the Specifier position because the features triggering NP-movement seem to be sometimes strong, sometimes weak. Chomsky (1992: 44) in a short passage allows for this possibility in Arabic: 4.

"a language might allow both weak and strong inflection, hence weak and strong NPfeatures: Arabic is a suggestive case, with SVO versus VSO correlating with the richness of visible verb-inflection".

If the features triggering NP-movement are strong, there will be overt movement to the Specifier and agreement features emerge. If the same features are weak, NP-movement does not take place overtly and the morphology is not 'as present'. In that case, it would no longer be necessary to assume that government is responsible for the breakdown in agreement here and the apparent differences would be accounted for through weak and strong features. This solution, however, runs into the same problem as Benmamoun's since all kinds of morphology should be able to appear on the verb. This is not true because in VS structures agreement does not completely break down, only number agreement does. I will therefore argue for a different account based on Chomsky's (1995) distinction between categorial, Case and phi-features as outlined in the previous chapter. In that theory, only categorial features can be strong and thereby trigger movement. Chomsky mainly talks about the D-feature but I assume there is a V-feature as well to trigger V-movement. In Arabic, the verb moves and hence, I will assume the V-feature is strong. What about the D-feature? NP movement is optional but the solution to that in (4), to allow both strong and weak D-features, is not a very satisfying one and I will argue that D-features are strong in Arabic and that either an NP or an empty expletive check these features overtly. I will also assume that the empty expletive has singular phi-features but has no phi-features for gender or person. When the D-features are checked, the number features are too. At LF, the features of the NP are attracted to I and check the remaining features of I. There are two reasons number may be checked before the postverbal NP moves covertly (i.e. before the phi and Case features of the NP are attracted to I): (a) number phi-features may be strong, or (b) all available features are checked even if they are not strong. Chomsky argues that only categorial features are strong, which means

21

(a) is not available. I therefore assume (b)14 but not much hinges on that choice. In fact, the next section, I argue that (a) is possible in showing that features other than categorial ones can be strong. My analysis, focussing on the subject NP rather than on the object one, is represented in tree structure in (5): 5.

IP I ' ;>VP [sD/V] NP "> V [Case] [+D] V ^ NP

[-Case]

[-phi] [-Case]

The categorial features of the I-position are strong and need to be checked overtly. The nonInterpretable Case-features of I must also be checked; the Case features of NP and V, and the phi-features of V are also non-Interpretable (indicated by a [-]); all other features are Interpretable (indicated by [+]) and need not be checked or deleted. The only features that attract a checker overtly are the categorial ones in I. The checker for the V-features is the verb, which adjoins to I. The checker for the D-features, as mentioned above, can be the NP or an expletive. If the former, the NP moves to Spec IP and also checks the Case features of I and its own Case. The verb checks its phi-features, the Case and categorial features. The result converges because the only features remaining are the Interpretable ones. If the expletive, which is singular, is selected to check the D-feature, only the number phi-feature will also be checked. Covertly, the Case, gender and person features of the NP will be attracted to I and adjoin to it. The agreement on the verb will be the singular of the expletive but the person and gender of the NP. Expletive constructions have always been puzzling because of the optionality between NPmovement or expletive-insertion. The above analysis does not solve that problem either. There exists, however, within the system of checking as used here, a solution. We could assume that the categorial D-features are either N or D and that, if the former are present, a full NP moves and, if the latter are, an expletive is selected. In that case, there is no longer an option to choose between NP or expletive. This analysis receives additional evidence from French past participle agreement, discussed in the next chapter, in that the optional agreement there can be eliminated if one assumes either D or N-features in AGRo. The analysis presented here may also shed light on the different interpretations. In English and in Arabic, as will be discussed in 1.1.3, an NP associated with an expletive, as in (6), is interpreted

14

In van Gelderen (1996a), I argue that each of the phi-features has a weak or strong specification. The reason for this is that in a system with only Case and agreement features, strong Case triggers NP-movement whereas strong agreement features trigger NP-movement. The confusing aspect is that in Chomsky (1992), the distinction between Case, phi and categorial features is not made.

22

existentially, whereas the interpretation of a moved NP, as in (7), can be specific (cf. Diesing 1992). The D-features may be specific and hence, when the NP checks these in (7), it can be interpreted as 'people one knows' rather than as 'that people exist': 6. 7.

There are some people in the garden. Some people are t in the garden

1.1.2 Evidence In this section, I provide further evidence for the analysis of the previous section, i.e. one in which an empty expletive checks the categorial features. I also discuss recent objections (Aoun et al. 1994; Fassi 1993) to an analysis such as mine. Evidence for the existence of empty expletives in a language is often found in the existence of overt expletives. I will show that there are overt expletives in Arabic with the same features as the non-overt ones discussed in 1.1.1, providing evidence for the latter. Non-empty expletives are specified for number, but not for other features in Arabic. This means that the proposed empty expletive specified for number has a non-empty counterpart, thereby confirming the analysis. For instance, Huybrechts (1991: 87), arguing another point, mentions the following construction: 8.

?inna-haa qara?-at al-banaat-u r-risaalat that-3FS-ACC read-PAST-3FS the-girls-NOM the-letter-ACC The girls read the letter'.

In (8), -haa is a clitic always marked for singular number even though its gender features are determined by the subject NP which is, in this instance, plural. It is also possible for ?inna to be inflected for masculine singular instead of feminine singular, i.e. ?inna-hu rather than ?inna-haa. Feminine gender inflection is not possible when an NP with masculine features is involved. These facts point to -haa and -hu being specified for singular number; -hu unspecified for gender; and -haa specified for feminine gender. Thus, (8) provides evidence that a clitic following the complementizer in Arabic is specified for number in the same way as the 'regular' empty expletive in (2). In fact, -hu can be seen as the overt counterpart of the expletive in (2). Fassi (1993) argues against the 'expletive hypothesis' (38ff) mainly because it is stipulative to allow expletives that can only be singular. His own solution (42ff), however, is based on rich versus poor AGR(eement) and must also stipulate why poor AGR does not involve number. AGR features are activated by NPs but if the NP follows the verb, "[a]ctivation of

23

NUM is impossible" (pp. 42-3)15. In the system developed in 2.1, the lack of activation is dealt with by means of expletives which are specified for a particular number. Aoun et al (1994: 202ff.) argue that expletives are not involved in structures such as (2). Their evidence is based on varieties of Arabic that have complementizers with agreement markers, as in (8) above. For instance, in (9), from Lebanese Arabic, the complementizer never agrees with the full NP, regardless of the order: 9.

10.

*fakkar ?innun al-baneet raaho, thought-3M that-3FS the girls left-3P 'He thought that the girls left'. (?inno that-3MS is correct) *fakkar ?innun raaho 1-baneet

This lack of agreement is interpreted by Aoun et al. as there not being an expletive in VS structures. If there were one, they argue, the expletive should agree with the morpheme on the complementizer (p. 202). It might, however, also be the case that there is a fully specified expletive in Lebanese Arabic, i.e. a masculine, singular one. The clitic on the complementizer can then be seen as an expletive. In Standard Arabic, as mentioned in relation to (8) above, the clitic on the complementizer, which, I argue, is an overt expletive, shows gender agreement with the postverbal NP, just like the non-overt one in (2). The alternative Aoun et al. develop is not straightforward either. They argue that in sentences such as (2), the verb raises to a position higher than I and that this "head-raising does not always preserve agreement" (p. 204). There is no answer in their account as to why agreement is sometimes not preserved. Thus, Aoun et al. do not themselves propose an analysis without problems and their objections to an empty expletive are not valid in Standard Arabic, and possibly not in Lebanese Arabic either.

1.1.3 Further Aspects There are two additional aspects to the analysis I propose above. The first is referred to at the end of 1.1.1 and involves the Definiteness Effect usually connected with expletives. In Arabic, however, the subject in a VS-structure need not be indefinite as in many constructions of NPs connected with expletives (for instance: There is a/*the unicorn in the room). An answer to this lack of the Definiteness Effect would be that certain expletives such as there require an indefinite postverbal NP whereas others do not. For instance, it in English can be seen as such an expletive, as argued in chapter 8. In Arabic, there is a specificity constraint. In (3), but not in (2), the subject must be specific (cf. Fassi 1993: 28-9) but there is no definiteness constraint. The sentences are repeated as (11) and (12):

15

Note that Fassi needs to stipulate that unactivated NUM results in singular number agreement.

24

11.

12.

Darab-at/*-na 1-banaat-u Zayd-an hit-PAST-3FS/*3FPl the girls-NOM Zayd-ACC The girls hit Zayd'. al-banaat-u Darab-na/*-at Zayd-an the girls-NOM hit-PAST-3fPL/*3FS Zayd-ACC The girls hit Zayd'.

Thus, indefinites as in (13) and (14) are possible as long as they are specific: 13.

14.

Darab-at/*-na banaat-u-n Zayd-an hit-PAST-3FS/3FPl girls-NOM-INDEF Zayd-ACC 'Some girls hit Zayd'. banaat-u-n Darab-*at/-na Zayd-an girls-NOM-INDEF hit-PAST-3FS/3FPl Zayd-ACC 'Some girls hit Zayd'.

This specificity constraint is reminiscent of Diesing's (1992) account. She argues that certain NPs can be interpreted generically or existentially depending on the position of the NP. If the NP is inside VP, it is interpreted existentially and if the NP is outside VP, it is interpreted generically (Diesing allows LF-lowering and therefore the surface structure may be 'deceptive'). Weak determiners such as some are ambiguous between an existential meaning and a presuppositional one (as in There are some ghosts here versus Some ghosts are here). This indicates that inside the VP, an existential reading is possible but not outside the VP. Strong determiners such as most do not allow the existential reading (Most ghosts are here but *There are most ghosts here) and must occur outside the VP as a result. The Arabic sentence in (11) indicates that, contrary to Diesing, specific and definite NPs occur inside VP. It is possible to argue that the interpretation of specificity takes place after expletive-replacement. After the features of the NP move to the I-position in (11), the NP is outside VP and receives a specific interpretation. Related to this is that the specificity constraint on the subject is relaxed after the complementizers ?inna and ?anna (Mohammad 1989: 39). These complementizers assign accusative Case to the subject (under government) and VS structures do not occur. This may indicate both S and V remain inside VP and there is no I to assign nominative. Expletive replacement would then be superfluous. Hence, it does not occur. Sentences such as (8) above do occur (cf. also Mohammad p. 152; Cantarino 1975, II, 228), but these might be seen as spell-out of person and gender features necessary if the C does not govern the subject. So, for Arabic, one might claim that subjects outside VP must be specific, but that expletivereplacement is not relevant to the interpretation. In later chapters, I argue that it and there in English are expletives only in certain cases and display the definiteness effect only in those cases. I will not investigate this matter here. The analysis in 1.1.1 of nominative Case indicates that government may not be relevant because checking can be done covertly. There is evidence that government plays a role in

25 other types of Case marking. In (3) above and (15), the Complementizer assigns accusative Case to the subject: 15.

qaala Omar ?anna t-taalib-a xaraja 'said Omar that the-student-ACC left'. (from Benmamoun 1992, cf. also Huybrechts 1991: 82)

In (15), ?anna assigns accusative to the subject under government. The conclusions about agreement in Arabic are the following, (a) If one assumes, as in Kayne (1994), that SVO is basic, both the verb and subject move to the head and Specifier positions respectively of a higher Functional projection. In this case full Spec-Head agreement occurs, (b) VSO is the result if only the verb moves. The agreement is then with an expletive in Specifier position but since the expletive is not fully specified (it only has number), the verb waits till LF when the NP joins the expletive to check all the features. The mechanism is worked out above in terms of a choice between the attraction of a full NP to subject position (with ensuing full agreement) or of an expletive specified for singular number. In chapter 8, I argue the same attraction is necessary for overt elements that are only specified for number.

1.2

An Italian Intermezzo

In this section, I provide an account of verbal agreement using an empty expletive in a dialect of Italian. In standard Italian, (16) is grammatical in which the verb agrees with the postverbal subject; in Trentino (T) and Fiorentino (F), agreement does not occur as the glosses to (17) and (18) show (data from Brandi & Cordin 1989: 121 ff.). There is, however, an overt expletive in the one dialect but not in the other: 16.

17. 18.

Sono venute delle ragazze are come-FP some girls 'There have come some girls'. E' vegnu qualche putela (T) is come some girls Gli e venuto delle ragazze (F) there is come some girls

Trentino is like standard Italian in that no expletive appears, but in Fiorentino, gli serves as an expletive. Thus, in standard Italian, D-features as well as V-features are weak and the verb waits till LF to check its features in a Spec-Head relationship and hence agreement is full agreement. In Trentino and Fiorentino, the D and V-features are strong and an expletive is selected to check them: an empty one in Trentino, as in Arabic, and an overt one in Fiorentino. (If one takes the last part of 1.1.1 seriously, D might be N. I will not address this here).

26

1.3

Kirundi and two other Bantu Languages

In this section, I examine some languages from a different language family and with a different agreement system that display a loss of agreement in VS structures. I argue that at least in Kirundi/Kinyarwanda, there is evidence for an empty expletive similar to that in Arabic. In Polinsky (1993b), the following data of Kirundi, a Bantu language, occur. They are similar in the closely related Kinyarwanda (cf. Polinsky 1993a): 19.

20.

21.

aba-shyitsi ba-ra-ririimbir-a mu gisagara CLASS2-guest CLASS2-PRES-sing-IMPF in village The guests are singing in the village'. ha-ra-ririimbir-a aba-shyitsi mu gisagara CLASS 16-PRES-sing-IMPF CLASS2-guest in village 'In the village guests are singing'. mu gisagara ha-ra-ririimbir-a aba-shyitsi in village CLASS 16-PRES-sing-IMPF CLASS2-guest 'In the village guests are singing'.

In (19), the 'normal' case, the subject NP occurs before the verb and agreement (in class) occurs; whereas in (20) and (21), the subject NP follows the V and agreement (in class) does not occur. Apart from agreement, other subject properties are lost according to Polinsky, e.g. the possibility for control. The inverted subject becomes a "non-term", since it has neither subject nor object properties. Even though Baker's (1988) data suggest that incorporation mainly occurs with objects, Polinsky convincingly argues that the subject is incorporated into the verb. She provides a variety of reasons (tonal structure, adjacency between V and S, etc). I will not go into that here and just adopt her analysis. Polinsky's data are compatible with what I have argued for Arabic in the previous section. Assuming, as in Kayne (1994), that the basic structure is SVO (but that is really not crucial) and that the verb moves to a functional head, there are two possibilities for the subject NP. (a) The subject incorporates into the verb and an expletive checks the features of the verb, as in (22). (b) The subject moves to the Specifier of the functional projection, as in (23):

27 23.

IP r Vk^/ -^ x VP

In (22), I argue that the V-features are strong and that the verb moves to I and checks the features with the expletive. Sentences (20) and (21) are the result of agreement between the verb and the empty expletive (of CLASS 16). Spec-Head agreement in (23) occurs overtly and (19) is the result, with morphological agreement between subject and verb. Thus, the features on the verb in Kirundi and Kinyarwanda can be checked in two ways: through the 'real' subject as in (23) or through an expletive as in (22). Unlike English, as will be shown in 1.5, in Kirundi/Kinyarwanda, the inversion is not restricted to locative constructions. There are instances of subject inversion without locatives. The construction is restricted to intransitives (Polinsky 1993b: 297) but, as expected, the agreement that appears on the verb is that of CLASS 16, as in (20) and (21). Sabimana (1986:) mentions (24) for reasons other than agreement, but the sentence shows that when a regular subject is focussed by postpositioning, a CLASS 16 marker appears on the verb, again indicating that there is an empty expletive checking I: 24.

H-a-sinziri-ye Muduga. CLASS 16-PST-sleep- ASP Muduga 'It is Muduga who slept'.

Bresnan and Kanerva (1989) argue that in locative inversion constructions in Chichewa, also a Bantu language, the subject is part of the VP (even though it is not an object) whereas the locative is the subject and no expletive subject exists. The evidence is based on the agreement that exists between the locative phrase and the verb as in (25), on the lack of expletives elsewhere in the grammar and on the possibility for the locative to be raised: 25.

Ku-mu-dzi ku-na-bwer-a a-lendo 17-3-village 17-SB-REC-PST-come-IND 2-visitor 'In the village came visitors'. (Bresnan and Kanerva's (22b))

The fcw-prefix is used for general location whereas the nominal in the locative has its own class. Since the verb agrees with the locative and since, depending on the type of locative, other prefixes are also possible, the locative, rather than an empty expletive, is argued to be the subject. In 1.5, I argue that English locative PPs are nominal enough to check the Dfeatures of I and that in those cases, an expletive is not selected. Chichewa goes further than English because the locative checks the phi-features of I. In an SV construction, the subject and the verb agree, as expected. In Kirundi, there is only one verbal agreement marker, namely CLASS 16, which can also occur without the locative. Hence, I argue that, for this language, an empty expletive brings about agreement in VS structures.

28

In Sesotho, another Bantu language, Machobane (1994) argues that locatives can be either NP or PP. Only one class of locatives (#17) can have a subject marker as in (26), can appear as subject of a passive (with its #17 marker on the verb), etc: 26.

27.

Fätse ho-mongobo ground-LOC 17SM-damp On the ground is damp'. Sekolong ho-fiets-e banana school-LOC 17SM-sweep-PF girls 'Girls have swept at school'.

Thus, only certain locatives are possible fillers of Spec IP, i.e. check the D-features. Machobane also argues that the subject gets nominative in Loc-VS structures as in (27). It means that Case is checked under government whereas agreement in class is under Spec-Head agreement.

1.4

Belfast English (Henry 1995)

In Belfast English, the facts are almost the opposite of Arabic and Kirundi. Henry (1995, where all my data are taken from) shows that in SV structures as in (28) both singular and plural inflections are possible on the verb, but not in VS structures as in (29). In Arabic, in VS structures, the singular is found, whereas in SV structures, full agreement is found. In Belfast English, Henry argues that the verb and subject, as in (28), may move to T and Spec TP respectively without having to move to AGRs and Spec AGRsP, resulting in goes in (28). Thus, the third person singular is the default and such a verb only needs to check its tense features. If the subject moves to Spec TP without moving to Spec AGRsP, it does not check its Case. This results in a correct sentence when a full NP is the subject. Pronouns are overtly marked elements and must check their Case, i.e. must move to Spec AGRsP and hence, they cannot appear with a singular verb as in (30): 28. 29. 30.

The cars go/goes fast. *Is the students here yet? "'They goes fast.

Henry (p. 22) argues against positing an empty expletive in sentences without full agreement on the grounds that there is no independent evidence for such an element and that in Arabic, the empty expletive appears in VS structures whereas in Belfast English, it would appear in SV structures. Instead, she argues that: 31.

'singular concord' in Belfast English is actually lack of agreement marking. Being unmarked for agreement, singular concord verbs do not move to AGRs, but rather remain in Tense. The subject raises only as high as SPEC/Tense, where its Case can

29

be checked. However, nominative Case cannot be checked by Tense, and therefore nominative Case-marked items cannot occur in this construction, but must rather move to SPEC/AGRs. (pp. 43-4)16 As mentioned, the opposite of Arabic and Kirundi is the case in Belfast English: only SpecHead agreement as in (28) allows non-agreement in number. Sentences (32) and (33) show that main verbs do not move whereas be does, as in standard English: 32. 33.

The children really likes pizza. The children really is late. (p. 19)

In keeping with the Minimalist framework I assume throughout, if a Functional Category has features, they are non-Interpretable (except for the categorial ones). Therefore, if such features are present in (28), they must be checked. In order to account for (28), one would have to argue that the phi-features are optional in T but not in AGRs. When the verb moves to AGRs as in (29), the phi-features must be checked and that is the reason (29) is ungrammatical. If this is the right analysis, Belfast English (like Icelandic, as in Chomsky 1995) presents evidence in favor of a TP and an AGRsP.

1.5

Modern English Inversion

Since this chapter is about 'inversion' of the regular SV order to a VS order in a number of languages, I include modern English inversion. Several people argue inversion is derived through V-movement and as such it should be interesting for agreement phenomena. I first provide a description of what is usually referred to as 'Stylistic Inversion'. I will not provide an exhaustive survey of the literature. I then entertain the possibility that an empty expletive appears in Locative Inversion but conclude that it is unlikely. The correct analysis is one where either an overt there or a nominal PP check the categorial features of the I-position. The agreement facts are like those in other constructions where the 'real' subject does not move overtly. Branigan (1992: 78ff) claims that, in Locative Inversion, the subject is base generated in Spec VP and and that it remains there. It only raises to Spec IP at LF to have its features checked (p. 80). The PP is preposed in a position between CP and IP and the verb raises out of VP to I (and not to C). Thus, Branigan's structure for a sentence such as (34) is (35):

16

There is an added problem in Belfast English with imperatives. In one variant, sentences such as (i) and (ii) are grammatical: i. Read you it to me. ii. Be going you out to school (p. 47). Henry (p. 76) argues that the V-features of C and AGRs are strong in imperatives. However, the subject never moves to Spec CP. This is odd but I will not elaborate on it.

30 34. 35.

Into the saloon wander three drunken stevadores. into the saloon ... [^wander [VPthree drunken stevadores 11]].

Branigan's analysis is problematic because in English, 'regular' subjects must check their features before LF (in a Minimalist framework because the features are strong in I; in the GB framework because of the Extended Projection Principle). There are other problems with this analysis, (a) Main verbs in English are not generally seen as moving to T or AGRs (but see chapter 7). (b) Inverted constructions with three verbs can be produced as in (36) to (39). If the main verb moved to I (or to T or AGRs), there would not be enough separate positions to accomodate all the auxiliaries, (c) Sentences such as (40) indicate that PP-preposing cannot be correct since the preposed element is not a PP: 36.

37. 38. 39.

40.

Opposite the book depository building were waiting two skilled sharp shooters. Toward the spot their gunsights were trained had been advancing the cars of the president. In that room may have been waiting Columbo's murderer. The Nation, May 2, 1994, p. 596 In Baldwin's life can be seen the image of the national condition. The New York Times Book Review, April 16, 1995, p. 3 In the libertarian wing of the conservative mansion can be found the only people anywhere in our political debate who favor completely open borders.17 Into the saloon drunk walked three stevadores.

Rochemont & Culicover (1990: 96-8) use constructions such as (40) to indicate that the entire VP (except for walked) preposes. The construction they use is (41): 41.

[Into the room nude] walked John t.

They suggest that the V moves out of its VP and that the VP preposes to Spec CP. The problem with preposed auxiliaries as in (36) remains. Rochement & Culicover argue it can be solved by some restructuring of the auxiliary and the verb. This restructuring is very complex, however, and seems unexplanatory. Another possible analysis for (37) is to generate a Spec-last VP structure in stylistically marked instances. If IP is not instantiated and if may is in C together with the agreement features, C would check the Case of the postverbal NP under government:

17

Coopmans (1989: 729) finds sentences such as these ungrammatical. 1 have checked them with several native speakers.

31 42.

C's murderer VP waiting This structure has been argued for by Contreras (1992) and Sola (1992, except that Sola's subject is right-adjoined). A problem with (42) is that (41) would not be accounted for and that nominative is checked under government. The account I assume is similar to (42) and one reminiscent of Stowell (1981: 269ff.), who assumes PP-preposing and NP-postposing (I leave aside whether the subject is base generated post-verbally as in (42) or postposed). The reason for including Locative Inversion in this chapter is, however, that I examine whether an expletive is present in constructions such as (43). An overt expletive as in (44) is somewhat acceptable to most speakers: 43. 44.

Down the hill e rolled the baby carriage. ?Down the hill there rolled the baby carriage.

In sentences such as (36) to (40), there is also possible for most native speakers, as in for instance (45): 45.

In Baldwin's life there can be seen the image of the national condition.

Extra evidence that an empty expletive may involved is provided by Bresnan (1994: 97) who uses Bowers' (1976) tag questions as in (46): 46.

In the garden is a beautiful statue, isn't there.

The structure I propose is similar to (42) except that there is an IP between C and VP but the verb does not move overtly to this I. The verbal agreement will be checked between the element in Specifier position and the verb at LF. When auxiliaries are present as in (36) to (39), additional projections are added (either of VP or of Perf(ect)P, ASP(ect)P and Pass(ive)P, cf. chapter 7):

32 47.

VP,. been

Catherine's murderer VP waiting t

If one were to assume an empty expletive in constructions such as (36) to (40), the question would be why there occurs optionally in (45) and why the construction would be possible with locative PPs but not with temporal PPs or manner adverbs, as (48) and (49) show respectively: 48. 49.

*At 8 pm wandered in two drunken soldiers. *Very quickly rolled the babycarriage.

The possibility for the subject to remain in a postverbal position is clearly linked to the preposal of the PP. I will therefore argue that it is the nominal nature of locative PPs that makes the construction possible rather than an empty expletive. In Hoekstra & Mulder (1990: 29), the locative PP in sentences such as (43) is in Spec IP and Nominative Case is assigned to the PP which then transmits it to the 'subject' NP. In a Chomsky (1995) framework, the latter Case transmission is no longer necessary because the I-node has only strong categorial features and Case need not be checked by the PP. If one assumes that a nominal category must check the strong features of I, it makes sense that nominal constituents are attracted to check the categorial features. Case is no longer the reason behind overt movement. A locative PP is nominal enough to check the features of the I-node (i.e. the EPP in an earlier framework). Some adjuncts are very clearly adjuncts (for instance, manner adverbs such as quickly) whereas others are more argumental. In many languages (German and Latin), locative adverbials are Case marked and, even in English, they seem to function as arguments in that they are obligatory: 50. 51.

I put the jar *(on the table). In the garden is a beautiful place.

I argue then that locative PPs can be nominal and, in that case, they check the categorial features of the I-position; or they can be adverbial in character and not check the categorial features. In the latter case, there must appear to check the categorial features. The other features of I are checked through attraction at LF; the non-Interpretable Case of the postverbal NP therefore presents no problem. A question arises: why is the PP attracted to check the categorial features rather than the NP. It seems that in order for the postverbal NP to be focussed, it cannot move overtly. The

33

theory of topic and focus needs more attention but I will not attempt to do that here (cf. chapter 11). Another problem with most analyses dealing with Locative Inversion, the present one included, is that the postverbal NP need not be indefinite. The postverbal NP can be definite as (52) shows, unlike 'regular' postverbal NPs connected with the expletive there as in (53): 52. 53.

Down the hill (there) rolled the car. There was she in the garden.

Jonas & Bobaljik (1993: 71) tentatively suggest structures such as (43) involve an expletive pro in Spec AGRsP, similar to there in (44). They note "that the hypothetical expletive pro does not trigger the same definiteness effect as overt expletive there". This does not explain (43) versus (48) and (49). In conclusion to 1.5, I have argued that Locative Inversion involves a VP with its Specifier last (to accomodate the focussed nature of the subject). The auxiliaries and verbs are in their usual positions. The strong categorial features of the I-position are checked either by the nominal features present in the locative or by an overt there. Thus, in modern English, NPs, PPs and expletives satisfy the EPP, or, in Chomsky (1995) terms, they check the strong features of I. There is no evidence in English for an empty expletive.

1.6

Conclusion

In this chapter, I have argued that the differences in agreement between certain VS and SV structures are caused by the covert and overt movement and the resulting Spec-Head agreement relationships between either the verb and the subject or the verb and the expletive. This accounts for agreement patterns that differ between VS and SV in languages as diverse as Arabic and Kirundi. Modern English Inversion is shown not to be a real VS construction because it is not the V that moves by itself as in the other cases discussed. In Kirundi/Kinyarwanda, Verb-movement occurs overtly and since the subject is free to incorporate or to move to the Specifier position, there will only be agreement (in nominal class) in the latter case. The conclusions are the following. In the languages discussed so far, there is never a proper 'default' since checking always occurs through Spec-Head agreement with an expletive. Such constructions often display a lack of agreement as a result. Phi-features and Case-features must be more independent than previously assumed and within the phi-feature set, features such as number, person and gender function independently of one another.

Past Participle Agreement: Lack of Agreement with Verb Object 2.0

Outline

So far, I have mainly been concerned with checking the features in I (or AGRs), since most agreement is between the subject and the verb. In this chapter, I show that object agreement 'breaks down' in certain environments, in particular when the object follows the verb. This indicates that the configuration in which agreement (and Case) on the verb and object is checked is one where the object precedes the verb. For such checking purposes, Chomsky (1989) introduces AGRoP, where the object in Specifier position grees with the verb in AGRo. In the previous chapter, I argue that expletives are selected to check the strong categorial features in the I-position. In the present chapter, I will argue that AGRo has strong categorial features and that expletives are selected to check these in Spec AGRoP. I will show how my account simplifies the theory over accounts such as Kayne's (1989). The outline is as follows. In 2.1, I provide the relevant theoretical background; in 2.2, I account for French past participle agreement; in 2.3, I discuss other Romance languages; in 2.4, Scandinavian participles; and in 2.5,1 account for Urdu/Hindi ergative agreement on the participle through expletives. In 2.6, I examine participle agreement in O'odham and Hopi. The innovation over Chomsky (1995), one referred to in chapter 1 (1.1.1), is that I make use of three kinds of categorial features: V, D and N-features, rather than just D-features. In the chapters that follow the present one, I could also have used both D- and N-features, but since it is not crucial there, I have chosen to remain closer to Chomsky (1995). In French, the D-features are checked typically by an expletive. In some languages, such as Urdu/Hindi, the object in the expletive construction is interpreted as specific, whereas in others, it is not. This remains a puzzle. Perhaps, expletives can vary between N and D-status, depending on their stage of grammaticalization. The latter possibility remains for further investigation.

2.1

Theoretical Background: AGRo and Categorial Features

Kayne (1989) suggests a structure as in (2) for (1). The NP moves via a Specifier position and agrees with the verb: 1.

Les chaises sont repeintes, the chairs-F are-P repainted-FP The chairs are repainted'.

36 2. NPk les chaises

Chomsky (1989) adopts this idea but calls the constituent above the VP AGRoP. Chomsky argues that, besides agreement, Case is checked in this way. In Chomsky (1995), a third kind of feature must be checked, namely the categorial feature of AGRo. In this work, Chomsky no longer assumes a separate position for the features connected to object Case and agreement but argues that they might as well be placed in the v-position (distinguished from V in Chomsky 1995). For convenience, I continue to use AGRoP in the remainder of the book, but nothing hinges on this choice. Replacing v by AGRo, the structure is as in (3), with the categorial features listed in AGRo (the Case and agreement ones are not listed): 3.

AGRoP Spec

Neither (2) nor (3) explain the optionality of agreement that will be discussed in 2.2. In addition, since covert phi-feature movement occurs, it is puzzling in this framework why a verb followed by an NP object would not display agreement since the NP (or its features) could move at LF. These two problems will be elaborated on in the next section and some adjustments will be made to account for them.

2.2

French: Categorial D, N and V Features and Object Expletives

In French, as is well-known since Kayne (1989), past-participles connected with etre and avoir are inflected if the object precedes the participle. Sentences (4) to (7) show this (cf. Kayne 1989). There is a difference between (4) and (5) on the one hand and (6) and (7) on the other: in (4) and (5), agreement is obligatory whereas in (6) and (7), it is optional (cf. Kayne 1989: 94; Sportiche 1992: 1718; Cortes 1993; etc). Examples (8), (9) and (10) show the lack of agreement between the object and the past participle in constructions where the object has not moved to preverbal position (cf. Blinkenberg 1968: 51; 50 for (9) and (10)):

18

Even though no explanation is given.

37

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

Les chaises sont repeintes, the chairs-F are-P repainted-FP The chairs are repainted'. Elle est morte, she is dead-FS 'She is dead'. 11 les a repeintes, he them has repainted-FP 'He has repainted them'. Je ne sais pas combien de tables Paul a repeintes, I not know not how many tables-F Paul has repainted-FP Ί don't know how many tables Paul has repainted'. II a repeint les chaises, he has repainted-MS the chairs 'He has repainted the chairs'. Fini, les livres, finished-MS, the books 'the books are finished'. Vu/regarde cette difficulte Seen/regarded-MS this difficulty-F This difficulty (being) regarded'.

The intuitive account for these sentences is to link overt movement to overt agreement. In (4) to (7), the NP moves through Spec AGRoP, as in (3) and the past participle agrees. In (8), (9) and (10), the NP does not move overtly and the verb does not show agreement. There are several possibilities to formalize this idea depending on whether the categorial features of AGRo are seen as weak or strong. Answering this question, however, one encounters a paradox. The features cannot be strong in (8) because the NP does not move overtly. Yet, they seem strong in (4) to (7) because a nominal element moves there overtly. It could be argued that they are weak but that the NP in (4) to (7) moves through Spec AGRoP on its way elsewhere. Even then, a strange situation occurs in that overt movement results in different agreement than does covert movement. To solve this, I argue that fully specified (third person singular) expletives are present in (8) to (10); and, when verbal agreement is singular, in (6) and (7) as well. The reason for the presence of the expletives is that the categorial features are strong. In French, there is a fully specified overt expletive as well, namely // that will be discussed in a later chapter. The reason (4) and (5) are the only ones with obligatory agreement, i.e. movement through Spec AGRoP, is that a passive and an

38 adjective are involved and that, for reasons to be spelled out, an expletive is not selected19. The structure with an expletive is as in (11): 11.

AGRoP exp

AGRo

The questions that remain are (a) why is there optional agreement in (6) and (7), and (b) why do passives as in (4) not allow an expletive, i.e. optional agreement? My analysis is as follows. In the previous chapter, I entertain the possibility that the categorial features of nominals can be either D or N-features. If the same is true for AGRo, it could contain either D or N-features. One can have (4) and (5): N-features are strong but D-features are missing (because of passive and adjectivehood, and therefore the expletives are missing); or (6) to (10): either D- or N-features are present and strong (either the expletive or the NP checks these); or N-features are missing, but D-features are strong (hence no NP in SPEC AGRoP, but an expletive). This last possibility is exemplified in (12), where only an expletive is possible: 12.

13.

Combien de filles est-il arrive t? how many girls is it arrived-S 'How many girls have arrived?' *Combien de filles est-il arrivees t? how many girls is it arrived-FP

The analysis can be summarized in (14), where either D or N are connected to AGRo in French: 14.

^

AGRoP/VP

AGRo/v [sN] [sD]

19

Goodall (1993) gives examples of passive morphemes that require NP-movement and those that do not. Among these, some absorb the objective Case and some do not. Goodall explains the differences in terms of where Spec-Head requirements apply, at s-structure or at LF. One could argue, in accordance with what is argued in this section, that the strong categorial features are not present in those languages where checking is at LF.

39

What about V-features? It is said that verb-movement in French is optional. It certainly seems to be this way from (15) and (16), where one could say that souvent is indicative of the left boundary of the VP. In (15), no verb-movement occurs whereas in (16), it does: 15.

16.

Madeleine a souvent vu ce spectacle, Madeleine has often seen-MS that scene 'Madeleine has often seen that scene'. Madeleine a vu souvent ce spectacle.

One might try to link agreement to overt V-movement. If V moves to AGRo, there would be agreement on V. This hypothesis is wrong, however, because (17), where the participle does not move overtly to AGRo, is grammatical: 17.

Paul les a toujours repeintes, Paul them has always repainted-FP 'Paul has always repainted them'.

So, V-features seem optionally either weak or strong. In (15), they are weak whereas in (16), they are strong. This is not a satisfactory solution and burdens the child learning the language with additional parameters to be set. One might entertain a solution as in latridou (1990) who argues that adverbial placement is not a good diagnostic for movement. She claims that each projection can be modified by an adverbial. One can then assume that verbs in French always move (and that the V-features are strong) because souvent would be adjoined to a Perfect Phrase in (15) (the head of which is occupied by vu) and to VP in (16). This is shown in (18) and (19) respectively. The past participle να moves to AGRo to check the (agreement) Vfeatures en route to the head of the Perfect Phrase to check its perfect features: 18.

PerfP souvent

19.

PerfP

PerfP

40 The conclusion for French is that full NPs do not move to Spec AGRoP, except on their way to some other position as in (7). In sentences such as (8), an expletive is inserted. The remaining problem is why NP-movement is not an option, i.e. why (20) is ungrammatical: 20.

*Paul a les chaises repeintes Paul has the chairs repainted-FP 'Paul has repainted the chairs'.

Wilder & Cavar (1994: 81), in another context, speak about a 'price-list': some movements are more expensive than others. In French, expletives are cheaper than NP-movement and hence, (20) does not occur. The 'price-list' is different in different languages since the Swedish counterpart to (20), namely (31) below, is acceptable.

2.3

Some Other Romance Languages

There is an enormous variety with respect to past participle agreement among Romance languages. It would lead too far to discuss each variety. I will just mention a few and indicate how they can be accounted for in the above framework. In an earlier stage of Catalan and in the dialects of Valencia and the Balearic Islands (cf. Badia Margarit 1962: I: 465ff), (21) and (22) appear. The NPs in (21) and (22) remain in postverbal position, and yet full agreement occurs. This is unlike French as in (8) above. One might argue that the categorial features triggering NP-movement or an expletive are weak and that the features of the NP are attracted to AGRo at LF. Hence, no expletive is present and agreement is full: 21.

22.

He vista la mare, (I) have seen-F the sea-F have seen the sea'. He trobats els amics, (I) have met-P the friends-P

Badia Margarit (1962, I: 465) suggests the agreement takes place in stages where haver still means 'to keep, hold' and that later, "superada la fase mäs arcaica en que el auxiliar haver se sentia como 'tener', surge la tendencia a inmovilizar el participio en su forma neutra (vist, trobaty as in (23) and (24): 23. 24.

He vist la mare, (I) have seen-MS the sea-F He trobat els amics, (I) have met-MS the friends-P

41 In Italian, agreement occurs in constructions such as (1) and (6) above. Thus, the construction is as in French, with strong categorial features in AGRo, except that w/j-elements cannot check them and constructions as in (7) do not occur, only those like (6): 25.

Giani 1'ha mangiata/*o. Gianni it-F-has eaten-F/*M 'Gianni has eaten it'.

In Spanish, agreement occurs in the passive (auxiliary ser) but not in constructions such as (6) and (7) above. Thus, in (26), with haber, there is no object agreement. This is also true in constructions with clitic doubling as in (27). One might argue that only NPs moving through Spec AGRoP can check the features (as in the case of passives), but not clitics as in (26) and (27): 26.

27.

Juan la ha comido/*a, Juan it-F has eaten-M/*F 'Juan has eaten it'. Juan la ha visto/*a a Maria, Juan her-F has seen-M/*F to Maria 'Juan has seen Maria'.

Agreement does not usually occur with dative clitics, as Cortes (1993) mentions because datives do not get structural Case, i.e. they or their features are not attracted to an AGR and hence, the verb cannot agree, as the Catalan example in (28) shows (from Cortes 1993: 210): 28.

El president els ha parlat(*s), the president to-them has talked-S(*-P) The president has talked to them'.

Then, there are those dialects where agreement only occurs with 1st and 2nd pronouns (cf. Brown 1987 as quoted in Cortes); and others where the reverse is the case (Cortes 1993: 205ff). I have no good analysis of this. Thus, some of the variety displayed can be accounted for through choices languages make as to the strength of their categorial features and the selection of elements that are able to check these features.

2.4

Scandinavian Participles

In Swedish, similar constructions occur. Compare (29) to (4) and (30) to (8). Swedish, however, is interesting in that (31) is marginally possible as opposed to (20) in French. Some speakers say it is used poetically in Swedish but Platzack & Rosengren (1994: 45) consider (31) grammatical. Sentence (32) where w/z-movement of the object brings about agreement:

42

29. 30. 31. 32.

Tre bilder blev malade Three pictures were painted-P Det blev mälat tre bilder i söndags There were painted-S three pictures on Sunday Det blev tre bilder malade. Bilderna som inte blev malade The pictures that not were painted-P The pictures that were not painted'.

Construction (31) also occurs in Norwegian dialects (cf. Christensen & Taraldsen 1989: 72). In the latter dialects, the preference is for the NP to be indefinite and quantified. Thus, NP movement to Spec AGRoP is 'costlier' than expletive insertion and the NP only moves overtly for other reasons. In Swedish, the object NP, tre bilder, moves via Spec AGRoP in (29) before moving to Spec IP. One could argue that the D-features in AGRo and I are strong and attract the NP. Phi-features are checked in AGRo but not Case features (because it is passive) and hence agreement occurs with the verb checking its phi-features. In (30), an empty expletive is inserted to check the categorial features which is specified as singular whereas in (31), the NP moves to check the categorial features of AGRo, but does not move all the way to Spec IP. There is an interesting complication in some dialects of Norwegian. In some dialects, sentence (30) would be roughly the same as in Swedish, namely with det and no past participle agreement; in other dialects, det is replaced with der and the past participle agrees. The data are from Christensen & Taraldsen (1989: 58): 33. 34.

Det er nett kome nokre gjester There is just arrived-S some guests Der er nett komne nokre gjester There is just arrived-P some guests

One could argue that, in (33), the categorial features are strong and that an expletive is required whereas, in (34), the features are weak. The difference between der and det would be a coincidence.

2.5

Urdu/Hindi Participles and Object Expletives

In Urdu/Hindi, agreement between the object and the past participle occurs if the object is outside VP, according to Mahajan (1990: 8Iff). Mahajan uses the scope of an adverb as indicative for where the object is situated. In (35), the adverbial jaldii see 'quickly' is adjoined to the V-projection because there is a process reading (i.e. the adverbial modifies only the verb), whereas in (36), the adverb is adjoined to the I-projection because there is an event reading (i.e. the adverbial modifies the entire IP):

43

35.

36. 37.

raam nee kaam jaldii see kiiyaa (spelling modified) Ram ERG work quickness with did-MS 'Ram did the work quickly'. raam nee jaldii see kaam kiiyaa Ram ERG quickness with work did-MS unhooN nee kitaab likhii they ERG book-NOM-FS wrote-FS They wrote a book'.

Thus, kaam 'work' must be outside the VP in (35) and (36) and Mahajan argues it is in Spec AGRoP. Agreement between a nominative object and the past participle and auxiliary verb occurs in sentences such as (35) to (37) because kaam in (35) and (36) and kitaab 'book' in (37) are in Spec AGRoP. In terms of features, AGRo has strong categorial features in (35) to (37) since the NP moves overtly. The NP in these constructions is non-specific and one might say that the primary reason for the NP to move is to check those features but that, as in French, it checks the features in AGRo en route. Objects need not agree, i.e. check the categorial features, and, when they do not agree, they are marked with a postposition koo as in (38). The agreement is of a 'default' type or, as I argue, the categorial features are checked by means of an (empty) expletive in Spec AGRoP, as indicated in (39): 38.

unhooN nee kitaab koo likhaa, they ERG the book-F to wrote-MS They wrote the book'.

39.

AGRoP exp ^

AGRo NP kitaab koo

Mahajan and others suggest that only specific (and/or human) objects appear in this construction20. Thus, kitaab in (37) would be translated as 'a book' whereas that in (38) would be 'the book'. This is unexpected since the expletive in (38) should be replaceable at LF by any NP, not just a specific one. The opposite is true, however, in Arabic, as was

20

This is not universally true since the related language Pashto has no such condition and (i) is grammatical: i. ta mung legelu you we sent, l P 'You sent us', (from Tegey 1979: 372) Barker (1967 [1975], I: 33ff) too lists a number of definite nominative objects in Urdu.

44

shown in 1.1.3, namely non-specific NPs can replace the empty expletive. In English, as will be shown in chapters 6 and 7, expletives are more versatile. In terms of features, one could argue that in Urdu/Hindi, the categorial features of AGRo are strong and that an expletive occurs in Spec AGRoP to check the strong categorial features unless an NP moves for other reasons. This parallels the situation in French. The advantage of an account with expletives is that categorial features are always strong.

2.6

O'odham and Hopi Past Participles

In this section, I examine object agreement in two languages that are not Indo-European. O'odham and Hopi are Uto-Aztecan languages spoken in Arizona. The word order of O'odham is relatively free (Zepeda 1983 [1994]: 31) and full object agreement appears on the participle regardless of whether the object precedes or follows the verb. Zepeda (1983 [1994]: 34) provides many examples as in (40) and (41). In (40), the /zc-prefix on the participle indicates plural agreement even though the object hegam follows it. In (41), the same agreement appears but the object precedes: 40.

41.

Gogs Ό ha-huhu'id hegam, dog is/was P-chasing them/those 'The dog is chasing them'. Gogs Ό hegam ha-huhu'id, dog is/was them/those P-chasing

As is often the situation with free word order languages, these facts are difficult to account for. If one uses a Minimalist account, either the object moves overtly to Spec AGRoP as in (41) or the features of the object are attracted to AGRo at LF as in (40). This means the categorial features are weak in (40) but strong in (41). In either case, the participle checks its phi-features. The phi-features indicated are not restricted to number as in (40) and (41) but also include person. In (42), the participle agrees with the first person singular object and is appropriately prefixed. Of course, it makes no difference whether the order is OV or VO: 42.

Ceoj Ό 'ani: fl-ceggia, boy is/was me IS-fighting The boy is/was fighting me'.

In Hopi, a language with a more fixed OV word order, the facts fall out more neatly because one can assume that the object is situated in Spec AGRoP. Sentences (43) and (44), from Hale & Jeanne (1976), indicate this: 43.

Pam taaqa 'it taavot niina, that man this cottontail-ACC killed-S.OBj That man killed this cottontail'.

45

44.

Pam taaqa im4y taataptiy qöya, that man these cottontails-P.ACC killed-P.OBJ That man killed these cottontails'. (morpheme boundaries not marked; orthography as in the original)

As Jeanne (1978: 94) mentions, "[o]bject agreement is typically indicated by means of suppletion". Thus, niina as in (43) is used for singular subject and object; niinaya is used for plural subject and singular object; qöya as in (44) is used for singular subject and plural object; and qöqya is used for plural subject and object. This use of a different lexical item in the case of plural objects might point, as I argue in chapter 10, to agreement at a different level, i.e. under government. I will not pursue that here. In O'odham and Hopi, one encounters object agreement that can be accounted for in a Minimalist framework, but which, regarding O'odham, indicates a possible problem for the status of categorial features.

2.7

Conclusion

Languages such as French, Swedish, Urdu/Hindi, Hopi and O'odham have object agreement. Often, in VO constructions, the verb will display less agreement than in OV ones. I argue languages with object agreement have an AGRo with categorial features. Expletives play a role because they may be inserted in Spec AGRoP when the D-features are strong and may be responsible for the lack of agreement. The N-features can also be strong in which case NPs are inserted. My approach accounts for the optionality of agreement in, for instance, (6) and (7), as well as for the lack of agreement in VO-constructions such as (8).

3

Lack of Agreement with Verb Subject II: Government

3.0

Outline

In the previous two chapters, agreement exclusively comes about through Spec-Head agreement. I account for cases of 'breakdown' as cases where an expletive occurs in the Specifier position. In early English and Dutch, agreement also 'breaks down' on occasion. I will argue that Dutch and older versions of English make less use of Spec-Head relationships but that they use government. Spec-Head agreement is less important in a language with fewer Functional Categories and with more emphasis on thematic relations (as these languages do, cf. van Gelderen 1993 and chapter 5 below). Rather than through SpecHead agreement, the verb checks its phi-features with the complementizer and this checking is sometimes 'problematic' as far as agreement is concerned. The NP may check its features under government by the verb in C. As before, following Chomsky (1995), the Case features of the functional head are assumed to be non-Interpretable, whereas some of those of the lexical item are Interpretable and need not be checked. The analysis for Dutch is central to this chapter and I therefore summarize it here. I argue that strong categorial V-features are connected with C and that either the complementizer dat 'that' or a verb checks those. Regarding the Case-features, I argue that these can be checked under either Spec-Head or under government but that they are strong. The phi-features are more problematic. When the verb checks the V-features, it checks its phi-features with C at the same time and C's features have received content either from the NP in its Specifier or from the NP it governs. In the latter case, there is a problem with the checking which I work out. The outline is as follows. In 3.1, I indicate that government is responsible for the lack of agreement in Dutch and Flemish but not in Somali and in 3.2,1 do the same for earlier forms of English. In 3.3, I discuss Yiddish and in 3.4,1 briefly examine some remnants of checking under government in Modern French. The relevance for a Chomsky (1995) framework is that categorial features are not the only ones triggering overt movement. I show that Case features do the same. In Dutch, there is no evidence that categorial D-features triggering movement are present (subjects have no fixed position, but depend on Case); strong V-features are present in C.

3.1

Dutch, Flemish and Somali

In this section, I first examine whether a solution similar to the one relevant for Arabic can be applied to Dutch VS structures with 'deficient' agreement. I conclude it is not (for four reasons) and argue that government by C (and V) is relevant in Dutch as well as Spec-Head agreement for nominative Case and agreement. A comparable involvement of C occurs in Flemish. I also examine Somali because at first sight the focus element in C also seems to

48 have agreement with the subject that varies depending on the relationship between C and the subject. Accounting for these facts in terms of feature checking, one might say that C when present contains strong categorial V-features and that the V attracted to this position checks its phi-features there. The NP moves to a position adjacent to C to check its Case under government. Thus, there are three relevant features: V-, phi- and Case features.

3.1.1 Spec-Head and/or Government If we were to assume an account for Dutch as in Arabic, heeft in (1) and (2) would be in the Head of a Functional Category, assume I or AGRs. In (1), the subject would move covertly to the Specifier of IP or AGRsP whereas, in (2), it would move overtly (cf Travis 1984; Zwart 1993)21. The presence of the Adverbial in initial position is almost irrelevant in this account: 1.

2.

Gelukkig heeft Emma die film gezien fortunately has-3S Emma that film seen 'Fortunately Emma has seen that film'. Emma heeft de film gezien Emma has the film seen

A first problem with such an account of Dutch is that the well-known Verb-second constraint is not accounted for since a VS order is only possible if an adverbial occupies the first position (or if the sentence is a question). Thus, if the verb is not in C, one would expect an adverbial to be able to precede the subject in (2). This is ungrammatical, as (3) shows: 3.

21

*Gisteren Emma heeft de film gezien Yesterday Emma has the film seen 'Yesterday Emma saw the film'.

This has been claimed by Zwart (1993) on the basis of the difference first noted in Travis (1984) between the weak (je in (i) and 'm in (ii) and strong pronouns (jij in (i) and hem in (ii): i. Je/jij ziet Kees, 'You see Kees'. ii. *'M/hem zie je daar met, Him see you there not 'You won't see him there'. Travis and Zwart argue that weak pronouns cannot appear in Spec CP as the ungrammaticality of (ii) shows and that therefore the subject in (i) is in Spec IP (or AGRsP). Using Rizzi's (1990: 51ff) argument about Spec-Head relationships in CP, one might claim that this licences the occurrence of the weak pronoun in (i). Thus, (i) and (ii) do not conclusively show that the subject position in Verb-second constructions is Spec IP. I continue to assume it is either Spec IP or Spec VP.

49

Traditionally, e.g. Koster (1975) and den Besten (1983), Dutch is seen as having an OV order and the finite verb is seen as moving to C. In main clauses, the adverbial (at least since Chomsky 1986b) is in Spec CP. Assuming that the verb is in AGRs in (1) and (2), the Verbsecond phenomena where finite verbs are in complementary distribution with overt complementizers are left unexplained. Thus, the second problem is that verbs do not move to C when C is already occupied by a complementizer as the ungrammaticality of (4) shows. Instead, they are situated in clause-final position, as in (5): 4.

5.

*Ik weet dat schilderde Emma Cassandra I know that painted Emma Cassandra Ί know that Emma painted a portrait of Cassandra'. Ik weet dat Emma Cassandra schilderde I know that Emma Cassandra painted.

A third problem is a theory-internal one: How can the features triggering NP-movement in (2) not do the same in (1)? A fourth problem is that, in Dutch22, government can also be shown to be relevant, rather than just Spec-Head agreement as in a sentence such as (1). Thus, adjacency is required between the complementizer, or the verb in C, and the subject. The ungrammaticality of (6) and (7), where verb and subject and complementizer and subject are not adjacent, indicates this: 6.

7.

*Heeft gisteren zij/Emma die film gezien? has yesterday she/Emma that film seen 'Didn't she/Emma see that film yesterday'. *Hij ontkende dat gisteren zij/Emma die film gezien heeft he denied that yesterday she/Emma that film seen has 'He denied that she/Emma saw that film yesterday'.

In most accounts of Dutch, nominative is assigned under government by the finite verb in C in main clauses as in (6) or by the Complementizer itself in subordinate clauses as in (7), e.g. Haegeman & van Riemsdijk (1986). Looking at (6) and (7), government in Dutch has an adjacency requirement and occurs under either c-command or m-command. If V is in C, the Case features must be in C as well. The latter features must be strong, or else they could not trigger overt NP-movement. Reformulating this in a Minimalist framework, I focus on lexical items. These have intrinsic and optional features and Interpretable and non-Interpretable ones. The latter have to be checked. Languages such as English have a Functional Category, I(nflection), that triggers both NPs and verbs to move to it and checking occurs in that constellation. There are other languages, I argue, where there is not the same Functional Category to trigger 22

Not all speakers of Dutch have such an adjacency requirement, e.g. Zwart (1993) (cf. also Haeberli 1995).

50

checking but where C fulfills some of these functions. C contains strong categorial V-features and triggers an element to it. This can be a verb or a finite complementizer (dot in Dutch). The intrinsic features of both C and V include categorial V-features, but the nominative Casefeatures, I claim contra Chomsky (1995) are optionally added. They can only be added to either V or to dat and if added to both, the sentence crashes because one will remain unchecked. Thus, C through its categorial features triggers an item that will check the Case of a subject. As I will show in (10), to the lexical entry of dat need not have been added a Case-value; it could have been added to the verb. The principle that appears simplified from 0.4 of the introductory chapter is (8): 8.

Feature Parameter. Languages select whether/what Functional Categories appear and which features appear in these.

This accounts for the differences between Dutch and English: Dutch chooses C with strong categorial V-features; English chooses I with strong D and weak V-features. There is an additional difference discussed before, namely (9): 9.

Spec-Head/Government·. Languages choose Spec-Head and or Government as ways of checking features.

The reason, I assume there are no categorial D-features in Dutch is that subjects remain inside VP whenever they are in a position where they can check Case. An instance is the well-known (den Besten 1985) Nominative-Dative Inversion construction as in (10): 10.

Paula hoorde dat die dichter/hem gisteren bloemen werden gegeven, Paula heard that (to) that poet/him yesterday flowers were-P given 'Paula heard that that poet/he was given flowers yesterday'.

In (10), bloemen 'flowers' is the subject and agrees with the finite verb. This subject is not adjacent to the complementizer but to the verb. In passive sentences such as (10), the 'subject' is base generated as object and can check its Case with the verb because it is a sister to it and adverbs such as snel 'quickly' not not intervene between the NP and the verb. In accordance with Diesing's (1992) predictions that VP-internal elements are interpreted existentially, bloemen is indeed interpreted this way. Because of the Verb-second phenomenon as in (1) and the adjacency requirement as in (6) and (7), I continue to assume that government is relevant in Dutch VS structures as in (1) and Spec-Head in structures as in (2). This is a common assumption for Germanic Verb-second and is compatible with Rizzi (1990: 56) who argues that both Spec-Head agreement and government agreement take place in the domain of C (see also Belletti 1992). In addition, I argue that there is no structural (Spec IP) position for the subject in Dutch and this means categorial features do not trigger NP-movement. A tree for Dutch looks like (11) and if dat is merged with this (intrinsic V-features; optional Case), a sentence such as (5) above is the

51

result. If the verb is taken out of the lexicon (intrinsic V-features) and if optionally Case is added, the result will be more like (1) or (2) above: 11. NP [D] V [Case] [V]

Both (1) and (2) are possible depending on whether the NP is attracted to the Specifier position as in (2) to check its Case or whether it checks this under government as in (1). In the next section, I examine the repercussions of this system for agreement.

3.1.2 Agreement under Government: C's Involvement As in the Arabic examples discussed above, the VS word order occasionally results in 'aberrant' agreement. In this section, I will account for this through the special relationship between C and V. With second person singular23, the ending in a VS order as in (12) and (15) is reduced from the ending in a SV order as in (13), (14) and (16): 12.

13 . 14.

15.

16.

Vandaag geef jij gebakjes weg, today give-S you cakes away Today you are treating us to cakes'. Jij geeft vandaag gebakjes weg, You give-2S today cakes away dat jij vandaag toch gebakjes weggeeft, that you today PART cakes away give-2S 'that you are treating us to cakes'. Veeg jij de vloer even, Wipe-S you the floor PART 'Could you just wipe the floor'. Jij veegt de vloer goed, You wipe-2S the floor well

In (12) and (15), one could argue that the relationship between geef'give' and jij 'you' is one of government by C into the Specifier position whereas in (13) and (16),'it is one of SpecHead agreement. These different relationships account for the differences in verbal agreement. In (14), the features in the complementizer dat assign Case, under government. Thus, (12) and (14) are similar from a Case checking point of view in that C is relevant. I 23

Note that the general polite second person retains the -t in a VS structure. This will be accounted for below.

52

argue below that C is also involved in agreement in (12). In (14), the verb does not move but checks its morphological shape at LF (its Case and phi-features are non-Interpretable and must be checked). I come back to this at the end of 3.124. The agreement on the verb in (12) can be regarded as number agreement: geefaz the basic singular form and geven as the plural form. The missing -t would be one of person. This is the opposite of the situation in Arabic outlined in chapter 1: in Standard Arabic, number agreement only occurs in SV order whereas person (and gender) agreement occurs in both SV and VS. In Dutch, person agreement only occurs fully in SV order but number agreement occurs in either SV or VS order. In chapter 1, I argue that in Arabic an expletive is responsible for an apparent lack of agreement. I will argue something different for Dutch. In Dutch, the Specifier position is filled either by the Adverbial or by the subject; and the verb is in C. In cases of SV, there is overt Spec-Head agreement between the subject and the verb and in VS constructions, number features and third person singular features appear on the verb but no second person singular (the first person is unmarked). The problem to be solved is why the first and third persons singular and plural do not similarly have a 'breakdown' of agreement. If there is no appropriate element in the Specifier of CP, the verb has to wait to check its phi-features until LF at which point the features of the subject are attracted there. However, in Dutch, the NP does not need to move to the Specifier position because it checks its Casefeatures under government and, unlike Arabic, there is no expletive to 'unite' with. Thus, the verb in Dutch gets its features from C in a Head-Head checking relationship. The latter is deficient in that the second person is not specifiable in C, only third persons are25. Since the first person has the unmarked singular which is similar to the second person in VS structures, C is only specifiable for third or non-third and polite (i.e. plural) second person: 17.

In some dialects of Dutch, there is a spell-out of the agreement features in C. This will be discussed in the next section. In conclusion, in my analysis for Dutch, insertion of an expletive is not necessary (also cf. Reuland 1983; Haider 1990) since the Case-features are checked in a government relation. 24

25

E. Hoekstra (1994) argues that in constructions such as (12), yy is incorporated in the Verb and that geef-jij is an alternative, as it were, for a Verb with full person inflection. However, in this account, it is not clear why *Geeßjij gebak weg is ungrammatical. Zwart (1993: 187) argues that C "carries the unmarked [Oagr]". This feature allows double agreement as in dialects where agreement is marked on both the complementizer and the verb. The feature on C is "a duplicate of the N-feature of AGRs" (p. 183) and AGRs-to-C is possible when the duplicate is non-distinct from the feature on AGRs. This account is problematic in a strict Minimalist framework in that the duplicate feature does not need to be checked.

53

The phi-features in the Complementizer are checked in the government relationship with the subject.

3.1.3 Evidence for the Involvement of C in Agreement There is evidence from some dialects of Dutch (cf. den Besten 1983: 119-20; Goeman 1980) and from West-Flemish (Bennis & Haegeman 1984: 47-9; and Haegeman 1992) that an analysis as in (17) is correct. In these versions, the features are spelled out onto the complementizer when the subject is governed as in (18) from Hollandic Dutch and as in (19) and (20) from West-Flemish. There is no spell-out when C is in a Spec-Head relationship as in (21) (from West Flemish). This is the opposite of Arabic and can be explained in terms of C being specifiable for certain features, e.g. for number in Hollandic and for person or gender in West-Flemish: 18.

19.

20.

21.

datte ze komme that-P they come-P 'that they come'. dase (zie) komt that-F (she) comes 'that she comes'. dat boek heese (zie) hem gegeven that book has-F (she) him given 'She has given him that book'. *Zie goase kommen She will-F come 'She will come'.

In (21), with Spec-Head agreement, the regular inflection -/ must appear (Zie goat). There are complications with these data. For instance, when a pronoun rather than an NP is chosen, the data are different. In addition, in West Flemish VS structures, the -t cannot appear on the verb in C position. Thus, gie goat 'you go' but goa-j (gie) 'go you' (Haegeman 1992: 48). No such irregularities occur in SV structures. This is comparable to the (standard) Dutch situation described above and analysed as (17). Livnat (1983), based on Antinucci & Puglielli (1980), discusses Somali data that are relevant in this context. Somali is a free word order language with an SOV preference. Livnat is not concerned with the difference between Spec-Head agreement and government but indicates that when subjects immediately precede the focus particle, as in (22), this focus particle does not inflect whereas when other items precede it, it does inflect, as in (23) and (24):

54 22.

23.

24.

ninkii baa/*buu arkay naagtii, man-the26 FOC/FOC-3MS saw woman-the 'It was the man who saw the woman', (p. 96) fuudkii *baa/buu cabreen nimankii, soup-the FOC/FOC-3MS drank man-the 'It was the soup that the man drank'. Cali warqad *baa/buu naagtii u qoray, Ali letter FOC/FOC-3MS woman-the to wrote 'It was the letter that Ali wrote to the woman', (p. 98)

In (22), the neutral baa is used because the subject precedes it and is focussed; in (23), the object fuudki 'soup' is focussed and the focus marker must be inflected for person, number and gender of the subject; and in (24), the focus marker is inflected because the subject does not immediately precede it. This seems at first sight similar to the data in West-Flemish as in (19) to (21), namely when a subject is in a Spec-Head relationship with C as in (22), the phi-features of C are checked in a different way than, for instance, in (23) and (24). The data are more complex, however. With pronouns under government as in (25), the inflected form of baa is necessary; whereas when a full NP is governed by baa as in (26), either inflected or uninflected baa is grammatical. This might be related to pronouns having non-Interpretable features that must be checked. However, it also makes a difference whether the V precedes the S, as in (23) or whether the order is reversed, as in (26), when both an inflected or uninflected focus particle is grammatical: 25.

26.

ninkii *baa/baan (anigu) arkay, man-the FOC/FOC-1S (I) saw 'It was the man that I saw'. fuudkii baa/bay nimankii cabbeen soup-the FOC/FOC-3P man-the drank 'It was the soup the man drank'.

Accordingly, even though (22) and (23) seem to suggest that the difference between SpecHead agreement and government may be relevant, this cannot be correct in the light of (26). Baa seems licenced under either Spec-Head as in (22) or in a government relationship with the subject as in (26). In other cases, the features must be spelled out explicitly. Within the system I have proposed, there is no satisfactory account. In summary, the picture for Dutch and perhaps West Flemish that emerges is as follows. The verb in Dutch moves to C in main clauses because the V-features of C must be checked. To complete the checking of the phi-features, there are two possibilities: either the subject

26

The endings on the Nouns are glossed as definite articles; they are also relevant to indicate grammatical function (Livnat 1983: 121). Thus -ku (masculine) and -tu (feminine) are associated with subject when not focussed; -ka and -ta are associated with non-subject and focussed subject.

55

NP overtly moves to Spec CP and the verb checks its phi-features in a Spec-Head relationship or the verb checks its phi-features (more indirectly) with the features of the Complementizer. The Complementizer is 'deficient' in that it cannot be specified for second person in Dutch and that is why a 'breakdown' occurs. The subject checks its Case-features either in a SpecHead relationship or under government by the C (or in V as in (10) and in chapter 4, section 1). In accordance with (8), the functional head these features occupy may vary across languages. Somali looks superficially as if its C acts differently under Spec-Head than under government. This turns out to be incorrect.

3.1.4

Phi-Checking

Earlier, I mentioned I would return to the question of the checking of the verb in (14) above, repeated here as (27). As mentioned in the Introductory chapter (0.2), these features are the Non-Interpretable ones of Chomsky (1995) and must be checked: 27.

dat jij vandaag toch gebakjes weggeeft that you today PART cakes away give 'that you are treating us to cakes today'.

I have assumed in (27) that the categorial V-features are situated in C and that the presence of the Complementizer is sufficient to check them, because dat 'that' is finite. Dat is also responsible for Case checking. How does the verb check its non-Interpretable phi-features? It does because it agrees with the subject and does not appear in the 'wrong' shape, e.g. as *weggeven 'give away-P'. If the phi-features were attracted to C at LF, the agreement should, as in the case of (12) and (15) above, also 'break down'. I suggest that dat does not have phifeatures associated with it in Dutch and that the verb in (27) checks its phi-features with the subject before movement. Thus, in Dutch, verb-movement is not triggered by the need to check phi-features, but verbs are attracted because of their categorial features.

3.2

Older Varieties of English

In Old English, agreement seems not to be deficient except in a number of well-defined cases (cf. e.g. Traugott 1992: 179-80). Some of these cases are no different from their Modern English counterparts, for instance, a verb together with a coordinate NP27, but some are, especially in VS contexts. In this section, I examine VS constructions and argue, along the same lines as in 3.1, that the subject and verb check their features using the Complementizer (i.e. under government) in VS constructions in Middle and Early Modern English.

27

I do not elaborate on the third person masculine singular endings of impersonal verbs, but see 10.2.

56 I have argued in van Gelderen (1993) that there are fewer Functional Categories in Old English. As a result Spec-Head agreement is less relevant. Kiparsky (1994) argues in a similar vein that argument licensing changes from morphological to positional. In Old English, Case assignment occurs under government, in some cases linked to thematic relations. Agreement may also be related to thematic and government relationships rather than to Spec-Head agreement. As Functional Categories appear in Middle English, expletives (fillers of Specifiers) also occur, presumably to check the categorial features connected with the functional categories. Many VS structures change to SV, e.g. imperatives. Thus, from the 1380s onwards, there is evidence that Spec-Head is introduced (see, however, Traugott 1972: 133). In chapter 5, I further elaborate on the relationship between the introduction of functional categories and Spec-Head agreement. The section is subdivided by the kind of VS construction: declarative, interrogative and imperative VS structures.

3.2.1

Declarative VS28

There are three types of declarative sentences that display a lack of agreement between the subject and the verb in older versions of English: there w-contexts; sentences where the subject is preceded by a numeral; and VS-constructions. As Stoelke (1916: 12-3) mentions, lack of agreement occurs when the predicate precedes the subject; when the verb is a form of to be, to come, to go; when the subject is a numeral; and in there is contexts. Constructions with there will be dealt with in chapters 5 and 6. The other two cases will be discussed in this section. I start with subjects preceded by a numeral and only describe the problem rather than account for it. The last part of the section will be devoted to VSconstructions. Visser (1963: 72ff.) lists quite a number of instances where the subject precedes the verb and yet agreement is lacking. It is, however, striking that at least half involve relative pronouns that have a plural antecedent and these will be dealt with separately in chapter 4. Most of the others consist of NPs including a numeral as in (28). There are other languages, e.g. Welsh, Turkish29, Dutch as in (29) and French as in (30), where the inclusion of a numeral determiner in an NP renders this NP singular: 28.

29.

28 29

Seuen Sages 2397 Seue maistres is her come, (from Kellner 1905: 47) Duizend guldens is hier verkwist, thousand guilders is here wasted Ά thousand guilders have been wasted here'.

MacLeish (1969) talks about VS-structures in Middle English without mentioning lack of concord. A.E. Ojeda posted a summary of responses he received on number invariance, LINGUIST list 5.1362 (November 1994).

57

30.

Mille francs n'est pas süffisant, 'Thousand francs is not sufficient'. (cf. Blinkenberg 1968: 52; H0ybye 1944: 91)

Most of Stoelke's (1916: 13-5; 33-6) Old English examples of 'breakdown' involve numerals. Bauch (1912: 52) says "Sehr häufig sind die Fälle, wo in der ags. Poesie das vorangehende verbum, das oft: peer is, peer wees ist, singularische Form zeigt bei folgendem Zahlwort, das in substantivischer Stellung als Subjekt des Satzes steht" [The instances are frequent where, in Old English poetry, the initial verb is singular when a numeral follows that is a nominal in subject position; this often involves peer is, peer wees]. The structure of the NP in (28) to (30) is such that it is either singular or plural. The choice depends on whether the Noun or the numeral is seen as the head and on whether the numeral is marked for plural. In Modern English, the numeral is clearly marked plural, as in (31), or singular as in (32): 31. 32.

Thousands of guilders have been wasted. A thousand guilders has been wasted.

Thus, one might argue that seue(n) in (28), duizend in (29) and mile in (30) are not intrinsically plural and that they may determine the agreement. Of course, the numeral can be plural as well and then the verbal agreement indicates plurality: 33.

Duizenden guldens zijn/*is hier verkwist thousands of guilders are/is here wasted Thousands of guilders have been wasted here'.

As to agreement in VS constructions, it 'breaks down' in Middle and Early Modern English. Kellner (1905: 47) says that agreement disappears when "[t]he verb precedes the noun, and the sentence is introduced by here (there)". Kellner accounts for this by saying that the distinction between the singular and plural verbal agreement is not clear. However, most of his examples are VS. Mitchell (1985: I: 636) says "there remains a hard core of examples in which a plural subject is (or appears to be) preceded by a singular verb in real defiance of the rule of subject-verb concord. These occur in early prose" as in (34): 34.

Alfred, CP 6, 15 On öaem selfan hraegle ... waes eac awriten da naman öara twelf heahfsdra, On the same robe ... was also written the names of the 12 patriarchs'. (Kellner 1905: 47)

Jespersen (1913: 169) writes that "[occasionally, however, the verb will be put in the sg, even if the subject is plural; this will especially happen when the verb precedes the subject, because the speaker has not made up his mind, when pronouncing the verb, what words are to follow". Examples of VS without agreement are (35) to (38). In the 15th century, the

58

construction occurs in Mandeville (cf. van der Meer 1929: 150), as in (35) and (36), and in Pecock (cf. Zickner 1900: 92) as in (37). Instance (38) is from the late 16th century (the finite verb and the head of the subject NP are in bold type): 35.

36.

37.

38.

Mandeville's Travels, 71-18 In that cytee was the sittynges of the .xij. tribes of Israel, 'In that city were the seats of the 12 tribes of Israel', (van der Meer 1929: 150) MT, 102-24 t in bat reme is all wommen t noman, 'and in that realm (there) are only women and no men'. (van der Meer 1929: 150) Pecock, 24, 6 vu the kunnyng of thilk mater is largir in his ground which is natural philsophi than is many hool chapitris to gidere ligging in Matheu. (Zickner 1900: 92) Shakespeare Hamlet III, iii, 14 That Spirit, vpon whose spirit depends and rests The liues of many. (Jespersen 1913 [1970]: 169, but again, the First Folio edition is used here)

In (35) to (38), the subject follows the V in C and the verb is singular whereas the subject is plural. The lack of agreement is not consistent as (39) shows: 39.

MT, 176-9, 10 In bat contre ben longe apples of gode sauour, 'In that country are long apples of good taste', (van der Meer 1929: 97)

The account for (35) to (38) can be like the one in Dutch: the verb moves to C to check the strong categorial features, but since there is not always an appropriate element in the Specifier position, the verb must check its phi-features with those of C: number is deficient and person cannot be checked. In 3.1, I show that Dutch displays a difference in morphological agreement on the verb depending on whether the verb precedes or follows the subject. In the present section, I examine Early Modern English. In Old English, Jespersen (1942) and Quirk & Wrenn (1955 [1977]) suggest that verbs that precede their subjects display less inflection than those that follow. Jespersen (1942: 15) writes "fi]n OE a difference is made in the plural, according as the verb precedes we or ge or not" and Quirk & Wrenn (1955 [1977]: 42) remark that "[t]here are alternative 1 and 2 p.pi. forms of all tenses and moods in -e when the pronouns [...] immediately follow" the verb. However, examining this lack of inflection, it turns out to be related to the presence of verb-movement to C, not to the absence of Spec-Head agreement. If the verb moves to C, there is less inflection than when it does not.

59

3.2.2

Interrogative VS

There are other constructions in which the verb ends up before the subject, for instance, relatives and interrogatives (cf. Abbott 1872: 143). In this section, I will confine myself to interrogatives. Some of these, for instance (40) to (42), are interesting in that the Case on the subject is irregular, i.e. us is used in (42) rather than we. Thus, the system of nominative Case under government is breaking down. However, agreement on the verb also breaks down in questions from the fourteenth century onwards. Instances are (40) and (41) which, depending on the editor, are sometimes 'corrected': 40. 41.

42.

Shakespeare, 2 Henry V7, III, ii, 11 Is all things well, According as I gave directions? Shakespeare, Richard III, III, iv, 5 Is all things ready for the Royall time? (Spekker 1881: 16, but First Folio edition text used) Shakespeare, Cymbeline, V, v, 228 Shall's haue a play of this? (Kellner 1905: 133ff)

One might speculate and say that the system of Spec-Head agreement is introduced. Around Shakespeare's time, the system of government is no longer very transparent (in the sense of Lightfoot 1979) because the verb does not regularly move to C and the language learner may no longer assume government of the subject by the verb. Hence, the 'breakdown' occurs in the above examples. A prerequisite for having a Spec-Head relationship is having Functional Categories and, as mentioned, before the 1380s, there is not much evidence for these but around the time of Shakespeare there is. Not only does the verb not agree with the subject in (40) to (42), the Case on the subject is accusative in (41) rather than nominative. Spekker (1881: 53-4) also mentions 15 instances in Shakespeare of the kind as in (43) and (44): 43. 44.

Shakespeare, Julius Caesar I, iii, 148 Is Decius Brutus and Trebonius there? Shakespeare, King John II, i, 543 Where is she and her sonne?

This can be accounted for if the verb moves to a position where overt Spec-Head agreement with the subject fails to occur and where, in (43), the verb checks its features against a singular, in the Complementizer as in Dutch (1) above. This is the remnant of government. In 3.1.1, I account phenomena similar to these in terms of a splitting up of Case and agreement features and that can be used here also.

60

Sentences such as (44) will be dealt with in the next chapter, but their derivation is similar to that of (43): the subject checks its Case features under government, but since a w/z-element is in Spec CP, the V checks its phi-features with this element rather than with the subject.

3.2.3 Imperative VS Some examples of imperative VS structures can be found in Pecock (Zickner 1900: 25), Caxton (cf. Kellner, 1905: 133ff) and in Mandeville's Travels (van der Meer 1929: 9). In imperatives, verbal agreement is usually not indicated and one must therefore rely on Case, i.e. the checking of the Case-features: 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51.

Pecock, Repressor 260,8 vu O man, thro we thou doun ... the other man. Caxton, Blanchardyn and Eglantine 60, 28 Come you with me. Caxton, Aymon, 157, 32 Defye you hym on my behalfe. Pecock, Repressor 30,3 Go we ferther thus. Pecock, Repressor 68,1 vu Receue 3e the loore of this present firste parti of this book. Mandeville's Travels, 32-31 And wyte 3ee wel that ... MT, 155-29 be 3ee redy with such a nombre

In (45) to (47), the Case is 'wrong', but not in (48) and (51). Millward (1966) studies pronominal Case in imperatives in Shakespeare. The Case expected in the subject of an imperative is nominative, i.e. yee and thou rather than the accusative you and thee. This is not what is found. Millward concludes that there are only 35 imperatives with the correct ye, whereas you is found over 500 times. Thou and thee are used equally as often: 52. 53.

Shakespeare, Winter's Tale, II, ii, 80 Do not you feare. Shakespeare, Taming of the Shrew, III, i, 106 Seize thee that List.

In all of these Early Modern English sentences, the verb moves to a position where overt Spec-Head agreement with the subject does not occur. For reasons of simplicity, I assume the position to which the verb moves is C and that the verb agrees with the singular in the

61 Complementizer (but see Platzack & Rosengren 1994 who argue there is a special projection). Therefore, the account in this subsection is the same as that in the previous one. One would expect VS imperatives as in (54) to change to SV ones as in (56) around the time Spec-Head agreement is introduced. This is incorrect. Visser (1963-73: 15-18) shows how the VS construction as in (54) is gradually lost after Shakespeare, but he also provides evidence that the SV construction is popular in Old and Middle English, as in (55), then disappears for a while, and reappears around 1700 in sentences like (56) and (57). The latter's reappearance (between 1450 and 1695, none occur) is too late to be connected to the introduction of Spec-Head agreement: 54.

Wyclif, Matthew 6, 28 Beholde 3e the lilies of be felde. Cursor Mundi, 19673 t>ou ga til him. You stand here and I'll walk across the street. You drink that tea.

55. 56. 57.

In 3.2, I have given instances of VS in English, which display lack of agreement. This can be accounted for if the V is in C and checks its phi-features with C, as in 3.1 above.

3.3

Yiddish: Government as well as Spec-Head Agreement

In Yiddish, an SVO language with verb-movement, the finite verb need not be preceded by an NP that agrees with it. For instance, in (58), the finite verb hot, 'has', moves to I to check the categorial features but need not move to C because az 'that' is present. A topic is present in Spec IP, namely tsvishen toyzendveyber, 'between thousand women/wives', but the subject checks its Case features with hot under government and the phi-features in I are given content by the element governed by it (cf. Travis 1984; Santorini 1989)30. For comparison, consider the German translation of (58) in (59). In (59), hat 'has' does not move to the left and the subject er 'he' checks its Case-features under government by C (the verb checks its phifeatures as in Dutch): 58.

30

... az tsvishen toyzend veyber hot er nit gefunen eyne a rekhte that between thousand women/wives has he not found one a right 'that between a thousand women he has not found a good one'. (Sholem Aleichem 1944 [1958] "Dos groyse gevins", Alle werke fon sholem aleichem, VII: 35, New York: Oisgabe Forwerts).

As several people have pointed out, the Spec IP must be filled in Yiddish and if a topic fails, the expletive es 'there' must appear, unlike in German, where this position is perhaps absent (cf. Haider 1990; van Gelderen 1993).

62

59.

... daß er unter tausend Weibern kein rechtes gefunden hat.

There is little morphological evidence in Yiddish to tell the two types of checking apart. There is one form that is different when checking Case features under government from checking them through Spec-Head agreement, namely men and me 'they, one', as in (60) and (61) respectively: 60.

61.

A kranken fregt men, a gezunden git men, A sick asks one, a healthy gives one One asks a sick person, one gives a healthy person'. (Idem, p. 31) ... ale gute zakhen, wos me hot mir eyngepakt, all good things, which one has me-DAT wrapped up 'all the good things they have packed for me'. (Idem, p. 35)

Me is only acceptable in preverbal position. In (60), both instances of men are in a government relationship with the finite verb, whereas in (61), me is in a Spec-Head relationship with its verb. This is comparable to the Dutch situation in (12) to (16) above, except that, in the Dutch case, the verb displays the difference rather than the subject.

3.4

Modern English and French: the Loss of Government

Having discussed older versions of English where government plays a role and comparing that with the situation that exists in present-day English, one might ask what happened. Examining the history of English and French, Clark & Roberts (1993: 321) argue that the erosion of the obligatory Verb-second rule results in a change in the way nominative Case is assigned. They assume that government is lost once Verb-second ceases to occur. The remnant of government by the verb in Modern French can be seen, according to them, from the occurrence of sentences such as (62) and the non-occurrence of those as in (63): 62. 63.

Ont-ils vu ce film? 'Have they seen that film'. *Ont les enfants vu ce film? 'Have the children seen that film'.

In (62), ils 'they' is a clitic which incorporates to V and checks Case that way. The reason for the ungrammaticality of (63) is said to be ont 'have' not being able to assign nominative under government in French. This can be compared to what I argue above, namely, that the verb can only check its features if they are overt on C. So, the checking of the phi-features can occur in (62) as

63

Head-Head checking, as in Dutch. In cases of full NPs as in (63), C is Only' in a government relation with the subject and this is not enough, unlike in Dutch. Modern English is different from French, since (64) is grammatical: 64. 65.

Have the children t painted a seascape? The children have painted a seascape.

Have in (64) checks the V-features (and its own phi-features) in I (or AGRs) just as it does in (65). It then moves to C for reasons other than V-feature checking, i.e. because of the sentence being a question. Therefore, the agreement is the same in (64) and (65).

3.5

Conclusion

In languages such as Dutch and Early Modern English, agreement is deficient for a reason other than the one discussed for Arabic and Kirundi in chapter 1. The reason is that government can also be used to check nominative and that the Complementizer fulfills the task of expletive in that it can transmit the features of the NP that has checked its features with C. Thus, an NP's phi-features are not attracted to C. In French, some involvement of C remains, as Clark & Roberts argue, but in Modern English, categorial, Case and agreement checking comes about exclusively through Spec-Head agreement. In Modern English, the subject NP moves overtly whereas the verb moves covertly (except have and be, cf. Chomsky 1992: 43-4; Pollock 1993: 4031, but see chapter 7 below). This means the verb agrees (checks its phi-features) with the NP moved into the Specifier position. In Dutch, NP-movement to the Specifier position of CP is not necessary because Case can be checked under government. Once this happens, the verb will check its phi-features with C. In Early Modern English, the same happens. Thus, in Dutch and Early Modern English, C governs or Spec-Head agreement occurs; in Yiddish, either I governs or Spec-Head agreement occurs; and in Modern English, only Spec-Head agreement applies. Since government is not the same relationship as Spec-Head agreement, mainly because of the role that the head plays (cf. also Koopman & Sportiche 1991 and others), the 'breakdown' in agreement occurs. I have also added a note on the changes from 1380 or so onwards, which I work out further in chapter 5. It can be argued as Functional Categories are more activated as structural positions (cf. van Gelderen 1993), Spec-Head gets to be used for Case relationships rather than government. In the next chapter, I indicate how both

31

Pollock argues that because of the morphologically identified agreement marking on be, this auxiliary moves to AGRs overtly and "[ajlthough the same is less transparently true of have" (1993: 40), Pollock still assumes its agreement is also strong. Lexical verbs are not seen as morphologically identified for agreement because the third singular ending is seen as singular and not as person agreement and the empty morpheme on the other forms "are not even associated with a null agreement affix" (p. 39).

64 government and Spec-Head agreement are relevant in νι/Λ-constructions, in keeping with the conclusions reached in this chapter.

4 Lack of Agreement in W7z-Structures 4.0

Outline

In this chapter, I examine verbal agreement in ννΛ-constructions and the agreement between the w/2-element and the complementizer (as in e.g. Rizzi 1990). There are four main reasons for the 'breakdown' of verbal agreement: (a) the position of categorial features, Case and agreement varies across languages; (b) the relative pronoun alternates between being an expletive or a 'real' pronoun; (c) the option exists to move overtly or to insert an expletive; and (d) checking under government is possible. I briefly spell these reasons out in this introduction. There are some dialects of English in which 'lack' of agreement occurs in relative clauses. These constructions will be shown in 4.1.1. to indicate that the agreement/phi features are in C whereas Case features are elsewhere. This shows that Case and agreement features are not always in one position: they 'float', as I have argued in chapter 3 and in van Gelderen (1993). It corroborates work by Huybrechts (1991), Hulk & van Kemenade (1993) and others. In a Chomsky (1995) framework, this can be expressed in terms of optionally added features: in some languages, C has (optionally added) Case and phi-features. In other languages (Modern English), I has Case features. The second reason, discussed in 4.2, why verbal agreement in relative clauses is different is related to the status of the relative pronoun. In many languages, the relative pronoun is expletive-like in that it does not have features of its own (for instance, the w/z-element in Modern English) whereas in others, it is a full pronoun or demonstrative specified for number and person (for instance, Old English demonstrative relatives). In some languages, the relative pronoun is ambiguous. For instance, in Shakespeare's English, verbs in relative clauses sometimes agree with the antecedent of the relative clause and sometimes with the third person singular relative pronoun. I argue that that changes from demonstrative to relative pronoun and that this change brings about changes in agreement that look like 'breakdown' but are not. The position of that also changes, namely from Spec CP to C. Differences between overt ννΛ-movement and wh-in-situ in Chamorro (data from Chung 1983; 1994) show that w/i-agreement is also sensitive to movement. Overt wA-movement brings about agreement between the verb and the ννΛ-element much more often than does covert movement. Tohono O'odham (data from Zepeda 1983) shows that w/i-checking can take place under government but that this differs from that under Spec-Head Agreement. These results are not surprising considering the conclusions of chapters 1 and 3. The explanations are similar to the ones provided there. The outline is as follows. In 4.1, I account for the non-agreement in a dialect of English by splitting up the Case and agreement features. Early English relative pronouns in 4.2 display a 'lack' of agreement caused by the fact that the relatives lack certain features. In 4.3, I discuss a minor point, namely a restriction on the predication relation between the antecedent and the relative clause in French and Modern English. This is relevant for the

66

feature specification of elements and hence for agreement. In 4.4, I indicate how overt and covert movement have an impact on w/z-agreement. As in the previous two chapters, overt and covert movement may bring about different agreement relations because checking may occur with an expletive (4.4.2) or under government (4.4.3).

4.1. Agreement Features'Float' In 4.1.1, I provide an account for agreement phenomena in a dialect of English described by Kimball & Aissen and indicate that Early Modern English has similar constructions. In 4.1.2, I tie this in with Dutch data showing an analogous positioning of the agreement (i.e. phi) features. Chomsky (1995: 349) assumes that the Functional Category AGR does not have any phifeatures, even though "the matter is much less clear" (p. 351). The same might be true for the other Functional Categories such as C and I, but this is not discussed. In the introductory chapter, I assume there is no evidence that English I has phi-features. The I position just makes it possible for checking to occur after the verb moves there to check the categorial features. In this section, I show that for other varieties of English and for other languages, phi-features are present in C. In a Chomsky (1995) framework, this means these features are intrinsic to C and in some languages, they appear overtly on C, e.g. in West-Flemish as in the previous chapter.

4.1.1 Kimball & Aissen (1971) There are some dialects of English where C has verbal phi-features. This indicates that the agreement features are not always situated in the same position. Kimball and Aissen (1971) describe a variety of English that allows relative clauses as in (1) and (2) but not as in (3). In (1) and (2), the nominative plural w/z-element agrees with the verb of a higher clause if that w/z-element has cyclically moved through the Specifier of the higher CP as in (1). Sentence (3) shows that this type of agreement only takes place if the w/i-element indeed moves through the relevant Spec CP. In keeping with Chomsky (1995: 59ff), I assume there is a strong Q feature that triggers the w/z-element, but omit that in much of the discussion for convenience sake. I also assume (but more in 4.2.1) that the ννΛ-element is coindexed with its antecedent and gets its phi-features that way: 1. 2. 3.

The people Cp[wn°i the boy think CP[tj are in the garden]]. The people who the boy think t the girl know t are in the garden. *The people who t think that John know the answer.

This unusual agreement between the w/z-element and the verb is only possible if the whelement originates or moves through the Spec CP of the clause in which the verb is situated as in (1) and (2). Kayne (1991b) argues instead for the existence of a NumP to which the wh-

67 element adjoins and then agrees with the Head through a special kind of Spec-Head agreement (the w/z-element is not in Spec NumP!). In cases where agreement does not occur, the whelement does not adjoin and moves to Spec CP directly. To explain this phenomenon without a NumP, one could argue that the (non-Interpretable) agreement features, i.e. the phi-features, are optionally placed in the C or the I of the relative clause as in (4). When the features are placed in C and the w/z-element moves through Spec CP, the verb (after phi-feature attraction at LF) will agree with the ννΛ-element as in (1), represented as (4)32. The NP-subject will have to check its (non-Interpretable) Case either under government if these features are also situated in C or through Spec-Head agreement if they are in I. This is not surprising considering the conclusions reached in the previous chapter, where it is claimed that Case comes about under government:

4.

.CP

"^ C C [phi]

NP theboyj I V think [phi]

JTCPtj are in the garden

In this dialect, a pronoun does not appear as subject as the ungrammaticality of (5) shows: 5.

*The people who she think are in the garden.

One could argue that a pronoun, unlike an NP, has non-Interpretable phi-features and needs to check these in a Spec-Head relationship, i.e. a government relationship is not enough. Throughout this book, there is evidence for this assumption. I do not examine this aspect, however. WTi-interrogatives in Middle and Early Modern English also indicate that it is possible to split up the Case from the phi-features as in (6) (cf. Jespersen 1913: 417-8). In (6), the verb checks its phi-features in a Spec-Head relationship with the w/z-element, but the subject does so under government by the V in C. The same is true in 13th century Layamon, where when the checking occurs with what, wat and wham, agreement need not be with the subject: 6.

32

Shakespeare, Tempest, I, i, 17 What cares these roarers for the name of King.

An alternative would be to say that this variant has V-features in C whenever C is present (the Iposition would not be activated). This would trigger verb-movement to C in ννΛ-structures and agreement with the element in Spec CP.

68

7.

8.

9.

Layamon, Brut, Caligula 8292 Lauerd king lust nu me. what ich wullen teilen pe, Lord king listen nu me what I will-P tell you 'Lord King, listen to me now, (to) what I want to tell you'. Idem, 7144 fraeinede .... what weoren bat speche. be pat maide spilede, asked ... what were-P the speech which the maiden spoke 'asked what was the speech that the maiden spoke'. Idem, 7885 7 ich iwiten wulle. what beon pi wille, and I know want what are-P your will 'and I want to know what your intention is'.

In (7) to (9), the plural verbs wullen, weoren and beon are used even though there are singular subjects, ich, pat speche and pi wille. To account for these sentences, one could argue that w(h)at is responsible for agreement whereas the subject checks its Case under government. (In Old English, this lack of agreement does not occur judging from the examples Wülfing 1894: 425 provides. An explanation is that only government is relevant and not a mixture). In (10), (11) and (12), we can see a 'collapse' of the checking of Case (us rather than we and you, rather than yee) and in (11) and (12) of the checking of one of the phi-features (be and 's rather than are}: 10. 11.

12.

Shakespeare, Cymbeline IV, ii, 233 Say, where snail's lay him Caxton, Aymon 91, 25 What be you, fayre knyghte. (from Kellner 1905: 133ff) Kyd, Spanish Tragedy IV, 3, 1, 89 Where's your fellows? (from Stoelke 1916: 21)

Again, these are cases of checking under government. These data are compatible with Rizzi (1990: 51-60) who argues that agreement is in C for certain languages. Others, for instance, Belletti (1992) have argued the same. Belletti argues that AGR moves to C to ensure nominative Case in participial constructions. Thus, the 'breakdown' of agreement in the dialect described by Kimball and Aissen and the data in (6) to (9) can be accounted for by means of splitting up Case and agreement. In the next section, I provide more evidence for having floating features, i.e. features not automatically connected to a particular position.

69

4.1.2 Dutch Double Object Verbs I have argued elsewhere (e.g. van Gelderen 1989; 1993) that there is no evidence in Dutch for an I (or T) position: modals behave like main verbs, there is no comparable do, and te 'to' is not in a node separate from the VP (because VP-deletion deletes te as well, because split infinitives do not occur and because accusatives-with-infinitives, which involve an IP analysis, are not present). Thus, if there is no evidence for even one Functional Category between C and V, there is no need to look for confirmation for two such categories. If there is no I (or T/AGRs) in Dutch, where are the agreement (i.e. phi-) features checked? In Minimalist terms, the features triggering V and NP-movement are in C. The subject in an active sentence must be adjacent to the Complementizer in most varieties of Dutch. This can be accounted for if the agreement and Case features are in C (cf. also Koopman 1984: 207ff; Haegeman 1990: 352). Thus, (13) is ungrammatical because gisteren 'yesterday' appears between dat and the subject Ingrid and (15) is because gisteren appears between the verb in C and the subject. (When dat is present, the verb checks its phi-features in its original position). Sentences (14) and (16) are correct: 13. 14. 15. 16.

*dat gisteren Ingrid Klaas zag, that yesterday Ingrid Klaas saw dat Ingrid gisteren Klaas zag, that Ingrid yesterday Klaas saw *Gisteren heeft eindelijk zij/Emma koekjes gebakken, Yesterday has at last she/Emma cookies baked Gisteren heeft zij/Emma eindelijk koekjes gebakken, Yesterday has she/Emma at last cookies baked

As mentioned in the previous chapter, in passive sentences (and others where the subject originates as an Object'), the nominative subject need not be adjacent to the complementizer as (17) shows in which ntijn oom 'my uncle' separates the subject deie boeken 'these books' from dat: 17.

18.

dat mijn oom deze boeken toegestuurd zijn, that my uncle these books sent are 'that these books were sent to my uncle'. dat deze boeken mijn oom toegestuurd zijn, that these books my uncle sent are

Den Besten (1985) accounts for these constructions by means of a complicated system of assigning Case inside the VP. I will account for it by arguing that agreement and Case are either in C or in V (following Chomsky 1995, they would technically be in v). If they are in C, the element that needs to check its nominative must be adjacent to C as in (19), the structural representation of a sentence such as (14), and (18). If the features were placed in V, the sentence would be ungrammatical because the subject is not governed by V. In passive

70 sentences such as (17), the subject deze boeken 'these books' is governed by the verb (taking government to be c-command) because it is the original object. Thus, Case could either be on C as in (18) or on V as in (17). In (20), the features triggering NP-movement may be on either C or V. If they are on V, NP-movement is redundant:

In (19) and (20), I have only indicated categorial and Case features. The former are strong and trigger either V-movement or an overt complementizer; the latter are also strong in both (19) and (20). Confirmation for (19) and (20) can be found in preposing. If the subject is still part of the VP, it should be able to prepose when the VP preposes. This is indeed the case with passives as in (21), but not with actives as in (22): 21.

22.

[Prijzen gegeven] werden hem, prizes given were him 'He was given prizes'. *[Hij gekregen] heeft een prijs, he received has a prize.

Thus, as long as the preposed constituent is a passive as in (21), the sentence is grammatical because the nominative can be checked inside VP, or in another Functional Category perhaps a Pred(icate) Phrase as Koster (1993) argues. The implication for Universal Grammar of connecting features with different categories can be formulated as (23), which is similar to the principle formulated in the previous chapter and to (26) of the introductory chapter. The crucial difference between (23) and Chomsky (1995) is that all features can be strong. In addition, languages will vary as to whether government or Spec-Head Agreement is used to check the features (also cf. chapter 3): 23.

Feature Parameter: Select Categorial, Case and Phi-features as.+strong and connect them with a Functional Category.

71 Parameter (23) holds for the Non-Interpretable features of the categories that trigger movement of Vs and NPs. The parameter is compatible with phenomena in other languages. As I have alluded to in the previous chapter, West Flemish complementizers contain features for number, person and gender, as Bennis and Haegeman (1984) show. They argue that INFL is in C in sentences such as: 24.

... dank ik kommen, 'that I come'. ... dase zie komt, 'that she comes' (p. 41)

25.

It is possible, as Bennis & Haegeman argue that INFL moves to C. This is a notational variant of what I argue for Dutch, namely that the agreement features are in C33. In conclusion to 4.1,1 have argued (a) that agreement and Case are not necessarily linked, (b) that the non-Interpretable features can be connected different positions, and (c) that features are not automatically connected with a particular position, e.g. Case necessarily linked to I or AGR.

4.2

Relative clauses in Old, Middle, Early Modern and Modern English

In 4.1, I examine Relative Clauses and Interrogatives in varieties of English. Because the verb in C checks its features with the w/z-element in Spec CP, verbal agreement is not with the 'real' subject as can be seen in (1) and (2) and (6) to (9) above. In the present section, I trace the development of Relative Clauses in English, since in some of these constructions, lack of agreement occurs. The cause is the change in the status of the 'relative' pronoun: it shifts from a demonstrative with clear phi-features to a relative with fewer phi-features. In 4.2.1 and 4.2.2, I first sketch the analysis of vWz-movement in relatives in Modern and older English in accordance with a predication rule as in (37) below. In 4.2.3 to 4.2.5, I examine verbal agreement in these constructions.

4.2.1 Modern English Since Chomsky (1977), Relative Clauses have been analysed as involving w/z-movement and deletion of that or who. Thus a d-structure as in (26) can become (27) or (28), after w/zmovement, depending on whether deletion of that or who takes place: 26. 27.

33

The woman [e that [who took her hat]]. The woman [who 0 [t took her hat]].

cf. Hoekstra (1994) and Zwart (1993) for a different analysis.

72

28.

The woman [0 that [t took her hat]].

The movement account has not radically changed, except that (a) since Chomsky (1986), that is in C and who in Spec CP, as indicated in (26) and (27), and (b) movement is featuredriven. For the latter reason, it is assumed that there is a feature in C causing the w/z-element to move into Spec CP34. The analyses why who and that are used (and, for instance, que and qui in French) have changed. Filters such as the 'Doubly-filled-COMP filter' and the 'thai-trace filter except in Relative Clause contexts' no longer are used to rule out *The man who that I saw and *Who do I know that t saw me, cf. Pesetsky 1981). Various other proposals such as Lasnik and Saito (1984; 1992) and Rizzi (1990) have been formulated. I will not elaborate on these since they are not directly relevant to agreement. The paradigm for Modern English w/z-relatives is (29) to (32); for //zci-relatives, it is (33) to (36). Note that the latter constructions are slightly awkward as ί/ζοί-relatives are used as restrictive relatives and hence usually modify an unspecific NP such as the person and the woman but not a pronoun such as / or you. I include them be able to examine person features: 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36.

I, who am/*is travelling often, have a rail-pass. You, who are/*is travelling often, have a rail-pass. He/she/it, who is/*are travelling often, has a rail-pass. We/you/they, who are/*is travelling often, have rail-passes. I that am/*is Dutch may have trouble in Iraq. You that are/*is Dutch may have trouble in Iraq. He/she/it that is/*are Israeli cannot travel to Pakistan easily. We/you/they that are/*is Israeli cannot travel to Pakistan easily.

To account for the agreement pattern in (29) to (36), it could be argued that the head of the antecedent NP is coindexed with the ννΛ-relative and that the w/z-relative is unspecified for person and number until it is in fact coindexed with a fully specified NP as in (37). This relation could be thought of as a predication relation. This means that the relative is really an anaphor: 37. 38.

Relative Coindexation Principle: Coindex the antecedent with its w/z-element in Spec CP in [NP who, that t, V]. YoU| [whOj that tj are travelling often] need patience.

In (38), Spec-Head agreement between the trace in subject position and the verb will occur (and, as is well-known,) either that or who must delete.

34

Chomsky (1995) assumes a w/z-element has 3 features: ννΛ-features, indefinite features and + human ones.

73

4.2.2

Old and Middle English

In this section, I provide an overview of Old and Middle English relatives. In subsequent sections, I discuss each type of relativizer separately. In Old English, the relative pronouns are: (a) demonstratives serving as relatives, (b) be, or (c) no pronoun. Only the demonstrative has specific features; be does not. These features must be compatible with those of the antecedent NP. Since the word order associated with/»e is SOV (cf. Dekeyser 1986: 94; and Bean 1977: 167), it makes sense to place be in C as in (39). An instance of such an SOV word order is (40). The reason for expecting SOV is that once C is filled, verb movement to C will be impossible:

40.

Layamon, Brut, Caligula 10-11 aefter ban flode. J)e from Drihtene com. J»e al her a-quelde. after that flood which from God came which all here killed 'after the flood which came from God (and) which killed all (creatures) here'.

The order associated with demonstrative relative pronouns is not SOV, which is expected, given (39), because the C position is empty and verbs can move into this position. A combination of the demonstrative ana be is also possible, which follows from (39). This use continues in Middle English. t>e disappears in the thirteenth century, for instance, in the early 13th century Caligula version of Brut as in (40) above, its use is common, whereas in the later 13th century Otho version, it is rare. Sentence (41) is the later rendition of (40), where pat is also in C: 41.

Idem, Otho 10-11 after ban flode. |iat fram God com. bat al ere acwelde.

The use of who and whom (hwa, hwam and many other variants) as interrogatives is common. Their use as relatives is said not to start till the twelfth century but Carlton (1970) gives a 9th century example with hwam (cf. also Robbins 1976). When it starts, it does so mainly with whom. There are which thats and whom thats. For instance, in Chaucer's work, there are 35 whom thats out of a total of 169 whoms; there are 15 who thats out of a total of 291 whos (cf. also Allen 1977: 204ff; Mustanoja 1960: 197; 201). In the Paston Letters35, an

35

I used the Oxford Text Archive version of The Paston Letters as edited by N. Blake for the OUP edition.

74 extensive collection of letters written from 1425 on, there is only one instance in a letter written in 1471. By the time of Shakespeare, the use is discontinued. Consequently, the schema for Old English is (42), changing to (43) by Late Middle English. The index on the antecedent and on the relative is arrived at through predication, and the index on the relative and on the variable comes about through movement. Se and its variants are in Spec CP whereas f>e is in C. Pe is in C not only because the word order is SOV but also because prepositions do not precede it (cf. Robbins 1976: 137) and hence, it is not a maximal projection fitting in a Specifier position. It is also possible to leave out both as in (44): 42. 43. 44.

The woman; sCj be t; left. The woman; whOj that tj left. Layamon, Caligula 20-1 a Frenchis clerc Wace wes ihoten, a French clerk Wace was called Ά French clerk who was called Wace'36.

In short, in earlier froms of English, the structure of relatives is in accordance with (39), (42) and (43). In what follows, I develop these three relative clause strategies more. Since, that changes its category and who(m) is introduced, there are changes in verbal agreement as well.

4.2.3 Demonstratives as Relatives: se, pa, etc. in Old and Early Middle English37 As shown in (45) to (50), demonstratives in Beowulf are used as relatives with an optional pe. The examples are from Grossmann (1906). They fit in (39) and (42) and verbal agreement is as expected, namely, the verb agrees with the demonstrative which agrees with the antecedent (the plural is not differentiated for number): 45.

36 37

Beowulf, 287-9 ^Eghwaipres sceal scearp scyldwiga gescad witan se l>e wel pencep, worda ond worca, every shall sharp shield-fighter difference know the that well thinks/judges-3S words and works 'Every sharp shield fighter, who judges well, must know the difference between words and works'.

This occurs quite frequently. For instance, see Baldwin (1894: 30) for this use in Morte d'Arthur. There are adverbial relatives (e.g. pere) which will be discussed in chapter 5. Per relativizes 'in that place' and pa 'in that time'. (Robbins 1976: 146)

75

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

Beowulf, 378 salibende, pa J>e gifsceattas Geata fyredon, sea-farers, those that gift-treasures carried-P 'the seafarers, who carried gifts'. Beowulf, 1617-8 ellorgaest, se baer inne swealt, alien spirit, that there in perished-S The alien spirit, who perished there'. Beowulf, 113 swylce gigantas, pa wib gode wunnon, such giants, those against God struggled-P 'Such giants who fought against God'. Beowulf, 499-500 Unferb mabelode, Ecglafes beam, |>e xt fotum sxt, Unferth spoke, Ecglafs child, that at feet sat-S 'Unferth spoke, the child of Eglaf, who sat at the feet'. Beowulf, 45 bon pa dydon l>e hine aet frumsceafte forp onsendon, than those did-P that him at beginning forth sent-P 'than who did who had sent him away at the beginning'.

The only possible problem for agreement with earlier English demonstratives is with para pe Of those who' which can have either singular or plural verbs following it (cf. Mitchell & Robinson 1985: 105; Bauch 1912: 54ff). However, Stoelke (1916: 55-57), who in commenting on the lack of agreement in these constructions shows most singulars occur following superlatives and indefinite pronouns ("[flast regelmäßig steht im altengl. Relativsatz das Präsens im Sing., wenn er mit bara pe eingeleitet wird" ['When an Old English relative clause is introduced with para pe, the present is singular'], see Anklam 1908: 84 for one possible exception). Superlatives and indefinites may be thought of as singulars. I come back to para as a relative and expletive in the next chapter. A similar situation occurs in Modern Dutch. In Dutch, there is a demonstrative die 'that', specified for third person, that serves as a relative in (51). Since it has third person features, (52) is ungrammatical. Die is in Spec CP because of the ungrammaticality of (53) and of the improved grammatical ity of (54): 51.

52.

Hij die daar heen gezonden is doet zijn werk goed, he who there to sent is does his work well 'He who was sent there does his work well'. *Ik/jij die daar heen gezonden is/ben/bent ... I/you who there to sent is/am/are /you who was/were sent there ...'.

76

53.

54.

*Hij wie die ik gezien heb ... he who that I seen have 'He who was seen by me'. ?De man die dat ik hier zag, The man that that I here saw 'The man that I saw here'.

Concluding 4.2.3, in Old English, demonstratives are used as relatives but since these elements are fully specified, there is no 'breakdown' of agreement.

4.2.4 That38 The Middle and Old English uses of that differ from each other. In Old English, that is a demonstrative in Spec CP as in (39) above and pe is in C, whereas in Middle English, that is in C. The evidence for this change is that in Old English pcet pe occurs but not se poet whereas in Middle English whom that occurs and not that whom. Hence, a reanalysis of past from D to C occurs. I now show the relevance of this reanalysis to agreement. That is the Old English relative "mit neutralem Korrelat im Singular" (Grossmann 1906: 38). Hence, as mentioned in the previous subsection, the agreement is singular in Old English, as expected. In Middle English, that becomes the generalized relative, no longer tied to a singular NP but still with third person singular features: "[t]he Relative (perhaps it does not signify by inflection any agreement in number or person with its antecedent) frequently (1) takes a singular verb, though the antecedent be plural, and (2) the verb is often third person, though the antecedent be in the second or first" (Abbott 1872: 167, italics deleted) as in (56) to (62). This 'breakdown' is a lack of concord due to the features of the relative pronoun. Singular relatives are used with plural antecedents which means that the indexation in (42) is not followed and the relative has phi-features that determine agreement. In (56) to (61), cases of relatives with independent number and person features are provided. This is schematized in (55) (antecedent and verb are in bold): 55. 56.

38

The women e thatj t; is leaving. Layamon, Brut, Caligula 11472-3 and suggeö feole pinges ... pat naeuere nes i-wuroen 'and say many things ... that never happened'. (Mätzner 1864: 142)

There are also as relatives that lack agreement. Carstensen (1959: 83) gives an example from the Paston Letters (also see Stoelke 1916: 59ff): i. PL II, 394 rede to my moodre suche thynges as ye thynke is for her to know.

77

57.

58. 59.

60.

61. 62.

Chaucer, The Parson's Tale 420 members that semeth lik the maladie of Mirnia. (Stoelke 1916: 50) Chaucer, Knight's Tale 1736-7 and it am I That loveth so hoote Emelye the brighte. Chaucer, Romaunt of the Rose 5173-4 Ye yeve good counsel, sikirly, That prechith me al-day. (cf. Wilson 1906: 47-8).

Paston Letters III, 338 we ladys and jentil women in this contrey that is wedows. (Carstensen 1959: 83) Shakespeare, Midsummer Night's Dream III, ii, 97 With sighes of loue that costs the fresh bloud deare. Shakespeare, 3 Henry VI, II, v, 79 Thou that so stoutly hath resisted me. (Visser 1963: 91)

Even in spoken Modern English, 'mistakes' such as these occur: 63.

There are other things you talked about that is not on the tape. (Christopher Darden, 2 March 1995, "OJ trial")

Sentences (64) to (69), on the other hand, are in accordance with (42) and are more 'modern' in that that does not have phi-independent features. These constructions seem, at least in Chaucer39, to predominate over those in (56) to (62): 64.

65.

66.

67. 68.

39

Chaucer, Knight's Tale, 1710-1 But telleth me what myster men ye been, that been so hardy for to fighten heere. Idem, 1717-8 Two woful wrecches been we, two caytyves, That been encombred of oure owene lyves. (cf. Stoelke 1916: 48) Shakespeare, As You Like It, V, iv, 159 I am the second sonne of old Sir Rowland, That bring these tidings to this faire assembly. Shakespeare, Cymbeline. V, v, 17 It is I That all the abhorred things o'the earth amend By being worse than they. Shakespeare, 2 Henry IV, I, i, 239 We all that are engaged to this loss.

Checking the forms of verbs preceded by pronouns that immediately followed by that, the person and number on the verb is always marked the same as that of the pronoun except in (58).

78 69.

Idem, I, ii, 150 You that are old consider not the capacities of us that are young. 40

Thus, the relative when it functions as subject often triggers the 'wrong agreement', i.e. singular when the antecedent is plural. Wilson (1906: 45) remarks in connection with the relative that "the notion of plurality implied in a plural antecedent becomes contracted or focalized into a singular concept on having to pass through the medium of the relative". This, however, does not always take place: "Chaucer's skill in handling relative clauses referring to personal pronouns of the first and second persons is shown in that he violates the principle of concord but rarely". Cases where he does (antecedent and verb are in bold) are (57) and (58) above. Shakespeare does too, as is shown in (61) above. The lack of agreement in these cases is only present if one considers these constructions from a modern point of view. One could say that the 'relatives' start out with features (singular, neuter etc) because they are demonstratives. Due to the loss of Case, number and gender marking on nouns throughout Middle English, most demonstrative forms are lost and one is reanalyzed as a complementizer41, i.e. from Spec CP to C. Since the most neutral demonstrative, namely third singular that, is 'selected' as C, the features are accordingly the most neutral. However, since that is no longer in Specifier position, it ceases to agree with the antecedent NP. In (56) to (62), that determines the agreement; in (64) to (69), that does not because it is in C.

4.2.5

Who/m

With ννΛ-relatives, one might expect the same agreement facts as in 4.1 with whinterrogatives. This turns out not to be the case because w/z-relatives have fewer features of their own and are always coindexed with an antecedent. Who, as mentioned, appears 'late', after the reanalysis of demonstrative that to complementizer. There are a number of cases where whom appears rather than who. Even though this might seem relevant in connection to agreement and Case, it is possible that whom is a generalized relative, much like that, and that only later does who get introduced. (For references, see Allen 1977: 196ff; Ryden 1970: 28; Steinki 1932; Winkler 1933: 15, for the 2 instances in Caxton; and Meier 1967). Thus, whom as a relative occurs much earlier than does who. Who, when it does occur, has even fewer features than that, for instance, in Shakespeare42, it gets person and number features from its antecedent as in the Modern English (38) above:

40 41 42

Ryden (1968: 59) only gives examples of unmarked agreement where the subject is a conjoined NP, the relative is where and hence, those examples will be dealt with in chapter 10. This view is opposed to Traugott (1972: 153) who says that modern that is not directly derived from se, seo, that. I checked the occurrences of who in 6 plays (Merchant of Venice, As You Like it, 1 Henry IV, 2 Henry 4, I Henry 6 and King Lear) and found no other instances of (70) with a first or second person antecedent, only with third person ones as in (71) and (72).

79

70.

71. 72.

Shakespeare, Tempest, III, iii, 5-6 I cannot blame thee, Who, am myselfe attach'd with wearinesse. (cf. Mätzner, 1864: 145; 522). Shakespeare, King Lear III, i, 18 None but the fool; who labours to out-jest His heart-struck injuries. Idem, III, i, 25 servants who seem no less.

This agreement between the antecedent and the verb does not always transpire. Spekker (1881: 34) confirms this for Shakespeare: "hin under wieder jedoch lässter [Shakespeare] auf ein auf die erste oder zweite Person des Personalpronomens bezügliches Relativpronomen das Prädikat in der dritten Person folgen" ['now and then, he has a relative pronoun referring to a first or second person pronoun that is followed by a predicate with third person inflection']. His examples are mainly with that, or with an objective antecedent and, as will be mentioned in 4.4, these do not have regular agreement in Modern English and hence nothing further can be said. The analysis of who relatives fits neatly into (42) above. Once interrogatives (which are indefinite) start to get used as relatives, they are coindexed with their antecedent. The conclusion to section 4.2 is that the Modern English relative that is a grammaticalized demonstrative pronoun. Old English demonstratives have features of their own for number, for Case, and for person. This makes it 'easy' for demonstratives to serve as relatives. Instances of demonstratives used as relatives are that, the, se and there (modernized spelling). As they become relatives and grammaticalize, they lose their person and number specification, i.e. they lose content, which they then need to get from the antecedent. They reanalyze from Spec CP to C. The interrogative who appears in Spec CP as it does in Modern English. It only appears as a relative after that is in C. In the next chapter, I come back to the grammaticalization of determiners to relatives and to other types of pronouns and place it in a more theoretical framework. In the next section, I examine instances where relative that and who have reduced features.

4.3

Restrictions on Relative Clauses in French and Modern English

Relative pronouns in standard French transmit the features of the antecedent, as in (73) and (74). This is similar to what happens in Modern English and the constructions can receive the same analysis as in (37) and (42) above: 73.

74.

Vous qui etes dans ce maison ... You-P who are-2P in this house 'You who are in this house ...'. Nous qui sommes ici ... we who are-IP here 'We who are here ...'.

80 In Modern English, the relative pronoun only transmits the person features of the antecedent if the antecedent is in the nominative Case but not if is in the accusative Case as is shown in (75), (76) and (79). Indexing between the antecedent and the relative, in accordance with (37) above, only takes place if the Case features are identical. When this is not the case, the verb checks its phi-features with that and who which are specified for third person but not for number as (76) to (78) show. There are some variants of French in which the same occurs, as (80) shows: 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80.

I who/that am going to Pakistan must have a visum. Me who/that is going to Pakistan must have a visum. You (S) who/that goes there often must have a visum. Us who/that are going must have visa. Shakespeare, Titus, IV, ii, 176 For it is you that puts vs to our shifts. Moi qui est venu ... I-ACC who am-3S come Ί who have come ...

Therefore, (37) has to be made more precise. One could formulate it as (81): 81.

Relative Coindexation Principle: Coindex a nominative antecedent with its nominative ννΛ-element in Spec CP as in [NP; who{ that t, V].

The reason why non-nominative antecedents transmit number but not person and Case43 remains for further investigation. As (69) above shows, it is true for earlier English as well. In conclusion to this section, I have examined a restriction on (42), namely that the Case of the antecedent and the relative pronoun must match for a predication relation as in (37) above to occur.

4.4

Overt versus Covert Wfe-Agreement

In many languages, a w/z-element moves to Spec CP. English is no exception even though, under certain circumstances, it has the option of leaving the w/z-element in situ and moving it covertly. The reason that w/z-elements move is to get scope and to check the features of the Complementizer. The latter is referred to as wA-agreement. In 4.4.1,1 discuss some problems with English wft-movement; in 4.4.2, I discuss Chung's (1982; 1994) data on Chamorro which indicate that expletives may be relevant to w/z-agreement; and in 4.4.3 Zepeda's (1983)

43

Relatives that function as objects are coindexed with the antecedent but a Case clash does not seem to occur in (i): i. The woman [who Titus saw t] wears red shoes.

81 data on O'odham which indicate government of the ννΛ-element by C occurs. My aim is to investigate whether there are repercussions of covert w/z-movement for ννΛ-agreement similar to those where verbs and NPs move covertly.

4.4.1 English There are some general problems with ννΛ-movement in a Minimalist framework, which I first outline, using English data, before looking at agreement. As mentioned, the motivation for ννΛ-movement is either (a) scope, or (b) agreement between wh and the complementizer, or (c) a strong Q-feature as in Chomsky (1995). For the sake of convenience, I assume that the feature in C that triggers w/z-movement is a [wh]-feature, rather than Q. In English, the [wh]-features on C seem strong since ννΛ-elements move overtly. However, the first problem with such an account is that the [wh]-features in C are not uniformly strong since not all ννΛ-elements move overtly as (82) and (83) show. The second question is how the ννΛ-element moves to Spec CP in (82) and (84). The third problem is that there is more Case inflection on overtly moved ννΛ-elements than on covertly moved ones as (85) and (86) show: 82.

Akiu despises people who do what? (cf. Tsai 1994)

83.

I saw who44?

84. 85. 86.

Who did Emma see t. ?Whom did you see t. */?You saw whom.

With respect to the first problem, in Minimalist terms, the ννΛ-element moves because the [wh]-features are strong. Tsai (1994: 10; 17) argues that, for reasons of Economy, Universal Grammar should prefer covert over overt movement, and that [wh]-features are strong in English: "Given that operator features such as [+wh] are strong in English, procrastination of ννΛ-movement is not allowed. Consequently, the derivation of [ (82) ] crashes at PF, because the [+wh] feature on what is visible but unchecked" (p. 18). Sentence (82) does not seem ungrammatical, however, nor do echo questions such as (83). Thus, one of the [wh]features in (82) is weak and one is strong. One might argue that, in (82), the one ννΛ-element licenses the other (cf. Pesetsky 1987) and that, in (83), the focus features (present in VP, cf. Cinque 1993) license the echo-ννΛ. I will therefore assume that [wh]-features are always

44

A complication is that ννΛ-elements in subject position, as in (i) and (ii), do not remain in-situ, unlike those in object position, as in (83) above: i. *I know that WHO is about to become president? ii. *Will WHO go there This too remains a puzzle.

82

strong but that w/z-elements may be licensed in another way. In chapter 12,1 elaborate on this in connection with focus features. With respect to the second problem, w/z-elements seem to move overtly to Spec AGRoP before moving to Spec CP even though regular NPs as in (87) are not assumed to move to Spec AGRoP overtly in English (but see chapter 7): 87.

Emma saw her.

To eliminate the asymmetry, one might say that the w/z-element does not move through Spec AGRoP but that its trace raises to this position covertly (to check the Case). Then (84) and (87) would be parallels. Chomsky (1995: 71) argues that the derivation crashes if the trace were to move because the chain would lack Case as well as a theta-role. Traces are therefore immobile. The third problem is with echo-questions as in (86) and is one I have no ready explanation for. Probably, both who and whom are listed in the lexicon as objective. Overtly Case marked w/z-elements, i.e. whom in (85) and (86) are regarded as stilted. Native speakers are uncomfortable with whom in both constructions but find it much worse in (86) than in (85). Thus, when the w/z-element moves overtly in (85), possibly through Spec AGRoP, the sentence is more acceptable even though in English, whom is disappearing. In (86), the movement is covert and the overtly Case marked result is less acceptable. A solution to this problem within Minimalist assumptions is extremely hard to find. One would have to link overt morphology on whom to having to check strong features in C but not on her in (87). This solution is rejected for Arabic in chapter 1. When whom appears as in (85) one would have to say that the w/z-element moves through Spec AGRoP overtly; when who appears, the trace of the w/z-element moves to Spec AGRoP covertly. Alternatively, one could argue that verbs and NPs move overtly in English. I will entertain this possibility in chapter 7. Then, (84) and (87) would be derived similarly but there would be no explanation for the difference between (87) and (86). The data from Arabic (as in e.g. Fehri 1993: 60) confirm that w/z-elements and NPs behave similarly in triggering agreement on the verb. Hence, both move through the Spec of AGRsP (otherwise an expletive would determine the agreement). WTz-elements in French move to/through Spec AGRoP in past participle (cf. chapter 2) constructions as well. Therefore, I assume that w/z-elements move through Spec AgroP overtly, leaving (85) and (86) unexplained. W/z-elements that are objects to prepositions do not display any problematic corelations between overt Case and movement. (Ί spoke to whom' is just as acceptable as 'To whom did I speak')· The reason is that the Case checking is PP-internal. Up to now, I have discussed movement assuming it occurs because of w/z-agreement. In English, this agreement comes about through Spec-Head agreement and as a result, nothing special is expected. The same is true for verbal agreement in these constructions. The subject moves to Spec AGRsP to check the strong D-features, regardless of the w/z-element in C. In some dialects, as mentioned in 4.1.1, the function of the w/z-element is comparable to that of an expletive because it provides the phi-features for the verb. In Standard English, this is not the case. Overt and covert w/z-movement do not influence the agreement on the verb

83

which is expected if Spec Head Agreement between the Subject and the verb is reponsible for agreement. In the next section, I discuss a case where overt movement results in different agreement from covert movement.

4.4.2 Chamorro: Expletives and Wh-Agreement Chung (1982; 1994) shows that in Chamorro, an Austronesian language, agreement occurs between a verb and a ννΛ-element as in (88). If the ννΛ-element is a subject (to an ergative realis verb) as in (88), the verb will be marked for that subject with an infix -urn- whereas in a declarative sentence, a third person singular agreement marker is present, i.e. ha- as in (89): 88.

89.

Hayi f-um-a'gasi i kareta, Who UM-wash the car 'Who washed the car'. Ha-fa'gasi si Juan i kareta, E3S-wash Juan the car 'Juan washed the car'. (Chung 1982: 49)

Contrasting overt and covert wh-movement, in sentences (88) and (90) repectively, shows that only when the ννΛ-element moves to the left of the clause is there agreement on the verb, through Spec-Head Agreement. In (90), hafa 'what' moves to the Specifier of the lower CP and the agreement (-in-) marker on the nominalized verb appears only on the lower verb. When it stays in situ, there is no agreement on the lower verb either: 90.

Ha-sangan-i yu' si Maria [hafa f-in-ahan-na gi tenda], E3S-say-Dat me Maria what IN-buy-NM-her to store 'Maria told me what she bought at the store'. (Chung 1982: 52)

To account for these sentences, one could assume an expletive. If a ννΛ-element moves before SPELL-OUT as in (88), this is because (a) the features in C are strong and Spec-Head agreement occurs, or (b) an expletive is inserted which triggers Λο-agreement as in (90) on the main verb. Chamorro seems to have the option between these two alternatives. I am assuming the verb moves to C to check the realis features there because only in cases of realis verbs does the ννΛ-element agree with the verb. This assumption is not crucial. The situation is more interesting, however. If the ννΛ-element originates in a lower clause, the verb is marked for the function that the clause has from which the ννΛ-element has moved:

84

91.

Hafa um-istotba hao ni malago'-na i lahi-mu, what UM-disturb you that want-NM-his the son-your 'What does it disturb you that your son wants'. (Chung 1982: 54)

Thus in (91), hafa is extracted out of the sentential subject and first triggers object agreement on the lower verb (i.e. nominalization of the verb) and then it triggers subject agreement on the higher verb. The conclusion for Chamorro is that the overtness/covertness of w/z-movement has ramifications for agreement because the verb does not always check its features with a covertly moved w/z-element in a Spec-Head relationship.

4.4.3 Tohono O'odham: Wh-Checking under Government In Tohono O'odham (a Uto-Aztecan language, spoken in Southern Arizona and previously called Papago), w/z-elements can occur preceding or following the auxiliary. The auxiliary is (mostly) the second constituent and can be seen as occupying C. Other elements such as negation, subject, object or main verb precede the auxiliary. When the w/z-element precedes C, as in (92), it is different in shape than when it follows C, as in (93). In addition, the morphology on the auxiliary is special when the w/z-element follows it: 92.

93.

94.

Do: Ό kudut g 'ali? who AUX-3IMPF bother-IMPF the baby 'Who is/was bothering the baby?' (Zepeda 1983: 53) K hcdai soak? AUX-3 who cry-S.IMPF 'Who is/was crying?' (Ku)m hascu hihidod 'a:pim? AUX-2P what cook-P.IMPF you-P 'What are you cooking?' (Zepeda 1983: 55)

In (92), do: 'who' appears in pre-AUX position whereas in (93) and (94), hedai 'who' and hascu 'what' appear in post-AUX position. The w/z-element is not in-situ but moves to postAUX position, as (94) shows. I will argue this movement occurs to check the features of the w/z-element under government. The auxiliary has a different shape as well depending on whether the w/z-element precedes or follows it: its 'regular' shape is that of (92), i.e. the one that is used in non-w/z constructions as well; and, a 'special' shape in (93) and (94). In (92), the w/z-element is in a Spec-Head relationship with C and the [will-features are checked in this way. In (93) and (94), this is not the case and the [wh]-feature is checked under government. If (93) and (94) were cases of wh-in-situ, there would be no reason for

85

hedai to be required to move immediately to the right of the auxiliary in C45. Thus, O'odham checks the [wh]-features either under Spec-head or under government. As in the Case of subjects, discussed in chapter 3, there is a difference in morphological spell-out. There is evidence for this analysis from Hopi, a related Uto-Aztecan language of NorthEast Arizona. Verbs do not move to second position and sentences such as (92), with special w/z-forms and auxiliary forms do not occur. The form for the w/i-element is identical to that of the indefinite pronoun (cf. Kalectaca, 1978: 102 ff.; Jeanne, 1978: 178-9).

4.5

Conclusion

In chapter 4,1 have accounted for some of the cases of verbal 'disagreement' in interrogative and relative clauses. Some of these phenomena can be accounted for by separating the Case and agreement features. Others are accounted for by assuming a more complete set of features in Middle English relative pronouns than what is assumed for those in Modern English. Agreement in relative clauses can then be accounted for by means of the predication rule in (37) which I refine as (81). In the last section (4.4), I argue that the w/i-agreement between the ννΛ-element and C comes about in two different ways and that the so-called covert movement (wh-in-situ) cases are (a) Spec-Head agreement with an expletive (Chamorro) or (b) checking under government (Tohono O'odham). Thus, verbal agreement in ννΛ-constructions is similar to that in other constructions.

45

A note on hedai. It can be used as a demonstrative; as an indefinite pronoun when preceded by pi 'not'; and as a relative pronoun in (93). This is common among languages, e.g. that in English.

5

The History of There46

5.0

Outline

In this chapter, I assume the analysis of feature checking as in chapter 3. I will argue that in earlier stages of English, the features triggering V-movement are in C and that the features triggering NP-movement are in V or C47. As a result, expletives are not (as) needed. For other Verb-second languages such as Dutch and German, the same can be argued. The relevant features are checked by elements either in a Spec-Head relationship or (more often) by elements governed by V or C. Hulk & van Kemenade (1993) call these C-oriented languages. I argue that these languages do not in general need overt expletives, as Modern English does, because the strong categorial features, connected to Functional Categories, are absent. The change in English is that verbs cease to move to C (cf. van Kemenade 1987) and that the features triggering movement come to be situated in I, i.e. the T/AGRs complex, and that they need to be checked in a Spec-Head relationship. This is why I argue that expletives need to be inserted in the Specifier of IP. The 'looser' word order in older versions is accounted for because the features are less 'tied' to I. The reason behind the change to a less 'loose' word order is the introduction of the I-position (cf. van Gelderen 1993) with strong categorial features. The main points of this chapter are: (a) to relate the appearance of expletives and the activation of Spec-Head agreement with the introduction of a Functional Category, and (b) to argue that there grammatical izes from a demonstrative to a relative to an existential and that agreement between the verb and the existential is introduced. In 5.1, I summarize the conclusions of chapters 3 and 4 relevant for this chapter. Section 5.2 is organized chronologically rather than by argument. I discuss the Old and Early Middle English situation where existentials are not in existence (5.2.1 and 5.2.2); the introduction of expletive there around 1380 (5.2.3); and the situation of clear existential use of there (5.2.4). In 5.3, I examine the implications for the theory of grammaticalization if one considers the developments around there as grammaticalization. Note that in talking about expletives, I mean non-arguments and not unspecified elements. In later chapters, I argue that expletives can be more or less specified.

46

47

As in the previous chapter, I make use of computer-readable versions of Layamon's Brut and Chaucer's Canterbury Tales as provided by the Oxford Text Archive, using TACT. I have examined all uses of 'there' in the Royal MS of Katherine and a substantial number in Mandeville's Travels. I will not examine whether Old English is a partial or full Verb-second language. Certainly in the oldest stages, Verb-movement seems triggered by wA-elements etc. as Kiparsky (1995) argues.

88

5.1

The Theory of 'Floating' Features

In chapters 3 and 4, it is argued that Case and agreement features are not tied to one particular node, i.e. they 'float'. For instance, the Kimball & Aissen data are analysed as (1), Dutch sentences as in (2) and Dutch double object verbs as (3) (I am leaving out the categorial features and the light verb, for the sake of simplicity):

1.

think t; are in the garden C dat [Case]

Spec Ingrid NP Klaas

V zag

In these structures, agreement and Case are either in C or in V. If they are in C, the element that needs to check its nominative must be adjacent to C as in (2). If the features were placed in V, the sentence would be ungrammatical because the subject is not governed by V. In a passive sentence, the 'subject' is governed by the verb because it is the original object. In this way, the features could be either on C as in (2) or on V as in (3). Thus, the features can be checked by V or C and under government. In chapter 3, the mechanism is worked out through which the features are checked in C. The structure is repeated in (4):

4.

89

In Dutch, the NP does not need to move to the Specifier position because it checks its Casefeatures under government. The verb in Dutch checks its phi-features through C in a HeadHead checking relationship. The features in the Complementizer are checked in the government relationship with the subject, except that in Dutch there is no spell-out of the phifeatures in C. If the categorial D-features do not trigger NP-movement, there is no need to insert an expletive either. I now give some instances from Modern Dutch. There are two expletives in Dutch, er 'there' and het 'it'. The latter is used with weather verbs as in (5) and in extraposition cases as in (6). Het also refers to objects as in (7). This expletive is not optional (as (8) shows) because it checks the non-Interpretable Case features in C: 5. 6. 7.

8.

Het regent, 'It rains'. Het is duidelijk dat het regent, 'It is clear that it rains'. Ik zag het, Ί saw it'. *Ik weet dat e duidelijk is dat e regent, I know that clear is that rains

Er in (9), in contrast to het, is optional because it is not an argument. It is only obligatory to satisfy the 'Verb-second constraint': 9.

Gisteren werd (er) verboden vuurwerk af te steken, yesterday was (there) forbidden firework to set off 'Yesterday it became prohibited to set of fire crackers'.

In (9), the agent is not present because the construction is passive and hence, er appears optionally. In summary, I argue in 5.1 that the I-position is less relevant in Dutch and that expletives are too. The picture that emerges for C-oriented languages is that C contains categorial Vfeatures and, optionally, Case and agreement features. No D-features are present.

5.2

The Introduction of There

5.2.1 Old English In Old English, the orthographic variants of there are used for locative and demonstrative use. For the genitive and dative demonstratives used with feminine Nouns and for genitive plurals, early forms of there, such as pare and para, are used. Expletives are said to have been introduced in Middle English because the word order becomes SVO and the there-VerbSubject structures could be reanalysed SV once there is seen as a subject (cf. Haiman 1974

90 who links Verb-second and there-insertion). I will argue that the rigidification of SVO is really the introduction of a Specifier position (with categorial features) around 1380 and it is Spec-Head Agreement that makes expletives necessary. The problem in determining when there becomes an expletive is that facts from number agreement are inconclusive. If there is not an expletive, one expects the verb to agree with the real subject; if it is an expletive, its features must match those of the postverbal NP. Thus, Early Middle English constructions such as (10) and (11) are ambiguous between there being a locative and the verb agreeing with the (postverbal or relative) subject on the one hand and there being an expletive without features on the other. Only after the complete rigidification of the SV word order must there in (10) and (11) be seen as a subject and as 'defective' in features (and in terms of section I, waiting till LF for the features to be checked): 10.

II.

Katherine 34 (Royal and Bodley Mss are the same in this line) be lut b ter weren, 'the few that there were'. Handlyng Synne 4001 per were twey men, 'There were two men'.

It is hard to find clear existential constructions in Old and Middle English (cf. Butler 1980: 247). The one Old English existential Butler finds is with dcet in (12), which is expected if, as I will argue, dcet and frere are similar in their development. It is, however, problematic for Butler. He finds only two clear Early Middle English examples in the Ancrenne Wisse with existential/>er and a number of later Middle English ones with both it and per in Richard Rolle and Chaucer: 12.

/Elfred, Boethius C 55, 28 Ac Oaet nis nan man bte sumes eacan ne öyrfe, buton Code anum. 'But there not is no man that some addition not needs, except God alone'. (Butler, 1980: 268)

Of course dcet is used to introduce clauses quite regularly, as in (13). Here, that is said to be a demonstrative: 13.

Beowulf, 290 Ic J>aet gehyre, bst öis is hold weorod, I that hear, that this is a faithful army hear that this is a faithful army'.

Butler (1980: 277-284) assumes the origin of the existential to be the locative adverb (cf. also Lyons 1967). The existential use of it cannot, according to him, have "had a history parallel to the history of existential there" because it occurs rather late (p. 285). Butler (1981: 287)

91

further says he has no satisfactory explanation for the existential use of that but that it is not widespread. If the expletive derives from the demonstrative pronouns para and pare**, as I argue in 5.3, through a process of grammaticalization in which the pronoun gradually loses features, the development of that, also a demonstrative, is expected to run parallel to that of there. There are texts where poet and pere both appear as relatives, e.g. in the Otho version of Layamon. They later lose their number and person features as relatives as the following observation by Anklam (1908: 83) indicates for Old English: "bara be kam trotz des pluralen para im Relativsätze den Singular oder Plural nach sich haben" ['Even though bara is plural bare be can have a singular or plural verb following it']. I have mentioned this in the previous chapter and it means that para was perhaps well suited to become an expletive since it lacked some number features. Stoelke (1916: 55) and Visser (1963: 88) cite examples where para pe brings about singular agreement on the verb. Grossman (1906: 56ff) provides many similar Old English examples as well as a few examples where the verb is in the plural. In conclusion, in Old English, expletives do not occur except perhaps for (12). There is a relative that is unspecified for number and is therefore 'fit' to become expletive, namely para. The reason expletives do not generally occur is that there is no Specifier to IP position since there is no I-position, as I have argued in van Gelderen (1993) and which I will elaborate on the next section. For instance, modals function as main verbs (cf. e.g. Lightfoot 1979; van Kemenade 1993), to is a prefix on the verb and Accusative-with-Infmitive constructions do not occur. All this points to I not being used49.

5.2.2 Early Middle English In this section, I show that neither Layamon's Brut nor Katherine, both from the 13th century, contain expletives. I relate this to the absence of the I-position. 5.2.2.1

Layamon's Brut

Between the earlier version of Layamon's Brut, Caligula, estimated to have been written down between 1205 and 1250 and the later version, Otho, possibly from around 1275, there are quite a number of differences. In syntactical terms, the word order is still OV, with more VO in the later version. The rule of Verb-second applies and Case is still indicated frequently. For instance, in Caligula but less so in Otho, both a dative and accusative pronominal form is present. There is a shift among there-forms as well which I indicate below.

48 49

Roger Lass (p.c) points out that the feminine is not usually generalized and that therefore the scenario sketched is unlikely. Fischer (1994) argues a similar point, namely that the fo-infinitive changes from being Case marked to being tense marked in late Middle English.

92

In Layamon, there is still a locative and does not yet function as expletive. As noted before, it is hard to determine whether the expletive there is existential as in the sentences below from Layamon's Brut (both versions are listed) (In (14) to (23), the plural is marked on the verb where appropriate): 14.

15. 16.

17. 18.

19. 20.

21.

22.

23.

Layamon's Brut, Caligula, 768 J)er wes moni steap mon. mid stele to-swngen, There was many prominent men with steel struck 'Many bold men were struck with steel'. Otho, idem J>ar was many bold man. mid s(t)ele to-hewe. Cal. 742, |>er weoren men faeie, There were men doomed/mortally wounded'. Otho, idem Jjare were men veie. Cal. 936 Jier wes moni wifmon, There were many women'. Otho, idem l>ar was many wimmon. Cal. 2548-9 l>er weore segge songe. Jier were pipen i-magge. J>er wes swa muchel murehöe, there were of people songs, there were piping among, there was so much merriness Otho, idem J)ar was gleomenne songe. fear was piping among. bar was so mochel murhpe, there was of the minstrels song, there were piping among, there was so much merriness Cal. 9121 pa weoren her pritti pusend, Then were there thirty thousand'. Otho, idem bo weren fear britti busend.

Sentences (22) and (23) are probably not relevant because numerals are regarded as singular in many languages (cf. chapter 1); examples such as (18) and (19) may also not be relevant because many is included, which makes a (Middle English) NP singular. The other sentences indicate that there is not an existential. Layamon is interesting in that the two versions, Caligula and Otho, differ in a number of ways. In Caligula and Otho, 'there' occurs in the following numbers and shapes. In addition, in Caligula, pear and pecer occur once:

93

Caligula Otho

per pere 1196 365 41 17

par 55 780

pare 63 372

peer 46 1

pcere, 42 0

There are no instances of ter or tear in Caligula or Otho. The shift between these texts is fromper(e) topar(e). This is due to sound variation (the Northern variant is par whereas the Southern variant is per) and it also occurs, for instance, from wes (2169 in Caligula, but 10 in Otho) to was (143 in Caligula and 1712 in Otho). See, for instance, (14) and (15) above50. There is a slight change in that the form ending in -e, usual in demonstratives, is employed less in Otho. There are fewer demonstratives among these forms in Otho, but more relatives, compared to Caligula. For instance, examining a random 60 pares in Otho, 19 are demonstratives, 6 are relatives and the remaining 35 are locatives or unclear existentials. In Caligula, of a comparable number of peres, 45 are determiners and none are relatives. Thus, between Caligula and Otho, there is an increase in the -e form as relative pronoun as in (24) and (25): 24.

25.

Otho, 700 bat londe J>are Britayne nou stondeb, 'that land where Britain now stands'. Idem, 708 bat hii to bare see verde |>are lai be ferde, that they to that sea went where lay the army 'that they went to the sea where their army lay'.

These facts point to pere losing its demonstrative force and acquiring other functions, namely, the relative one. The same increase in relative function can be observed with that in Otho, but not Caligula, as (26) to (29) show. Thus, in Otho, both there and that become relatives. 26.

27. 28.

29.

50

Caligula, 10 aefter ban flode. |>e from Drihtene com, after the flood which from the Lord came Otho, idem after ban flode. l>at fram God com. Caligula, 13 7 heore four wiues. f»e mid heom weren on archen, and their four wives who with them were on the Ark 'and their four wives who accompanied them on the Ark'. Otho, idem and hire four wifes. J>at mid ham pere weren. It is also expected that Otho has no wees but that Caligula has such forms (I counted 66) since fxer(e) occurs in Caligula but not in Otho.

94 The distinction between the shapes of 'there' in these two texts is orthographically made for vowel quality and for vowel ending. Pere and pare are used mainly as demonstratives in Caligula and Otho with feminine Nouns such as stowe 'place' in (30) and (31) and with plural Nouns. This use goes back to Old English, outlined above, where the genitive and dative of feminine Nouns as well as all genitive plurals are formed this way (cf. Campbell 1959: 290). They are also used as adverbs in (32) and (33) and potentially as existentials in (34) in Otho but not in Caligula as (35) shows. Looking at the context, it is most likely that pere/pare are locational adverbs, however, which is the reason the context is given in (32) and (33). The potential existential use is much more limited with pare/pere than with the endingless forms to be discussed below (for instance, 8 possible existential pares in Otho, but many potential existential pars in Otho51): 30.

31. 32.

33.

34.

35.

Cal. 589 he ferde to l»ere stowe, He went to DEM-F.DAT place-F.DAT 'He went to that place'. Otho, idem he verde to pare stouwe. Cal. 341 t»a wes pere a wel-ibore mon. Anacletus wes ihaten. mid bes kinges broöer he was itaken. 7 per laei inne benden. 'Then was there a well-born man, Anacletus was (he) called, with the king's brother he was taken, and there (he) lay in chains'. Otho, idem £o was pare a wel-ibore man. Anacletus ihote. mid bis kinges brober he was itake. and ber lai in bende. Otho, 454 (also 1231, 2266) Pare was mani riche man. bat lutel cube of reades, 'there were many rich men, who could read a little'. Caligula, idem Per wes moni riche mon. be cuöe lutel reden.

Per, peer and par are never used as demonstratives, only as locatives as in (36) or potentially existential, as in (35): 36.

51

Otho 765 par be king wollde forp, 'there the king wanted forth'.

In the first 1000 lines, there are 13 occurences.

95 The change then between Caligula and Otho is from per to par and from pere to pare. The form without the -e ending is more grammaticalized because it is also (very frequently52) used as a clitic object to a preposition as in (37) and (38):

37.

38.

Cal. 198 7 al pat ligginde lond. pe p«r-abuten lei, and all the lying land which lay there-about 'and all the land which was around (them)'. Otho, idem and al bat ligginde lond. be |>er-abute lay.

Summarizing, in Layamon, there is no evidence of a clear expletive, but in Otho, there is evidence for the change from demonstrative to relative because the demonstrative form loses influence. This same form is also used more as a relative, cf. (24) and (25) above. How can this absence of an expletive be explained? Earlier, I mentioned that older versions of English do not have evidence for an I position. This is also the case in both versions of Layamon (as I argue in van Gelderen 1993), even though there are differences between the two. One of the indications for a separate I position is the independence of infinitival to. To is not independent of the verb in (39) or of the Complementizer in (40). It does not occur as in Modern English constructions such as (41), where the to is separate from its verbal part: 39.

40. 41.

Cal. 8874 heo wenden hine to finden, they went (in order) him to find They went to find him'. Otho, 8490 for to hine finde. I tried to not read and he tried to also.

Another indication for a separate I-position in Modern English is the behavior of modals. They can never be used together or used as lexical verbs. In Layamon, this is not the case, as (42) shows:

42.

Cal. 1783 Wenne bu wult more suluer, 'When you want more silver'.

To summarize, Layamon's Brut does not include evidence for the existential use of there. The reason is the same as the one in Old English, namely the lack of a Spec IP. 52

To give an idea about the frequency, in Caligula per-after occurs 29 times, per-aefter 19 times, per-fore 42 times, per-inne 32 times, per-to 29 times and many others.

96 5.2.2.2

Katherine

Kathenne is a text from around 1230. There are several versions and I will use the Royal version, but will on occasion mention the Bodley edition. There is Verb-movement (Verbsecond) and quite a lot of verbal inflection but the word order is predominantly VO and dative pronouns are not distinguished from accusative ones. Thus, this text is in many respects 'more modern' than Layamon. This can also be seen from the more grammatical use of there, even though there are no completely clear examples of expletives. The lack of there (according to a Modern English bias) is shown in (43) to (45): 43.

44.

45.

Katherine 51 b poure ba 't riche comen beforen him, the poor both and rich came before him. (Bodley has per after comen) Katherine 64-5 In bis ilke burh wes wuniende a meiden, in the same city was living a maiden. Katherine 2453-4 I p ilke stude, anan, iwuröen twa wundres, in the same place, instantly, became two miracles 'In the same place, two miracles occurred instantly'.

Evidence for an I position is not available in this text. For instance, the behavior of to, as in (46) shows that to immediately precedes the verb. If it were placed in an I position, it should precede the object, but (47) is unattested (which I indicate by means of %). Modals are used as main verbs in (48): 46.

47. 48.

Katherine 652 me to underneomene, me to tempt 'to tempt me'. %to me underneomene. Katherine 523 p clerc ah to cunnen, 'which clerks ought to know'.

This situation is comparable to that in Caligula and one would therefore not expect expletive there either. This prediction is borne out, as I will now show. Ther is no longer used demonstratively and per, the form that is used as a relative (i.e. that is grammaticalized), is used more often than other variants and is also used as a potential existential. A remarkable difference between Katherine and Layamon's Brut is that the ending -e (pere and pare in Layamon) has disappeared. Its use in Layamon finds an explanation if the relative pronoun is seen as related to the demonstrative. In Katherine, this relationship is no longer present and hence the ending disappears.

97 In the Royal version of Katherine, there is only one instance of pear as in (49): 49.

Katherine 8 't wunede summe while pear, 'and lived some time there'.

This use of there is clearly locative. Both ter and per can be used as locatives and possibly as existentials. Per is used for relatives as in (50) as well as locatives, but only one out of 21 is possibly existential, namely (51) and since goad is singular, no conclusions about the number features of the expletive can be reached. Neither can it be determined whether the expletive really serves as 'subject', because no other locational element is present: 50.

51.

Katherine 1827-8 i be liunes leohe, l>er he in lutede, 'in the lion's den, where he in lay'. Idem, 280 Ah per nis buten an godd, but there not-is except one god There is only one god'.

Per can also be cliticized onto Prepositions, indicating that they are (pro)nominal rather than adverbial. Most of these are written as one word, but some are orthographically separate as in53: 52.

53.

Katherine 1936 't bisiÖ per upon, 'and looks there upon'. Idem, 2008 't seien per abuten, 'and sat there about'.

The other uses of per in the Royal are listed below. Of these, two are relatives and the others are locatives; none is unambiguously existential: 54.

55.

53

Katherine 123 ah nes per nan b mahte wrenchen hire, 'but there was none that might entice her'. Idem, 159 Ifont per swioe feole, '(She) found there very many'.

Examples can be found in lines 299, 387, 1473, 1652, 1936, 1997, and 2008.

98

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

66.

67.

68.

69.

Idem, 1186-7 be treo/per he deide upon, 'the tree upon which he died'. Idem, 1254 cwich ne cweö per neuer an, 'moved nor spoke there never one'. Idem, 1275 't tah per ma weren, 'and though there more were'. Idem, 1407 per ha heuen up, 'there they lifted up'. Idem, 1471 p alle p per bigaö greten hit pi nome, 'that all who there pass by greet it in thy name' Idem, 1680 for J>er is a liht, 'for there is a light'. Idem, 1684 ne eileö per na mon, 'nor afflicts there no man'. Idem, 1707 hwucche wihtes per beon, 'what beings there are'. Idem, 1708 per as al pis blisse is, 'there where all this happiness is'. Idem, 1709 3ef per is orcost, 'if there is wealth'. Idem, 1713 al is per ihwer, 'all is there everywhere'. Idem, 1751 per as me rihte me bileaue, there where me corrected my faith 'There where my faith corrected me'. Idem, 1752 per me unwreah me be wei, 'there someone revealed me the way'. Idem, 1754 per as me liueö aa, 'there where men lived for ever'.

99

70.

71.

72.

73.

Idem, 1935 hwen ha J)er bisit, 'when she there sits'. Idem, 2012 l>er me mahte iheren 'there one might hear'. Idem, 2466-7 I>er Moyses fatte be lahe, 'where Moses received the law'. Idem, 2472 l>er ure lauerd wurcheö, 'there our Lord worked'.

Ter is used for locatives and possibly for existentials as in (10) above, but not for relatives. There are fewer of these forms. Not one is clearly existential and only one is cliticized as (75) shows. They are listed in (74) to (82): 74.

75.

76.

77.

78.

79

80

Katherine, 23 b ter he atstutte, 'that there he stopped'. Idem, 1652 t al b terin is, 'and all that therin is'. Idem, 1682 Ne niht nis ter neauer, No night not-is there never 'It is never night there'. Idem, 1689 for nis ter nawt bittres, for not-is there nothing bitter 'because nothing bitter exists there'. Idem, 1714-5 't hwetse noht wurö nis, p nis ter nohwer, whatsoever no worth not-is, that not-is there nowhere 'whatsoever is good is there everywhere'. Idem, 2009 b ter weren isleine, 'that there were slain'. Idem, 2416 b ter ne com a steuene, 'than there (not) came a voice'.

100

81.

82.

Idem, 2456-7 b ter sprong ut, ..., mile imenget wiö blöd, 'there sprang out, ..., milk mixed with blood'. Idem, 2477 b ter rinnep aa mare, 'that there runs ever more ...'

Thus for the Royal version, one of the variants is possibly becoming existential and this form is identical to the relative. This supports my later (section 4.3) assumption that relative pronouns become general pronouns. In the Royal Ms (but as far as I can tell, the same holds in the Bodley), it could be argued that per is the more grammaticalized form, since it occurs as a possible existential in (51) above, as a relative pronoun in (50) above and as a cliticized prepositional object in (52) and (53) above. Summarizing the situation in Katherine, one can argue that the difference between pear, ter and per is that the latter is more grammatical ized than the former two in that per (a) is used as relative pronoun, (b) is used as a clitic object to a Preposition, and (c) is a potential existential expletive. There is, however, no evidence for there as an expletive, which fits with the non-occurence of an I-position.

5.2.3

The Introduction of Expletive There

5.2.3.1 Wyclif There are many versions of "Wyclif s" Bible translation. Forshall & Madden (1850) print two versions, and base themselves on four Manuscripts for the earlier version and on one for the later version. The earlier one is ascribed by some people to de Hereford, working from 13802. The second is sometimes seen as the work of Purvey and as completed in 1395. De Groot (1959, II) provides an edition of The Gospel of John taken from Wyclif's Sermons. De Groot (1959,1: 91ff.) gives a reason why this version is preferable: "de Hereford's version abounds in literal renderings which are hardly intelligible. It was for this reason that Wyclif and Purvey undertook their translations" (p. 91) and "it is obvious that de Hereford's translation ranks lowest due to this slavish adherence to the Latin". A real problem with Forshall & Madden is that their edition is too much a mixture of manuscripts and hence inconsistent. For my purposes, the authorship is not important. I examine differences between the different versions because quite a number of changes in the use of there occur. In the text from the Sermons, edited by de Groot, existential there occurs quite freely. I wHl first examine the use of existential there and then the evidence for an I-position. To examine Wyclif's use of there, I have gone through de Groot's edition of The Gospel of John in which the Latin Vulgate, de Hereford's (also roughly the same as the first version of Forshall & Madden) and Wyclif s versions appear. Locative there appears in both Middle English versions, as in (83) and (84), with ibi 'there' in the Latin version in (85). There are quite a number of clear expletives as in (86) and (87) in Wyclif but fewer in de Hereford, as

101

(88) and (89) show, because the latter's translation is close to the Latin original, where expletives do not appear and where ibi is a locative adverb. The Latin of (86) and (88) is (90); the Latin of (87) and (89) is (91). So once the Latin text does not include a locative, it is likely that the there occuring in the English edition is an expletive: 83. 84. 85.

86. 87. 88. 89. 90.

91.

John, de Hereford, IV, 6 Forsoth the welle of Jacob was there. Idem, Wyclif And ther was the welle of Jacob. Idem, Vulgate erat autem ibi fons iacob, was moreover there well Jacob 'Moreover, the well of Jacob was there'. John, Wyclif, IV, 7 Ther cam a womman of Samarye. Idem, V, 5 And ther was a man there. John, de Hereford, IV, 7 A womman came of Samarie. Idem, V, 5 Forsothe sum man was there. Vulgate, John, IV, 7 uenit mulier de samaria, came (a) woman of Samaria There came a woman of Samaria'. Idem, V, 5 erat autem quidam homo ibi, was indeed some man there There was indeed some man there'.

There are some expletive thers in de Hereford, but these are rare compared to the later version. It seems that both versions make an orthographic distinction. The existentials are usually ther, whereas the locatives are there. The insertion of ther where the Latin original has no ibi and where another locative there occurs as in (86) and (87) provides evidence that expletives are used in Wyclif (even quite regularly: 8 times in the first 5 books of John). The occurrence of these expletives is even more surprising considering that it is a translation from an original without expletives. If the introduction of expletive ther(e) is due to the introduction of a Specifier position, one expects evidence for an I-position as well. This is indeed the case and I will turn to that now. In van Gelderen (1993), I argue that changes in the behavior of modals and of to provide evidence for the occurrence of a special position. In Wyclif, such evidence can be found: modals no longer occur at the same time (cf. Lightfoot 1979) and Accusative-with-infinitives occur, as in (92) and (93). Lindberg (1978: 42-3) mentions 16 occurences in the early edition

102

he compiled of The Prefatory Epistles of St Jerome5*. To can also be separated from its verbal part as in (94) and (95). The latter example is two lines away from (93) in the same manuscript of The Prefatory Epistles. This points to a special position (I) being present. This position has strong categorial features (as in the Modern English situation, outlined in chapter 1) and expletives check these features: 92.

93.

94.

95.

Luke II, 44 Forsothe thei gessinge him to be in the felowshipe. (Forshall & Madden, first version). Prefatory Epistles of Jerome, VII, 160 We knowen the writer of hem, luke, to ben a physician. (Visser 1963-1973: 1041; but Lindberg 1979 numbers it VII, 22S-9)55 4 Kings, XII, 8 The prestis ben forfended to eny more takyn monee of the puple. (Visser 1963-1973: 1041) Prefatory Epistles of St Jerome, VII, 224-5 betere to ben stille ban to fewe thingis writen.

V-to-C movement still occurs in the later version as in (96). Hence, the introduction of there is not linked to the demise of V-to-C: 96.

John, Wyclif, XVIII, 26 Saw Υ thee not in the 3erd with him?

In conclusion to Wyclif, there are many expletive theres. This can be related to the appearance of an I-position, evident from the introduction of accusative-with-infinitives and split infinitives. Once an I-position appears, it has nominal categorial features that need to be checked by a nominal element.

5.2.3.2

Chaucer

In Chaucer, who like Wyclif writes in the latter part of the 14th Century, the rule of Verbsecond is optional and the word order is VO. There is evidence that an I is used since modals and do are used in their Modern English meanings, as in (97) and (98). To is often together

54

55

Warner (1982: 14Iff.) that the later version has fewer NP to VP complements than does the early version. He attributes the use of Accusatives-with-Infinitives in the early version to Latin influence. Forshall & Madden's rendering of this sentence is (i): i. and for we knowen the wryter of hem luke to ben a phisisian.

103

with for, but Accusative-with-Infinitive constructions occur (cf. e.g. Visser 1963-1973: 2309) and a split infinitive56 as in (99): 97.

The Reeve's Tale I, 4034 It shal be doon. Idem, I, 4025 how now, what do ye heer? Troilus and Criseyde, 365-67 to seye to the, that art the man that I best triste; And peril non was it to the bywreye.

98. 99.

V-to-I-movement occurs in (103) and (104), indicating that to is separate. All these indicate that some use is made of an I-position in Chaucer. In Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, ther is used 653 times but it is still often unclear whether it is existential as in (100) to (102); sentences (103) to (107) are clearer cases: 100. 101. 102.

Canterbury Tales Prologue, 79 With hym ther was his sone. Idem, 2589 Ther nere swiche compaignyes tweye. Idem, 544 ther were namo.

103. 104. 105. 106. 107.

Knight's Tale 2043 And over his heed ther shynen two figures. Idem, 2118 With hym ther wenten knyghtes many on. Idem, 134 that in hir coppe ther was no ferthyng sene. Idem, 578 ther were a duszeyne in that hous. Idem, 2366 ther is namoore to seye.

If these are instances of expletives, i.e. subjects inserted because certain features are situated in I, these sentences indicate that the expletive is unspecified for number. Hence, these constructions are as in Modern English.

56

Visser (1963-1973: 1039) mentions a number of split infinitives but most are where forto is separate of the infinitive. These do not show that to is in a separate position. I have looked through all the 3818 instances of to in the Canterbury Tales and, apart from (99), I have found no split infinitives or pro-infinitives there.

104 Ther is used as a relative in combination with as quite frequently as in (108). The number of these in the Canterbury Tales is 63, with 3 occurrences of theras and 1 of ther-as (136 there as only) (cf. Winkler 1933: 12; 61; 77): 108.

Canterbury Tales, Prologue, 34 To take oure wey ther as I yow devyse,

The clitics too seem to be mainly formed with ther (e.g. there are 4 therefore, but 191 therfore) again indicating that ther is more pronominalized. Of 59 theres in the Canterbury Tales, only 5 are possibly existential as in (109); (110) is relative. In all other instances, there is locative as in (111): 109. 110. 111.

The Miller's Tale, 3253 there nys no man so wys that koude thenche. The Parson 's Tale, 810 And eek to chastise, there as nede is. Prologue, 825 and there oure hoost bigan his hors areste.

Thar, theere and theer are used infrequently but not existentially. Thus, in Chaucer's Canterbury Tales there are 59 occurences of there, 653 of ther, 3 of theere, 1 of theer, 0 of thare, 5 of thar. None of these forms is demonstrative, some are existential and none seem to have any features of their own. In conclusion to Chaucer, there is some expletive use as in (103) to (106). This, I argue, is due to the presence of an I-position.

5.2.4 Early Modern English In Mandeville's Travels, the ambiguity of there between a locative and an expletive continues, but there are a number of clear expletives, as one would expect. In this section, I examine the implications for agreement and word order. I also examine the interaction with Verbmovement in the Paston Letters and Shakespeare. For Late Middle English and Early Modern English, Jespersen (1913: 181-3) and van der Meer (1929), among others, provide instances of ambiguous there. The latter says: "The introductory here very often causes the verb to be in the singular in spite of a plural subject" (p. 149). Franz (1909: 563), writing about Shakespeare, says: "There is und here is oder ein singularisches begriffsverb erscheinen häufig als prädikat vor einem pluralischen subjekt" ['There is and here is or a singular lexical verb often appear as predicates before a plural subject']. So, both van der Meer and Franz use the word Often', indicating its unclear status. Singular agreement is expected in a stage where there is an expletive with singular number. The problem is the optionality of singular or plural. There are two ways of dealing with this:

105

either there is sometimes specified for number but not at other times, or it is sometimes an expletive and sometimes a locative. The locative only becomes clearly a subject when inversion no longer occurs regularly with the adverb there. Then, when there precedes the verb, there must be the subject. Before the rigidification of word order, the situation is ambiguous. Even though V-to-C movement still occurs in Mandeville's Travels and Shakespeare, many adverbials do not trigger inversion, as in (113), (114) and (118), and that makes it possible to distinguish some of the expletives. Some instances of existentials57 in Mandeville's Travels are (112) to (119). The context of these sentences makes clear that pere is expletive rather than locative. For instance, in (112), (113), (114) and (117), a location is mentioned in the same sentence and it would be superfluous to use a second (indefinite) locative. In these examples, verbal agreement is with the postverbal NP. This is as expected if Verb-movement is as in Modern English, namely at LF, and if there is losing its number-features: 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119.

Mandeville's Travels, 3-14 her was no general! passage ... ouer the see. Idem, 10-9 Abouten Grece here ben many lies. Idem, 14-18 And forsothe l>ere is a gret merueyle for men may see here the erthe of the tombe. Idem, 14-20 as |)ere weren quykke thinges vnder. Idem, 17-2 here com a voys to him. Idem, 17-12 Jjere is an Erchebysschopp at Nichosie. Idem, 19-25 And in the worschipe of hem J>ere is a fair chirche. Idem, 19-34 t>ere be neuere so meche taken away.

Of all the locatives (89) in the first 20 pages, not counting the ones that are objects of prepositions), about a third does not cause inversion as in (120) and (121) and these instances are unambiguously locative; two-thirds do as in (122) and (123) and these are ambiguous between locative and expletive (there and the inflected verb are in bold): 120.

57

Mandeville's Travels 1-8 And jjere he wolde of his blessedness enoumbre him in ...

There is only one per existential in the first 20 pages; all the others are pere. There is also a locative there and two locative dere.

106 121. 122. 123.

Idem, 18-17 And J>ere oure lord for3af the womman of Chananee hire synnes. Idem, 5-10 here passe men a brigge of stone. Idem, 5-15/16 And here dwelleth comounly the emperour of Grece.

This optional inversion with locatives might indicate that the Categorial V-features in C are sometimes strong and sometimes weak. I reject this possibility in chapter 1 but it may be a sign of the reorientation from a C-oriented to an I-oriented language. Thus, C starts to contain fewer features with the introduction of I. In Shakespeare, V-movement is still optional as well, as (124) shows, and agreement with expletives is still variable. This means that the strong V-features are situated in C and if the Case-features are also in C, a Specifier of IP position is not required. Franz (1909: 170) writes "Is als prädikat erscheint auffällig häufig in beziehung auf einen plural. Der satz wird allerdings meist eingeleitet durch there is [...] oder is geht in anderer Verbindung dem subject voraus" [Predicate is appears strikingly often referring to a plural. The sentence is of course mostly introduced by there is or is precedes the subject some other way] (cf. also Mätzner 1864: 141). That the verb need not only be a form of to be is clear from (124) and (125). Sentences (124) and (125) are instances of VS without overt expletive and (126) and (127) contain an expletive (cf. Abbott 1872: 237-9): 124. 125. 126. 127.

Shakespeare, 2 Henry VI, V, i, 60 Then what intends these Forces thou dost bring. Tempest I, i, 17 What cares these roarers for the name of King. Cymbeline IV, ii, 371 There is no more such Masters. North's Plutarch, 173 There was ... certaine light suspicions and accusations put up against him.

When the sense is that of a list, the verb is singular from Chaucer to Modern English. This is as expected if there in these structures is analyzed as an argument not an expletive (cf. chapter 8 below). Thus, an explanation for the lack of agreement as in (128) and (129) is available in most instances (the verb and postverbal subject are in bold). For instance, in (128), pere is not locative because in all the world is also locative but the agreement can be argued to be with kynde rather than briddes and in (129), the postverbal is a conjoined NP which is independently problematic for agreement: 128.

Mandeville's Travels, 30-32/4 And so pere is no mo briddes of pat kynde in all the world but it allone t treuly bat is a gret myracle of god.

107

129.

Idem, 51-34/5 And bere was in bat tyme many gode holy men t holy heremytes.

The Paston Letters, written throughout the 15th century, indicate a lot of singular agreement on the verb after there (cf. Carstensen 1959: 83). However, among these are many 'list' readings as in (130). Others, e.g. (131), have a numeral as part of the post-verbal NP and are hence exceptions, as mentioned in chapter 1. Most have agreement with the postverbal NP as in (132): 130. 131. 132.

Paston Letters, I, 307 And ther was Ser P. Wentworth and hise brothir, yong Hepton, yong Brewse, ... Paston Letters, I, 429 and wherof ther was xvj. grete schippis of forcecastell. Idem, I, 330 Ther wer neuer Englyshe-men had so good eher owt of Inglond.

In conclusion to 4.2, I have argued that there is no evidence for existential expletives in Old and Early Middle English. The structure of these languages is as in 5.1, with a much more 'powerful' C. Expletives appear around 1380, the time when an I position also appears and the introduction of the expletive can be seen as the result of the introduction of this Functional Category (with strong features). As the expletive is introduced in Spec IP, agreement is mainly with the postverbal NP. This means that, as in Modern English (see next chapter), expletives are unspecified and the phi- and Case-features need to be attracted from the postverbal NP (at LF).

5.3

Grammatical ization

I have argued in this chapter that demonstratives such as para, beet and pcere gradually become relatives (cf. Hopper & Traugott 1993: 186ff.) and expletive pronouns. The evidence for this is that in form, potential expletives and demonstratives are identical, and that the development of that and there run partly parallel, as the expletive use of diet in (12) above shows. The change is not unusual. As Poussa (1994) shows, there are dialects where the article the is used as a pronoun, e.g. as in (133): 133.

I don't think that that's dry the same as that do when that dry theself, Ί don't think that it is dry (in) the same (way) as when it dries (by) itself.

The change is an instance of grammaticalization, but in fact the direction of the change is an interesting one. If one thinks of determiners and relatives as occupying Functional positions as in (134) and (135) and expletives being nominal as in (136), the change goes from functional to lexical. This is the opposite direction of most cases of grammaticalization, e.g. a main verb becoming an auxiliary is a reanalysis of a lexical into a functional category:

108

134.

D that/there 135.

136.

In assuming (136), as in Zwarts (1994), I stress the nominal aspect of pronominals, rather than the deictic aspect. Zwarts' main argument for (136) is that it accounts for the obligatory empty complement. N-to-D movement takes place because of feature checking. The change described from (134) to (136) is reversed in (137) to (139) because the pronoun is used as a demonstrative in this variety of English. In addition, this-here, thesethere, and other combinations can be used as demonstratives: 137. 138. 139.

Them men all work here. That-there medicine ain't no good. I wisht I had one of them-there Fords. (examples and orthography are as in Mencken 1919 [1937]: 451)

Thus, as a result of grammaticalization, it is often said that the expletive derives from the adverbial (place/direction), mainly because as late as the 16th century, the status of there is ambiguous between locative and expletive. It might be argued that it derives from the demonstrative via the relative, as the demonstrative is in form the same as the relative (e.g. in Otho) and the relative is in form the same as the potential existential (e.g. Kathenne). In sentences that seem unambiguously to include an expletive, agreement is with the postverbal NP as in Modern English. Several changes occur at the same time, making the picture murky: (a) there becomes an expletive with no features for number but with D-features, and (b) Verbsecond is lost, i.e. V-features become weak (or disappear) and the verb does not move overtly. So, even though there is ambiguous between expletive and locative, it need not have evolved from it, as is often assumed (cf. Butler 1980; Lyons 1967). The development as indicated in (134) to (136) is an alternative.

109

5.4 Conclusion In this chapter, I suggest that there is a split in languages with respect to the feature checking mechanism that affects the need for expletives. In languages where features are less 'tied' to one particular position and where the Case-features can be checked under government (older versions of English and Dutch), expletives are not needed. In languages such as Modern English where D-features are 'tied' to the I-complex and where features are checked under Spec-Head Agreement, expletives are necessary. Thus, there is a corelation between the introduction of I, the activation of Spec-Head agreement and the appearance of expletives. All of these occur around 1380. There is no interaction between overt Verb-movement and agreement. I have also shown that there grammaticalizes from a demonstrative to a relative to an existential, as in (134) to (136). This may pose some problems for standard theories of gram matical ization.

6

There-Expletives

6.0

Outline

This chapter is both a (chronological) continuation of the previous one where I discuss the rise of expletives, and a continuation of proposals developed in chapter 1. In the present chapter, I examine aspects of expletive constructions relevant to Case and agreement. Sentences such as (1) to (8) have frequently been the subject of discussion (Milsark 1974, Williams 1975, Safir 1985, Borer 1986 and others). In early Transformational work, sentence (1) is derived from (2) through there-insertion and NP-movement to the right. With the Structure Preserving Hypothesis, this derivation ceases to be possible and (2) is derived from (1). Presently, for instance in Kayne (1994), attempts are made to eliminate movement to the right altogether and, in this model too, (2) is derived from (1) where, if there is not inserted, the NP raises: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

7. 8.

There was a person in the room. A person was in the room. There are five manatees in the water. There's five manatees in the water. There's the piano in the living room and the sofa in the bedroom (when discussing heavy items which might be problematic to move). There are the Anglican chaplain and his wife, who oppose the staging of the play on moral grounds ... (The New York Times, 22 September 1987, "Books of The Times") There are a gas station, a post office and two side streets. (The New York Times, 23 March 1988, "Notrees Journal") There were much scrambling and laughing and some sort of practical joke played on a tall man with a mustache and two long braids hanging down his back. (The Blessing Way, T. Hillerman, 1970 [1989]: 65)

The first question is how nominative Case is checked with (or assigned to) the postverbal NP in (1), (3), (6) to (8). The second question is how to account for the obvious agreement in number features between the postverbal NP and the verb in (1), (3), (6) to (8). Constructions such as (4) and (5), also referred to as having integral interpretations by Hornstein, Rosen & Uriagereka (1995), will be discussed since the Case to the postverbal seems independent of there, i.e. objective, rather than nominative. I discuss a number of proposals in this chapter, but this discussion cannot be an exhaustive survey of all the work done on existential there56. In 6.1, I discuss a suggestion as to how

58

Accounts not making use of Case transmission that are not discussed are Raposo & Uriagereka (1990), Hoekstra & Mulder (1990) and den Dikken (1994). I will not elaborate on theories that

112

the postverbal NP gets Case and how agreement is accounted for, namely, Feature Transmission between the expletive and the NP. In 6.2, I examine the proposal that partitive Case is assigned to the postverbal NP under government. In 6.3,1 argue for another account, namely for a modified form of Expletive Replacement. The latter involves movement of the postverbal NP at LF. I modify the Chomsky (1995) account where NP-movement is rephrased as movement of the Case and phi-features of the NP to the I-position. Assuming that only Categorial features are strong, NPs do not need to check Case overtly as long as the strong D-features in I are checked by there. The V-features are weak59 and the verb is not attracted to I to check them until LF, at which point the NP's phi-features have moved to I as well and the verb checks itself against those features. The peculiarities of agreement and Case can therefore be explained in a way similar to that used in Arabic in chapter 1 by making use of overt versus covert movement and an expletive. Finally, in 6.4, a set of data from Israeli Hebrew is discussed which points to an interesting possibility of certain verbs being inherently specified for a particular feature.

6.1 Transmission In this section, I discuss some early proposals on how to account for the shared Case and agreement between there and a postverbal NP. These explanations set the stage for what I argue in 6.3 is the correct account in a Minimalist framework. Case is transmitted between the members of a chain in Chomsky (1981: 333). Chains come about through move-alpha (even though w/z-elements break the chain) and are formed in constructions with postverbal NPs as in (1). If there and the NP constitute a chain in e.g. (1), the problem of how the NP receives Case is solved. The Case Filter can be reformulated as (9): 9.

59

Every lexical NP is an element of a chain with Case. (Chomsky 1981: 334)

argue there is a predicate either, cf. e.g. Falk (1993: 113) for arguments against. In Williams (1994: 134ff.) another alternative is developed where there is seen as the subject and the post-verbal material as the predicate. The arguments against this approach are twofold: (a) The similarity between the raising and non-raising constructions as in (i) and (ii) is lost: i. A woman is in the parking lot. ii. There is a woman in the parking lot. (b) If there were a scope marker, there would be essentially different from it. Yet, it and there are similar. Because of these two reasons, I will not consider this approach. Note that I entertain the possibility of strong V-features in English in chapter 7. If this is indeed the case, the agreement would come about in similar fashion: the features of the verb could not be checked until the features of the NP had been attracted (at LF). The difference between English and French will then boil down to the difference between there and il: there having no phifeatures, whereas il being third person masculine singular.

113

As Safir (1985) points out, this assumption is problematic because even though the members of the chain are coindexed, these indices do not 'count' for the purposes of the Binding Theory (a bound NP would violate Principle C). As a result, there must be two types of indices; those relevant for Binding Theory and those not relevant. The indices relevant to Case transmission must be stipulated not to be relevant to Binding Theory. These two types of indexation are not allowed according to Safir's Unity of Indexing Hypothesis. Other similar accounts make use of free indexing but they obtain the incorrect results because they do not predict that only in cases where Case transmission occurs does number sharing also occur. Borer (1983) assumes that the postverbal NPs in (10) and (11) freely pick an index and thus that the indexing of the postverbal NP is random: 10. 11.

There's at least seven people in the garden. There are at least seven people in the garden. (Borer 1983: 242)

If the index of the postverbal NP is different from that of the AGR (which agrees with there), be will assign accusative to the postverbal but will not agree in number as in (10). There is a problem with Borer's analysis if she continues to assume that there is an expletive in (10) since according to Burzio's Generalization, a verb only assigns accusative if it also assigns a theta-role to a subject which can then not be an expletive. If, as in (11), the index of the postverbal NP is the same as the index of the AGR (and of there), then the verb will agree with the postverbal NP which will be assigned nominative. Under this approach, it is not clear how (12) with a definite postverbal NP would be ruled ungrammatical, since it should be possible to analyze (12) as (10): 12.

*There are John and Mary in the garden.

The free indexing would have to be restricted to indefinites. In Borer (1986: 401), the optional coindexation is replaced by the requirement that some NP be coindexed with the INFL-position. She accounts for (10) above by coindexing there with Infl and assigning it nominative whereas the postverbal NP continues to receive accusative from be. In (11), the postverbal NP is coindexed with INFL and triggers agreement on the verb and there is without Case. This approach also results in quite some problems, in particular concerning Burzio's Generalization and Caseless expletives. Under the coindexing account as in Chomsky (1981), the issue of verbal agreement is accounted for because the features are identical in a chain. If one assumes, as in Chomsky (1981: 87), that there is unspecified for number, the NP determines the number in the chain. In 6.3, I suggest a modification in accordance with Minimalist principles. If the D-features are strong and there has no phi-features, the features of the NP will be attracted at LF at which point the verb checks them.

114

6.2

Partitive Case

In this section, I outline Lasnik's (1992) account of partitive Case which builds on Belletti (1988). His main argument is that the postverbal NP must be adjacent to the verb and that this adjacency requirement is accounted for if the NP needs partitive under government. I show that the ungrammatical sentences can also be accounted for in other ways and hence, that there is really no adjacency requirement. According to Lasnik (1992), the following sentences show that the postverbal NP (someone in (13) and (14); a man in (15) and (16)) must be adjacent to the verb be to get Case. Hence, in this approach, Case transmission between there and the postverbal NP is not relevant since Case is assigned by the verb (I am assuming a Small Clause analysis for these sentences but Lasnik leaves the analysis open): 13. 14. 15. 16.

There is likely t to be someone here. There is likely someone! to be ^ here. *We consider there a maiii to be tj in the room. We consider there likely t to be a man in the room.

In (13) and (16), the NP is adjacent to be and the sentences are grammatical; in (14) and (15), be does not occur immediately to the left of the NP and the sentences are ungrammatical. However, there are other instances, for instance (17), that show Case adjacency is not relevant. In (17), also or probably occur between be and the postverbal subject and the sentence is grammatical, contrary to Lasnik's predictions: 17.

There are also/probably five elephants in the room.

I will therefore account for the ungrammaticality of sentences (14) and (15) independently of Case adjacency. In (14), there is inserted to meet the demands of the Extended Projection Principle (cf. Chomsky 1981; 1995) but the sentence is ungrammatical because someone has moved to a Caseless position (Spec TP or Spec AGRsP), which violates Economy. Sentence (15) is ungrammatical because the embedded subject position is filled with two elements. Sentences (13) and (16) are grammatical under a 'transmission' approach since there transmits Case to a man. In fact, if there is left out of (16), the sentence is ungrammatical as (18) shows: 18.

*We consider likely a man to be in the room.

In (16), there is no reason for there to be present except to be able to transmit Case and when, as in (18), it is not present, the sentence ceases to be grammatical. Lasnik mentions some cases that are problematic to a Case adjacency account, namely (19). In (19), a man is not adjacent to the verb and yet the sentence is grammatical. Lasnik

115

accounts for (19) by arguing that the trace of be (tj assigns Case to a man. The evidence for this analysis is that constructions where a trace is not present, as in (20), are ungrammatical: 19. 20. 21.

There iSj usually tj a man here. *I believe there to be not a solution. (Lasnik's (43)) *I believe there to bCj not tj a solution.

Lasnik (p. 387) argues that be does not raise in (20) and that therefore there is no trace of this verb to assign Case to a solution. Sentence (20) can be accounted for in a different way, without using adjacency. It is ungrammatical because there is no available position for be to occur in: before the Negative element only one auxiliary element can occur in English and (20) violates that since both to and be appear before not. In fact, in (20), assuming that the NegP follows I (or T) and precedes VP, there is a trace of be before a solution, exactly as in (19). I have indicated this in (21) and hence, (20) should be grammatical under an adjacency approach. Sentences (22) and (23) constitute, again according to Lasnik, additional arguments for adjacency: 22. 23.

?There usually arrives a bus at this time (Lasnik's 51) *There arrives usually a bus at this time (Idem 52)

In (22), a bus is adjacent to the verb and the sentence is grammatical (taking into consideration that arrive is only marginally unaccusative). In (23), a bus is not adjacent and therefore the sentence is ungrammatical. Sentence (23) is ungrammatical quite simply because the verb has raised out of the VP, i.e. beyond the adverb usually, into I (or T) which only verbs such as have and be as in (3) can do. Lasnik's account for the ungrammaticality of (22) and (23) thus has nothing to do with Case adjacency, but with what elements occupy the Iposition as (17) shows. A separate problem which arises is that the inherent60 partitive Case the verb would assign in a Lasnik and Belletti (1988) framework is optional. The partitive Case, "presumably [...] checked in situ under the head-complement relation with the verb" (Lasnik 1993: 14), must be optional to account for both (1) and (2) above: in (1) partitive Case is assigned whereas in (2), partitive Case is not assigned and the postverbal NP must move to get Case in subject position. Lasnik (1993) modifies the Belletti/Lasnik account to accord with Minimalist principles. He assumes that expletive replacement takes place at LF but that in addition the NP checks partitive Case. Since the expletive has checked the strong categorial features, the NP need not move for this reason and Lasnik assumes that it moves "to satisfy the LF affixal requirements of there" (p. 21). This would still violate the principle of 'greed'. In the next two sections, I will also change the Minimalist assumptions about there and the

60

Burzio's Generalization is supposed not to hold for inherent Case.

116

Case checking NP but without violating 'greed' and without having to rely on partitive Case because Lasnik's (1992; 1993) account of (14), (15), (19), (20), (22) and (23), using direct Case to the postverbal NP, seems contrived.

6.3

'Transmission' as LF attraction

Adapting Chomsky (1986a), Chomsky (1992: 46) assumes that the NP in (24) must raise at LF for Case checking. The postverbal NP does not replace the expletive, but adjoins to it. The NP in (25) "has its Case properties satisfied internal to the PP" (p. 46) and is not allowed to raise: 24. 25.

There is a strange man in the garden. There seems to a strange man that it is raining outside.

The reason (24) is grammatical, and (25) is not, lies in the well-formedness of there. In (24), the expletive-argument pair is interpretable in the position of the trace of the NP. This results in a grammatical sentence. In (25), the postverbal NP need not adjoin to there and "we are left with a free-standing there [that] receives no semantic interpretation" (Chomsky: 46) which is "semi-gibberish" (p. 47). Since "[derivations are driven by the narrow mechanical requirement of feature-checking only, not by a 'search for intelligibility' or the like" (p. 47), the NP in (25) has no reason to move. In discussing these sentences, Chomsky formulates the principle of Last Resort as an Economy condition: it restricts the "class of derivations that have to be considered" (p. 48). Lasnik's (1993) criticism of Chomsky's account revolves precisely around a violation of the principle of Last Resort. If the strong features of I in (24) are eliminated by there, why would the NP move at LF? Lasnik, as mentioned, therefore suggests that the NP moves because of the nature of there. He argues that there "must be an affix on an NP with 'partitive' Case" and since to in (25) does not check partitive Case, the NP in (25) cannot adjoin to the expletive. The Last Resort problem is not solved, however, because there is no reason for the NP to move to the expletive since it checks Case with to. So, in order to account for (25), and (24), Lasnik still relies on 'altruistic' movement. Chomsky (1995) sees the problem with Expletive Replacement as in (24) differently. He argues that there is not inserted to check the Case-features but to check the D-feature (see 0.2). The features of the postcopular NP a strange man are attracted to I at LF to check the (non-Interpretable) Case and phi-features of the higher functional projection and the NP's (non-Interpretable) Case features. Thus, a reformulation of 'move' as 'attract' makes it possible' for 'Greed/Last Resort' not to be violated in (24). I work out the problem in more detail. Since there is no evidence that the postverbal NP gets partitive Case from the verb, a Case 'transmission' account, reformulated in Minimalist terms, is possible. Assuming there are strong categorial features in Spec IP, either an NP or there must appear. The relevant principles are:

117 26. 27.

The Non-Interpretable features (Case and verbal phi-features) must be checked. The strong Categorial features must be checked (by an element with the relevant Categorial features, e.g. an NP or there61).

Principle (26) ensures that the features of verbs and NPs must be checked regardless of whether the lexical item moves or not. If overt movement of say an NP does not take place, the (Non-Interpretable) Case features must be attracted to be checked and the (Interpretable) phi-features are attracted by I. The Categorial features are the only ones that force overt movement, as stated in (27), and cause an NP to move or an expletive to be present in the Specifier of IP. The phenomenon accounted for by (27) has often been noted. Most often, it is argued that there is a spell-out of Case, e.g. as in Travis (1984: 216-7). In Chomsky (1995), (27) is assumed because if expletives checked Case and/or phi-features, the NP and V would not be attracted to I and, even if attracted, would not be able to check their non-Interpretable features. The empirical evidence for this is that if the NP did need not to check its morphological shape, it should be possible to have inappropriate Cases appear in postverbal position, i.e. what I have called 'wild' Cases. The same is true for the phi-features of the verb which cannot be 'wild'. Since there is no evidence for such wild postverbal Cases and phi-feature combinations as in (28) or (29) in English or in other languages, I assume (26): 28. 29.

*There is two person('s) in the garden. *There am a person in the garden.

However, principle (27) does not account for sentences such as (30). In (30), the second expletive is in a position with D-features, yet the sentence is ungrammatical, unlike the sentences in (31) and (32), where the expletive is missing. The earlier account that there checks Case accounts for (30). Thus, a one-to-one relation between an argument and an expletive exists, as in (32); and a construction as in (30) where two expletives but only one argument appear is ungrammatical. Chomsky (1995), as mentioned, assumes that there is inserted only to check the D-features, i.e. for the Extended Projection Principle. This fails to account for the fact that expletives cannot be inserted in Case-less positions. Chomsky does not mention this problem. I assume (30) is ungrammatical because of a locality violation, a man is not attracted to the I-position of the main clause because there is a closer position, namely the one inhabited by the second there. This, however, means that the Case and phifeatures of the main clause remain unchecked: 30. 31. 32.

61

There seems there to be a man here. A man seems to be here. There seems e to be a man here.

As in chapter 1, there will be some rule whereby there can only be replaced by a particular NP, in this case, an indefinite one.

118

Principle (26) makes it possible to avoid violating 'Greed'. Because of (26), features or NPs are attracted to I or Spec IP respectively. It ensures that even the Interpretable phi-features are attracted and provide content for phi-features in I. In English, as a result of the LF-movement of the NP (i.e. of its features), it is possible for the verb to check its phi-features. In French, the verb moves overtly, as Pollock (1989) has shown, and the agreement is with il. The difference between there and // is that the former lacks phi-features whereas the latter has third person singular: 33.

34.

35.

II est arrive trois hommes, There is-3S arrived-MS three men 'Three men have arrived'. Trois hommes sont arrives, Three men are-3P arrived-MP 'Three men have arrived'. II arrive trois filles, It arrives-3S three girls.

In Chomsky (1995), evidence is provided that, in French, /'/ is not replaced by an NP. In English, in cases with 'replaced' there, the postcopular NP binds as if it were in subject position and hence, (36) is grammatical. In French, the counterpart of (36), namely (37), is not and this indicates that expletive replacement (or phi-feature movement) does not occur: 36. 37.

There arrived three men without identifying themselves. *I1 est entre trois hommes sans s'annoncer. (Chomsky's (40a) and (42c))

Chomsky does not discuss the checking of the non-Interpretable Case features of the postverbal NP in sentences such as (33). I assume they move at LF, but that the (Interpretable) phi-features of the NP do not because il checks these. In (36), on the other hand, the phi-features that determine the binding. Thus, the difference between French and English regarding Verb-movement has ramifications for agreement in expletive sentences: in French, the phi-features are only determined by il whereas in English, they are by the NPargument. An argument in favor of checking a postverbal NP's Case through movement of the features is that exactly in those cases in English that have 'feature transmission' as in (1), (3), (6) to (8) above, an overtly accusative postcopular NP is impossible, as (38), (40), (43) and (44) show. This is often said to be because of the restriction that postverbal NPs in existential constructions must be indefinite. An accusative is possible in (4) and (5) above, as (41) and (42) show: 38. 39. 40.

"There is him in the room. He was in the room. There are them in the water.

119

41. 42. 43. 44.

There's them in the water. There's me in the living room and her in the bedroom. *There are him and her/them, who oppose the staging of the play ... *There are them.

Sentences (43) and (44) are unlikely because it is hard to refer to a piano and a sofa by means of a pronoun; the same holds for a gas station and a post office which are not usually referred to as them. However, sentences (41) and (42) are possible and this is because accusative Case is assigned by be, unlike in (38), (40), (43) and (44). Having laid out the theoretical background, I now analyze the examples in (1) through (8). I will treat (1), (2), (3), (6), (7) and (8) as one group and (4) and (5) as another. The former 1 will analyze as involving regular Small Clause complements as in (45). I will not examine the status of the Small Clause further. This has been done many times but I regard a Small Clause as a clause that lacks Functional Categories with features for Case and agreement: 45.

PP in the room

[Case]6" Analyzing (1), (2), (3), (6), (7) and (8) above as Small Clauses accounts for the optionality as between (1) and (2). Analyzing these sentences as [e be NP PP] as in (45), the NP must either move to the empty subject position as in (2) or check Case through movement at 'LF' as in (1), (3), (6), (7) and (8). As mentioned above, the definiteness constraint is the result of the NP only being able to adjoin to an indefinite expletive if it is itself also indefinite (or perhaps, as suggested in chapter 1, through a split between N- and D-features). In (45), the D-features in I are strong, as is normal for English. Hence, either the postverbal NP moves to Spec IP to check these features or an expletive is inserted. In the latter case, the Case and phi-features of the NP move at LF. The verb need only check the weak V-features at LF, at which point the NP has provided the contents for the phi-features through attraction as in (26). The verb's Case features are attracted and provide the Case specification (nominative) which the non-Interpretable features of the NP must check.

62

As in Chomsky (1995), it is assumed that I has 'nominative' Case, rather than V, but no phifeatures.

120

Safir (1985: 118) argues that sentences (4) and (5) above contain identificational be63. In van Gelderen (1990), I have argued they are not and I will summarize those arguments. There in (4) can be analysed as an argument and it is not used to 'transmit' Case since Case to the postverbal NP is accusative. The reasons for assuming that there is an argument are the following, (a) Burzio (1986) argues that if a verb assigns accusative Case to an object, this verb must assign a subject theta-role. The Case to the object in (4) is accusative and hence, there is an argument carrying a theta-role. (b) The postverbal NP cannot be moved while the sentence retains its meaning as (46) and (47) show, (c) The postverbal NP can be definite as in (48). (d) There can be questioned as (48) and (49) show, again indicating it is an argument: 46. 47. 48. 49.

There's them, Zoltan and me. They, Zoltan and I are. Who is them? Who is Zoya, Zelda and Zubin?

Sentences such as (4) above occur frequently. For instance, (50) is from Chaucer (late 14th century), (51) and (52) from Mandeville's Travels (early 15th century), and (54) to (56) from the nineteenth century: 50.

51. 52. 53. 54. 55.

56.

63

Canterbury Tales, Prologue, 542-3 Ther was a Reeve and a Miller, a Somnour, and a Pardoner also, a Maunciple, and myself - ther were namo. Mandeville's Travels, 74-34, but now bere is not but a lytill village t houses a brood here t bere. MT, 96-20, l>ere is the hauene of Persanes t of Medaynes t of the marches bere be3onde Shakespeare, As you Like it I, ii, 127 There comes an old man, and his three sons. Austen, Sense & Sensibility, 104 I'm sure there's a vast many smart beaux in Exeter. Eliot, Mill on the Floss, 144 There's folks can handle the law besides Wakem. (Dekeyser 1975: 166) Dickens, Dombey and Son 2.53 There's crowds of little wretches. (Dekeyser 1975: 166)

See Rothstein (1987) for a number of arguments distinguishing between predicational, identificational and existential be. Unfortunately she does not discuss the construction under consideration.

121

Sentence (5) above is used in a context where a question is asked about the value of the contents of a house or about the difficulties of moving the contents of a house. The arguments showing that the construction does not involve a Small Clause are similar to the ones discussed for (4). (a) The Case to the postverbal complex is objective as (42) shows and therefore there is an argument, (b) Sentence (57) no longer has the same meaning as (5), which indicates the analysis is not a Small Clause one. (c) The postverbal NP (the piano in (5)) can be definite: 57.

The piano is in the living room and the sofa is in the bedroom.

In conclusion to 6.3, I have explained Case and agreement with expletives as special cases of checking, after rejecting Belletti/Lasnik's account in 6.2, which uses partitive Case for empirical reasons. My account clarifies the role of the Interpretable features. I argue that (26) ensures that the Interpretable features are attracted to provide content for the checking of the Non-Interpretable ones. Thus, verbs determine which Case is assigned and NPs determine the phi-features. I adopt Chomsky's (1995) idea that expletives such as there only check categorial features; expletives such as il check categorial and phi-features. In chapter 1, I have suggested that other languages may have other combinations, for instance, expletives that only have number or gender.

6.4

Problem cases: Israeli Hebrew

I have argued up to now that 'default' Case does not exist and that third person singular agreement is caused by an expletive that is so specified. In Israeli Hebrew, however, there seems to be a verbal particle that has a neutral form and an inflected form. This particle occurs in existential, locative and possessive constructions. The particle yes can be inflected for number and gender, but can only be third person. These data, I argue, further refinements of the checking system. They suggest that some verb forms have Interpretable phi-features and that NPs need not be attracted to provide contents to the phi-features of the functional projection. First, I describe the data. As reported by Berman & Grosu (1976), the verb in existentials either agrees in number and gender (but not person) or bears no agreement at all. An instance of a construction with such optional agreement is (58), where yes can be inflected for gender and number or not inflected, as indicated in the gloss. It is also possible for another element to be fronted as in (59) as long as yes(nam) precedes the subject. Finally, it is possible to leave the form of yes out (not indicated in the examples): 58.

yesnam/yes arbaa xatulim baxeder, be-M.P/be four cats in the room 'Four cats are in the room'.

122

59.

baxeder yesnam/yes arbaa xatulim, in the room be-M.P/be four cats 'In the room are four cats'. (Herman & Grosu p. 273)

Locative constructions as in (60) differ from existential ones, for instance, because the NP as in (61) may be definite. The verb is optional but the subject must precede it when it is present. When the subject is definite, agreement is obligatory: 60.

61.

arbaa xatulim yesnam/yes baxeder, four cats be-M.P/be in the room 'Four cats are in the room'. david yesno/*yes baxeder, 'David is in the room'.

In Hebrew, possessives are constructed in a way similar to that of existentials and locatives and display interesting agreement phenomena. They are usually of the form 'there is with X an entity Y' (cf. Weingreen 1939 [1972]: 72). It is possible for the 'possessor' to precede yes but never for the subject and in that sense they resemble existentials, but only the uninflected form is present: 62.

yes/*yesnam li arbaa xatulim, be/be-M.P me four cats There are four cats to me'. (Berman & Grosu, p. 274)

Berman & Grosu do not provide an explanation for these agreement data except that they mention that sentences such as (62) are "increasingly often rendered with the accusative marker et attached to the logical subject". I will attempt an analysis using Minimalist assumptions but conclude with a list of problems. First, assume that yes checks the Vfeatures. However, since the verbal element is optional, these features must also be optional. Second, the verb precedes the subject in the existential and possessive constructions. Comparing them with (61), one might argue for the presence of an empty expletive in (58) and (62). Yet, the phi-features are never overtly present on the verb in possessive constructions. This might mean that an NP with the relevant phi-features cannot be attracted to the position of yes because the position with the possessive NP intervenes. The reason uninflected yes is grammatical is because it has Interpretable phi-features, namely third person which need not be checked. The latter move is stipulative at this point. In existential constructions, either the NP can be attracted to the position of yesnam when the latter has been taken out of the lexicon with non-Interpretable phi-features, or the NP is not attracted when yes is selected, i.e. the form with Interpretable third person features. The motivation for the Interpretable phi-features of yes is that it can never be inflected for first or second person. Hence, the third person specification is part of the shape of yes.

123

6.5 Conclusion In this chapter, I outline a number of proposals for dealing with there. I assume that a modified version of the Expletive Replacement of Chomsky (1986a) and the theory of feature checking through LF-attraction as in Chomsky (1995) are responsible for the agreement facts in Modern English. In Modern English, the phi-features of the verb move to the 1-position at LF at which point the features of the postverbal NP also move. Agreement is therefore with the NP, unlike in other languages such as Arabic and French where the verb moves overtly and where expletives are specified for number (cf. chapter 1). In French, a verb moves overtly and agrees with the element appearing in subject position. If English has overt V-movement, we would still expect the same facts because there is unspecified for number and person. This situation was argued in the previous chapter to have arisen in the 15th and 16th centuries. In the last section, I discuss a problem case with existential constructions in Hebrew. It is possible to reformulate the notion of 'default' agreement in terms of Interpretable phi-features.

7

Expletive It

7.0

Outline

In this chapter, I will examine a second kind of 'expletive' element in English, namely it64. The expletive status of it is less obvious than in the case of there and it is often argued that it is an argument, for instance, Reuland (1983). The unclarity exists in other languages as well. Falk (1993: 93) reviews the evidence for German and concludes that "the clauseanticipating subject can be interpreted as argumental or non-argumental". The relationship between it and the CP connected with //, as in (1) and (2), is sometimes expressed through coindexation and feature 'transmission'65: 1. 2.

It is nice [that zero tolerance to AGR is increasing]. I noticed (it) yesterday [that the gooseberries were ripening].

First, in 7.1, I indicate that it and CP are connected for reasons of the Binding theory. I examine the features of both elements in 7.2 and argue for the adaptation of Stroik (1991) within Minimalism. In 7.3, I conclude that it, even though it is fully specified, is an expletive and that the CP is the argument, mainly on the basis of extraction and agreement data. Finally, in 7.4 and 7.5, I provide an account of 'Extraposition' as base generation in two types of languages. The main points are the following. It occurs in Spec CP and moves to Spec AGRo or Spec IP to check the strong D-features. The phi- and Case features are checked at the same time. The CP remains behind (cf. Haider 1993; Kayne 1994). When it is present, it is the carrier of the features. Thus, it is an expletive fully specified. When it is not present, the CP has the features and the D-features of I or AGRo can be checked in two ways: (a) exceptionally, through CP-movement, or (b) through the insertion of an empty expletive as in chapter 206. Either occurs to check the strong D-features of AGRo.

64

65 66

Cf. Vikner (1995: 258, n. 11) for a typological examination of there and /'/. Vikner argues that if both there and it are present, there will be the expletive and it the argument. Reuland (1983: 35) also claims that it and its Dutch counterpart het are arguments but that there and its Dutch counterpart er are adverbs. In chapter 6, I have argued that there in English can be an argument as well as an expletive, and in the present and next chapter, I claim the same for it. The generative literature on this subject is extensive, for instance, Rosenbaum (1967), Emonds (1970; 1976), Jackendoff (1977) and Stowell (1981). Many others remain unmentioned. Empty expletives in AGRoP can be avoided if one assumes that AGRo has no (strong) categorial features. However, I assume AGRo has categorial features (as explained in chapter 2) for theoretical reasons.

126

7.1

It and CP in Modern English: Evidence from Binding Theory

CPs and expletives are connected for reasons of Binding in Chomsky's (1986a) theory because only if they are co-indexed does the 'i-within-i' condition give the right predictions. I use Chomsky (1981) and (1986a) because this is where the argument that will be used originally appears. I first list the relevant parts of the Binding theory as in Chomsky (1981; 1986a). These arguments will be 'translated' into a current framework (as in Koster 1993 or Reinhart & Reuland 1993) at the end of this section. In (3), the three Binding theory principles are stated that are generally referred to as principles (A), (B) and (C). In (4), (5) and (6), conditions are given on how to determine the governing category within which the principles apply: 3.

4.

5. 6.

(A) An anaphor is bound in its governing category. (B) A pronominal is free in its governing category. (C) A Referential expression is free. A governing category for an element is a maximal projection containing both an accessible subject and a lexical category governing the particular element, (cf. Chomsky 1986a: 169, and Chomsky 1981: 211) α is accessible to b iff b is in the c-command domain of a and assignment of index a to b would not violate (6). (Chomsky 1981: 212) i-within-i condition: *,[ ...c, ...]. (Chomsky 1981: 212; 1986a: 174)

The term 'subject' refers to the subject of an infinitive, an NP or a Small Clause and to AGR. Chomsky (1986a) explores some ways to eliminate both the notion of accessible subject and the i-within-i condition, but assumes, in the end, the Binding theory as in (3) to (6). Using these principles and conditions, the difference between sentence (7) and sentence (8) can be explained if it and CP are co-indexed (cf. Chomsky 1981: 338) and it and AGR: 7. 8.

They AGR3 think CP2[it AGR2 is a pity CP1[that NPa[pictures of each other] AGR1 are hanging there]]. *They AGR1 think CP2[it AGR2 bothered each other CP1[that Mary left]].

In (7), NPa contains a governor of each other (i.e. of) but no subject accessible to each other. CP1 contains a subject, namely AGR1, but each other cannot take AGR1 as subject because the indexing would violate (5). If NPa is coindexed with AGR1 through Spec Head agreement and indexation is as in (9), the structure is ungrammatical because it violates (5): 9·

NFailpictures °f Leach other]J AGRlj ... (I use subscripts only, unlike Chomsky 1981)

This is the right prediction because each other has they as its antecedent and CP1 cannot be the right governing category. Nor can each other in (7) take AGR2 as subject. Again, if it

127

and CP are co-indexed as in (10) and if the SPEC of IP and I are co-indexed (or for that matter, the SPEC of AGRsP and AGRs), the right predictions result: 10.

They think [itj AGR2j a pity CPi[... each otherj].

If it and AGR were not co-indexed, AGR2 would be an accessible subject and each other would have to be bound within CP2. That would not be the right prediction. The subject that is accessible without violating the 'i-within-i' condition is AGR3 and each other must find an antecedent inside the matrix sentence. Such an antecedent is present, namely they: 11.

They AGR3 think ΟΡ2[^ AGR2( a pity CP1[... each οίηεη ...]].

Sentence (8) displays a nice contrast with (7), because the VP bothered each other ... in (8), unlike the CP in (7) is not indexed ζ and hence, the governing category is CP2. Therefore, each other can be co-indexed with AGR2. In CP2, no antecedent can be found and as a result, the sentence is ungrammatical. Sentences (7) and (8) show that if /'/ and CP are co-indexed, the right predictions follow. In sentences such as these, the CP co-indexed with it is assigned an external theta-role. In sentences where the CP is assigned an internal theta-role, the same binding phenomena occur: 12.

They AGR3 said crclthat it AGR2 seemed were really cheap]].

CP1[

that NPa[pictures of each other] AGR1

Sentence (12) is grammatical and works much the same as (7) except that CP1 is assigned an internal theta-role by seem. CP1 contains a subject for each other, but the structure would violate (6): 13.

Μη [...each otherj AGR1S ...

AGR2 cannot be the subject for each other either if it and CP1 are co-indexed. The structure would be: 14.

cpafitj ...

CPli[...each

other,...]].

Therefore, each other in (12), like the one in (7), must be bound in the matrix sentence. This is the correct result and can only be obtained by co-indexing it and CP. In effect, [itj...CPJ becomes an opaque domain. For an anaphor occurring in the CP, no antecedent needs to be found within this domain and hence, sentences such as (12) are grammatical. It and CP are coindexed. This becomes clear from Binding phenomena. The Visibility Principle provides an answer for why this should be. The indexing of it and CP is similar to Spec-head Agreement, i.e. co-indexing of the Specifier and AGR, in that the relationship formed through the indices is relevant to Binding theory and to Case marking. This receives a ready explanation if it is the Spec of the 'extraposed' CP.

128

The Binding Theory just presented has been altered since 1986. For instance, Reinhart & Reuland (1993: 678), argue that a predicate is reflexive (e.g. one of its arguments is marked with -self) if and only if two of its arguments are coindexed. Once a predicate is marked, its arguments must be coindexed. I will examine how this theory accounts for the sentences discussed above. The three relevant sentences are repeated here with each other replaced by themselves since Reinhart & Reuland do not consider each other: 15. 16. 17.

They think CP2[it is a pity cpifthat ^[pictures of themselves] are hanging there]]. They think CP2[it bothered themselves Cpi[that Mary left]]. They said CP2[that it seemed CPI[ that NPa[pictures of themselves] were really cheap]].

In sentences (15) and (17), the Noun pictures and its argument themselves constitute a syntactic predicate but this predicate is not reflexive because there is no coindexation of two of its arguments since it lacks an external argument. Yet, a reflexive-marked predicate must be reflexive. Reinhart & Reuland (1993: 682) argue therefore that since an external argument is missing, no syntactic predicate is formed and that the marking of one of the arguments with -self does not violate their condition A ("A reflexive-marked predicate is reflexive"). Thus, themselves in these sentences is seen as a logophor (i.e. a reflexive pronoun that is not bound). Sentence (16) is a different case, however. In (16), a syntactic predicate can be formed and since this predicate is reflexive-marked, the arguments should be coindexed which they are not. Therefore, the sentence is predicted to be ungrammatical. This is a correct prediction. In conclusion, in a Binding Theory as Reinhart & Reuland's, it and CP need not be coindexed; there is nothing against it either. Another recent theory does not make use of the relation between it and CP for these sentences either, namely Koster (1993). His explanation for (15) and (17) would be similar to Reinhart & Reuland's: 'anaphors' in English can also be logophors and in those cases, anaphoric binding does not apply. Sentence (16) would be ruled ungrammatical because "morphologically marked anaphors are strong and must be checked in a Spec-Head configuration" (p. 9) of AGRoP. In addition, regular locality conditions apply to determine which can be the antecedent to the anaphor. In conclusion to 7.1, it can be argued that it and CP are connected because only in that case does the Binding Theory give the right predictions.

7.2

The Features of It and CP

In this section, I examine the connection between it and the CP. I will refrain from discussing whether the CP is moved or base generated until 7.4. In 7.2.1, I indicate how a Government Binding framework deals with this problem, namely through the Visibility Principle. In 7.2.2, I argue that it is the Specifier of CP, as in Stroik (1991). Then, in 7.2.3, I rephrase the connection between it and CP in a 1995-Minimalist way.

129

7.2.1 CPs in Government Binding In a Government Binding model, there is a debate as to whether the Case Filter or the Visibility Principle is responsible for elements needing Case and for the coindexation of the expletive and CP. The Case Filter states that every NP needs to get Case. This condition would therefore not hold for clausal arguments (CPs and IPs), but it would hold for predicate NPs. Expletives can be argued to be NPs and hence in need of Case. The Visibility Principle (cf. Chomsky 1986a), on the other hand, states that every argument needs Case. Therefore, clausal arguments need Case whereas predicate NPs and expletives do not. It is virtually impossible to find instances that enable one to distinguish between the Case Filter and the Visibility Principle. In van Gelderen (1990a), I present some arguments that show the Visibility Principle is to be preferred. Some of this evidence is that (19) is better than (18): 18. 19.

*It is considered [[that she ate no meat] to be important]. Morse considered [[that she ate no meat] to be important].

In (18) and (19), the CP in the inner brackets is the subject of the embedded infinitive and as such 'gets' no Case from to be but in (19), the CP 'gets' Case from considered whereas in (18), it does not. This leads one to think that CPs need Case, which is expected under the Visibility Principle if they are arguments. A second indication that CPs need Case is that they are ill-formed as subjects of infinitives and the difference between (20) and (21) shows this. Again, the difference between these two sentences can be explained if one argues that the CP in (20) has no reason to move there since Case needs not be checked, but that in (21), there are Case-features connected to the I position is occupies and the CP checks these: 20. 21.

*[That Mona has changed] to be nice is obvious. That [that Mona has changed] is nice is obvious.

Sentence (21), with the right intonation, is grammatical whereas (20) is not. The difference between these sentences is that the CP in (20) is in a Caseless position but in (21) is in a Casemarked position. Within a Government Binding framework, this means that CPs can check Case and that therefore the Visibility Principle rather than the Case Filter is the operative principle. This would mean that CPs check Case and that hence, they must somehow be connected to it. The 'somehow' differs in the different frameworks. I outline one possibility within Minimalism.

7.2.2 It as Spec CP In this section, I indicate that, in cases of embedded objects with it as in (2) above, it can be argued to originate in Spec CP. In cases where it occurs in subject position, the evidence is less clear, as e.g. van Zonneveld (1995) points out.

130

I have already referred to an analysis of expletive it as being in Spec CP, as in Stroik (1991; 1994). The idea is one other generativists have come up with as well, for instance, Rosenbaum (1967) and Emonds (1976). Rosenbaum (1967: 12) assumes a structure as in (22) before movement of the S. If the S moves, the empty element will be spelled out as it; if it does not move, the empty element will be deleted: 22.

^ NP DET [+NTs [+PRO]

Some of Stroik's evidence in favor of having it in Spec CP is: (a) if it is in Spec CP, it follows that w/i-elements cannot be extracted as in (23); and (b) if it leaves a trace in Spec CP, the ungrammatically of CP-topicalization is expected because the trace of it would not be c-commanded by its antecendent as (24) shows: 23. 24.

*Whatk did I notice itj ft that she ate tk]. *ft That she ate berries]j, I noticed it; tj.

There is an additional reason which I discuss in 7.2.2, namely, that the agreement caused by coordinate CPs gets a natural account if it is in the position of Spec CP. The same data occur in other languages, for instance, in Dutch as (25) and (26) show: 25.

26.

Wat zag ik (*het) dat zij at t, what saw I it that she ate 'What did I see that she ate'. Dat zij wegging zag ik (*het), that she left saw I it

In constructions without it, no empty expletive can be present in Spec CP because otherwise, we would expect (27) and (28) to be ungrammatical. This is not the case. Therefore, an empty expletive as in chapter 2 must check the features of AGRo and the features of the CP are attracted at LF: 27. 28.

What did I notice that she ate. That she ate berries, I noticed.

As mentioned, what is true for it related to embedded objects is not true for it in certain subject position. As van Zonneveld (1995) argues, one should not be able to have sentences such as (29) since, before the movement of it to subject position, the Spec CP would be filled by both it and after movement of the ννΛ-element, it would be filled by the w/z-element. Yet, (29) is grammatical: 29.

It is clear who saw Zoltan.

131

An additional difference concerns (30) and (31), comparable in structure but not in grammaticality to (23). Again, both it and who would at some time occupy Spec CP. Even though it occupies a subject position, the theta-role of the CP is an internal one as is very clear in (31). When the CP receives an external theta-role, as in (32), extraction is not possible because of the Condition on Extraction Domains that disallows movement out of a non-governed position: 30. 31. 32.

WhOj is it clear that Zoly saw tj? WhOj did it appear that John saw tj? *WhOj did it prove John's innocence that Mary met tj?

The grammatical ity of (29) and (30) would lead one to believe that it is possible to delete the trace of /'/ that moves to Spec IP as in (30) and (31) but not those that move to Spec AGRoP as in (23). In the former but not the latter cases, a w/i-element could subsequently move to Spec CP. This seems extremely ad-hoc and, unless one finds independent evidence, it cannot be maintained. I will leave the exact analysis of where the it in subject position originates for further research. Its feature checking functions will be examined.

7.2.3 The Checking of Features In this section, I examine the features of it and CP. In 7.4, I elaborate on what 'Extraposition' means in a Minimalist framework. Assume, as in Chomsky (1995), that the features of the I-position are Interpretable categorial and non-Interpretable Case features, of which only the categorial ones are strong. This means that an element with D-features must be attracted overtly to Spec IP. Since both it as in (1) above and CP as in (21) above occupy Spec IP, they must both have the relevant features. They must also both have (Interpretable) phi-features and (non-Interpretable) Case or else these would not be checked in I. Sentence (18) is ungrammatical because the Case features of the CP are not checked since passives have no AGRo connected with them. All other features that need to be checked are indeed checked. In (19), the CP checks its Case with the Case of AGRo. The problem that emerges is when it is present as in (33) and the Case of the CP would seem to remain unchecked because the CP has no position to move to: 33.

I noticed it that he ate blueberries.

However, with the it in Spec CP, this receives a ready answer: it moves to check the strong D-features of AGRo; the CP has none if it is present. Thus, there are two possibilities then for CPs that in object position. These are schematized in (34) and (35):

132 34.

AGRoP

35.

In (34), it has the features and is therefore attracted to check the features in AGRo. In this process, it checks its own non-Interpretable Case ones. The CP remains in its base position where it receives a theta-role. A possible result would be (36). In (37) and (38), there is no it and CP may move to Spec AGRoP overtly as in (38) or its features may move at LF as in (37): 36. 37. 38.

I mentioned it to Zoya that Zubin was leaving. I mentioned to Zoya that Zubin was leaving. I mentioned that Zubin was leaving to Zoya yesterday.

The possibilities for subject are as in (39) and (40). Either it or the CP checks the features of I. As in chapter 2, the puzzle remain why, in some languages, empty expletives occur in object position but not in subject position: 39. 40.

It is nice that zero tolerance to AGR is increasing. That tolerance is increasing is nice67.

In 7.2, I have examined the checking of CPs in a Minimalist framework. It can be argued that the it originates as Spec CP and that the features of the CP are checked because it checks them. CPs themselves can also move.

67

The CP is in subject position since (i) and (ii) are marginally possible: i. Is [that he left] good for the department? ii. Does [that tolerance is increasing] appeal to you?

133

7.3

Argument or Expletive

Apart from the reason given in 7.1, there could be another reason in the Government Binding approach that it and CP in (2) are co-indexed, namely theta-mark ing. This relates to the status of it and CP. A number of people assume that a theta-role can be assigned directly to the position of an extraposed CP, for instance Safir (1985: 188ff) and Bennis (1986: 30; 105-6). In Chomsky (1981: 338), this possibility is left open as well, even though earlier (1981: 35) it is said that it and there have no theta-roles. That a CP gets a theta-role directly is only possible if it is an argument. It has been argued that CPs are not arguments at all but that they are adjuncts (e.g. Bennis 1986; and Grange & Haegeman 1989) and that the 'expletives' are arguments. I will claim the opposite in this section, based on three arguments, each in a separate section. This is then compatible with having it as Spec CP.

7.3.1 Extraction As just mentioned, I will argue that all CPs are arguments. The strongest argument for the other position, namely that CPs are adjuncts when connected with it, involves object CPs. For instance, in (41), extraction out of the CP is not possible and this may indicate the adjuncthood of the CP. In (42), where it is not present, extraction is possible (de Haan 1981: 129; Bennis 1986: 104): 41. 42.

*What did I notice it yesterday that he ate t? What did I notice yesterday that he ate t?

On the basis of the extraction argument, it in (2) above and in (41) would be arguments of the verb. However, the ungrammaticality of (41) can also be explained if it is base generated in Spec CP (argued above) since then the trace of it would block movement of the w/z-element via Spec CP and result in a subjacency violation, as (43) shows: 43.

wfck/f,

cp[ti[ t,,]].

Hence, no evidence for the adjuncthood of CP can be found in (41) and (42). A theoretical argument against the adjuncthood of CPs is that in (2) above and (41), it would be the argument but in sentences such as (42), the CP would be because it is not available. Such an analysis seems problematic because (41) and (42), and (44) and (45), seem very similar but get very different accounts: 44. 45.

I considered it important that Bhutto won for a second time. I considered important that Bhutto won for a second time.

A second argument against CP being an adjunct is that it in (2) and (41) is an expletive because it cannot be questioned as (46) shows:

134

46.

*What did I notice t yesterday that the leaves were getting red.

Thus, two pieces of evidence have been presented that CP is an argument. The Bennis (1986) analysis that CPs are adjuncts can be accounted for in another way. When it is in subject position, the situation is similar to when it is in object position (except in the unexplained (30) and (31) above). However, when it is not present in subject position, the sentence is also ungrammatical: 47. 48.

*What will it prove his innocence that he ate t. *What will t prove his innocence that he ate t?

Sentence (47) is ungrammatical for the same reasons (41) is, namely, because of a subjacency violation, whereas (48) is ungrammatical because the Categorial features in Spec IP are not overtly checked before SPELL-OUT. Unlike AGRoP, IP needs to have an overt element checking I's features. This is a way of formulating the Extended Projection principle, i.e., as the obligatory presence of an element in Spec IP. Thus, sentences such as (47) and (48) do not show that CPs are adjuncts.

7.3.2

Agreement

Another possible piece of evidence that the CP is an argument involves agreement. In English (49), the features for number and person that appear on the verb, namely third person singular, could come from either the CP or from it. That clausal arguments are third person singular holds for Modern English, as was in (50) shows; as well as for other stages of English, as third singular doth 'does' in (51) shows: 49. 50. 51.

It was/*were/*am pleasant that he left. That he left was/*were/*am pleasant. Shakespeare, King John V, ii, 42 And [great affections wrestling in thy bosom] doth make an earthquake of nobility (quoted by Abbott 1872: 239-40).

If it has features of its own, this can mean either (a) that it is the argument and that the CP is not relevant, or (b) that // is a non-argument with features. Only if /'/ has no clear features of its own, can we be certain that it is an expletive. In that case, the features of the CP will have to move to the I-position at LF, as in the case of there in the previous chapter. Hence, the argument in this section will only show clear results if it has no features. In (34) above and in other places, I assume that it as an expletive in Spec CP. The agreement data will confirm that it has the features of the CP without the features of CP having to move at LF. I indicate how this latter approach accounts for (52) and (53). When two CPs occur, the agreement on the verb is not straightforwardly plural as (52) shows and hence, we cannot determine whether the features of a CP are ever different than

135

third person singular. If we could, the singular agreement on the verb in sentences such as (53) should indicate that it, rather than the CP, is responsible for this agreement. This would be evidence against replacement by the CP of it at LF, and possibly evidence for the argument status of it: 52. 53.

That the moon is made of green cheese and that you are the King of Siam ??astonish/astonishes me. It *astonish/astonishes me that the moon is made of green cheese and that you are the King of Siam.

Speakers find both astonish and astonishes in (52) awkward. Most seem to consider the plural very awkward (as indicated). McCloskey (1991: 565) also prefers the singular in (52). If the singular is preferred in (52), the grammaticality of sentence (53) with the verb showing singular agreement should not come as a surprise. However, there seems to be a difference between the two sentences in that the plural is more acceptable in (52). Like McCloskey, I use (53) to argue that there is no 'Expletive Replacement', i.e. no feature attraction, with it because then plural inflection should have resulted in a grammatical sentence. Rather, expletive // moves from Spec CP to check the various features (of the higher functional head) but is only connected to one CP, as in (54). As a result, the agreement will be singular:

If CP2 were to also have it in its Specifier position, this it could not check its Case features and the sentence would not converge. There is the problem of the second CP not being able to check its Case. I come back to this in chapter 10 because the problem is more general. Chomsky (1986a: 133; but not 1995) considers it on a par with there and assumes it gets its features from the CP. This is compatible with what I argue about it, namely that it is in Spec CP and that the CP determines the agreement even though there is no Expletive Replacement. The CP is an argument. Concluding this section, a comparison of (52) and (53) shows that, in cases where two CPs are themselves in subject position, a plural verb is more acceptable than when these two CPs are in 'extraposed' position and it is in subject position checking the verb's phi-features. This may indicate that it has features of its own and is not replaced by the CPs. If it had been without features, one might have more evidence towards its being a expletive. As it is, it is a fully specified non-argument. In the next chapter, there will be other varieties.

136

7.3.3

The Introduction of Expletive It

In this section, I briefly link up conclusions reached in chapter 5 with those of 7.3.1 and 7.3.2 and argue that since it in (55) becomes obligatory at the same time as expletive there, it can also be seen as an expletive. The introduction of there and it is 'caused' by the introduction of a Specifier position, with features that trigger movement. Van der Gaaf (1904), Visser (1963: 19ff), Lightfoot (1979), Butler (1980) have all indicated that it becomes obligatory around 1400. An instance is (55), from the latter half of the twelfth century: 55.

Lamb. Horn. 9 Hit is muchel neot bet we bonkien ure drihten, 'It is very necessary that we thank our lord'. (Visser 1963: 19)

In Old English, the expletive is poet as well as hit. Butler (1980) argues that the former is referential but that by the time of Early Middle English, (h)it has replaced poet and is a clear expletive. Summarizing 7.3, I examine a number of questions related to the status of CP and it. I argue that CPs are arguments and that it is an expletive. 'Expletive-replacement' need not occur because it originates in Spec CP and is licensed that way.

7.4

Base Generation and 'Extraposition'

In the previous sections, I have examined the status of it and have shown that it and the CP are connected. Given the recent elimination of rightward movement, the traditional 'Extraposition' analysis can no longer be maintained and I therefore suggest a possible analysis consistent with Chomsky (1992; 1994) and Kayne (1993). Sections 7.4 and 7.5 can be read independently of the others since agreement will not be the focus even though the checking of features through expletives is one aspect. In keeping with assumptions in chapter 3, the representations for Dutch lack IP (i.e. the AGRs/T Complex of Pollock 1989). Nothing hinges on that, however. Assuming a Universal Base Hypothesis of SVO and Object-movement to a pre-V position, as in Kayne (1993), it is possible to analyze Extraposition in an SOV language as nonmovement, which I do in (34) above. This will derive the complementary distribution between a CP and an NP. An advantage of not moving the CP is that movement becomes restricted to movement to the left. CP objects are base generated as sisters to V, and since CPs do not move the result looks like Extraposition. Old English and Dutch are derived through moving an NP overtly into Spec AGRoP. Thus, 'Extraposition' in OV-languages can be seen as base generation of a CP in object position, as Kaan (1992) and Zwart (1993) have also argued; and as Lattewitz (1993) has argued for Germanic verb clusters. An NP moves to preverbal position and the result is SOV whereas a clause does not move to Spec AGRoP and the SVO

137 order is accounted for. For subject CPs, the same can be argued, as I will show. This account has not generally been assumed for English since the verb and the NP object are not seen as moving overtly (but see e.g. Pesetsky 1989 and Calis 1994). In the remainder of this chapter, I will argue that English has overt verb-movement as well as overt object movement and will account for 'Extraposition' as base generation. The advantage is that all categorial features (V as well as D-features) would always be strong. The outline is as follows. I will first show how in SOV languages, Extraposition is dealt with and then I do the same for an SVO language such as English.

7.4.1

'SOV Languages

The basic idea of Kayne's (1993) Linear Correspondence Axiom is that all languages are Specifier and Head-initial and that Specifier and Head-last structures only come about after leftward movement of the head and complement. Kaan (1992) and Zwart (1993) apply this model to Dutch, an SOV language; van Gelderen (1992b) applies this model to Old English, also an SOV language. Thus, a Dutch sentence such as (56) is derived through movement of Moishe to Spec AGRoP (to check the categorial D-features), of gezien 'seen' to AGRo, of heb 'have' to C and of ik T to Spec CP. In the 'extraposed' sentence, (57), only heb, gelegen and ik move, but not the CP. In (58), het would move to Spec AGRoP: 56.

57. 58.

Ik heb Moishej gezien tj. I have Moishe seen Ί have seen Moishe'. Ik heb gelezen [dat Moishe gezien werd], I have read that Moishe seen was Ik heb het gezien [dat Rivke latkes at], I have it seen that Rivke latkes ate

'Extraposition' from subject position can be dealt with in the same way. In sentences such as (59), the CP remains in Spec VP (where, following Koopman & Sportiche 1991, it is base generated) and all the other material is preposed, i.e. the verb is and the AP leuk 'nice'. I will say more about Extraposition from subject position in the next section, since the construction in Dutch is no different from that in English, unlike the one involving Extraposition from object position and I will come back to AP-preposing in 7.5: 59.

Het is leuk dat Rivke latkes at, It is nice that Rivke latkes ate

There is evidence that CPs in both subject and object positions are left but that NPs move, namely (60) and (61). In both, Klaas, verleide 'told' and mij 'me' move out of the VP but the CPs do not move. In (60), the object CP dat hij weg moest 'that he had to leave' precedes the relative clause connected to the subject die een rode hoed droeg 'who wore a red hat' and

138 the sentence is ungrammatical because subjects precede objects. In (61), the order is reversed and, as predicted, the sentence is grammatical: 60.

61.

*KlaaSj verleide mij [dat hij weg moest]^ die een rode hoed droeg], Klaas told me that he away must who a red hat wore 'Klaas told me that he had to leave who wore a read hat'. KlaaSj verleide mij [lj die een rode hoed droeg][dal hij weg moesl], Klaas lold me who a red hai wore lhai he away must

The same is irue in olher traditional SOV-languages such as Urdu/Hindi. Mahajan (1994) provides the following examples which are comparable lo (60) and (61): 62.

63.

*Raam nee uus aadmii koo kahaa [kee siiiaa gayii][joo aajaa thaa], Ram ERG lhal-ACC man lo lold-MS lhal Sila left-FS who came-MS had-MS 'Ram told the man thai Sila left who had come'. Raam nee uus aadmii koo kahaa (joo aajaa lhaa][kee siiiaa gayii], Ram ERG lhat-ACC man to told-MS who came-MS that Sita left-FS

Haider (1994) argues the same for German, namely lhal relalive clauses precede argumeni clauses. This is accounted for if the complemenl is mosl deeply embedded. In Ihe nexl seclion, I discuss subjecl CPs and I will show lhal ii is very hard lo prove lhal subjeci CPs are base generated in Spec VP. Olher evidence lhal CPs do nol move lo ihe righl in sentences such as (57) is lhal in preposing VPs, the CP seems pari of ihe VP. If ihey moved lo Ihe right, they should adjoin lo projeclions olher lhan VP, e.g. IP. This evidence is based on Reinharl (1980). Thus, in (64), gezien dat Krajicek won 'seen lhal Krajicek won' preposes indicaling lhal ihe objecl CP is pari of ihe VP and or of AGRoP: 64.

Zij wilden zien dal Krajicek zou winnen en gezien dal Krajicek won hebben zij! They wanted see lhal Krajicek would win and seen lhal Krajicek won have Ihey

The participle gezien can move through head-movement as well as in (65): 65.

... en gezien hebben zij (hei) dal Krajicek won, and seen have ihey lhal Krajicek won

The possibility of het is inleresling in lhal il shows that gezien moves by itself (to Spec CP), leaving het in Spec AGRoP. This shows (65) is nol ihe resuli of VP/AGRoP movemeni lo ihe left leaving ihe CP adjoined lo a higher projeclion (e.g. IP as argued in van Gelderen

139

1986). If (65) were the result of AGRoP movement to the left with the CP adjoined to IP, het should be able to move along with gezien. This is not possible as (66) and (67) show68: 66.

*... en [gezien het] hebben zij dat Krajicek won, and seen it have they that Krajicek won 'and they have seen it that Krajicek won'. *... en [het gezien] hebben zij dat Krajicek won, and it seen have they that Krajicek won

67.

In 7.4.1, I argue that 'SOV languages do not move CPs arguments to the right but that all other material moves to the left as in Kayne (1994). I present some evidence that CPs indeed remain in their VP-internal positions.

7.4.2

'SVO' Languages

SVO languages are different from SOV languages in that it cannot always be clearly seen that the CP has 'extraposed'. The sentences I account for are (1) and (2) above, repeated here as (68) and (69): 68. 69.

It is nice that zero tolerance to AGR is increasing. I noticed (it) yesterday that the gooseberries were ripening.

I will start with Extraposition from subject and then go onto Extraposition from object position. 'Extraposition' from subject position can be explained if the CP in (68) is base generated in Spec VP as in Dutch and the V and AP move out of the VP. However, it is not clear that the CP is in fact base generated as Spec to VP. It could be argued that the CP in (68) is a complement to nice (and in (71) to prove) since another complement cannot be added in sentences such as (70) with nice: 70.

*It is nice of Clinton that zero tolerance to AGR is increasing.

This would explain why the Object' precedes the 'subject' in (71), namely both CPs are objects. However, the 'subject' cannot precede the Object', as in (72). I will not go into this further: 71.

68

It proved it [that Bertha murdered Hannah][that Kinsey found evidence].

However, with subject CPs, preposing as in (64) is harder. Thus, (i) is very marginal: i. *[Bewezen dat zijn mes bloedig gevonden is] heeft (het) dat hij schuldig is, Proved that his knife was found bloody has it that he guilty is 'That his knife was found with blood on it proves that he is guilty'.

140

72.

*It proved it [that Kinsey found evidence] [that Bertha murdered Hannah].

As to 'Extraposition' from object position, assume for (69) above that the structure is (73) before movement and that, through subsequent movement of / and noticed to higher functional projections, (69) is derived: 73.

AGRspt AGRopt vp[ yesterday

VP[

I noticed CP]]]].

In a sentence such as (74), the V moves overtly to a functional head, and the object it moves to Spec AGRoP overtly. CP has no Case or phi-features that need to be attracted at LF because it has them: 74.

Emma noticed it that Frank had left.

More evidence that CPs remain behind comes from (75) and (76). In (75), the object CP in brackets preposes together with the verb proved and it is therefore part of the VP and AGRoP. The participle proved can also move by itself through head-movement as in (76). Then, as expected, the CP is left behind: 75. 76.

[Proved [that the earth is round]] though I have, Rush believes it is flat. Proved though I have [that the earth is round], Rush believes it is flat.

So far, Dutch and English do not seem to differ much. Yet there is a difference in the checking of the features. The difference has to do with the 'price-list' as Wilder and Cavar (1994) phrase it in another context. In Dutch, expletives are the only means of eliminating the strong features; CPs are not possible69, whereas, in 7.2.3 above, I argue that English CPs can be attracted to check the categorial features. The relevant Dutch sentences are (77), (78), (79) and (80) (as is usual, to abstract from V-to-C movement, I use subordinate clauses): 77.

78.

69

... dat Emma (het) vaak zei [dat ze de keukenafvoer zou maken], that Emma it often said that she the sink drain would fix 'that Emma said it often that she would fix the drain to the sink'. ... dat het leuk is [dat Moishe zo vaak hier komt], that it nice is that Moishe so often here comes 'that it is nice that Moishe comes here so often'.

Kaan (1992: 97) mentions a few cases that allow the object to move. These are special in that the CPs are appositive and there is perhaps an empty nominal head: i. ...dat zij [dat hij wegging] nook zou betreuren, that she that he left never would regret 'that she would never regret that he left'.

141

79. 80.

*... that *... that

dat Emma [dat ze de keukenafvoer zou maken] vaak zei, Emma that she the sink would fix often said. dat [dat Moishe zo vaak hier komt] leuk is, that Moishe so often here comes nice is.

In general, however, we can say that (79) and (80), where the CPs are in Spec AGRoP and Spec AGRsP respectively, are not regular Dutch. The English counterpart of (78) is, as in (81): 81.

Does [that Getty left money] seem good for that painting?

If, as in English, het is in Spec CP and moves to the left if the relevant features are strong, then the grammaticality of (77) and (78) are accounted for. Het need not be present in (77) because an empty expletive checking the D-features in AGRo in Dutch, as well as in English. Strong D-features are in C, and as with English I, this position must be present (cf. the Extended Projection Principle from Chomsky 1981; 1995) and het moves to check the features. The reason the CPs do not move, as in (79) and (80) is stipulative. As Wilder & Cavar (1994) mention, languages choose between what is 'economic' for them to move. In English, it (or, marginally, the CP) moves to check the features; in Dutch, het does but not the CP.

7.5

Advantages and Solutions

7.5.1 Advantages There are several advantages to the approach sketched above, mainly theoretical ones. For instance, rightward movement is eliminated and all trees are formed as in (82), in accordance with Kayne's Linear Correspondence Axiom:

A second theoretical advantage is that the categorial features triggering V- and NP-movement in English in both I and AGRo are strong. In Dutch, they are strong in both C and AGRo. Given the conclusions from chapter 1, it may be the case that once a functional head is present, the features triggering movement are strong. This makes the language learning task easier.

142

7.5.2

Solutions

There are several potential problems for overt movement of NPs and Vs and for leaving CPs in base generated positions. I will discuss each of them here.

7.5.2.1

Verb-movement

It is a legitimate question to ask whether or not there are enough verbal positions available in (83) to accomodate all the moving verbs: 83.

He may have been reading a book.

In Chomsky (1992), AGRsP, TP, NegP and AGRoP are available, in other work (Tenny 1987, Ouhalla 1990, Rivero 1990, Maräcz 1991 and Speas 1991), other functional projections for auxiliaries have been introduced such as Perf(ect)P, ASP(ect)P and Pass(ive)P. Koster (1993b) introduces a Pred(icate)P. The tree for (83) includes a PerfP and an ASPP. Each of these contains strong V-features that are checked by, for instance, have, been and reading. In addition, been checks (at LF) its perfect features and reading its progressive ones:

ASP' ^"~ AGRoP AGRo' AGRo ' / VP^ reading t ' V ·*. . t a book

The object moves to Spec AGRoP to check the strong features and the subject does the same to Spec IP. The auxiliaries are base generated outside the lexical domain: have is base generated in the Head of PerfP and been is base generated in the ASPP. Thus, even though they are connected with perfect and progressive features respectively, they are not responsible for checking these features; another auxiliary or verb is that does this covertly. Some evidence for the disassociation of e.g. have and the perfect features comes from earlier stages and from other languages where the perfect features are checked without have being present as in (85), and (86) from Swedish; and (87) and (88) from an English-based Creole. In addition, have is sometimes present without the perfect features being checked as in (89) to (92):

143 85.

86.

87. 88.

89.

90. 91. 92.

Chaucer, Melibee, 1432 whan they seen the punyssynge and chastisynge of the trespassours 'when they have seen the punishing and chastising of the wrongdoers'. Han berattade att han kommit dagen f rut, he told that he come-PRT day-the before 'He said that he had come the day before'. (Wessen 1968: lOlff) She bin tell me that. I bin know you you know, Ί have known you you know'. (Sentences (87) and (88) are from Rickford (1977: 206). Knight's Tale, I, 2076-7 I saugh how that his houndes have hym caught and freeten hym, Ί saw how his dogs have him in a caught position and eat him'. Miller's Tale, I, 3739 What have I do? Wife of Bath 's Prologue, 111,7 If I so ofte myghte have ywedded be. Knight's Tale, I, 2496 There maystow seen devisynge of harneys.

In this subsection, I show that there are sufficient positions to accomodate the verbs if verbmovement is overt.

7.5.2.2

PredPhrase and AP Movement

Within a Minimalist account, elements only move if they have to. The question arises why the AP in (68), repeated here as (93), would move? As mentioned in 7.5.1, Koster (1993b), discussing other phenomena, provides an account for this question by assuming a Pred(icate)P into the Specifier of which the AP predicate must move. A structure for (93) is provided in (94), which is parallel to (84) in its use of a PredP: 93. 94.

It is nice that zero tolerance to AGR is increasing. IP

„/ > > -^ I ' is

~/

^s nice

PredP ^ Pred' Pred ~^~· AGRoP x^ AGRo 1 X AGRo ' ""^ VP CP ' ^ V V ^ t

"^ AP t

144

A second question is why the CP seems part of a higher functional projection in (95). Assuming a PredP, PredP-preposing accounts for (95): 95.

... and [obvious that he ate blueberries], it will be.

Well-known "VP'-preposing sentences as in (96) can be seen as the preposing of a functional projection higher than VP, namely PredP (the preposed constituent is in brackets): 96.

... and [ask Mary to fix the sink], Emma did yesterday.

As mentioned before, there is an asymmetry between preposing in sentences with object CPs as in (97), (98), (99) and (100) on the one hand and with subject CPs as in (101) and (102) on the other. Object CPs seem to be either attached to IP in (99) or to VP as in (100), whereas subject CPs are only attached to VP as in (102). I have no explanation for this asymmetry, but it may not be related to the CP. It could be the case that a V may prepose as in (97) but not an AP as in (101). Then the CP in (97) to (102) are all in their base generated positions: 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102.

... ... ... ... ... ...

and [notice] I did that she went to the city. and [notice that she went to the city], I did. and [bother her] it did that Mary ate the cake. and [bother her that Mary ate the cake], it did. *and [obvious] it will be that he ate blueberries. and [obvious that he ate blueberries], it will be.

Haider's (1994) Binding Theory facts confirm that object NPs remain in VP since the CP seems to be c-commanded by the subject. Anyone in (104) must be c-commanded by a negative element, again indicating that the object CP is part of VP: 103. 104.

*Hej noticed [that Moishe( left]. He never noticed [that anyone left].

7.5.2.3

Adverb Placement

If the right structure is (73) above, the adverbial is left-adjoined to VP. This is a traditional assumption (cf. e.g. Pollock 1989, but see e.g. da Costa 1994; Rijkhoek 1994). So, sentence (105) does not present a problem, but (106) might: 105. 106.

Emma asked Mary yesterday/many times to fix the sink. Emma may already have often asked a favor.

145

To account for the adverbial positions in (106), one could argue that an adverbial may adjoin to each functional projection (as in e.g. (84)). Thus, in (106), already adjoins to the PerfP and often to the PredP. Excluded is adjunction to AGRP, whether AGRsP or AGRoP, as argued in Calis (1994: 75), or the position containing the phi-features, i.e. IP. The latter restriction rules out (107) now that adjacency between a verb and its object for reasons of Case marking is not relevant. In (107), often is adjoined to AGRoP. Sentence (108) is ungrammatical because often is adjoined to IP which contains phi-features: 107. 108.

*Emma has seen often Moishe. ... *that often Emma has seen Moishe.

Thus, adverb placement in English can be accounted for if V moves to a higher functional head and is therefore not a problem for the analysis presented here. Notice that this parallels what happens in French where adjunction is also to PerfP or to VP. The difference is that in French, even though the categorial features are strong, object NPs do not move because an expletive is present (cf. chapter 2). The main conclusion to 7.4. and 7.5 is that CP 'Extraposition' can be base generation of the CP object as sister to V and of the CP subject in Spec VP, compatible with ideas such as Kayne's (1993). I outline this theory because it helps one understand the function of it.

7.6

Conclusion

In this chapter, I argue that the it connected with a CP is an expletive but need not be 'replaced' at LF by the CP because it originates in the Specifier of the CP and has features of its own. Therefore the features of the CP need not move to I to check the ones present in I. The verbal agreement is thus determined by the CP but in a way different from the way the agreement is determined by the postverbal NP in chapter 6. CPs get theta-roles and can be shown to be arguments even when it is present. I also discuss the possibility of the Universal Base Hypothesis, i.e. that all languages are SVO underlyingly, and entertain the possibility that features, if present, are strong. Thus, NPs and Vs will move out of the VP but CPs will generally not.

8

Argument It: with and without Features

8.0

Outline

In chapter 6, I examine instances of there that are non-arguments and those that are arguments. In chapter 7,1 examine non-argument, i.e. expletive, it and in the present chapter, I argue that, just as in the case of there, there is an argument it as well as a non-argument one. Constructions such as (1), (2) and (3) involve such an argument and I will indicate the reasons for arguing this in 8.1: 1. 2. 3.

It is the French. It is Mary and me. It is them.

Not all languages have both an argument and a non-argument element of this kind. Swedish does not have an argument det 'it/there' even though it has an expletive del. The Modern English constructions involving argument it as in (1) to (3) are very different from the constructions in some Middle English texts, as in (4), and in Dutch, as in (5). I will argue that the difference can be accounted for by assuming that what is an argument in English is an argument 'deficient' in a number of (but not all) phi-features, in Middle English and Dutch, very much like the partially specified expletive discussed in chapter 1: 4.

5.

Chaucer, The Knight's Tale, I, 1460 for some it am nat I, 'For truly it is not me'. Het zijn nun, It are them 'It's them'.

In (4) and (5), the verbs only partially agree with /'/ and het, normally third person singular. The Minimalist theory of LF feature movement will be argued to account for these data in a very elegant manner. Since phi-features such as number are Interpretable, they can be attracted a number of times. This happens, I claim in 8.4, with person in (4) and with number in (5). The outline is as follows. In 8.1,1 discuss the simplest instance of argument it. In 8.2 and 8.3, I examine slightly more complex cases of the same construction. The interesting cases of arguments lacking certain features are accounted for in 8.4 and in 8.5,1 look at a language without an argument 'it'. A note on the terminology is in order. The term 'argument' is used when an element has a theta-role; 'non-argument' is used when it does not. I also sometimes use 'non-expletive' and 'expletive' respectively. Whether an element has phi-features or not

148

is irrelevant for its argument status: non-arguments can have phi-features and arguments may lack them.

8.1

It is me

In the it is me-construction, it will be argued to be an argument (cf. van Gelderen 1990, for a more detailed account, but see Safir 1985 for a different analysis): 6.

It was me.

There are several reasons why it in (6) is not an expletive. First, Burzio's Generalization would be violated: accusative Case is assigned to the object me and therefore the subject must receive a theta-role, i.e. be an argument. Second, 'real' expletives cannot be questioned. This is shown in (7) and (8) whereas /'/ in (6) can be questioned as is shown in (9): 7. 8. 9.

*What t rains. *What is t pleasant [that he left]. Who t is me?

Third, ifit is an expletive, the underlying structure of (6) would be (10) and / should be able to move to the subject position as in (11): 10. 11.

e is I. lam.

Even though (11) is grammatical, the interpretation is not similar to that of (6): the verb has a different meaning. Construction (6) is similar to the one in German with geben 'give'. Es can be seen as an argument with singular features as (12) and (13) show and is not replaceable by the postverbal NP as (14) shows. The postverbal NP in (12) checks accusative Case. Of course, German also has an expletive es, which is unspecified for number as (15) shows and where the number on the verb must be checked via the postverbal NP: 12.

13. 14.

Es gibt einen Mann im Kino, there gives-S a-ACC man in-DAT the movie theater There is a man in the movie theater'. *Es geben zwei Männer im Kino, there give-P two men in the movie theater *Zwei Männer geben im Kino, two men are in the movie theater

149

15.

Es sind viele Leute gestern gekommen, there are many people yesterday come 'Many people came yesterday'.

This construction also occurs in Spanish, with haber (Torrego's data, quoted in Safir 1985: 282), except that the subject expletive is empty. Having established that it in (6) is an argument, fully specified, the agreement between it and the verb is as expected. There is no 'transmission' of number and therefore (16) is ungrammatical: 16.

*It are them.

8.2

Argument It: Plural and Conjoined NPs

Sentence (17) is an instance of a construction discussed in chapter 6 where there is an argument. The motivations are similar to those discussed in the previous section (the accusative Case of the postverbal NP; and the agreement between the verb and there and not between the verb and the postverbal NP as (18) shows): 17. 18.

There is John, Mary and the dog. There are John, Mary and the dog. (ungrammatical except in locative inversion when there is a locative)

Sentences such as (19) and (21) can be analyzed in a way similar to the construction with there in (17): 19. 20. 21.

It is Mary and John. *It are Betty and Roseanne. It is them.

It can be argued that it in (19) is an argument, determining agreement (cf. the ungrammaticality (20)), and that be is a copula. Since the Case assigned to the postverbal element is accusative, evident from the paraphrase of (19) which is (21), the subject must get a theta-role under Burzio's Generalization (cf. Burzio 1986). Extra evidence for it not being an expletive is the fact that the postverbal NPs cannot move to subject position without bringing about a change in meaning. For instance, (19) is not the same as (22), unlike those constructions involving expletives of chapter 6, as in (23) and (24), and chapter 7, as in (25) and (26): 22. 23.

[Mary and John]; are tj. There are five unicorns in the parking lot.

150

24. 25. 26.

Five unicorns are in the parking lot. It is nice that tolerance is increasing. That tolerance is increasing is nice.

In addition, it is possible to question (19), as in (27). This again indicates that it is not an expletive. In cases of 'real' expletives as in (28), questions as in (29) are impossible: 27. 28. 29.

Who is them? It is pleasant that the sun shines. *What is pleasant that the sun shines.

Already quite early on, it can be seen in this function and as having independent features, as Early Middle English (30) and (31). As will be shown in 8.4, there are Middle English texts that do not have these constructions. Sentence (32) is from the fifteenth century and (33) from the end of the sixteenth. Verbal agreement is third singular and therefore with the argument it, rather than with the postverbal NP: 30.

31.

32.

33.

Cursor Mundi 7739 "Ya, soth" said dauid "it es Γ. (Visser 1963: 238; cf. also Kellner 1905: 178-9) Idem, 1311 It is in erth na tung. (Visser 1963: 42) Gesta Romanorum 201 It is not he that slewe the man, hit is I. (Kellner 1905: 178) Shakespeare 2 Henry VI, IV, i, 117 It is thee I feare.

The construction seems rare in Shakespeare. Searching The Merchant of Venice, 1 Henry VI, 1 Henry VI, 2 Henry IV, and King Lear, I find two instances in the latter: 34. 35.

King Lear, III, vii It was he That made the ouerture of thy Treasons to vs. King Lear, I, iv Who is it that can tell me who I am?

There are in King Lear indications that it is specified as singular, namely (36) and is perhaps restricted to third person as in (37). First persons seem perhaps to be emphasized as in (38): 36.

King Lear, II, ii Is it two dayes since I tript vp thy heeles.

151

37. 38.

King Lear, IV, i Is it a Beggar-man King Lear, IV, vii And so I am: I am.

Other indications that it is specified as third singular come from Paul Bunyan's The Pilgrim's Progress: 39.

Pilgrim, 5110 It is you, it is you they wait for.

In 8.2, I have shown that, in both modern and earlier English, it can function as an argument. In the previous chapter, I showed that it could also function as an expletive. There are other languages where similar elements do not have a dual function, e.g. Swedish, to be shown in 8.5.

8.3

Uses of Apparently Expletive It

Kellner (1905: 179) writes that // "is sometimes used ... where we say there". This would suggest it is an expletive. An instance is (40), from the late fourteenth century. However, this seems not a frequent use if, for instance, one checks all the occurrences of it were in the Canterbury Tales and the occurences of hit weore(ri) in Layamon's Brut. In Chaucer, there are only 4 occurrences of this construction. One of them is provided as (41). The use of were in this example seems not to be related to a plural post-verbal NP since the vast majority of cases have a singular postverbal NP, as in (42) and (43). It seems more of a subjunctive marker. In Layamon, the same occurs. In (44), the post-verbal NP is plural, but there are many more occurrences of postverbal singular NPs, as in (45). The same construction occurs in other texts as (40) and (46) show: 40.

41. 42. 43.

Gawayn, 1251 Bot hit ar ladyes inno3e bat leuer wer nowpe but there are women enough that preferably were neither (Tolkien edition, cf. Mosse 1962: 152; Visser p. 42) Chaucer, The Clerk's Tale IV, 849-50 it is well in my mynde It were my wrecched clothes. Chaucer, The Summoner's Tale III, 2160 He looked as it were a wilde boor. Chaucer, Prologue I, 89 Embrouded was he, as it were a meede.

152 44.

Layamon, Caligula 12691 ah hit weoren men pa kenlukeste, but it were-PL men the most bold 'but it were the boldest men'. Layamon, Caligula 3504 bach hit weoren an eorles wif, though it were-PL an earl's wife Mandeville's Travels, 175-26, as bough it weren gowrdes (van der Meer 1929: 150)

45.

46.

In Chaucer (Kerkhof 1966: 140), it is a general pronoun, meaning s/he. This may also account for some of the examples, e.g. (42)70. In conclusion to 8.3, it can be said that even though sentences (40) to (46) at first sight seem to involve an expletive element because the postverbal NP appears to determine verbal agreement, this turns out not to be correct. They are subjunctives. Hence, it can be seen as an argument here, as in Modern English constructions such as (19). Thus far in this chapter, I have shown that it in English can be an argument and then it has third person singular features. In the next section, I examine constructions very similar to (6) that display a puzzling 'transmission' of phi-features.

8.4

'It are them' Constructions

In Dutch, sentences occur where an accusative postverbal NP agrees with the verb. This is problematic for, among other theories, Burzio's Generalization: het 'it' is defective in number and does not seem to be an argument even though the postverbal argument gets accusative Case. In section 8.4.2,1 show that the same holds for French ce and in 8.4.3, it is shown that in Chaucer's English, it is an argument defective in person (and perhaps in number). Within Minimalism, there exists a straightforward account for this, namely, phi-feature movement at LF. As in earlier chapters, phi-features are broken up in number, person and (in some languages) gender.

8.4.1 Dutch Het I first list the Dutch data and then provide an account within a Minimalist framework. I also show that number, person and, in some dialects, gender features are relevant in Dutch and that het 'it' is an argument not specified for all the features.

70

I leave cleft sentences out, but see Traugott (1972: 134), Visser (1963: 49) and Kellner (1905: 179-80).

153 In English, as mentioned in 8.1, when it functions as an argument in (47) and (48), it has clear features of its own, i.e. third person singular, and the verb only agrees with it: 47. 48.

It is them. It is me.

This is unlike what happens in Dutch, as I have shown in van Gelderen (1992). One way of translating (47) and (48) is (49) and (50) respectively: 49.

50.

Zij zijn net71, they are it 'It is them'. Ik ben het, I am it 'It is me'.

In these sentences, zij 'they' and ik T are subjects72 and they agree in number and person with the verb; het is a complement. The verb, as expected agrees with the subject. The full paradigm is:

51.a. Ik ben het, I am-IS it 'It is me'. b. Jij bent het, you are-2S it c. Hij/zij is het, he/she is-3S it d. Wij zijn het, we are-P it e. Jullie zijn het, you are-P it f. Zij zijn het, they are-P it

71 72

In most (spoken) varieties of Dutch, especially southern and western ones, zij 'they' is replaced by hun in all subject positions. This is clear when the construction is used in subordinate clauses as in (i): i. dat ik het ben, that I it am 'that it is me'.

154

(The data are the same when het 'it' is replaced by dot 'that', with minimal change in meaning)73. Another way of translating constructions such as (47) and (48) would be as in (52). This is where the phenomenon under investigation presents itself: in (52f) and in the singular version (52c), the verb agrees in number with the accusative Hun 'them' and hem 'him' and not with the nominative subject het 'it': 52.a. *Het is/ben mij, it is-3S/am-lS me 'It is me'. b. *Het is/bent jou, it is-3S/are-2S you c. Het is hem/*haar (maar)74, it is-3S him/her only 'It is him/her (only)'. d. *Het is/waren ons (maar), 'It is-3S/were-P us (only)'. e. *Het waren jullie, it were-P you-P f. Het waren hun (maar), it were-P them (Again het can be replaced by dat). In a Minimalist framework, LF movement of the relevant phi-features of the postverbal NP to the position where checking takes place (C or I) is possible. Feature attraction is necessary in Dutch since het is a 'marginal' argument. Because het lacks number features, the verb (in C) checks its person features with het but the number features need to be attracted from the postverbal NP. This presents no problem since the phi-features of NPs are Interpretable and can move multiple times if necessary (for instance to check the features in AGRo as well). Thus, as in chapter 1, phi-features are divided into (at least) person and number features. I now indicate which features are relevant in Dutch; and what the status of het is.

73

74

The same construction can be found in older versions of English (cf. Visser 1963: 237): i. clOOO OE Gospel John IX, 9 Ic hyt com. ii. c!300 Amis & Amilioun, 1138 pat ich hit be. The use is very limited. Checking the Old English Beowulf, The Junius MS, The Exeter Book and Vercelli Book and the Middle English Brut and Gawain and the Green Knight no instances are found (Oxford Text Archive and Univesity of Virginia computer readable versions). The Dutch sentences are ones I accept as a native speaker. They have been checked with other speakers as well. ANS (p. 173) says that sentences such as (52c) only occur with reduced forms of the pronoun. This is not true for me.

155

In Dutch, verbal endings display both number and person, but not gender: 53.a. b. c. d. e. f.

ik ga jij gaat zij/hij gaat wij gaan jullie gaan zij gaan

I go-lS you-S go-S s/he goes-S we go-P you-P go-P they go-P

It is not possible to apply Kayne's (1991b) argumentation of English to Dutch. As discussed in 0.3, Kayne sees go in English as +plural and goes as -plural. This works well for English since there are only two verb forms in English. In Dutch, this is impossible because plural gaan 'go' is not the same verb form as the first person ga 'go'. Since there are three verb forms ga, gaat and gaan, [±plural] will not suffice. At least, number and person are necessary. However, from the data presented below, it also follows that gender is a feature the verb checks. As mentioned, it is unclear whether or not het in (52) is an argument. There are two reasons for saying it is. The first is that it is possible to question het as in (54), as in its English counterpart (55), and the second is that het cannot be left out in (57) below: 54. 55.

Wie is hem? Who is him? (as answer to 'It is him').

Expletives are optional in Dutch subordinate clauses as (56) shows. This is not true in the case of het as (57) shows: 56. 57.

Ik weet dat (er) vijf mensen gekomen zijn, Ί know that (there) five people come have'. Ik weet dat het/*0 hem was, Ί know that it him was'.

This indicates that het in (57) is an obligatory element. Thus, het can serve as subject with the zijn 'to be' that is under discussion only when the postverbal NP is a third person masculine. In those constructions, het is specified for person and gender (third person masculine) but not for number and needs to get number features elsewhere75. There are dialects of Dutch in which haar in (52c) is grammatical. This means het in those dialects is specified for person only (cf. ANS, p. 173) and that the features in C need to be checked by another source, i.e. through the features of the postverbal NP. 75

Borer (1989), following an idea by Rizzi, argues that expletives are inherently marked for person (i.e. for third), but not for number and gender. Sentences such as (52c) and (52f) show that this holds not just for expletives hut also for arguments. Also, as will be shown in 8.4.3, in Chaucer's English, it is not specified for person.

156

Summarizing the Minimalist account, construction (52) involves covert phi-feature movement to the domain of the 'deficient' argument, i.e. to the C-position. If het in Dutch is only specified for third person masculine, it is not a full argument and the number features of the postverbal will be attracted to I. Since they are Interpretable, and are not deleted, this results in a convergent derivation. The verb checks its person features with het but checks the number features covertly. This possibility is problematic in early Minimalism since the NP would have had no reason to move and covert movement would have violated 'greed'. In later Minimalism, the notion of 'attract' is introduced. Now, features are attracted into a position when necessary. This construction is interesting for a Minimalist account in that it raises the question why (58) is ungrammatical. In (58), het would have third person and the number features would be attracted to I at LF, just like person and gender features are attracted at LF in Arabic (cf. chapter 1): 58.

*Het is ik/mij, 'It is I/me'.

Thus, the ungrammaticality of (58) indicates that the post-verbal NP must check its person phi-features (perhaps because they are non-Interpretable) or that the person and number features are a unit in Dutch but that they are separate in Arabic. The situation in French will turn out to be the same as in Dutch. In conclusion, there are a number of constructions in Dutch where a defective het appears, namely one not specified for number. Within Minimalism, there is a good account available, namely that some of the phi-features move to C at LF and check the non-Interpretable features of C, so that the phi-features of the verb can also receive content.

8.4.2 French Ce In French76, the following verb forms do and do not appear after ce: 59. 60.

C'est moi/toi/lui/elle/nous/vous/eux, 'It is me/you/he/she/us/you/them'. *Ce suis moi/*C'es toi/C'est elle/C'est lui/*Ce sommes nous/*C'etes vous/Ce sont eux. 'It am me/It are you/It is her/It is him/It are us/It are you/It are them'.

In (59), ce is like English it, i.e. fully specified for third person singular. In constructions such as these, ce is an argument and LF phi-feature movement is not relevant. In (60), however, the situation is more complex and similar to similar to Dutch. Ce is not specified

76

Cf. Zaring (1994) for an account of non-argumental elements.

157 for number but is specified for third person, as Ce sont eux in (60) shows. Pollock (1983) says that C'est eux is replacing Ce sont eux, indicating that ce is becoming specified for number, namely singular. The ungrammatical forms in (60) must still be acounted for but the account is no different from the one for Dutch. One can argue that the number-features of the postverbal NP move at LF and that the verb checks its number features with the ones attracted.

8.4.3

Chaucer's It

As in 8.4.1, I first present the data and discuss the status of it before providing an account. The translation of Modern English (6) in (late fourteenth century) Chaucer is (61), and not like (6) in agreement. Other examples are provided in (62) to (67). Searching all of Chaucer, I have found 10 instances of it am I, In these, /'/ is the subject because, in (67), it occurs after the complementizer and before the verb. However, the verb agrees with the postverbal NP in person and number, whereas in Dutch, it does so only in number, cf. (52c): 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67.

Chaucer, Shipman's Tale VII, 214-5 "Quy la?" quod he. "Peter, it am I", Quod she. The Knight's Tale, I, 1460 for sothe it am nat I. Idem, I, 1736-7 I am thy mortal foo, and it am I that loveth The Miller's Tale I, 3766 What, who artow? It am I Absalon The Man of Law's Tale II, 1109-10 It am I fader, that in the salte see was put Tale of Melibee, 1089 that am nat I. Chaucer, Troilus & Criseyde i, 588 Wostow not wel that it am I.

Even though, the construction seems to be favored when the postverbal pronoun is a first person singular, constructions such as (68) to (70) also occur. I have listed all instances that I could find. The postverbal NPs are all singular and this might be a coincidence but it might also point to it being specified for number, i.e. singular, but not for person: 68. 69. 70.

Man of Law's Tale, II 1054 He knew wel verraily that it was she. Troilus & Criseyde v, 1116 they seyden it was she. Legend of Good Women, 1058 And openly biknew that it was he.

158

There is another construction with pronouns other than first person singular, one where the verb form is a subjunctive be as in (71) to (73): 71. 72. 73.

Romaunt of the Rose, 36 Whether that it be he or she. Romaunt of the Rose, 2348 Whether so it be thou wake or wynke. Romaunt of the Rose, 4767 But it be they of yvel lyf

So, there is a slight tendency for verbs not to be inflected when the postverbal pronoun is second or third person or plural. I have no explanation for that. If one assumes that it is defective, or underspecified, it must have received its features from another NP. In earlier frameworks, expletives are replaced. In the present framework, features of another element are used to take care of the checking. These features do not replace the expletive but move to the position where feature checking takes place. In (61) to (70), the verb gets person (and possibly number) features from the postverbal NP through the movement of the latter's features at LF. These features are Interpretable and are not deleted. Thus, Chaucerian it is perhaps less specified than its Dutch counterpart which is specified for third person. There are other differences between Chaucer's English on the one hand and Dutch and Modern English on the other: in the former, be is not a verb that assigns structural Case to its object. In Dutch, hem in (52c) is accusative and so are them/me in Modern English (47) and (48). In Chaucer, / is nominative (as is the case in other Germanic languages such as Swedish and German). In Modern English and Dutch, be assigns Case to the postverbal NP (i.e. the latter checks its features with V in AGRo) and it checks its Case in a Spec-Head relationship with I or C. In Chaucer's English, the argument in subject position may check the strong D-features but nothing else (or the D- and number-features). Hence, the Case of the postverbal NP and the person and number features are attracted to I. The construction encountered in Chaucer is very short lived. Visser lists the first instance as 1338 and the last as 1440 (Visser 1963: 238). There are texts that lack these constructions, e.g. Gawain and the Green Knight (1345?) but in these texts, /'/ is nevertheless unspecified for number as in (74). This is also true in another text, Piers Plowman B, where (61) does not occur but where (75) does: 74. 75. 76.

Gawain, 280 Hit am aboute on bis bench bot berdlez chylder. Piers Plowman B, 15.321 If any peple perfourme that texte . it ar this pore freres! Piers Plowman B, 13.172 'It is but a Dido,' quod this doctour.

159

In conclusion to section 8.4, I have shown that, in addition to expletives, elements exist that lack specification for certain features: for number in Dutch and French and for (number and) person in Chaucer's English. In Modern English, it seems to be fully specified in all cases. I have indicated a number of ways of accounting for these data in a Minimalist framework. The best account is that the relevant phi-features of the postverbal NP move to the functional category relevant to checking.

8.5 Swedish As mentioned in the introduction to this chapter, not all languages have an argument or partially specified argument counterpart to the expletive. Swedish is an example. The Swedish translation of sentences such as (21) above is different as (77) and (78) show. However, no number agreement occurs on Swedish verbs. Hence, no evidence can be derived from (77) and (78), but constructions with a list reading such as (17) above do not occur as the ungrammaticality of (79) shows: 77. 78.

79.

*Det ar mig, 'It is me'. Det är jag, 'It is . *Det finns/är borgmästaren, pastorn, mig ... There's the mayor, the minister, me ...

Since number agreement is not marked on the verb in Swedish, it is hard to determine whether a sentence such as (80) has an existential reading or a list reading one. One might be listing who is in the garden as an answer to 'who might be helpful'. However, the latter interpretation is not possible according to native speakers. If it were, det would be an argument as in the English constructions discussed above. In addition, the postverbal NP must be indefinite, unexpected if the construction were a list one. This Definiteness Effect, typical of existentials, is demonstrated in (80) and (81): 80. 81.

Det finns en kvinna i trädgarden, There is a women in the garden'. *Det finns kvinnan i trädgarden, There is the woman in the garden'.

Therefore, Swedish shows no evidence of an argument det or else, (79), and (81), would be grammatical.

160

8.6

Conclusion

In this chapter, I have discussed instances of it other than those discussed in the previous chapter. These can be shown to be arguments with third person singular features (8.1, 8.2 and 8.3) or arguments with partial phi-features (8.4). In the case of argument it, verbal agreement is as expected, namely with it. Partially specified arguments determine verbal agreement to the extent that they have features. I have claimed that using LF feature movement provides an elegant account of the phenomena. Thus, the features of a postverbal NP are attracted to I and account for the agreement. In keeping with what I have argued elsewhere, the phi-features are divided into number and person (and in some languages gender as well) even though Dutch and French may provide evidence that number and person features are linked. These languages provide data that are interesting for Minimalist feature checking. Unlike the feature attraction in Arabic, where just one feature is attracted, Dutch and French may provide evidence that features are attracted in a 'bundle'.

9

Indefinites: The Grammaticalization of Nouns77

9.0

Outline

The many orthographic variants (man, mon, me(ri)) of the indefinite pronoun are arguments, not expletives. Yet, the agreement on the verb varies in number in earlier varieties of English. This 'breakdown' of agreement is unexpected in arguments78 since there is no appropriate other argument to supply the missing features. This is in sharp contrast with the expletive there which lacks phi-features, as described in chapter 6, or with the pseudoargument it described in chapter 8. Therefore, rather than arguing that the indefinite pronoun is unspecified, I will argue it varies depending on whether it is more lexical or more functional. This accounts for why its grammaticalization is unlike other such changes. In previous chapters (4 and 5), I have argued that the relative pronoun and expletive there lose features throughout the history of English in a grammaticalization process. As this happens, they also become separate in shape from their more lexical origins. In Old English, relatives and there start out as specified for gender, Case and person, but become 'unmarked' for number and gender; and Case loses much of its importance. The changes affecting man are (a) a loss of lexical content (for example, maleness, strength, warriorhood are lost79), (b) an orthographic rigidification (man rather than mann or man and me rather than men), and (c) a fixing of the phi-features. Thus, the grammaticalization of man does not completely parallel what happens to other nominal elements: as it loses lexical content, specialized (shorter) forms appear as expected, but grammatical features become fixed, namely singular, third person and masculine, which is unexpected. It is also striking that the development is one that goes back and forth. An earlier text need not necessarily have fewer grammaticalized indefinite forms. In this chapter, I sketch the situation chronologically. In 9.1,1 explore Old, Early Middle and Middle English; in 9.2, fifteenth and sixteenth century English; and in 9.3, Modern English. Finally, in 9.4,1 examine other languages with indefinite pronouns. The conclusions 77

*7W

79

As in chapter 5, I make extensive use of TACT and the computer readable edition of Layamon's Brut and Chaucer's Canterbury Tales from Oxford Text Archive. In addition, I have gone through Katherine paying attention to men and have examined the Harvard Concordance of Shakespeare's work for men and one. I do not consider indefinites using body such as everybody. These appear quite late, according to the OED, 1530 but I have found one in Chaucer (Man of Law's Tale, 1. 672). Reflexives are arguments but, in some languages, lack features. For instance, German sich and Dutch zich(zelf) is third person, non specified for gender or number (cf. ANS 263-65). Yiddish zikh is unspecified for number, person and gender. One might say that they are very different from indefinites in that reflexives in German, Dutch and Yiddish are unspecified but linked to an antecedent. Since they are never subjects (for independent reasons), this is not relevant to agreement. According to the OED, both meanings of male and human being are available in Old English.

162

are that there is no 'breakdown' in agreement but that texts vary as to how indefinite the pronoun is. If it is indefinite, i.e. has lost lexical meaning, it causes singular agreement on the verb; if it is lexical, it brings about either singular or plural agreement.

9.1

Old and Middle English

In Old English, man and /no«80 are used as indefinite pronouns. Very often, an indefinite pronoun will be used in cases where modern English would use a passive (Quirk & Wrenn 1955 [1977]: 73; 81). In these instances, the agreement on the verb seems generally to be third person singular. Wulf ing (1894: 457) says that the indefinite use of man usually triggers singular agreement in Alfredian Prose. It is unclear what 'usually' means. Fröhlich (1951: 30 ff) mentions some examples in Old English where man is used as a plural and Visser (p. 51) writes that man and me(n) "could have the verb in the singular and the plural". Of the latter, (1) is an instance: 1.

OE Chronicle an. 565 paet igland be man li nemnaö, the island which man li call-P 'the island which one calls li'.

Checking Beowulf, there are 15 instances of singular man, 14 of singular mon and 14 of plural men. Whenever these are subjects, they trigger the 'correct' agreement. Quirk & Wrenn (1955 [1977]: 142) claim that early scribes indicate the difference between the lexical Noun and the indefinite pronoun orthographically, namely mann versus man (but neither Campbell 1959 nor the OED mentions this). Orthographic differentiation occurs in Early Middle English as well, as will be shown below. The differentiation in Old English may indicate the start of the grammaticalization process. As to the indefinite pronoun in Early Middle English, there are 12 occurrences81 of me in Katherine (an early thirteenth century text). Only singular endings, as in (2) and (4), occur on the verb. This means me is not seen as plural but is an indefinite pronoun. In modern English, a similar construction would involve they, you or one or be passive: 2.

80 81

Katherine 567 be me mei hire demen, which men may her judge 'to which she may be doomed'.

Quirk & Wrenn (1955 [1977]: 134) mention the influence of the nasal on the /a/, making it into an lot. In the Einenkel version of the Royal Ms, these are 11. 567, 626, 719, 1176, 1405, 1751, 1752, 2012, 2130, 2199, 2204 and 2485 (cf. Glossary of the Einenkel edition).

163 3.

4.

Idem, 2199 Me com i be marhen, Men came in the morning 'They came in the morning'. Idem, 2204 p me seide hit upon, who men said it on 'who they accused of it'.

In Katherine, won, monnes, men and monne also appear. Man is singular and men is plural and they are used in all cases except the genitive. In the genitive Case, monnes is used for the singular and monne for the plural. Thus, in Katherine, me is an indefinite pronoun, in orthography and meaning quite different from the lexical mon and men. It is also different in causing singular agreement on the verb. The two versions of Layamon's Brut differ considerably in the use of the indefinite pronoun. In the earlier and more conservative version, i.e. Caligula, of the 363 occurences of men, 1982 are clearly indefinite and mainly cause plural agreement as in (5) and (7); the others are plural definites as in (9). In the later version, i.e. Otho, there are 277 instances of men of which 10 are indefinites (these are the same as in Caligula, e.g. (6)). Some of the men occurrences of Caligula become me as in (10) or passive in Otho, as in (11). In Otho, however, the verb is always singular as in (6) and (8), indicating a change from lexical use: 5.

6. 7.

8. 9.

82

Caligula 6869 for men hit saeiden wel iwhaer, because men it said-P everywhere 'because it was said everywhere'. Idem, Otho for men hit saide wel i-war. Caligula 9771 pat men maden teilen, which men may tell-P 'which could be told'. Idem, Otho bat men ma we teile, Caligula 545 Al his men duden; swa be king hehte, all his men did-P such the king commanded 'All his men did what the king commanded'.

The 19 clearly indefinite uses of men in Caligula can be found in lines 1028, 3021, 6869, 7332, 8876, 9117, 9118, 9771, 11133, 12048, 12076, 12101, 12420, 12443, 12719, 12839, 13896, 14175 and 14213.

164

10.

11.

Otho, 3021 bo me hit cleopede. Belynes3at, 'though men called it Belyesgate'. Otho, 7332 bat Darwent his ihote, 'which Darwent is called'.

So, in Caligula, men is lexical and causes plural verbal agreement, whereas in Otho, men causes singular agreement and occasionally appears as me rather than men. There are two cases of VS word order in Caligula, namely (12) and (13), and in keeping with what I have said in chapter 3, there is no agreement on the verb in these sentences. Compare (12) and (14) which are almost identical except for the verb subject order and the agreement: 12.

13.

14.

Caligula, 3021 beo clupede men hit Bel3aes-3ate, though called men it Belyesgate Idem, 13896 ba funde men bene kaisere, then found men the emperor Idem, 1028 pat men heo clepeden Lundin, that men it called-P London

Apart from the indefinite use of men, there is also a definite (lexical) use where the agreeing verb has plural agreement as in (15). Man is used as the singular definite Noun in both Caligula (442 occurences) and Otho (16 occurences), as in (16) and (17). In Otho, man is used less; man is used instead in a way comparable to man in Caligula. However, like men, man is less definite in both versions. In Caligula, 36 of the 45 occurences of man are as in na(n) man as in (18) and in Otho, 54 of the 354 are no man as in (19). Man is also used as an indefinite in Caligula and Otho, as in (20) and (21). The agreement on the verb in these cases is singular: 15.

16.

17.

Otho, 8 wat be men ihote weren, what the men called were-P Caligula, 191 inne Griclonde was a 3ung mon; of briti 3eren, In Greece was a young man of thirty years Otho, 13932 Kay bat was be riche mon, 'Kay who was the rich man'.

165

18.

19. 20.

21.

Caligula, 12159 ba na man ne mihte ikennen, that no one no could know Otho, idem pat no man ne miht kenne. Caligula, 7929 What mai man uinden, 'What may one find'. Otho, 7747-8 he saide bat 3ef man funde [...] eny cnaue child, 'He said that if one found ... any knight's child'.

In neither Caligula nor Otho do one or one appear as indefinites; just as numerals as in (22): 22.

Caligula, 73 t>e king heuede ane douter, 'the king had one daughter'.

In Chaucer, according to Kerkhof (1966: 196), men "is mostly accompanied by a singular verb". This is not quite true. There are 439 instances of men in The Canterbury Tales and most of these are indefinite. Among the first 20 occurrences, 3 clearly cause the verbs to be plural as in (23) to (25). Not all are indefinites, e.g. (26): 23.

24.

25.

26.

Prologue, 622 Biside a toun men clepen baldeswelle, Next to a town men call-P Baldeswelle Knight's Tale, 1989 Thurgh which men myghten any light discerne, Through which men might-P any light discern Knight's Tale, 2195-6 That yet men wenen that no mannes wit ... ne koude amenden it, That yet men believe-P that no man's wit ... not could amend it Prologue 178 seith that hunters ben nat hooly men, says that hunters are-P not holy men

In (25), it is certainly possible to say that men has not completely grammaticalized. In (26), this is certainly true. Jud-Schmid (1962) lists a number of instances where men and a man alternate with regular pronouns. An example from Chaucer is (27). If speakers freely alternate, for instance, men and we, this means that the person features on men are flexible, just as the number features mentioned above:

166

27.

Boethius III, p 9, 204 ... in ryght litel thynges men schulde byseche the help of God, what juggestow that be now done, so that we may desserve to fynde the seete of thilke sovereyne good? (from Jud-Schmid 1962: 65)

Mon does not occur and most instances of man are definite except when it is preceded by no and som, as in (28) and (29). Chaucer does not use on(e) or an(e) indefinite pronouns: 28.

29.

Prologue, 251 Ther nas no man nowher so vertuous, there not-was no man nowhere so virtuous 'There wasn't a man anywhere so virtuous'. Knight's Tale, 1257 And some man wolde out of his prisoun fayn, 'And some man wanted out of his prison gladly'.

In summary to 9.1, different texts vary greatly with respect to their use of an indefinite 'man'. Katherine uses a grammaticalized me that causes singular agreement on the verb but also employs the lexical man and men. In the Caligula version of Layamon's Brut, men is more lexical since it co-occurs with plural verbs whereas in the Otho version of the same text, me(n) is more grammatical ized. Chaucer, on occasion, uses the lexical form of men and, on other occasions, the grammatical one.

9.2

Early Modern English: C15 and C16

The use of man/men in fifteenth century texts varies enormously. Zickner (1900: 37) writes that "Pecock verwendet, um das unbestimmte 'man' wiederzugeben: 'a man' oder das plurale 'men'" ['Pecock uses 'a man' or the plural 'men' to express the indefinite 'man"]. Hence, the use is not grammatical ized. Van der Meer (1929: 107-8) writes that in Mandeville's Travels, written in the middle of the century, both on, me(n) and man are used. On has quite definite reference. Baldwin (1894: 20) says in relation to Malory's Morted'Arthur that "[tjhe indefinite me has disappeared, and men is regarded as a plural" even though "men saith occurs once". The date of this work is 1470. The language of Caxton (1480s) shows a use of one that is still quite definite as in (30), even though de Reul (1901: 73) argues that uses as in (31) and (32) are close to Modern English usage:

30.

'Reynard, 52/36

31.

One false shrewe and deceyvar hath betrayed me. Idem, 70/33 One shal alway seke on his frendis.

167

32.

Idem, 86/11 How may one better be taken than by his owne propre envye suffre hym self to betaken.

Hence, in the fifteenth century, the use of the indefinite pronoun man is still far from uniform. There is some evidence that some forms are grammaticalized in that they do not vary in number. In Shakespeare (cf. Franz 1909: 314), men is still used as an indefinite pronoun with plural agreement, but one also occurs (with singular verbs). According to Visser (1963: 51), the use of man, me, men becomes obsolete in the 15th century and it is replaced by people, you, they, one and by the use of the passive. Looking through the instances of constructions using men in Shakespeare, most of the instances are not indefinite but definite. Yet, indefinites occur of which typical instances with men are (33), (34) and (35) and with one are (36) and (37): 33. 34. 35. 36. 37.

Comedy of Errors IV, ii, 59 Haue you not heard men say That time comes stealing on by night and day? Troilus and Cressida I, ii, 289 Men prize the thing vngain'd, more then it is. / Henry IV, I, ii, 27 and let men say, we be men of good Gouernment. / Henry IVIII, ii, 197 One that no persuasion can doe good vpon. 3 Henry VI, III, ii, 135 like one that stands vpon a Promontorie

The indefinites with one in Shakespeare resemble the modern English ones where one replaces part of an NP, i.e. is a proform as in (36) and (37). I have not found one used as in (31), (32) above, and (38): 38.

One does not like to go there.

Note that oneself is not usual until after Shakespeare and that hence, one in (38) is a determiner with an ellipted NP. The account in this chapter is different from that in previous chapters. The grammaticalization of men 'men' to an indefinite pronoun causes the changes in agreement. This is obvious in Layamon. However, unlike it or there, men was always an argument and therefore 'transmission' of features is not relevant.

168

9.3

Modern English: Indefinite but Third Person Masculine

It is sometimes claimed that modern English man(kind) is unspecified for gender but this is a political matter. Whereas in Old English it is "used explicitely as a designation equally applicable to either sex" (OED entry for man), in most instances of this kind mentioned in the OED, the word is further paraphrased as in (39), from the 18th century: 39.

Hume, Pol. Disc., x, 159 There is in all men, both male and female, a desire and power of generation more active than is ever universally exerted.

It may be necessary extralinguistically to use man as not having a feature [masculine] but (40) seems much more grammatical than (41) and in (42) and (43), the text of a Marlboro advertizement, it is unclear whether both males and females are included since the advertizements feature males. Thus, for most speakers, man is a third person masculine: 40. 41. 42. 43. 44.

Man grows a beard. ?Man is pregnant for nine months. Man may destroy the earth. Marlboro Country. Wherever men smoke for flavor83. To boldly go where men have not gone before.

The speakers that argue that man in (40) to (43) is not specified for gender continue to use it in this context. Most advocates of 'politically-correct' speech, however, avoid this use and, for them, one might argue that man in English is specified as masculine, third singular, unlike occurrences in earlier versions. As mentioned discussing Shakespeare's use of one, modern English has a indefinite pronoun as in (45). It replaces part of an NP and is definite: 45.

The king from England and the one from France.

Closing off this subsection, in modern English, man is used and its features are third singular masculine.

9.4

Dutch and French Indefinites

Dutch examples of indefinite pronouns are (46) and (47):

83

This advertizement appeared in VPRO Gids, 28 May 1994, but is a typical instance.

169 46.

Men moet/*moeten dat doen, one should-S/should-P that do This should be done'. Men moet zichzelf met een korreltje zout nemen, One should-S oneself with a grain (of) salt take.

47.

Men is third person singular in Dutch and does not display variation in agreement. The same is true in standard French where the indefinite subject is on. The verb shows third person, singular agreement: 48.

On est fous, 'You/they are crazy'. (cf. Blinkenberg 1968: 79) On est belle, They are pretty', (cf. Nyrop 1917: 35)

49.

However, "[d]ans quelques dialectes, le verbe est au pluriel si le sujet est le pronom on" ['In some dialects, the verb is plural if the subject is the pronoun on'] (H0ybye 1944: S8)84, indicating a situation similar to the one described in 9.1.

9.5

Conclusion

In this chapter, I have discussed nouns that lose lexical content. These nouns tend to become orthographically more uniform and specified for singular. The degree of grammaticalization varies enormously between texts. For instance, in the early thirteenth century text Katherine, me is a singular indefinite pronoun, whereas mon and men are the lexical nouns. In Caligula, there is no clear division between grammaticalized and lexical elements; in Otho, there is more. In Chaucer, there is little differentiation and this text is Old-fashioned' where it concerns indefinites. In the fifteenth century, the use of indefinites is again very diverse: some texts show very little evidence of a grammaticalized man/men. This is also true for Shakespeare. In modern English, man is used in a more definite sense, since it is masculine and singular. This is also true for Dutch and standard French. Thus, although the grammaticalization of man is by no means uniform, a 'breakdown' of agreement is not involved.

84

This use is said to be comparable to Tavons' in older French (Nyrop 1917: 92).

10 Coordination85 10.0 Outline Coordination often causes a 'breakdown' of the agreement between the coordinated NP subject and the verb. It is as if a coordinated NP is too complex or intransparent for Case and agreement phenomena to see through. I will argue that this complexity is due to a variety of reasons: (a) the asymmetical structure of the coordinate NP; (b) the difference between SpecHead agreement and government (tying in with chapter 3); (c) the unclarity as to whether connection words are prepositions or conjunctions; and (d) the percolation mechanism of the features86 in an asymmetrical structure. These reasons are not quite comparable because they are interconnected. For instance, with a particular word order, a first person NP may determine the agreement on the verb. Throughout, I maintain that 'default' Case is not a relevant notion because the conjuncts without the appropriate Case do not all receive a uniform Case. As mentioned in the introductory chapter, I will not be concerned with the question as to which Nouns are collectives or special NPs and trigger singular or plural agreement for some idiosyncratic reason. Much has been written about that in traditional grammars (e.g. Quirk et al 1985; Zandvoort 1945 [1969]). I have structured the chapter as follows. In section 1, I discuss that Case and agreement can be different in coordinates because one of the NPs occupies a 'privileged' structural position. In section 2, I show why 'breakdown', when it occurs, occurs more frequently in VS constructions. In section 3, I indicate a second, non-structural, reason why one NP may be 'privileged' over another, namely if it is more prominent in animacy. In section 4, I indicate that prepositions and coordinating conjunctions are hard to distinguish and this is indeed when the 'failure' of agreement occurs.

10.1 Asymmetry and Disagreement In 10.1.1, I indicate why binary branching is to be preferred in general as well in coordinate structures. Once binary branching is adopted, the two NPs are no longer coordinate but one is subordinate to the other. I argue in 10.1.2 that this has ramifications for Case and agreement.

85 86

Parts of this chapter were read during the LACUS meetings in San Antonio, Texas, in 1995. Cf. Zwarts (1992) for the 'percolation' of features to regular NPs.

172

10.1.1

Binary, Asymmetrical Conjuncts

Binary branching comes to be used consistently around the time of Chomsky (1986b), in order to make use of optimally hierarchical structures. In addition to this theoretical advantage of avoiding 'flat' structures, other advantages emerge. For instance, the distinction between lexical and functional categories is discovered by developing very flat structures with little constituent structure as in (1) into structures such as (2): 1.

S' ρ,/

^^ ς

NP

/ I \^

ΑυΧ>γΡ V NP

NP

The result of replacing (1) by (2) is that certain positions evolve as important (Specifier, Head and Complement); that Spec-Head agreement now accounts for Case and verbal agreement in (2); and that all categories can be seen as fitting in one abstract PS-schema as in (3), where YP is the Specifier, X the Head and ZP the complement: 3. a. b.

XP X'

-> ->

YP X

X' ZP

It has been problematic to analyze coordinate structures and double object structures as binary and as derived from (3). One of the reasons is that the intuition many people have about coordination and double object constructions is that two equal constituents are joined. Thus, structures as in (4) (see e.g. McCawley 1968, I; and Moltmann 1992 for a discussion) and (5) (cf. Chomsky 1981) express those intuitions: 4

·

XP

χ-

, ^ and XP

5 V^ NP "^NP

87

The double object structure in (2) is the one as in Kayne (1983: 199-200). Since then, many other binary structures have been proposed. This is not relevant here, however.

173

A binary structure is attempted for double object structures as early as Kayne (1983), (cf. (2) above) and for coordination structures as early as Ross (1967). Structure (4) violates the binary branching condition because it is not clear what the Head, Specifier, and Complement are. There have been attempts to remedy this. In Munn (1992: 18), it is suggested that "the conjunction is a functional head ... which projects to a maximal projection". This maximal projection (i.e. and and the second conjunct) adjoins to the first conjunct as in (6). The second conjunct is not a complement of the first, but the lower Xn projects onto the higher Xn. The latter will be important in 10.1.2 for determining the features of the highest Xn: 6.

Xn

Xn""

-BP

The BP in (6) may have a Specifier that "will provide a landing site for the null operator" (p. 19, but Munn does not explain which operator). I assume the Specifier is occupied in languages such as Luiseno, discussed later. The structure in (6) is rather abstract and I therefore reformulate it as (7) for a coordinated NP: 7. NP2

^ " Coord and

Koster (1994) argues for a colon-phrase to include coordination as well as modification structures, as in (8). This would capture the insight that some types of non-restricting clauses are close to coordination. For instance, (9) is similar to (10): 8.

XP 9. 10.

:/and XP John is a nice person, which is a necessity in his job. John is a nice person and this is a necessity in his job.

I will use (7) rather than (8) because, in 10. 1 .2, I argue that and has Case features which are checked by the complement. In (8), the first XP would check these. The structure in (6) receives confirmation, according to Munn, from the sentences that Ross (1967: 90-91) provides. First, sentences (11) and (12) provide empirical evidence that the BP is a constituent (and so is the higher Xn), but that the lower Xn together with B is not. In (11), the BP of (6) or the CoordP of (7) moves correctly. In (12), the non-constituent John left and is moved and this renders the sentence ungrammatical. Second, a pause is only possible between the first conjunct and the conjunction, not between the conjunction and the second conjunct. Third, the second conjunct can be extraposed taking the conjunction along

174

as in (13) whereas the first cannot as in (14) (in a system without rightward movement, the first NP moves leaving and and the second conjunct behind): 11. 12. 13. 14.

John left. And he didn't even say goodbye. *John left and. He didn't even say goodbye. John bought a book yesterday, and a newspaper. *John bought a newspaper yesterday, a book and.

In fact, this type of dislocation of and NP occurs regularly in earlier English (cf. Roscow 1981: 22-25). For instance, (15) and (16) are from Chaucer. These indicate that the first NP moves to Spec IP or Spec CP without taking the second part along: 15.

16.

Chaucer, Merchant's Tale, 1617 Placebo cam, and eek his freendes soone, 'Placebo came, and also his friends soon'. Chaucer, Legend of Good Women, 2610 The torches brennen, and the laumpes bryghte, The torches burn, and the lamps brightly'.

Many languages allow this dislocation of the first conjunct from the conjunction and the second conjunct. For instance, in Luiseno (cf. Steele 1976: 607), a Uto-Aztecan language spoken in Southern California, both (17) and (18) are grammatical: 17.

18.

Xwaan Mariya weh pum ?owo?aan, Xwaan Mariya and AUX working 'Xwaan and Mariya are working'. Xwaan pum Mariya weh ?owo?aan, Xwaan AUX Mariya and working 'Xwaan and Mariya are working'.

In (17), the coordinate NP has moved (preposed) in its entirety whereas in (18), only the first NP has. This indicates that a structure such as (7) is correct. Weh is used for coordinating NPs (cf. Hyde 1971: 44) and another coordinator pi can also be used as in (19): 19.

Xwaan pi Mariya, 'Xwaan and Mariya'.

More evidence for (7) comes from grammaticalization. It is well-known that coordinating conjunctions become subordinating ones and vice versa. This finds an account if the structures of these constructions are similar, as (7) would suggest. For instance, Lightfoot (1991: 44) claims that in Old English the coordinator and brings about the subordinate, i.e. SOV, word order. So, and must have been a subordinator. Hale (1983: 302) also argues the Tohono O'odham coordinator c 'and' once was a subordinating conjunction.

175

Munn (1992: 20) provides other (less convincing) evidence for (7), i.e. for the asymmetric nature of Coordinate NPs, mainly from Binding. He says that if there are three branches, John and he in (20) and (21) will not be in a c-command relationship that accounts for the Binding facts. Munn argues that the first conjunct c-commands the second but not vice versa and that therefore ternary structures as in (4) are incorrect. However, a symmetrical structure for (20) is (22) and according to a standard definition of c-command, the first branching node dominating John is an NP which does not dominate he as is shown in (22). Hence, John ccommands dog but does not c-command he which is correct under most theories of Binding (where pronominals may not be c-commanded by a co-indexed element in a minimal domain): 20. 21.

John'Sj dog and he/him, went for a walk. *HCi and John'Sj dog went for a walk.

In Munn's structure, John does not c-command he either, as (23) shows, but that is no advantage over (22):

John's

The binding in (20) follows from the free indexation of he to John since the index for he is i/j. The correct c-command relations for (20) follow in either a flat or binary structure. In (21), he again c-commands John in either tree and hence John cannot bear the same index as he. So, sentences (20) and (21) in fact do not provide any evidence, but (11) to (14) do. In what follows, I assume a structure as (7), which is roughly the same as Munn's.

10.1.2

Minimalist Checking in Coordinates

In Munn (1992; 1994), there is no mention of the implications of asymmetrical coordination for agreement and/or Case checking. In this section, I develop a theory compatible with Minimalism. Regarding (7), I argue that NP1 checks the D-features of I (or AGRo); in (15) and (16), it is NP2. Case-feature checking is more complex, since each NP has a set of nonInterpretable Case features whereas there is only one set to check this against. Phi-features are attracted to I but there is more than one candidate to be attracted. I first examine Casefeatures where at least in English, it is clear that one of the NPs is 'privileged' as to checking

176

these features. The same holds in a head-final language such as Urdu except that the privileged position is the reverse one. I devise a way to check the Case-features of the nonprivileged NP as well. With respect to the checking of phi-features, I assume that in English privileged positions are not relevant, and that and in English projects plurality. In Welsh, Urdu and older versions of English, the checking of the phi-features does go 'wrong'. Under standard Minimalist assumptions, the subject moves to Spec IP to check the Dfeatures. In addition, Case and phi-features must be checked. In coordinate structures such as (7), one might argue that NP1 checks the strong D-features but that either NP2 or NPS's Case features are attracted. 'Wild' Cases are indeed encountered as in spoken English (24), (25) and (26), and not just in subject position: 24. 25. 26.

They gave my sister and I a TV set. This is between you and I. John and me went to the market

Therefore, the Case-features are checked by one of the NPs in the coordinate NP occupying Spec IP. The other NP would check its Case with the coordinate conjunction and that accepts any Case. NP1 and NP2 in Munn's structure are the same and would be expected to have the same features. Thus, the second conjunct has nominative in (24) and (25) and objective in (26). The native speakers I asked do not use (24) to (26) in formal contexts but accept these readily for informal speech. However, when the conjunct order is reversed as in (27), (28) and (29), i.e. when the first NPs are similarly marked, the result is ungrammatical for these speakers: 27. 28. 29.

*They gave I and my sister a gooseberry pie. *This is between I and you. *Me and John went to the market.

It is often assumed that the 'wrong' Case in (26) comes about through default Case (Rapoport 1986; Reuland 1983). This cannot be correct since there would have to be a different default in (24) and (25) from the one in (26). Minimalism provides a solution in that the lexical elements are taken from the lexicon with one Case or other88 but that only one of these is checked by I. This means one of the NPs has the 'right' Case, as I show below. The Case features of the other NP are attracted to the Coord-Head, as in (30), I argue, and, in English, the head and checks the Case of the second NP covertly through feature attraction:

88

I assume the genitive is a Case that only appears as a head in the D(eterminer) position, not on maximal projections.

177 30.

NP2

^CoordP

Coord and [Case]

[Case]

The Case-features of and have not been given content because verbs do not move into it (no V or phi-features). Therefore, it does not matter whether it is nominative or accusative. The same happens with the Case of a second CP, as discussed in chapter 7. The Case of the second CP is checked through and. There are languages where the second NP moves overtly to Spec CoordP, e.g. as in the Luiseno examples in (17) and (18) above. Other alleged evidence for 'default' is that appositives as in (31) and (32) get a particular Case. Thus, in the English (31), this Case is accusative, whereas in the Dutch counterpart (32), it is nominative: 31. 32.

Me, I don't want to go there! Ik, ik wil daar niet heen, I, I want there not to 'Me, I don't want to go there'.

However, to explain the different Cases, it is also possible to say that the NPs must check their Case, even where they are adverbial. There are, in fact, languages where adverbials have overt Case and that the Cases differ in the different languages. In the above, I assume that NP2 is more 'privileged' than NP3. There is empirical evidence for this in English because native speakers find (33) and (34) preferable to (35) and (36)89. The same was shown above in (24) to (26) as against (27) to (29). These facts seem to indicate that the left-most NP has the 'right' Case which is the highest in a structure as (7), and one that projects to the Coordinate NP: 33. 34. 35. 36.

89

90

He and Mary left. Mary and me left. *Him and I left. *Him and Mary left90.

Sentences such as (i) are awkward not for Case reasons but for non-linguistic conventions that disallow I and ..., and require (ii): i. *I and John left, ii. John and I left. Parker et al. (1988: 221) and Emonds (1985: 237) say this is grammatical. The native speakers I have asked do not agree and for them the two positions are different. This is what I am describing. There seems to be a construction where it is allowed, however, namely in me and my X, him and his X.

178

This is also the case in dislocated structures because (37) is better than (38). Of course, the Case may be correct on both NPs too as in (39): 37. 38. 39.

?John laughed quietly and her too. *Her laughed quietly and Mary too. He and I will be leaving.

That the leftmost NP is 'privileged' is true in earlier English as well, as (40) and (41) show (from Visser, p. 247), and in a number of other languages, e.g. in dialects of Norwegian in (42): 40. 41. 42.

Robert Greene, James the Fourth, 339 Nor earth nor heauen shall part my love and I. Shakespeare, Merchant of Venice, III, ii, 321 all debts are cleerd betweene you and I. Han och meg var sammen om det, 'He and me were together about it'. (Johannessen 1993, quoting Berntsen and Larsen).

Zoerner (1995: 3) examining multiple coordination argues that "[t]he final conjunct may in fact surface with differing Case". He attributes this to the Case checking capabilities of the conjunction. This is in fact related to what I have argued, namely that Spec CoordP is responsible for Case. So far, the examples have mainly been from English, which is a head-initial language (in the traditional sense). In English, the Case on the second conjunct may be 'deviant'. In headfinal languages, one might expect the opposite and this is indeed correct. Johannessen (1993: 53) examines the correlation between word order and exceptional behavior of one of the conjuncts in 33 languages and finds that in languages that are clearly OV, the first conjunct is deviant (e.g. Amharic, Burushaski, Hopi), whereas in VO languages, the second one is (e.g. English, Fulfulde, Old Norse). There are some mixed word orders (Afrikaans, Estonian, Dutch, German, Homeric Greek and Vedic Sanscrit) and nothing can be predicted about conjuncts in these. In this section, I will examine Urdu/Hindi, an OV language not surveyed by Johannessen, and claim that the choice as to which NP receives deviant Case follows from the structure assigned to the coordinate NP. In Hindi/Urdu, Case agreement according to Davison (1988: 53) is typically on the last, i.e. rightmost NP: 43.

laRkee oor laRkiooN kaa, boys-PL-M-NOM and girls-PL-FEM-OBL of Of the boys and the girls'.

In (43), the first NP has a masculine non-oblique Case and the oblique Case of the postposition is only realized on the second NP. Since Urdu is a Head-last language, a tree for

179

(43) might look like (44) (pace Kayne 1994) and again the highest position is the 'privileged' one and hence gets the expected Case: 44.

./Xn^ ^BPC^ Xn Yn" B

Miriam Butt (p.c) gives the following examples but notes that both NPs must receive Case when the NPs are pronominal: 45.

46.

47.

Anjum aaj kalii billii oor sufeed kuttee-koo khaanaa deegii, Anjum today (the) black cat and (the) white dog to food will give 'Anjum will give the black cat and white dog food today'. Anjum oor uskee aabu nee aaj ham-koo tennis meeN harayaa, Anjum and her father-ERG today us-OBL tennis in beat 'Anjum and her father beat us in tennis today'. Bill nee tum*(-koo) oor us-koo deekhaa thaa, Bill ERG you and him/her-OBL seen had 'Bill had seen you and her/him'. (tumhe is the correct rendering of tum-ko)

In (45), -ko is a dative marker and only the last NP (i.e. kuttee and not billii) is marked with it; in (46), -ne is an ergative marker and need only be put next to the second of the two conjunts. However, in (47), where the NPs are pronominal, the Case must be marked on both conjuncts. It may be that pronominals have non-Interpretable phi-features and that its features, unlike those of NPs, must be checked. There is other evidence for this, but I will not investigate that in detail. A note should be inserted about coordination ä la Kayne (1994). It is possible to recast (44) as branching in the other direction, as in (48): 48.

In (48), Yn moves to Spec BP and a structure is obtained in which one of the two NPs has a higher position and the structure obeys Kayne's conditions. There are obvious problems with (48) and therefore I continue to assume (44) for Urdu/Hindi even though (48) must be kept in mind. As mentioned, the analysis I assume for English coordinates is similar to the structure as in Munn and I argue that this structure is responsible for the 'breakdown' in Case. In this

180

structure, one of the conjuncts is in a 'privileged' position and this is the NP (NP2) whose Case-features are checked by I in (49): 49.

The same is true in Urdu/Hindi, except that the word order is reversed. There is a parameter about 'privileged' positions because not all languages allow Case in coordinates to 'break down'. For instance, in Dutch, sentences such as (24) to (26) are not acceptable91. Zoerner (1995) formulates such a parameter. The phi-features in English are checked by the verb. These features get their contents from the coordinate NP. Since one of the properties of English and is assumed to be projecting up plurality, the features of the coordinate NP (NP1) are plural. The plurality of and is projected even when the coordinated items are not NPs, as (50) shows: 50.

Dutch and French cheese *is/are expensive in Poland.

Not all coordinate conjunctions project plurality. For instance, or can project either plural or singular as (51) and (52) show: 51. 52.

Zoya or Zelda are going. Zoya or Zelda is going92.

The features on the verb, i.e. agreement, are not 'incomplete' in English as (53) and (54) show, but they can be in Urdu and Welsh as (55) to (58) show. In (55), syaahii determines the verbal agreement; in Welsh, Sion and ft' do. Assuming the structure of the coordinate is as in (44) and (7) above respectively, the 'privileged' NP (the last in Urdu and the first in Welsh) provides the features for the verb (i.e. its phi-features are attracted to I at LF): 53. 54.

91 92

*You and I am going. *John and Mary is going.

The one that seems very marginally acceptable is a coordinate in direct object position. In a theory where NP-coordination is seen as CP-coordination, as in for instance te Velde (1996) and Wilder (1994), CP-coordination would apply in (52) but not in (51). However, in (50), this would not be the case.

181

55.

56.

57.

58.

kaa3az oor syaahii sastii he, paper-MS and ink-FS expensive-F is-S 'Paper and ink are expensive'. Daeth S ion a minnau, Came-3-SG S ion and I 'S ion and I came'. Daethost ti a Siön, Came-2-SG you and Siön 'You and S ion came'. Daethost ti a minnau, Came-2-SG you and I (cf. Rouveret 1993).

As will be mentioned in 10.4, a person hierarchy is not relevant in these sentences since, for instance in (56), the third person unexpectedly 'wins out' over the first. In earlier English, as in (59) and (60), however, a person hierarchy seems to be at work in checking the phifeatures. I have no explanation why this is the case in this stage of English and it may not be right to look at these sentences in terms of a person hierarchy93: 59.

60.

Shakespeare, As You Like It I, iii, 99 Which teacheth thee that thou and I am one. (Franz 1909: 568) Milton, Paradise Lost 10, 815 Both death and I am found eternal. (Mätzner 1864: 155)

In Dutch, a plural verb in (61) and (62) would be the most normal but the singular is not uncommon as long as the person agreement is with the first NP in the conjunct. Singular agreement is also possible in German, as (63) shows: 61.

62.

93

94

In die kamer komen/komt/*kom hij en ik vaak, in that room come-P/comes-3S/come-lS he and I often 'He and I often use that room'. In die kamer komen/kom/*komt ik en Jan vaak, in that room come-P/come-lS/comes-3S I and John often94.

It seems as if, in earlier English, the phi-features are checked by the NP from the coordinate which is the closest to the Verb. This is hard to formalize, especially since we have no intuitions about that stage of the language. The same is true if a second person pronoun is involved. In (i), the verb checks its features with C and in accordance with what I argue in chapter 3, C cannot be specified for second person: i. Kom/*komt jij en Marie hier vaak? come-2S/come-3S you and Marie here often 'Do you and Marie often come here'

182 63.

Hierin irrt er und ich, In this is-3S wrong he and I 'He and I are wrong in this'. (Findreng 1976: 49)

Again, as mentioned in chapter 3, there is evidence that the verb in (61) to (62) checks the phi-features of C while in C. It checks its own shape that way as well. The Spec of CP is occupied by the PP in die kamer and the C becomes specified through governing a subject. If the subject has a structure as in (7) above, the highest NP has a privileged position and the V-features are given content through that highest NP. The Case-features of C are checked by the coordinate NP under government. In conclusion to 10.1, there is a privileged NP position in a coordinate that accounts for some of the cases of Case and agreement 'breakdown'.

10.2 Word Order: Spec-Head Agreement The second factor I discuss is also relevant in non-coordinate structures and is related to the word order. I will focus on the effects of word order on agreement and conclude with some instances of effects on Case. Janus (1913: 60) mentions (64), Jespersen (1913: 175) lists (65) and (66) and Zickner (1900: 92) (68) (cf. van der Meer 150-1). In most of these, the subject follows the finite verb and hence these might be analyzed similar to the cases discussed in chapter 3, i.e. where V checks its phi-features with C. As expected, these sentences are no longer found in Modern English, as (70) shows95. The reason is that features are checked under Spec-Head agreement and not under government: 64.

65.

66.

95

Katherine 1292-3 H wider is ower wit 't ower wisdom iwent? 'Where is your understanding and your wisdom gone'. Chaucer, The Friar's Tale D 1359 Thus was the wenche and he of oon assent. (Jespersen 1913: 175) Shakespeare 1 Henry IV I, ii, 126 How agrees the Diuell and thee about thy Soule? (Jespersen 1913: 175)

Ryden (1968: 59) mentions 5 VS and 3 SV constructions, but these can all be seen as instances where the coordinate NP is seen as one concept. The same is true for the ones Abbott (1872: 239) and Spekker (1881: 55) mention. An instance is (i): i. My hand and ring is yours. (Cf. also Mätzner 1864: 153).

183

67.

68.

69. 70.

Shakespeare, Merchant of Venice II, ii, 107 How doost thou and thy master agree? (Franz 1909: 568) Pecock 428, 12 that ech gouernaunce and al thing ... is unleeful and not worthi be had and usid. (Zickner 1900: 92) Hwer is Paris and Heleyne? (Mosse 1962: 152) *Where is Helena and Paris.

Corbett also mentions these word orders as typical instances where agreement breaks down in many languages. For instance, in Spanish, this is the case. As Fait (1972: 17) points out many grammars say something like "cuando el verbo se refiere a dos sujetos coordinados suele ir en plural, pero en ciertos casos puede tambien emplearse el singular". ['When the verb refers to two coordinated subjects, it usually has plural agreement, but in certain cases the singular may also be used']. The circumstances when this occurs are among others: "Es ya un lugar comun incluir la posicion del verbo entre los factores que determinan la concordancia. Todas las gramäticas dicen que el verbo se pone mäs fäcilmente en singular cuando precede a los sujetos que cuando los sigue" (p. 19).['It is now common place to include the position of the subject among those factors that determine concord. All the grammars say that the verb is more easily put in the singular when it precedes its subjects than when it follows them']. Westphal (1992: 397) provides a number of examples: 71.

72.

Muchos regalos trajo/trajeron Juan y su mujer, many presents brought-S/brought-P Juan and his wife 'Juan and his wife brought many presents'. Juan y su mujer *trajo/trajeron muchos regalos'.

One might tentatively argue that in (72) Spec-Head agreement is responsible for agreement, whereas this is not the case in (71). In (71), there may be an empty expletive (as entertained for French in chapter 2) or checking may occur under government. I will not elaborate on the exact accounts for (71) and (72). There are other languages where number agreement comes about in part under a form of government. The difference between VS and SV is not visible because government is relevant before movement. In Dine, an Athabaskan language spoken in N.E. Arizona, for example, the prefix on the verb normally indicates the subject (e.g. naashnish, 'F-lSG-work', nanilnish, 'F-2SG-work'), however Faltz (p.c.) mentions the following Dine constructions, possible with certain verbs, where the verb stem changes. These can be seen as suppletive forms: 73.

KinMnigoo nifdeesh'äazh, Flagstaff-to 2SG-with PUT-ISG-go. DUAL will go to Flagstaff with you'.

184

74.

KinMnigoo nihii diikai, Flagstaff-to IDPL-with FUT-2SG-go.PL 'You (sg) will go to Flagstaff with us'.

In (73) and (74), the (suppletive) dual and plural marking on the verb stem is determined by both arguments, not just by the subject. One might argue that in (73), the dual form (-'aazh) is checked at a level when theta-marking is relevant, but that the first person marking (-sh-) is checked under Spec-Head agreement. The same could be said in (74). The plural verb stem (-kai) is checked under government whereas the second person singular is checked under Spec-Head agreement. When a verb does not have a suppletive form for number, i.e. when the number is expressed through the plural prefix -da-, the constructions as in (73) and (74) are ungrammatical, as (75) shows (Willie, p.c.): 75.

*John doo Bill bil'nidaashnish, John and Bill with I-P-lS-work 'John and Bill worked with me'.

Hale, Jeanne and Pranka (1991) discuss suppletion and agreement in Hopi, O'odham as well as in Dine. In Hopi, most verbs form their plurals inflectionally through an affix -να (see Jeanne 1978: 85). For instance, if the number is marked just on INFL (e.g. with VPdeletion), the form is ya. However, the number can also be marked on the verb in which case there is a special (suppletive) form, as (76) and (77) show. This suppletive form agrees with the subject in (76) and (77) in intransitive constructions but with the object in (78) to (81) (orthography as in the original: 76. 77.

78.

79.

80.

81.

Nu' wari, I ran-S 'Itam yu'tu, We-P ran-P (Hale et al. 1991) nt·' taavot niina, I rabbit-OBL kill Ί killed a rabbit'. 'itam taavot niinaya we rabbit-OBL kill-PL 'We killed a rabbit'. m·' taataptiy q ya I rabbit-PL-OBL kill Ί killed rabbits'. 'itam taataptiy q qya we rabbit-PL-OBL kill-PL (Jeanne 1978: 93-4)

185

The object seems to have a special relationship with the verb which can be formalized as a government relation. This special relation between verb and object also occurs in O'odham, as (82) and (83) show (taken from Hale et al. 1991): 82. 83.

'Aani 'an med, I AUX-1S run-S 'Aacim 'ac woopo'o, We AUX-1P run-P

This verb form selection is sensitive to argument structure and Hale et al. (1991: 264) argue that "[s]uppletive verbs agree with the NP which they govern at d-structure". Zuni, a language spoken in New Mexico, has a similar suppletion for number in some verb stems (Newman 1965: 32) and prefixing in others. Since Spec-Head is a relationship that holds after d-structure, Dine, Hopi, O'odham and Zuni show that agreement comes about not just through Spec-Head agreement but in a structure more sensitive to theta-marking, as in older forms of English and Modern Dutch, as I argue earlier in this section and in chapter 3. It is often said that the lack of agreement in (84) comes about because of coordination and the VS structure. This cannot be true since in (85), from chapter 6, the same lack of agreement occurs with plural NPs: 84. 85.

There is a man and a woman in the garden. There's five unicorns in the garden.

In chapter 6, I argue that there in (84), and in (85), is an argument, not an expletive and that it agrees with the verb. Hence, (84) is not interesting to an analysis of coordination and will therefore not be dealt with here. I have mainly focussed on agreement rather than on Case. However, Case is also affected by word order as in (66) above where thee rather than thou is used. In chapter 3, I have argued that in Yiddish, Case marking is different in VS constructions as well. In conclusion to 10.2, there are many languages (Shakespearean English and Spanish) where, in VS structures, agreement is with the first NP under government. This can be seen as a subcase of 10.1 in that in some languages a VS structure provides an environment where one NP is 'privileged' under some but not under other conditions. I also show that in Dine, Hopi and O'odham, the agreement on the verb in many cases is sensitive to government as well as to Spec-Head agreement.

10.3 Percolation In this section, I examine a number of factors that affect the NP. For instance, if one of the conjuncts is negative, it will make the entire NP negative; and, if the NPs are human, the coordinate NP will be more transparent. It is hard to test the latter with Case in e.g. English

186

because the inanimate it is both nominative and objective. Therefore, I restrict myself to agreement.

10.3.1 Negation Negative agreement can be used to indicate that percolation is important. In (86), ever needs to be c-commanded by a Negative NP: 86.

Many workers and no management ever go there.

Haegeman & Zanuttini (1991: 239) argue (86) is grammatical. This would mean that the Coordinate NP has a Negative index and thus that the negative feature has percolated to the coordinate NP. NP3 (more properly DP3) in (7) gives its negative feature to NP1 (or DPI). This NP can then c-command ever. 87.

Coord and

CoordP ""NP3

I

A slightly different sentence is (88): 88.

I gave nobody's friend anything.

Anything must be c-commanded by a negative NP. Somehow, nobody which is a determiner (and head of the DP) renders the entire DP negative so that anybody can be c-commanded by a negative element (cf. Radford 1988). Not every negative element in an NP can percolate up. For instance, a negation inside a relative clause does not make the relativized NP negative: 89.

*[The friend who did not get the job] will ever run for Governor.

In (89), ever must be c-commanded by a negative NP and unlike in (86), the negation in the NP does not make the entire NP negative. In coordinates, this is the case.

187 10.3.2

Animacy: Number and Gender

I now turn to animacy but examine only a small number of issues regarding this complex issue96. In languages such as Urdu/Hindi (Platts 1873 [1967]: 236-43; Barker, 1967 [1975] I, 75-6; McGregor, 1972 [1977]: 20; Davison 1988: 53), the agreement of the verb with a coordinate subject depends on whether the NPs are animate or inanimate. As mentioned in 10.1, in Urdu/Hindi, the second NP tends to be properly Case marked. The verbal agreement is also interesting in that when inanimate NPs are involved, the gender and number of only the last NP surfaces on the verb (and the Adjective) as (55) above, repeated as (90), and (91) show. When animate, human NPs are used as in (92) and (93), the number and gender are marked 'correctly' (in cases of conflict, the masculine overrides the feminine). Hence, the animate gender and number percolate: 90.

91.

92.

93.

kaa3az oor syaahii sastii he, paper-M-S and ink-F-S expensive-F is-S 'Paper and ink are expensive'. kitaab oor pensil meez par he book-FS and pencil-FS table on is-S Ά book and a pencil are on the table'. meN or meerii bahn (doonoN) dilii meN rehtee heN, I(M) and my sister-F both Delhi in living-MP are-P Ί and my sister are living in Delhi'. laRkii oor uskii maaN jaa rahtii heN, girl-F and her-F mother-F going-F are-P The girl and her mother are going'.

However, in (92), it is hard to argue that meN T is inherently masculine; it can be feminine when it refers to a female. Therefore, one might say that it is natural gender in (92) and (93) which is responsible for the percolation of gender, were it not for the fact that, apart from gender, number does not percolate either in (90) and (91). Hence, I will continue to account for the difference between (90) and (91) on the one hand and (92) and (93) on the other in terms of animacy. In English, animacy is also claimed to play a role by e.g. Forchheimer (1953: 13) and Corbett (1979; 1983). They place animacy in a broader system of hierarchies. Forchheimer claims that certain features cause an NP to be more or less deictic. For instance, the first person is more deictic than the third; father/mother is more deictic than man; humans more than animals; animate more than inanimate. Corbett formulates a similar hierarchy as to which constructions will be more or less likely to display agreement (attributive