A Notional Theory of Syntactic Categories (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics)

This book presents an innovative theory of syntactic categories and the lexical classes they define. It revives the traditional idea that these are to be distinguished notionally (semantically). It allows for there to be peripheral members of a lexical class which may not obviously conform to the general definition. The author proposes a notation based on semantic features which accounts for the syntactic behaviour of classes. The book also presents a case for considering this classification - again in rather traditional vein - to be basic to determining the syntactic structure of sentences. Syntactic structure is thus erected in a very restricted fashion, without recourse to movement or empty elements.

CAMBRIDGE STUDIES IN LINGUISTICS General Editors: s.

R. ANDERSON, J. BRESNAN, B. COMRIE,

W. DRESSLER, C. EWEN, R. HUDDLESTON, R. LASS, D. LIGHTFOOT, J. LYONS, P. H. MATTHEWS, R. POSNER, S. ROMAINE, N. V. SMITH, N. VINCENT

A notional theory of syntactic categories

In this series

52 MICHAEL s. ROCHEMONT and PETER w. CULLICOVER: English focus constructions

and the theory of grammar 53 PHILIP CARR: Linguistic realities: an autonomist metatheory for the generative enterprise 54 EVE SWEETSER: From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure 55 REGINA BLASS: Relevance relations in discourse: a study with special reference to Sissala 56 ANDREW CHESTERMAN: On definiteness: a study with special reference to English and Finnish 57 ALESSANDRA GIORGI and GIUSEPPE LONGOBARDI: The syntax ofnoun phrases:

configuration, parameters and empty categories 58 MONIK CHARETTE: Conditions on phonological government 59 M. H. KLAIMAN: Grammatical voice 60 SARAH M. B. FAGAN: The syntax and semantics of middle constructions: a study with special reference to German 61 ANJUM P. SALEEMI: Universal Grammar and language learnability 62 STEPHEN R. ANDERSON: A-Morphous Morphology

63 LESLEY STIRLING: Switch reference and discourse representation 64 HENK J. VERKUYL: A theory of aspectuality: the interaction between temporal and atemporal structure 65 EVE v. CLARK: The lexicon in acquisition 66 ANTHONY R. WARNER: English auxiliaries: structure and history 67 P. H. MATTHEWS: Grammatical theory in the United States from Bloomfield to Chomsky 68 LJILJANA PROGOVAC: Negative and positive polarity: a binding approach 69 R. M. w. DIXON: Ergativity

70 YAN HUANG: The syntax and pragmatics of anaphora 71 KNUD LAMBRECHT: Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents 72 LUIGI BURZIO: Principles of English stress 73 JOHN A. HAWKINS: A performance theory of order and constituency 74 ALICE c. HARRIS and LYLE CAMPBELL: Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective 75 LILIANE HAEGEMAN: The syntax of negation 76 PAUL GORRELL: Syntax and parsing

77 GUGLIELMO CINQUE: Italian syntax and Universal Grammar 78 HENRY SMITH: Restrictiveness in case theory 79 D. ROBERT LADD: Intonational phonology

80 ANDREA MORO: The raising of predicates: predicative noun phrases and the theory of clause structure 81 ROGER LASS: Historical linguistics and language change 82 JOHN M. ANDERSON: A notional theory of syntactic categories

Supplementary volumes LILIANE HAEGEMAN: Theory and description in generative syntax: a case study in West Flemish A. E. BACKHOUSE: The lexical field of taste: a semantic study of Japanese taste terms NIKOLAUS RITT: Quantity adjustment: vowel lengthening and shortening in early Middle English

Earlier issues not listed are also available

A NOTIONAL THEORY OF SYNTACTIC CATEGORIES JOHN M. ANDERSON Professor of English Language, Department of English Language, University of Edinburgh

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS

Published by the Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge CB2 IRP 40 West 20th Street, New York, NY 10011-4211, USA 10 Stamford Road, Oakleigh, Melbourne 3166, Australia © Cambridge University Press 1997 First published 1997 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress cataloguing in publication data Anderson, John M. (John Mathieson), 1941A notional theory of syntactic categories / John M. Anderson. p. cm. - (Cambridge studies in linguistics: 82) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN o 521 58023 4 (hardback) 1. Grammar. Comparative and general - syntax. 2. Grammar, Comparative and general - Grammatical categories. 3. Semantics. I. Title. II. Series. P291.A53 1997 4i5-dc2O 96-21789 CIP ISBN 0 521 58023 4 hardback Transferred to digital printing 2004

CP

Much, then, that is considered by the generality of grammarians as syntax, can either be omitted altogether, or else be better studied under another name. (Latham 1862: 577)

'A9f]vas

Contents

Preface List of abbreviations

page x xii

1 i. i 1.2 1.3

Prelude Notionalism Analogism Minimalism

2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8

Fundamentals of a notional theory Syntactic categories and notional features Relations between elements Further categories: the role of feature dependencies Markedness and category continuity Cross-classification Gradience and second-order categories Secondary categories Non-complements

13 13 29 43 61 64 73 104 132

3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7

The syntax of categories Verbal valencies The content of the functor category The basic syntax of predications The formation of ditransitives Variation in argument structure Verbals as arguments The structure of primary arguments

146 149 168 174 236 244 252 292

References Index

i 2 6 8

320 345

Preface

There were the bits he understood. They were bad enough. But the bits he didn }t understand were worse.

The initial quotation here and the chapter epigraphs are drawn from Patrick White's novel The solid mandala, which and particularly Arthur therein have much to say about grammar and meaning. The present work was concluded by its author when the bits he didn't understand were/are still overwhelming; and drawing a line at this point is, as is normal, relatively arbitrary. This means that a number of issues which many might regard as crucial to present-day concern with syntax have scarcely been touched on in what follows, or have even been ignored, and those areas treated have received vastly varying degrees of attention. Also, the recognition here of previous work remains partial, and adapted to the needs of the arguments put forward in particular sections. But there is for such as the present enterprise no great virtue in comprehensiveness of bibliographical reference (or even a possibility thereof). Nor have I striven to establish throughout a consistent temporal endpoint for reference: in a work whose writing extends over any length of time, achieving this would be equivalent to having all of the Forth Bridge freshly painted at the same time. It is my hope that nevertheless - or rather, as a result, to some extent - the following spells out sufficiently, over a wide enough area, and in appropriate sub-areas in enough detail, the general structure of a notional theory of syntactic categories and the major consequences for the syntax of adopting the views that syntactic categories are so based and that syntax itself involves the interaction of structures projected by these categories with pragmatically based requirements involving crucially the organisation of information - though it should be conceded that the existence of the latter is asserted here rather than fully motivated and articulated. The discussion which follows thus involves an attempt to support (what has been for most, in the context of the latter half of the twentieth century) an unfamiliar strategy, both by detailed investigation of some subsystems and with reference xi

xii Preface to a wide variety of language types; as such, its reception will no doubt founder between and among the Scylla of 'true believers' (responsory motto: That's not what we do (anymore)'), the Charybdis of the 'bug collector' (That doesn't happen in (say) Amharic') and the Deep Blue Sea of scholarly inertia (The literature is what my friends tell me about'). I am, however, and of course, solely responsible for failures to launch things worth receiving, despite the help of those whom it is my pleasure in the following paragraph to both acknowledge and absolve. Most of the writing of the book was carried out during the academic years 1991-2 and 1992-3 while the author held a British Academy Readership, and would not otherwise have been carried out: this does not overstate the debt. The first semester of 1991-2 was spent as an associate of the Department of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics in the School of English at Aristotle University, Thessaloniki: I am grateful to Professors Efstathiadis and Kakouriotis and their colleagues for their hospitality. I have also had the benefit of presenting aspects of the research reported on here to audiences at the Universities of Goteborg, Helsinki, Manchester and Umea. And a number of other people have contributed to the preparation of this work in diverse ways, from providing the bottle of NAOY22A to talk over to offering criticisms to chew over, to helping me avoid some garden paths. I should especially like to thank the following: Nick Kontos, Scott McGlashan, Peter Matthews, Nigel Vincent, and anon (who also writes some pretty good stuff of his own, particularly the early music); and, most particularly, Roger Bohm, whose influence will be seen to be pervasive. And who could by-pass Fran Colman, longestsuffering in the process of the book's getting written? Not John Anderson Edinburgh

Abbreviations and conventions

ABL(lative) ABS(olutive) ACC(usative) AG(en)T(ive) ART(icle) ASP(ect) AUX(iliary) BEN(enefactive) CLASS(ifier) C(o)MP(lementiser) C(ou)NT COMP(letive) CONT(inous) COP(ula) DAT(ive) DEF(inite) DIR(ectional) DIST(al) E(rgative)/I(nstrumental) ERG(ative)

FIN(ite) FUT(ure) GEN(itive) GER(und) I/II = first/second person III = third person INC(lusive) INDIC(ative) INF(initive) INSTR(umental) INT(erior) INTRANS(itive) I(mmediate)P(ast L(ong)F(orm) P(a)RT(itive) LOC(ative) MASC(uline) NEG(a*ive) NOM(inative) N(on)F(inite)

NONFUT(ure) N(eu)TR(al) PART(iciple) PASS(ive) PERF(ect) PL(ural) POSS(essed) POT(ential) PRES(ent) PREV(erb) REFL(exive) REL(ativiser) S(u)B(or)D(inator) S(u)BJ(ect) S(hort)F(orm) S(in)G(ular) SUBJ(unctive) T(e)NS(e) V(erbal)N(oun)

These abbreviations are mainly used in glosses, where, as labels for morphosyntactic categories, they appear in SMALL CAPS. In the text lexemes/words also appear in small caps, the names of inflexional categories are capitalised initially, and cited word and sentence forms are italicised. Important terms appear in bold on their (re)introduction, as do text occurrences, not within braces, of the semantic features (P, loc etc.) which identify syntactic categories.

xni

I

Prelude

'In the beginning was what word?' Arthur asked.

This book is concerned with word classes and their categorisation, where word is taken to be the basic unit of the syntax and their classification is determined by this syntax, i.e. how they combine to form sentences. It is specifically concerned with the 'substance' of class labels (traditionally, 'noun', 'verb', etc.) and with what role this 'substance' plays in the syntax. The chapters which succeed this one are concerned to lay out and motivate a particular approach to the 'substance' of word categorisation, one which I have dubbed 'notional', in so far as it is conceived of as an extension of those 'traditional' grammars that saw this 'substance' as ontologically based. A more immediate antecedent is some suggestive work of Lyons (e.g. 1966; 1977: ch. 11; 1989); and the approach seems to me a natural extension of my earlier work on 'case grammar' (e.g. Anderson 1971a; 1977; 1980b; 1984b; 1986b), as I have indicated elsewhere (Anderson 1989b; 1992b). The present brief chapter is intended, as described by its title, as a 'prelude' to the main discussion, in providing in brief some context for the assumptions and intentions that inform the latter. It does not attempt to provide a historiography of word-class studies, or even of notionalism: these warrant substantial treatment on their own account. What follows takes off from the combined proposition that there are no specifically linguistic semantic categories, or level of representation, distinct from the syntactic and that syntactic categories are themselves grammaticalisations of cognitive - or notional - constructs; what follows is intended to explicate and to provide support for (particularly) this latter proposition. But it should already be clear that such a viewpoint also imposes certain research strategies. It means, for instance, that it is predicted to be ultimately unprofitable to pursue a theory of syntactic categories autonomously, in isolation from their semantics; a cross-linguistic syntactic, distributionally established category that is not notionally defined is merely of interest as a potential counter-example to

2 Prelude the more retrictive theory of notional identification of word classes. It also means, for instance, that, with respect to interpretation, representations constructed out of notionally defined syntactic categories serve as the input to general (not language-specific) deductive systems. What I am concerned with here, however, is the development of a system of notionally based syntactic categories sufficient, in principle, to subtend the expression of a range of syntactic generalisations, i.e. generalisations concerned with systematic aspects of the distribution of words in sentences. I return later in this chapter to the assumptions I adopt concerning the syntactic status of such categories, and, indeed, about the nature of syntactic structure and its relation to other aspects of the grammar; let us at this point dwell a little on the notional basis for the categories. I.I

Notionalism

The content of a syntactic category, such as 'noun', is notional: the crosslinguistic classes associated with the category are identified as such by the recurrence, as members of these classes, of linguistic items that share certain conceptual properties, as discussed in §2.1 below. Crucially, in the case of nouns, these items denote (what are perceived as) discrete physical objects. Such categories are grammaticalised; as part of a cultural system, the class associated with particular languages may contain 'eccentric' members - indeed, members whose apparent conceptual equivalents belong to a different category in another language. Thus, whereas in English it is arguably the case that the distribution of MAY and MUST warrants recognition that they belong to a class - or at least subclass - distinct from that associated with (other) verbs, their equivalents in many other languages share their distribution with verbs. And, as we shall be discussing in §2.3.1, there are, for example, languages where the equivalents of most or all of those items that we might classify as adjectives in English are instead (untypical) verbs and/or nouns. Thus, whereas, rather uncontroversially, RED in English is distributionally not a noun, but occurs distinctively as an adjective (with nominal uses - That's a nice red - being derivative), in Ossetic, for instance, the 'corresponding' term is, apparently, syntactically like any (other) noun (Abaev 1964: §54). Any notional characterisation of syntactic categories should not only identify the central membership of categories but also provide a basis for understanding such variation. The existence of notionally non-central members frustrates simple-minded application of blanket notional definitions of categories, despite their currency until quite recently, particularly in pedagogical grammars, in attempts to differ-

Notionalism 3 entiate those major syntactic distinctions traditionally embraced by the label 'the parts of speech'. Such definitions either fail to encompass all the exponents of a particular category, or they are so vague and generalised as to be nondistinctive of that category; we are all familiar with Jespersen's (e.g. 1924: 59) demolitions in this respect of the definitions of Sonnenschein and co. (definitions such as 'Nouns name. Pronouns identify without naming.'). See too Lyons 1977: §11.1. Jespersen further shows (1924: 60) that morphologically based ('formal') definitions, though again of ancient ancestry, are also clearly inadequate 'as the sole test' for distinguishing 'parts of speech' in a generally applicable manner. And he concludes: 'In my opinion everything should be kept in view, form, function, and meaning ...' (ibid). But, in my view, these aspects he distinguishes contribute in different ways to the 'view': classes are to be distinguished on a morphosyntactic ('form' and 'function') basis, but their cross-linguistic identification is based on 'meaning', the notional character of central members. Moreover, despite varying degrees of grammaticalisation - or desemanticisation - much of the detailed syntax, as well as the nature of the morphological distinctions associated with particular categories, reflects notional properties. This is quite apart from those relationships in the syntax - notably topicalisation and the like, but including many other variations in linearisation (e.g. Bolinger 1952) - which expound the organisation of information in an ongoing fashion. What I have in mind rather are the kinds of phenomena we shall be exploring in chapter 3 below, such that, for instance, the capacity for what I shall term 'ectopic placement' - roughly equivalent to what has usually been interpreted as the result of 'movement' - is associated with the semantic role of the element concerned, in particular whether it is inherently subcategorised-for or not, subcategorisation being, of course, on a semantic basis. Likewise, as we shall again be looking at, the basic word order patterns in a language reflect the (semantic) valency status of elements (as, semantically, head, complement, circumstantial/adjunct, specifier). Consider here, as a small-scale example of the notional sensitivity of syntax, one aspect of the syntactic behaviour of 'endocentric adjuncts' in English. As has often been observed, there are interesting restrictions in English on preverbal placement of endocentric adjuncts like that in (1.1): (1.1)

a. Mabel very quietly deteriorated/improved b. Bert very quietly ate the last pie c. Felicity very quietly moved away

such that the sentences in (1.2) are not nearly as happy as those in (1.1):

4 Prelude (1.2)

a. * Alfred very quietly arrived/danced b. *Bert very quietly ate c. *Felicity very quietly moved

even though variants with the adjunct in postverbal position are perfectly acceptable: (1.3)

a. Alfred arrived/danced very quietly b. Bert ate very quietly c. Felicity moved very quietly

The verbs in (1.2a) differ from those in (1.1a) in being 'actions' rather than 'processes'. 'Actions' rather than 'processes' do not allow a preverbal adjunct - unless they are presented, as in (i.ib-c), as semantically transitive (not necessarily 'syntactically transitive' - even if the latter concept is well-defined). Not all 'processes' are conducive to the preposed adjunct, however: (1.4)

*Basil quietly fell/tripped

The 'processes' in (1.1a) are specifically 'change-of-intrinsic-state' (rather than, say, 'of-place' simply). And so on: other semantic variables supervene. My point is that any understanding of the syntax of the adjunct is inextricable from the semantics of the adjunction. And this is characteristic of syntactic generalisations: they refer to notional classes and to semantic relations between them. More generally, syntactic properties are projected from notional. It is thus inadequate to suggest that the regularities involved in (1.1-4), and elsewhere, are simply non-syntactic precisely because they are semantically based; that they do not demonstrate a semantic basis for syntax because the phenomena themselves are not 'syntactic'. This is the 'selectional restrictions' strategy - on which see e.g. Radford 1988: §7.9. On such a view, nothing of syntax (subcategorisation, placement of complements, adjuncts and specifiers, 'ectopic' placements) remains - as much of the content of the following chapters is intended to illustrate in some detail. I shall argue, too, that the association with particular word classes of particular 'secondary' categories (such as Case, Tense), so that the latter are recurrently realised in the 'formal' shape of the former, i.e. as part of their morphological structure, is notionally non-arbitrary. The recurrence in association with nouns of definiteness as a functional category - whether inflexionally or periphrastically expressed, i.e. as 'traditional' secondary category or 'article' (§2.7) - follows from their notional characters: crudely (see further §§2.1, 3.7), a definite article/affix is one of those elements that enables a noun to function as (part of) a semantic argument (like a name or a personal pronoun) rather than simply as a predicator.

Notionalism 5 Of course, there may be, as well as individual idiosyncrasies - lexicalisations - and minor grammaticalisations of membership or relation, as well as farreaching relational grammaticalisations, such as that incorporated in the basis for selecting subjects, as discussed in §3.3.1. But these remain desemanticisations; they can be properly understood only against the backgound assumption of a notional basis for syntactic concepts. The basis of linguistic categorisation in meaning was the fundamental insight of that long tradition which eventuated in the 'traditional' (and often pedagogical) grammars which - despite e.g. Jespersen's attempts at toughening them up proved such soft targets for the 'structuralists'. In their different ways, and on different sides of the Atlantic, both Hjelmslev (1961 [1943]) and Harris (1946) reject the notional content of syntax. Thus, for the former, 'the projection of the formhierarchy on the substance-hierarchy can differ essentially from language to language' (1961: 97), where, on the plane of content, the 'form-hierarchy' is roughly, in the terms being used here, the morphosyntactic categorisation - or system of linguistic relations, in more Hjelmslevian terms - and the 'substancehierarchy' is a non-linguistic description of the 'substance' of meaning. With like consequences, Harris (1946) identifies word - or rather 'morpheme' - classes on the basis of language-particular diagnostic environments, so that the classes he sets up for English and Hidatsa are strictly non-commensurate. So, both English and Hidatsa have a class labelled W , but this is fortuitous, non-systematic: whereas TV in English are 'morphemes which occur before plural -s or its alternatives' (Harris 1946: §4.1), in Hidatsa N are 'non-clause-final suffixes' (§5.1). It seems to me that in this respect structuralist syntax was (and is) a barren conceptual detour, and that the history of (transformational-) generative grammar represents a reluctant (and characteristically dissembled) but inexorable retreat from that position. One facet of that retreat is part of the backgound to the discussion of subcategorisation in §3.1.1. In this context, I should perhaps make it clear that I do not regard the developments described as 'generative semantics' (cf. e.g. the contributions to Seuren (ed.) 1974) as in themselves representing an embracing of notionalism: for most of the proponents of that approach, a 'natural logic' was conceived of as forming the basis of syntax; whereas I interpret a notional approach as excluding 'natural logic', as such, from syntax (and indeed from grammar as a whole) and as having it operate upon (amongst other things) interpretations of the categories and structures provided by the latter. To this extent, notionalism has something in common with the Hjelmslevian position alluded to above, while, of course, still denying the (essential) arbitrariness (as posited by Hjelmslev) of the relationship between syntactic representation and logical semantics.

6 Prelude The positing of such arbitrariness frustrates any possibility of a general theory of syntactic categories: overt syntactic diagnostics, just like the morphological, are ineluctably language-particular. Of course, given a sufficiently abstract conception of syntax, it is possible to make cross-language generalisations concerning the syntax of 'nouns', say. Thus, in any language with subjects, 'noun' phrases will constitute the central constituent type with respect to capacity to function as such. But, as we shall see, such generalisations flow from the notional character of 'nouns', and are best formulated in these terms, with brute distribution itself as a consequence of such; syntax does not involve the arrangment of autonomous, or notionally uninterpreted elements. 1.2

Analogism

I also share with Hjelmslev (and other - mostly dead - linguists) a conception of linguistic structure as fundamentally bi-planar, as well as the assumption that the two planes are structured in accordance with the same principles. My main concern in the present section is to attempt to explicate the consequences of this assumption, in particular; but let me turn first to bi-planarity and other aspects of linguistic organisation. We can differentiate different levels of representation of linguistic structure (along the lines of Anderson 1992&: ch. 1) to the extent that the representations assigned to different levels are governed by distinct regularities. Most basically, or strongly (Anderson 1982a), we can distinguish representations based on a distinct substantive alphabet. This is what distinguishes the phonological and the syntactic planes: phonological representations are constructed out of an alphabet of phonetically identifiable features; syntactic structures are erected on the basis of notionally identifiable features. Morphology does not introduce a distinct alphabet. In terms of a modified 'word-and-paradigm' approach to morphology, morphological structure proper interprets the syntactic ('secondary' and 'primary') categories, such as 'Past' and 'verb', associated with a word, in terms of the organisation of the phonological material associated with the item into morphological units. Morphological structure itself involves unlabelled relations: root, base, affix etc. are identified structurally. (For discussion see e.g. Anderson 1984a; 1985a; 1992b: particularly §2.3; Colman 1990; 1991: ch. 2; to appear.) As is familiar, phonological structure also interprets plane-external structure, indeed, both morphological and syntactic structure. There are thus asymmetries in the relationships between the planes (including the sub- or inter-plane of morphology), as well as there being distinct (including, possibly, no) alphabets. This

Analogism 7 constrains the applicability of an otherwise very generally appropriate assumption concerning linguistic structure. I espouse here the following assumption, given here in the form of a directive for linguistic representations: Structural analogy Minimise (more strongly, eliminate) differences between levels that do not follow from a difference in alphabet or from the nature of the relationship between the levels concerned. (Anderson 1992&: ch. 1)

I interpret this as, within the limits indicated, favouring analyses at different levels - most significantly, on different planes - that deploy the same structural relations and principles of combination. It is thus in accordance with the assumptions that, as in Anderson (1992&), the dependency, or head-modifier, relation should be seen as basic to both syntactic and suprasegmental phonological structure, as well as to the internal structure of segments and words, and that segments and words should both be characterised categorially as complexes of simplex features. These recurrences on the two planes are mutually supportive; and, conversely, plane-specific proposals concerning structure must be shown to follow from some independent difference between the planes. Anderson (1992Z?) argues that this offers a preferable research strategy to the 'anomalisf position advocated by Bromberger and Halle (1989), and, pursuing some earlier work (especially Anderson 1985a; 1986b), attempts to illustrate the pervasiveness of analogy of structure. Anderson (1987c) discusses some recent manifestations of the 'analogist' view. However, such a view is of substantive interest only if, as well as being appropriately constrained, it is pursued systematically and comprehensively; a theory which permits sporadic borrowings of conceptual apparatus from one level to another accords to the recurrences no more status than coincidence. I assume in the following chapters various aspects of the structure of syntax and of the grammar that, whatever their internal motivations, receive further confirmation from analogy. Thus, I shall propose specifically (§2.2) that syntactic structure proper is unlabelled: it is constituted by formal objects we can represent as graphs, directed by the dependency relation and linear precedence; and such graphs are projected from well-formed collections of categorial representations, each member of the collection being constituted by the set of notional features associated with an individual lexical item. Syntax is an unlabelled projection of collections of the categorial properties of lexical items. In this it is analogous to suprasegmental structure in the phonology, which is projected from the categories of segmental structure. Units like the syllable, foot etc. are defined

8 Prelude structurally; such 'categorial' labels (as 'syllable', 'foot' etc.) are unnecessary and inappropriate (Anderson and Ewen 1987: chs. 2 and 3), just as phrasal labels are irrelevant to the syntax. Likewise, I shall propose that the exception with respect to this absence of labelling in syntactic structure are those feature-attachments I shall refer to as prosodic (§2.7.5): these are projected on to the syntactic tree from an element associated with a particular configuration and thus acquire a syntactic domain; they are manifested primarily as concord. Again, such attachments are appropriate to the characterisation of suprasegmental structure, notably of harmony 'processes' (Anderson, Ewen and Staun 1985; Anderson and Ewen 1987: §7.6; Anderson 1987a; Anderson and Durand 1988). This is one indication that syntactic prosodies - or autosegments, if the reader prefers - are not an arbitrary device. Perhaps most fundamentally, both syntactic and phonological categories are represented, as indicated, as complexes of simplex features, where individual features may simply combine (or be absent) or (where two are present) one may be subsidiary to the other - there is asymmetry. I interpret this subsidiariness as reflecting a (category-internal) dependency relation. We have, then, at least the first-order categorial possibilities shown in (1.5), in the notation presented more fully in §2.3: (1.5)

a. {A} ('feature A appears alone in the categorial representation') b. {A,B} ('features A and B combine') c. {A;B} ('feature A governs feature B')

Much of chapter 2 in particular is devoted to showing that this provides an appropriate notation for syntactic categories with respect to the range of 'behaviour' we can associate with such. So, cross-classification and various hierarchical relations which categories contract are optimally characterised - i.e. in such a way that simplicity of expression correlates with generality of the particular phenomenon. However, a powerful (external) support derives from the replication of like motivations for the same combinatory possibilities in the representation of phonological segments (Anderson and Ewen 1987: ch. 1). 1.3

Minimalism

The basic unit of the syntax, the word, interfaces with the items listed in the lexicon; indeed, word-lexical item is the unmarked mapping, to the extent that others are typically interpreted as special, 'idiomatic'. An important facet of a lexical item is the valencies and values it assumes as a word; in terms of valency

Minimalism 9 it imposes requirements on accompanying items, and it satisfies the value required by other items. These valencies and values - subcategorisation and categorisation - are framed in terms of notional features, including semantic relations (a.k.a 'case relations', or 'theta-roles'). A well-formed predication (realised ultimately as a sentence) has all its valencies satisfied, and only one value - a predicator - that does not satisfy a valency. Syntactic structure dependency trees with nodes/realising-items ordered in linearity - is projected from such well-formed predications, with results as shown schematically in (1.6): (1.6)

<

{catj}

where V means 'takes as a complement', and thus {category)j} is the value that satisfies the valency of {catj}, and so can project a syntactic node dependent on that projected by the latter. In a head-left (centrifugal) (sub-)language, {cat;} precedes {catj}, as shown in (1.6). I take up again the character of syntactic projection more substantially in §2.2. The character of these relations - lexical and projective - that the word enters into introduces an asymmetry between the planes: individual phonological segments as such are not mapped onto lexical items, and suprasegmental structure in phonology in part interprets morphological, syntactic and informational structures, as well as reflecting the categorial content of the segments comprising the lexical, morphosyntactic or informational unit concerned (see Anderson 1987a; Anderson and Ewen 1987: ch. 2). However, as noted, the projected object can in both instances be represented as a directed graph, specifically a tree, without labels except for prosodies. I take it that projection of syntactic structure obeys some minimalist assumptions, apart from its restriction to the introduction of unlabelled nodes (with the exception of the prosodic), which in itself has the consequence that syntax does not introduce categorial information. In particular, the erection of syntactic structure is monotonic: structure may not be erased or elements be changed in placement ('moved'). This means that, among other things, a syntactic level like 'D-structure' ('associated with S-structure by the rule Move-a' (Chomsky 1981: 18)) cannot be motivated; it is not merely epiphenomenal but non-phenomenal. We shall discuss such restrictions below in terms of inalterability:

io Prelude Inalterability condition The relations of dependency and sequence assigned to an element are inalterable

which forbids mutations, including reassignment of a position to an 'empty category'. I assume further that syntactic nodes cannot anyway be associated with positions empty of lexical material. I formulate this informally as: Lexical projection condition Every syntactic node is projected by a category associated with a lexical item. There is no 'pro', big or little. On the other hand, a single item may be associated with more than one node and these nodes may be dependent on different governors, leading to possible non-projectivity, of the character of (1.7):

John

may

read

Rasselas

where the solid lines are again dependency arcs, linking head/governor (higher node) to modifier (lower), and where I have also suppressed the categorial information (for a fuller representation see (3.137) in §3.3.4). The arc linking the lower John node with that associated with read violates projectivity in so far as it intersects an association line where there is no node to license this. A part of the discussion of chapter 3 is devoted to establishing the basis for an understanding of the circumstances in which such non-projectivities are permitted, and (eventually) to suggesting a rather restrictive condition on their occurrence in apparently diverse circumstances. The categorisations associated with particular lexical items may be of varying complexity, such that the categorisation for one item may include that appropriate to another, and sometimes this will be reflected in the morphology: where one item corresponds to the base of another. Such categorial relationships are regulated by redundancies. However, categorial redundancies may be of several different types, of varying particularity. Thus, appropriate to many languages, at least, will be a redundancy, of the type just adumbrated, relating the categorisation for an action verb to a nominal categorisation which includes the

Minimalism

11

categorisation for the verb and which is to be interpreted as fulfilling the actor role in the action. Traditionally, this latter might be described as an 'agentnominalisation' (one function of -er in English - Anderson 1984Z?: §3.5), and its formation be accounted the concern of derivational morphology. As permitting apparently arbitrary exceptions and possibly showing non-compositionality ('semantic obscuration'), I count such redundancies as lexical: in particular instances of the relationship, there may be no lexical items fully satisfying either term of the redundancy. More regular are those redundancies which relate items of a particular class to different detailed categorial possibilities, such as associating a verb with alternative participial (rather than deverbal adjectival - which would be lexical) possibilities. Such redundancies, largely the concern, traditionally, of inflexional morphology, I shall term morphosyntactic. Some redundancies are satisfied only in the syntax: notable here is the requirement I shall propose in chapter 3 that every predication must contain a particular semantic relation, that I shall label 'absolutive' (a.k.a. 'neutral', roughly 'theme' among the theta-roles of another tradition); not all predicators are subcategorised for absolutive, but its presence is necessary to satisfy this particular syntactic redundancy. The satisfaction of the redundancy has interesting consequences for the resolution of certain apparent problems in providing, within this minimalist framework, for complex structures involving apparent 'movement'. However, here, as with the other redundancy types, I am anticipating subsequent discussion which requires more intensive preparation than has been provided so far. In this section (and, indeed, chapter) I have baldly stated, in (for the most part) a necessarily very provisional form, various assumptions concerning the nature of syntax and its relation to word categorisation which it must be the role of the following discussion to attempt to justify. In the chapter which follows we begin that discussion with an elaboration of the general outlines of a particular version of notional theory and a provisional account of how the categorial representations which most directly embody this theory induce the relations of the syntax. Finally in this one, let me draw some further distinctions which will be important for this elaboration. Syntactic categories are distinguished in terms of their component combinations of notional features. To begin with, at least, it is useful to distinguish, in a rather traditional way, and as anticipated in the preceding, between primary and secondary features and categories. Primary categories are associated with distinct distributional potentials. Secondary categories involve notional distinctions - such as Tense, or Number - which are reflected in the morphosyntax of a primary category, such that the distribution of members of a secondary category is included in the distribution of the primary category. We should also note,

12 Prelude however, that not all distinctions in primary categorisation are necessarily associated in a particular language with a lexical difference in word class, i.e. with classes with different membership. Thus, as we shall discuss more fully in §2. i .4, it has been argued that various languages lack a distinction in word class between 'noun' and 'verb'. What this involves is not necessarily a denial that the items concerned can be categorised as 'behaving' in different syntactic circumstances either as 'verbs' or 'nouns' - (roughly) as predicators or arguments - but rather a claim that the items do not fall into classes determined by their 'behaving' only as a 'verb' or a 'noun'; all the items can be, categorially, distributionally, either a 'verb' or a 'noun'. A categorial distinction between 'noun' and 'verb' may be relevant to the syntax without being given expression in terms of lexical differentiation. What follows is, then, both about (syntactic) categories and about (lexical) classes, and about the extent to which they coincide. Such a distinction is not drawn by what I think is the most detailed and systematic attempt to provide a classification of the 'parts of speech', that made in Br0ndal 1928. And I can perhaps distinguish further the aims of the present discussion in terms of others of Br0ndal's abnegations. He offers a classification based on notional features, as does what follows. However, for Br0ndal, the classes, not merely their cross-linguistic identification, are established on purely notional grounds, without reference to syntax, in contrast with the position advocated in § 1.1 above (despite minimalist assumptions). For Br0ndal, no class is found universally (1928: 217), but a maximum of fifteen classes is allowed by the logic of the system (pp. 217-18). I shall propose a minimum set of classes in what follows; whereas the number of classes permitted by the calculus constructed here is indefinitely extensible (the upper limit being an empirical question (Hjelmslev's (1935-7) 'maximum absolu' vs. a 'maximum theorique'). What follows nevertheless shares with Br0ndal's enterprise the conviction that language-particular systems are constructed out of (combinations of) a small set of universal features (which for Br0ndal define the classes of 'relata' vs. 'descripta') on the basis of a general 'logic'.

2

Fundamentals of a notional theory

'Tell Mrs. Musto I'm concentrating on words. The Word. But also words that are just words. There's so many kinds. You could make necklaces ...'

In this chapter I am concerned to set out the basic properties of one approach to the development of a notional theory of syntactic categories, primary and secondary. Chapter 3 elaborates further the properties of verbal and nominal words and constructions; and there, too, I shall attempt to show more generally and precisely that the notional characterisations of the various categories form the basis for the assignment of syntactic and morphological structure. Here I propose as the content of syntactic categories a set of notional features whose distribution through the set of categories identifies these categories crosslinguistically, and I begin to sketch the syntactic consequences of the categorisations. I shall also try to show in a preliminary way that this distribution of features correlates with the typical associations between primary and secondary categories (such as verb and Tense) and the recurrent syntactic relations into which the primary categories enter; again these are explored more fully in the chapter which follows. These recurrences provide powerful support for the hypothesis of a notionally based grammar. As was intimated already in chapter 1, a theory in which the category labels or the syntactic features in terms of which the labels are defined are uninterpreted can in principle provide no explanation of such recurrences: the recurrences, which are in principle theorems with respect to the notional properties of categories, must rather, in such a theory, be taken themselves as axiomatic. 2.1

Syntactic categories and notional features

Givon (1979: §8.6; 1984a: §1.3.4) relates the content of the noun/verb distinction to the 'time-stability scale', such that nouns denote stable phenomena,

14 Fundamentals of a notional theory crucially concrete, physical, compact, and verbs denote rapid changes, events and adjectives, where distinct, are intermediate in this respect, denoting relatively stable physical qualities; in the terms of Anderson (1991&), nouns are 'entity-specific', verbs 'event-specific'. It seems to me that this highlights, and only partially, only one aspect of differentiation, one which I shall associate, in the case of the noun/verb distinction, with the presence vs. absence of the notional feature N, or (perceived) referentiality, or rather referentiability, attribution of which to an element is supported not merely by relative stability but by relative independence (cf. Lyons' 'first-order entities' (1977: §11.3; 1989); also Hopper and Thompson 1984; Langacker 1987; Croft 1991). Verbs are in addition inherently relational, they impose overt structure on (the perception of) events, either new or confirmatory structure - they are situationdefining. Nouns, on the other hand, typically label elements participating in situations, situations that are presented linguistically as (re-)structured primarily by verbal labelling; and nouns are thus potential undergoers of (non-constitutive) change, changes differentiated by verbs. I associate this difference, in the case of noun vs. verb, with the absence vs. presence of the notional feature P, or predicativity, or rather predicability. The 'relational' character of P is reflected in one of the contrasting effects of verbalisation vs. nominalisation: verbalisation of a noun - say, house - creates an item - the verb house - with a complex 'argument structure' compared with the noun, as realised in They housed the refugees in the barn, for example; nominalisation of a verb either merely preserves such 'structure' - as with the derived noun of Fred's abandonment of that principle - or results in a reduction in complexity - as, for instance, with the English nouns in -ee derived from verbs {deport => deportee etc.). The 'stable' character of N, on the other hand, is reflected in the capacity of the derived noun, and of the basic house, to function as an argument. The two aspects of content associated with P and N are related in a natural way: verbs denote time-dependent structurisations and nouns introduce autonomous (potential) referents. But the two aspects have different consequences: so that, as observed, verbs, as having P, so relation-inducing, can show a range of argument types, and, in lacking N, stability, are classified by eventtype, or type of change, and are often associated with temporal deixis (which may be realised as the secondary category of Tense); nouns, in lacking P, are typically unsubcategorised, and, in having N, are classifiable in terms of stable properties, such as concreteness and animacy (possibly manifested as Gender). Further, we shall find (in §§2.3-6) that the notional characterisation of further categories involves the interaction of just these two features. Adjectives, for

Syntactic categories and notional features

I5

instance, combine N and P, and this is reflected in their syntax: their characterisation will occupy §§2.3.1, 2.7.4 and (parts of) 3.7 The word classes verb and noun are identified cross-linguistically as distributional classes with distinct membership whose members include respectively event- and entity-denoting items. We can distinguish central members whose status as one or the other is relatively transparent: thus, central nouns will denote first-order entities, basically 'persons, animals and other discrete physical entities' (Lyons 1989: 161; cf. again Lyons 1977: §11.3). Other members of a class are notionally more peripheral, as with nouns which are 'relational' (stranger, opponent) or 'abstract' (lust) or even 'actional' (battle). The extent to which the internal structure of the classes shows properties reflecting 'prototypicality' (e.g. Rosch and Lloyd 1978) is a distinct question whose resolution does not prejudice (though it might enhance) the viability of the idea of central members. 2./.7

Notional features as basic

The distribution of N and P is the ultimate basis for the construction of the predications which are realised as sentences. Nouns are optimal arguments (relatees) in the predications determined by the structures induced (optimally) by verbs, as predicators. (I adopt here Lyons' terminological suggestion(i977: 434), so that 'we can say that "play" in "Caroline plays the guitar" is a two-place predicator independently of whether we also say that "play the guitar" is a predicate'.) The nature of subcategorisation, or 'argument structure', and its role in the erection of syntactic structure, is explored in some detail in chapter 3. However, as a preliminary, I shall shortly have to somewhat refine upon the crude view of the syntactic roles of verbs and nouns just expressed in the light of the differentiation of further categories. The notional features also correlate with discourse function (cf. again Hopper and Thompson 1984). Items with N, as stable referables, are optimal topics; items with P, as structure-inducing, are the nucleus of optimal comments. In a topic-free sentence, verbs may thus occur alone, as in the Greek (2.1): (2.1)

prexi

'it rains/is raining'

However, clearly, the (possibly topic-free) structure induced by a verb may also include elements characterised as N: (2.2)

prexi stin ela8a

'it rains/is raining in Greece'

And, more generally, discourse function cannot be regarded as a defining property

16 Fundamentals of a notional theory of N and/or P, given the independence of categorial status and discourse function. So in (2.3): (2.3)

PADDY left

Paddy may be a comment on the topic of a 'leaving'. Such is familiar from the vast body of work on discourse functions. The subject-predicate distinction is apparently a grammaticalisation of (the typical manifestation of) topic-comment. But another factor enters here. Languages typically accord a special status to animate, particularly human, and ultimately egocentric arguments and their properties (cognition, volition): cf. the 'animacy hierarchy' of Silverstein (1976) and others. Their preferential roles in predications are grammaticalised as agent (source of the action) and experiencer (location of the experience). On grounds of empathy (Kuno 1987), the human nouns associated with these roles (and particularly the source of the action) are preferred as topics. And thus the typical subject is seen as also agentive and human. Again, we return to a more careful consideration of this in chapter 3 (and cf. already e.g. Lyons 1968: §8.1). But we should further note at this point that such considerations also impinge on the character of the categories defined by N and P. Within the set of noun denotata, humans have a special status; within the set of verbal notions, actions, particularly externally directed, or transitive actions. They are seen as epicentral to the class. It is not for nothing that (2.4): (2.4)

The farmer killed the duckling

is perhaps the most familiar example in the discourse of linguistics. This special status of humans and (transitive) actions will be apparent in a number of places in what follows, not merely in relation to subjecthood. N and P are simplex features (as proposed by Anderson and Jones 1974; Sanders 1974), either of which, as noted in chapter 1, may be present or absent in the representation of a particular category. I shall also be assuming, as again anticipated in chapter 1, that in the representation of a particular category one feature may predominate over another - the combination may be asymmetrical - and that, further, this asymmetry is one manifestation of the dependency (head-modifier) relation that may hold between linguistic elements (as illustrated further in §2.2). We shall find that the invocation of simplex (and not n-ary-valued) features and of dependency is crucial not just to further elaboration of the range of categories allowed for (§2.3), but also to the characterisation of markedness and other hierarchical relations between categories (§§2.4-6), and of the principle which governs the well-formedness of particular systems of categories (§2.4).

Syntactic categories and notional features

17

From this, it may be apparent, too, that I do not envisage that all languages will necessarily share the same categories, or word classes. A basic, possibly universal core system is provided by the set of simple combinations of N and P - N alone, P alone, N and P, neither - but further elaborations, involving asymmetrical (dependency) combinations, are perhaps not necessarily universally attested, at least as constituting a system of word classes: see §2.1.4. However, the elaboration of categories is strictly governed, and potentially upwardly bounded also, though the boundary must in our present state of knowledge be provisional only (see further §2.6). 2.1.2

Basic categories

Let us provisionally represent the category verb, universally, as {P}: its categorial specification includes P alone. Nouns include N in their specification. But at this point it becomes urgent to introduce an important distinction thus far glossed over. Among the traditional 'naming' words only (proper) names qualify as belonging to a category whose specification contains only N. They are never predicative, i.e. predicators, unlike the (common) nouns in (2.5): (2.5)

a. Fred is a doctor b. Alphonse est medecin c. O Petros ine 8iki7oros

'A. is a doctor' 'P. is a lawyer'

Notice in relation to this that I do not regard either of the post-copular elements in (2.6) as predicative: (2.6)

a. The man with the shakes is Fred b. The man with the shakes is the doctor

What is predicated in (2.6) is not 'Fred-ness' or 'doctorness' of 'the man with the shakes'; rather, what is predicated is (referential) identity between two arguments, 'the man with the shakes' and 'Fred'/'the doctor'. Unsurprisingly, (2.7) differ in interpretation from the respective sentences in (2.6): (2.7)

a. Fred is the man with the shakes b. The doctor is the man with the shakes

only in assignment of unmarked discourse function. As illustrated by (2.5b and c), in many languages, such as French and Greek, it may be that no article accompanies a predicative noun, or some predicative nouns, even if, as in French, a noun is otherwise normally accompanied by a determiner. Bolinger notes that the article may be absent in English in 'intensifier' constructions, as Is he farmer enough to face drought and pests? or That

18 Fundamentals of a notional theory animal is only partly dog (1972: 136, 108). Moreover, occurrence of the indefinite article in English does not ensure that a post-copular NP is predicative. Thus, (2.8a), on one interpretation, is equative, as, of course, is (b): (2.8)

a. Our teacher is a plumber from Yorkshire b. A plumber from Yorkshire is our teacher

The indefinites in (2.8) involve specific reference. Contrariwise, a nominal predicator may even bear a definite article: Bertram is (the) president. And, as this last example illustrates, 'relational' nouns in English are most likely to lack any determiner when predicative; cf. too e.g. Hugh Walpole's He was now friend to all the valley (Rogue Herries, part 1, 'Christmas Feast'). This correlates with their non-central status as nouns. In Classical Chinese (Graham 1967), for instance, predications of identity are distinguished by a special copula, chi. English and other languages show a common copula in locational, noun-predicative and identifying sentences; and elsewhere differences in copula correlate with 'aspectual' differences (Anderson 1973a). Notice, however, that the question word with predicators in English is what, whether verbal, adjectival or nominal, no matter how the interrogatives involved may differ in other respects, as illustrated by (2.91): (2.91). a. b. c. d. (ii) a. b.

What happened (to Bill)? He died/Bert killed him What did Bert do? He left/killed Bill/was a butcher What is Bert like? He is charming What is Bert (like)? He's a Tory Who(m) did he kill? He killed Bill/a plumber from Yorkshire Who is he? He's our teacher/a plumber from Yorkshire

the one with animate arguments, as exemplified in (ii), is who(m), and the latter may be answered with either a definite (including names) or indefinite nominal. Names are not predicators; and, as we shall see, nouns are arguments only in so far as they are potential names. Given the notation developed so far, we can distinguish between names and nouns as in (2.10): (2.10)

{N) name

{N,P} noun

Elements with P are possible predicators; elements with N are possible primary arguments. Secondary arguments are the {P}s which are the heads of subordinate clauses; we return to these in §2.3.2 and - more extensively - in chapter 3. We can observe here already, however, that in English (for example) only

Syntactic categories and notional features

19

primary arguments allow the full range of (predicator-)argument labels, or 'functors' (see below), to be expressed, as prepositions: (2.11)

a. Mary was surprised at John/the result b. Mary was surprised *at (that) John left

However, the partially predicative character of nouns renders them less optimal as stable labels for arguments, given that they are thus less referentially specific; they have inherent sense as set designators, they are classificatory rather than directly referential, while simple {N} elements differ only referentially rather than in sense (Lyons 1977: §7.5). The latter therefore also appear without restrictive attributives, as being (assumed to be) sufficient in themselves for identification of the referent of an argument: the adjective in poor John has no referential role, and that in the younger Bill involves recategorisation of Bill as a noun. (This is, of course, not to deny that names may themselves be e.g. denotationally gender-specific.) Personal pronouns also are non-predicative: they too are simple {N}s. They are contextually determined names. Proper names are taken as stable labels for primary arguments; personal pronouns are shifting labels. Compare here Lyons (1977: 214-15; also Jespersen (1922: ch. 6, §7) on the personal pronouns as 'shifters'. Only non-central, 'relational' nouns, such as father, enemy, are in a sense 'shifters'. Of course, the reference of a name (such as John) may be context-dependent; but names, unlike pronouns, are not understood as inherently so. We might recall here that Latham describes the pronoun as 'a variable name' (1862: §646); whereas nouns ('common names') and ('proper') names are invariable but differ in whether they 'are applied to a whole class of objects' or 'are appropriated to certain individual objects' (1862: §633) - with pronouns sharing the latter property with (proper) names (§636). Like names, too, pronouns frequently distinguish gender (even when this is not overtly associated with the nouns in a language), as well as their characteristic deixis-based oppositions. Definite determiners such as those in (2.6b) are transitive pronouns (cf. Anderson 1976); they take nouns as complements and render them in context name-like, 'terms', if you like. Compare here, again, on determiners in general, Latham 1862: part v, chs. 2-5. In this respect, too, a similar distinction to that I am drawing between names and nouns is embodied in e.g. unification categorial grammar (Zeevat 1988) and some of its antecedents. Given such observations, we might say that 'noun phrases' are more properly designated 'name phrases': determiners permit nouns to name. Such and related observations have led to analyses of pronouns as articles (e.g. Postal 1970) or determiners as the heads of the constructs traditionally termed 'noun phrases' (e.g. Abney 1987),

20 Fundamentals of a notional theory renamed accordingly 'determiner phrases': for discussion, see e.g. Hudson 1990a: §11.2. Given that nouns, names, pronouns and determiners are all nominal (in terms of the notation proposed here), the drastic categorial reinterpretations suggested by the above terms are unnecessary. Perhaps we can compromise on nominal phrase as the label for the construct. Indefinite determiners, or 'quantifiers', such as those in Fred adores a/some fan-dancer, combine a kind of naming function with a 'presentative', ultimately predicative function. As with the corresponding 'intransitive' pronouns - such as French on, English someone - an entity is referred to, but not identified, by way of asserting its existence. We return to quantificational structure in §3.7.2. Here let us again note that the association of determiners and nouns is based on their respective notional properties: common nouns, as class labels, complement the closed class of determiners, transitive pronouns, to provide a more differentiated set of variable names. And I attribute, in turn, the properties that nouns share with names/pronouns to the presence of the feature N, just as the predicative role of nouns can be attributed to their also being P. Names and verbs involve one-feature combinations; nouns combine two features. The final simple combination of N and P available is the null one, the empty set { }. These are items which are neither predicator nor argument; they simply provide an empty slot with which can be associated the label for the relation between predicator and argument. With primary arguments, they are typically realised as adpositions, as in (2.12): (2.12)

the destruction of the city by the Goths

or inflexionally. (The subordinate predicatorial character of nominalisations like destruction is discussed in §2.6 and elsewhere.) But, since the relation between predicator and argument is often clear from the character of the predicator, as when there is only one argument, as in Mabel danced, or from the predicator and the 'word order' (as in (2.4) and (11)), such elements are frequently given no (other) overt expression. I have put 'word order' in 'scare' quotes to indicate awareness of the fact that this considerably oversimplifies the situation; the syntacticisation of argument-label expression is discussed more fully in §3.1, on the basis of the notion of dependency introduced in §2.2.1 shall term this category, viz. { }, the category of functors. As we shall see, the category includes, as well as the traditional (NP-introducing) prepositions and postpositions, other (secondary) argument-introducers ('subordinators') such as many complementisers (cf. e.g. Anderson 1972; 1977: 105, 161, 282 n. 31; Emonds 1985: especially ch. 7).

Syntactic categories and notional features 2.1.3

21

Categories and distribution

Simple combinations of N and P provide for the range of distinctions in (2.13): (2.13)

{P}

{N}

{N,P}

{ }

verb

name

noun

functor

Let us suppose this at least constitutes a minimal categorial system, such that in particular languages, each category displays a distinctive distribution, attributable to its notional character, and not (totally) included in that of another category. Thus, for example, at a rather crude level, only verbs in English can be finite (i.e., for the moment, occur as the predicator of a simple clause) - names, nouns and functors require the 'support' of a copula: (2.14)

a. The plumber is Fred b. Fred is a plumber c. Fred is at the door/out

(where out in (c) is an 'intransitive' functor); only names, as the quintessential argument-type, inherent 'terms', can be the unmarked complement of an equative - 'specific' nouns (nouns made 'name-like') only can also be such; only nouns are unmarkedly either predicator or argument; functors are neither, but label arguments with respect to their roles in the predication (even, I assume, in (2.14c), with be as a locative verb, in contrast e.g. with the equative be of (a): see further §3.1). In terms of relations between the categories, we can say that the typical ('transitive') functor complements and is complemented by one of the other categories; the typical (non-impersonal) verb is complemented by functors; categories containing N typically complement functors. (This again assumes that functors are not necessarily expressed distinctively in the syntax, by adpositions.) Within the set of categories containing N, a noun, as opposed to name, may, like the verb, be subcategorized as to functor selection {father of/to the bride, descendant of/Ho Jonah): see further §3.7.1. Here it could be objected that determiners (and functors - if we recognise some of them, such as that in (2.14c), as 'intransitive'), though lacking the P feature, also display subcategorisation (Roger Bohm, personal communication). But we should also observe that determiners and pronouns (and 'transitive' and 'intransitive' functors) are distinguished by presence vs. absence of a complement rather than in terms of the character of the complement(s), as in the functor selection of 'relational' nouns. We can then distinguish between weak subcategorisation, manifested by determiners, which is simply a consequence of

22 Fundamentals of a notional theory complement structure and the fact that not all complements can be obligatory (with respect to a particular category), and strong subcategorisption of the differential character displayed by categories containing P. We refine upon this distinction in the following subsection; but there we preserve the essential distinction made here between the highly differentiated complementation of items with P compared with those without. It might also be argued that names simply display a subpart of the distribution of nouns, in lacking the predicativity possibility, and are thus merely a restricted subclass of the latter; however, in suggesting that only names are quintessentially arguments, I am also claiming (to expand on the description above) that the occurrence of nouns as arguments is mediated by conversion to name/pronoun status, though such conversion is not always overtly signalled (by the presence of articles etc.): again, we return to this in §3.7. The basic idea is that even vandals in (2.15): (2.15)

The car was destroyed by vandals

is a converted noun, a derived name: it is associated with a determiner that is not given independent expression (cf. too §2.7.5). In some languages, names/pronouns and nouns show more gross distributional differences. Thus, in German only the genitives of names/pronouns can occur prenominally in the NP (Jakobs Tod 'J.'s death'), while noun genitives are restricted to postnominal position (Der Tod des Freundes 'the friend's death') - see Anderson 1987b. Interestingly, as again pointed out to me by Roger Bohm, prenominal genitives include kinship terms used as names, as in Opas Besuch 'Granddad's visit'. Let us note too, as another instance of a more overt differentiation of names, that in many of the Polynesian languages names are accompanied by a distinctive 'article' (cf. e.g. Krupa 1982: ch. 4). One might similarly object, however, with respect to this scheme of categories, that in languages where a predicative noun does not need the support of a copula, as in the Russian (2.16) - cf. (2.14b): (2.16)

Marija rebenok

'Mary (is a) child'

(Lyons 1968: §7.6.3)

the distribution of verbs is included in that of nouns, and the former are thus simply a subclass of the latter. But, again, nouns are not quintessential predicators. In Russian, this is reflected in the fact that in the past tense the presence of a copula is required. Curiously, Lyons, in arguing for the 'primitiveness' of structures such as (2.16), contends that 'there is no convincing syntactic or semantic reason for classifying "be" in English as a verb' (1977: 437). But its syntactic credentials are surely impeccable, and though as a verb it may not be

Syntactic categories and notional features

23

notionally central, it nevertheless displays the relational, structure-inducing character I have attributed to P. Rather than regarding 'be' as simply a 'surfacestructure element which "carries" the overt marking of some syntactic distinction' (here 'tense, mood and aspect' - Lyons 1968: 322), with all the undesirable power that the idea of a purely 'surface-structure element' introduces, I take instead the presence of 'be' as an indication that nouns are, even in languages where its distribution is restricted, not preferred predicators. The kind of restrictions on absence of copula illustrated by Russian are not uncommon (cf. e.g. Ferguson 1972, on Bengali; Bhaskararao 1972, on Telugu). However, we return in a moment to issues raised by languages where predicative nouns are never accompanied by 'be'. Nouns, {P,N}, are notionally intermediate between verbs, {P}, and names, {N}; conjunction of P and N 'dilutes' their individual characteristics. Syntactically, too, in a notionally based theory, they are expected to show a distribution shared with verbs and names, but attenuated. The (even partial) presence of copulas and articles is one indication of this, as is the intermediate capacity of nouns for complementation by distinct functors (strong subcategorisation). On such grounds the potential word classes of English and many other languages associated with the representations in (2.13) are categorially distinct at a lexical level, in displaying distinct distributions for their members, and often association with a distinct set of secondary categories. In discussing, in particular, the noun/name distinction I have also endeavoured to show that, though their distributions may overlap, one is not simply included in the other. However, in many languages this is true only if the distributions are 'interpreted', in that e.g. nouns are associated with 'determiner' categories that may not be overtly expressed. And the non-inclusion requirement may not be necessary for the establishment of lexical categories; indeed, it is not clear how it is to be applied in the case of classes, such as the 'adverbs' discussed in the following section, which are categorially complex. We return to these issues in §2.3, though they also have some relevance to the subsection which now follows. 2.1.4

& minimal system?

A provisional general hypothesis might be that (2.13) represents the minimal system of word classes that needs to be attributed to any language. Thus, although Robins (1968), for instance, attributes to the 'basic structures' of Sundanese only the word classes 'N(ouns), V(erbs), and Particles', it is clear that pronouns (and names) are therein distinct from nouns in being nonpredicative, and potentially equative. And, more generally, although Schachter

24 Fundamentals of a notional theory claims merely that 'in most languages some grammatical distinction is made between common nouns, which are used to refer to any member of a class of persons, etc. ... and proper nouns, which are used to refer to specific persons, etc. ...' (1985: 8), such a conclusion seems to be generally applicable. It is not simply the case that, as noted in §2.1.3, m some languages there is a particular 'marker' of the distinction, either partially distinctive, as e.g. the typical absence of an article with names in English or the normal presence of a definite one in Greek {Peter vs. o Petros), or more generally, as e.g. in the selection of special 'articles' in many of the Polynesian languages (see again Krupa 1982: 64-8), or in terms of the differentiation of case/topic markers in Philippine languages (Llamzon 1979: 115); names are apparently universally distinct with respect to their (non-)capacity for predicativity/equativity, reflecting their status as quintessential arguments or 'terms'. Say, then, that (2.13) may not be reduced in particular languages to (2.17) as in (a): (2.17)

{P}

a. verb

b. verb/noun

{N} name/noun name

{ ) functor functor

which has only unary or less combinations; (2.17a) is 'sub-minimal'. Schachter also discusses (1985: 11-13), however, suggestions that there are languages which reflect a system of categories that we might, in terms of the present notation, represent as (2.17b), with no verb/noun distinction, or even (2.18), a reduction of both of (2.17) - and thus in contradiction of what I have just concluded about (the universality of) the names/noun distinction: (2.18)

{N} verb/name/noun

{ } functor

To allow for the construction of sentences in such putative systems, which requires a distinction between predicator and argument to be made, particular occurrences of the {P} class in (2.17b) (and the {N} class in (2.18)) would be provided by redundancy with additional specification, so that arguments could be distinguished derivatively (non-lexically) as {N,P}. The choice of N rather than P for the non-functor class in (2.18) reflects the assumed primacy of naming: see §2.4 below. A 'sub-minimal' system has been suggested for Salish: see e.g. Kuipers 1968; Kinkade 1983. The latter specifically argues for a system such as we have characterised in (2.18), in so far as (unlike Jacobsen 1979, on Makah) he proposes that names are not distinct from predicators; but the examples he offers

Syntactic categories and notional features

25

(1983: 29) show names as arguments in equative predications rather than functioning as predicators themselves: again names/pronouns are apparently distributionally distinct from other potential classes. In general, a system such as (2.18) has not been shown to be appropriate. Swadesh's (1936-8) much cited description of Nootka would appear to warrant a characterisation such as (2.17b), as would Bloomfield's account of Ilocano (1942), wherein are recognised as word classes only 'pronouns', 'full words' and 'particles'. (Bloomfield also groups 'names' with 'full words' (1942: §6), on the basis of their requiring, like 'full words', special markers when they occur as arguments; but these seem to reflect differences in how functors are expressed rather than instantiating a fundamental difference in distribution between names and pronouns.) Swadesh sums up the Nootka situation as follows: Normal words [vs. particles - JMA] do not fall into classes like noun, verb, adjective, preposition, but all sorts of ideasfindtheir expression in the same general type of word, which is predicative or non-predicative according to its paradigmatic ending' (1936-8: 78) and provides examples such as (2.19): (2.19)

a. Mamo'kma he-is-working b. Qo'?asma he-is-a-man

qof?as?i the-man mamo'k?i the-working

Cf. Sapir and Swadesh 1939: 235-6; Kuipers 1968: 625; more generally, Bloomfield 1933: 20; and, for references to other discussions, Thompson 1979: §4.2.4. Swadesh's 'particles' are a heterogeneous closed set, but include functors and adverbs - see further §2.2. Let us be clear that what is at issue is the lexical recognition of categorial distinctions; whether there are classes of words limited to one or other category. The claim being advanced in relation to Nootka and the like is that predicator and argument status is equally available to all 'full words'; we can contrast here the common situation, illustrated rather strikingly by Australian languages (e.g. Blake 1987: 9), wherein normally a 'noun used as a verb' will be derivationally marked. There is no doubt, however, as is recognised in Sapir's description, that the articulation of the morphosyntax of alleged 'sub-minimal' languages, characterisable in terms of (2.17b), requires, as with other languages, reference to a distinction between predicator and argument, and not all arguments are names/ pronouns. In Ilocano, for instance, the formulation of word-order patterns depends on such, the basic pattern being: predicator (+ argument(s)), where

26 Fundamentals of a notional theory arguments are riot limited to 'pronouns' but may involve members of the class of 'full words', whose members also occur as predicators. And, though Boas concludes, with respect to Kwakiutl, that, as concerns potential P and P,N words, 'all stems seem to be neutral' (1911: 441), he subsequently affirms that 'the classification of suffixes here given shows that a division of words into verbs and nouns has taken place' (p. 443), and the syntactic organisation of the sentence depends on the making of this distinction. See further, more generally, Lyons 1977: §11.2. Discussion of this issue is bedevilled by a confusion of lexical class and syntactic category. Kinkade, for instance, seems to be unclear about (among other things) the distinction between category and word class when he concludes (1983: 32): 'as I have shown, Salish shows only predications, and there is thus no basis for claiming a distinction between nominal expressions and verbal expressions (Lyons' syntactic categories)' (cf. too Thompson 1979: 699). The evidence Kinkade presents suggests that there may be no lexical distinction between noun and verb categories (though the languages concerned deserve more detailed analysis in this respect - cf. van Eijk and Hess 1986); but it does not warrant the conclusion that the categories predicator and argument (distinguishing, among other things, between the syntactic functions of 'full words') are irrelevant syntactically. The members of a (lexical) word class may be assigned a range of categorial possibilities by redundancy. If there are languages whose set of word classes is limited to that defined by (2.17b), their syntax will nevertheless appeal to at least the system of (2.13), with the categorial distinctions being made available by a redundancy such as (2.20): (2.20)

{P}^>N

i.e. predicates ({P}) may also be {P,N}, making them available to marking (with demonstratives etc.) as non-quintessential arguments and to the occupying of argument positions. The existence and characterisation of such languages remains rather controversial. For instance, as concerns Nootka, Jacobsen (1979) has shown that of the set of 'full words' there are some which cannot occur as arguments unless suffixed, whereas others occur as such suffixed or unsuffixed; the former set includes items which universally are (otherwise) centrally P words. Now, one might say that this simply shows that such items have a more restricted distribution than other 'full words': we have a subclass rather than a class difference. (Cf. again Schachter 1985: 11-13, on both Nootka and Tagalog.) Alternatively, however, in view of the correlation with the primary categorial notional features,

Syntactic categories and notional features 27 one could take the suffixation requirement as an indication that occurrence as an argument is not part of the basic distribution of the 'P-words', with the suffix indicating nominalisation, as in other languages. We can establish in general that (2.13) is appropriate for such a language as a system of lexical classes (rather than, in part, of subclasses) if we can show that 'P,N-words', though showing a gross distribution that includes those of the 'P-words' and the {N}-words, are neither preferred arguments nor preferred predicators (cf. above) - as would befit categorisation as {P,N}. This seems relatively unproblematical in general in the case of their differentiation from names ({N}-words); but Kuipers, for instance, while dividing Squamish stems into those which are overtly marked (by affixes) as 'nominal' or 'verbal' and those which are not, concedes that even with the former 'difference in syntactic status', reflected in their combining with 'predicative' or 'possessive clitics', 'is statistical rather than absolute' (1967: 63-4). If a statistical correlation is rejected as the basis for a word-class distinction, one might conclude that, while (2.13) may define a set of minimal categories for the syntax of any language, it is possible that the minimal system of word classes is more restricted, as in (2.17b), with the potential of the {P} class for argumenthood being allowed for by redundancy (2.20). Even the suffixation phenomena of Nootka alluded to above are perhaps amenable to an analysis in terms of subclasses. In Nootka, verbs, in such terms, would be the subclass of {P} marked as exceptional with respect to (2.20): (2.21)

*(2.2O)

And only derived forms based on this subclass are arguments, along with items not marked as in (2.21). As noted above, only the correlation with the central verb/noun types in other languages would then offer some motivation for the elevation of this distinction among {P} items in Nootka to word-class status. However, even apart from such considerations, it may be that we have been looking for a verb/noun word-class distinction in the wrong place. Elsewhere, Kinkade (1976) discusses the syntax of what he calls the 'copula' in Inland Olympic Salish, where he reveals that, although the language is normally predicatefirst, as shown in (2.22a): (2.22)

a. ?it COMP

qwfl-3m

tat

bleed-MiDDLE

COMP

n-cals my-arm

tit

psqw-l

COMP

Spill-INTRANS

('My arm bled') wi qaT? b. Tit COMP

water

be

(The water spilled')

(Kinkade 1976: 17, 19)

28 Fundamentals of a notional theory the copula occurs with initial subject (apparently as some kind of focussing construction), as in (2.22b). Here we have a potential P item with a distinct distribution vis-a-vis other 'full words', one that is saliently predicative. This raises the possibility that the language may after all realise lexically the system of (2.13), but that almost all 'full words' are {P,N}, whereas the membership of {P} is very restricted indeed. (The status of, for instance, the negative /miita/, which is 'unclear' according to Kinkade (1976: 19), warrants further investigation in this regard.) Now, such a suggestion departs from our normal assumptions concerning a class of verbs: here, it is closed, and its membership scarcely conforms to the usual notional type (denoting 'actions', etc.). But it may be that the two 'anomalies' are related. I shall be suggesting in §2.3.2 (and cf. e.g. Anderson 1990) that the membership of {P} in Wunambal and Ngabere, for instance, is also closed, and also 'non-actional', consisting of the traditional 'auxiliaries'. These closed class {P}s nevertheless strongly manifest the relational property I attributed to P. It may be that retreat from the other aspects of notional typicality is something to be generally associated with closed class {P}s. Certainly, the corresponding simple class {N} is associated with a membership also limited, in this case in having members differing only referentially and not in sense, and, in the case of variable names (pronouns), also closed class. We pursue the 'closed-class' status of {P} and {N}, and the consequences of such a suggestion, in §§2.3 and 2.7. This leaves at this point the question of the minimal set of word classes undecided, though evidence for 'sub-(2.i3)' systems is, it seems to me, inconclusive. More work is warranted on such languages. For instance, apart from the considerations raised in the preceding paragraph, attention could be given to Kuipers' admission (1968: 625) that in Squamish 'the form /c'aw-at-c-as/ "he helps me" is the only finite form which cannot also occur in the positions X,Y' [i.e. as arguments]. In general, indeed, we lack systematic and explicit testing, in the context of a well-defined theory of categories, of the hypothesis that at least (2.13) is universally the minimal system of lexical classes, as well as being syntactically minimal. I shall take this to be the unmarked assumption. We return below to the question from the different perspective provided by the discussions in §§2.3 and 2.7 alluded to above. 2.7.5

Conclusion

In this section I have introduced the notional features whose combination defines syntactic categories; and, on the assumption that languages may vary in the set of categories that should be attributed to them, I have tentatively hypothesised

Relations between elements 29 a notion of minimal system of categories. In discussing this it is important to distinguish between the set of categories to be distinguished lexically as to their distribution, i.e. the word classes, and the set of categories distinguished by the syntax. Notably absent from the discussion has been mention of a further potential word class (or classes), the 'adverb'; and the realisational character of functors (as adpositions, morphological categories, etc.) has been left somewhat obscure. The following section will attempt to remedy these (related) lacks, in a preliminary way. I approach this, however, via an endeavour to clarify another notion appealed to in the preceding, the notion of 'complement', invoked, for instance, in formulating (in §2.1.3) the distributions of various categories in English. This will later prove fundamental to a formulation of the syntax induced by the categorial representations. 2.2

Relations between elements

This section is intended to begin to flesh out the very brief sketch in chapter 1 of the character of syntactic structure and the bases for its projection. 2.2.1

Complementation and dependency

Predicators are complemented by functors and functors in turn by arguments. Quintessential (primary) arguments, names, are uncomplemented: we return in §3.7 to the internal (complementational) structure of complex primary arguments (involving nouns); §3.6 involves discussion of secondary (predicational) arguments. The content of 'complement' is embodied in the requirement that complemented elements, complementees, are lexically specified as necessarily accompanied by their complement(s). Complementation involves subcategorisation for primary and possibly secondary categories. Thus, the unmarked functor is necessarily accompanied by an argument (primary category), an instance of weak subcategorisation; but predicators are (strongly) subcategorised with respect to the number and character (secondary category) of the functors they select. Banally, we can say that English kill takes two functor complements, one functor being 'agentive', the other 'neutral'; whereas die takes only a 'neutral'; and rain belongs possibly to a marked zero-complement subcategory of verb. Complements which are apparently optional for a particular lexical item arise when an item displays two complementational patterns, as with change: (2.23)

a. The weather has changed b. Leon has changed his socks

30 Fundamentals of a notional theory with either one ('neutral') complement or two ('neutral' and 'agentive'). Recurrent multiple complementational patterns may be captured by lexical redundancies. The (provisional) elements 'agentive' and 'neutral' thus label secondary categories; as observed in chapter i, the distribution of a secondary category is included in that of the category with which it is associated, and it is again identified by notional features. The set of secondary categories associated with functors is discussed in §§3.1-2, those suggested here being primarily of an expository character. Complementees are syntactically atomic; complements are potentially complex, though their character is sufficiently indicated by stipulating the categories (possibly including secondary ones) of the item whose own modification allows for this complexity - shown, for the verb kill, in (2.24): (2.24)

kill ==> /{ 'neutral'}, {'agentive'}

where 7' is again to be interpreted as 'takes as a complement', and '=>' means 'include the specification on the right in the lexical characterisation of the item on the left'; and the specified complements are in their turn complementees (with nominal complements). For verbs in general we can stipulate the weak subcategorisation requirement of (2.25a), and for functors (b): (2.25)

a. {P}^>/{ }j b. { }^/{N}

Verbs take functor (empty category) complements, the upper (/) and lower (j) numerical values being for the moment unspecified (once more, see further §3.1); unmarked functors are complemented by a name. The wiggly brackets (braces) again enclose bundles of notional features, in the case of (2.24) specifying a secondary category, in (2.25) a primary one. We return to the relationship between these bundles in a moment; at this point let us pursue the complementeecomplement relation. Complements, unlike complementees, are potentially complex. Further, the one-to-many relationship between verb and complements leads to a strong subcategorisation of verbs, as noted above, whereas pronouns and determiners are differentiated only in terms of weak subcategorisation (presence vs. absence of a complement). It is perhaps worth extending such a typology at this point to acknowledge that functors are typically not merely weakly subcategorised in this sense, but also are differentiated in accordance with what kind of primary category complements them. So that, for instance, while in can take either a primary (in September) or secondary (in coming here) argument, the latter are not available to at (atfive o'clock/*at coming here); with in the stipulation (2.25b)

Relations between elements 31 is overridden. We can distinguish an intermediate 'strength' in subcategorisation: verbs are highly differentiated lexically with respect to the secondary functor categories (as well as primary categories - §4.1), determiners are undifferentiated with respect to the categories they are complemented by, while functors are minimally differentiated with respect to primary categories (primary vs. secondary arguments). These categories mark points on a hierarchy of a kind that will become familiar to us particularly in §2.4: high subcategorising differentiation is associated with the class containing only P; presence of N, as with nouns, decreases this; absence of P much reduces subcategorising power; presence of N alone is minimally subcategorisational. These various subcategorisation relationships are reflexions of the asymmetry of the complementation relation. But, further, the distribution of complementee plus complement(s) is determined by the category of the complementee. If we attribute to their combination a constructional status, then the complementee has this special status of its own within the construction. Thus, a construction including a complemented verb has the same distribution as a no-argument verb. The formal properties of sets of such constructions have been explored within the theory of dependency grammars (cf. e.g. Hays 1964; Gaifman 1965; Robinson 1970; Fraser 1990). Complementee-complement is a dependency, or head-modifier, relation, such that the category of the head (complementee) determines the distribution of the construction defined by items contracting the asymmetric binary relation of dependency, or (with multiple complementation) sets of such relations involving a common head, and the head is itself subcategorised for its modifiers (complements). We can represent the dependency relations holding in constructions such as (2.26a) by (b), in terms of the graphic notation adopted in Anderson (1971a; 1976; 1977: ch. 1), and alluded to briefly in §1.3: (2.26)

a. humiliation of Rome by Hannibal b.

humiliation

of

Rome

by

Hannibal

with each head node linked to (each of) its modifier(s) by a dependency arc (directed line), and with the asymmetry, or directedness, of the line being

32 Fundamentals of a notional theory represented by relative vertical placement: of depends on/is a dependent of humiliation, its governor; Rome depends on of, of and Rome (and by and Hannibal) are subordinate to humiliation. A construction is constituted by a head and its subordinates. The discontinuous lines of the graph which intersect the dependency one represent a (symmetrical) relation of association, in this case between items and nodes in the dependency graph, a link which, as far as this representation is concerned, is undirected. (2.26) is defective in crucially omitting reference to the categories of the items: crucially, because the particular dependencies are induced by the (sub)categorisation of the items involved, as revealed by the appropriately enriched representation in (2.27): (2.27)

X/{ neutral} {agentive)

{ }{neutral}

{N}

{ }{agentive}

{N}

humiliation

of

Rome

by

Hannibal

Given the stipulations in (2.25) (on the assumption that the categorial representation of the deverbal noun, here 4 X\ to which we return shortly, includes that for a verb) and given that with a particular verb the value of / =j is determined by the number of bundles of secondary features for which it is subcategorised, the dependency arcs in (2.27) simply reflect the complementation requirements of the associated categories. This follows from the unmarked assumption that there is a one-to-one mapping of items to categorial bundles and of these latter to nodes. The graph is built up on the basis of the subcategorisational requirements of particular items being satisfied by the (primary and secondary) categorial properties of their potential complements. I offer a more explicit account in chapter 3. For now, we can formulate the erection of syntactic structure as: Syntactic projection a. associate a node with each primary category b. make nodej dependent on nodej iff the category associated with nodej has a value which satisfies a valency requirement of the category associated with nodej

where each categorial specification to the right of V specifies a valency requirement, and a categorial representation satisfies a valency provided the requirement imposed by the latter is not distinct from it.

Relations between elements 33 Dependency graphs such as that in (2.27) are redundant, then. However, as we shall see in our discussion of specifiers and circumstantials, the projection of syntactic structure is not always quite so banal. Further, as well as transparently representing the pattern of dependency induced by categorial specifications such as those in (2.27), such graphs (or their equivalent) also form the basis for the building of further, more complex structures, such as that which is involved in 'long-distance' dependencies. This again is discussed further in chapter 3, where it is maintained that, even in the case of the latter, syntactic elaboration is indeed strictly structure-building (rather than mutating - cf. Anderson 1991Z?). Again, the dependency representation permits a transparent formulation of this restriction, as well as many others. Thus, for instance, the head convention discussed in Anderson 1992Z? (see too Robinson 1970; Anderson 1977: ch. 1) exploits, indeed is required by, the fact that dependency representations introduce no phrasal nodes: Head convention Any regularity mentioning category X is to be interpreted as applying to the construction headed by X unless a subordinate of X is mentioned in the same regularity, in which case the the element manifesting X is referred to. So, reference to {P} by a syntactic generalisation is taken to be reference to the construction headed by {P}, S(entence), unless some other part of S is invoked in the generalisation. (See §2.2.2 below for one application of such a principle.) In so far as this restriction is independently motivated, we have some support both for the introduction of such structure and for its minimalist character, containing no phrasal nodes or labels. Heads, and thus syntactic elements in general, are atomic. Similarly, Anderson (1976) argues that such dependency structures facilitate the expression of word-order generalisations, without recourse to some auxiliary notation for marking heads such as is required in constituency notations. In the unmarked case, determination of basic word order in different constructions involves the uniform setting of direction of modification, to left or to right. The trees initially induced - i.e. projected from lexical representations - are 'wild trees' (Staal 1967): lexical items are not associated with information concerning word order. There is no left-to-right ordering of (categories and of) nodes, as projected from the lexicon. Linearity - essentially, as I'm suggesting, setting of the direction of modification - is introduced in the course of further structurebuilding. The directed graphs induced by categorial representations are trees, with only one node, the root, that is not dependent. A requirement that a complement

34 Fundamentals of a notional theory cannot simultaneously satisfy more than one complementee is reflected in the associated dependency graphs being also proper trees, with all non-root nodes dependent on only one head. The graphs induced by the satisfaction of the subcategorisational requirements are proper trees. I shall be formulating in subsequent chapters the restricted conditions under which in building further structure, this requirement is apparently relaxed, in terms of 'legal improprieties'. Once we introduce into syntactic representations, as well as the association and dependency relations, the property of specifying the binary relation of immediate (strict) precedence, indicated by relative horizontal placement in the graph, further restrictions on tree structure are possible. One that is pervasively satisfied, is that of projectivity, or 'no-tangling': dependency arcs and association lines do not intersect except at nodes, as in (2.27), if, at this point, we interpret it as embodying linearity, and unlike the tangled (2.28): (2.28)

Again, however, as anticipated in §1.3, I shall be suggesting below that, in restricted conditions, overlapping with those associated with possible 'impropriety' (double-motherhood), projectivity may be violated: we have minor 'legal tangles'. Anderson (1991Z?) provides a preliminary discussion of both kinds of 'relaxation'. We can at least say at this point that basic, and unmarked syntactic representations are proper and (derivatively) projective. In the preceding, the relationships between various aspects of structure have been described, informally, in 'procedural' terms. This is not intended, in itself, to involve claims concerning 'real time' activation. Thus, for instance, I am not saying that in parsing, linearity, though largely derivative, may not play a crucial part at an early stage. Rather, I have been concerned to extract, as in this sense prior, that information which is contrastive (categorisation and subcategorisation, information structure) from the structural properties that it induces: dependency - and thus constituency, basic word order - given a typological setting, basically head-right vs. head-left; marked word order, etc. (see e.g. Anderson 1992b: ch. 3).

Relations between elements 35 2.2.2

Subjunction

Each of the items in (2.27) is associated with a single category which induces a single node in the dependency tree, on the principle of one-category = onenode (recall the above formulation of syntactic projection). 'Adverbs', however, are bi-categorial, and induce two nodes; but the two nodes, being associated with a single item, are not linearised distinctively with respect to each other. The graph associated with here, after linearisation, is thus as in the subtree in (2.29): (2.29)

Fred

lives

here

the categorial specification for here being (2.30a), or, more compactly, (b): (2.30)

a. { } I {N}

b. {

};{N}

where ';' again indicates dependency, the head being by convention to the left. That is, the categorial characterisation of here involves an internal dependency: the construction has the basic distribution of a functor (cf. Fred lives in this house), but the subcategorisational requirements of the functor are satisfied iteminternally. In §2.8 I shall argue that many, at least, of the traditional 'adverbs' should be associated with an internal functor-headed configuration, and that this is basic to their distribution, though other factors, like the complement/'adjunct' distinction, supervene. Adverbs are lexically distinct as a word class, not merely by virtue of their (external) distribution, but in incorporating internally satisfaction of the subcategorisational requirements of their head category. It is likely that we should add such a complex category to the minimal system of (2.14), even though the membership of such a word class might in some languages be limited to a few 'particles'. This seems to be the case in the Salishan languages, which show a set of deictic particles which 'clarify the relationship of the predicate and of entities connected with it to the situation in which the speech act occurs, and the knowledge and experience of the speaker and hearers' (Thompson 1979: 699).

36 Fundamentals of a notional theory The internal dependency is lexicalised in the case of here. But the same kind of configuration may arise as a consequence of a redundancy feeding the inflexional morphology, so that the members of Case systems induce two nodes linked by dependency, but again not linearised distinctly. The presence of the functor is reflected in the inflexional morphology. Thus, the Finnish sentence of (2.31a) involves a nominal attached by a morphosyntactic redundancy of the character of (c), available to primary arguments, to a functor with in this instance secondary features loc(ative) and int(ernal) (where these are, again, at this point, expository merely): (2.31)

'M. is in the country'

a. Mikko on maassa b.

{loc,int} {N}

on

maassa

c. {N}

where C is a variable over the set of conjunctions of case features Once more, the complex is associated with two unsequenced nodes in the tree, as shown in (b). The internal structure of the word, including sequence relations, so that -ssa, the inessive inflexion, is suffixed to the stem, is assigned by the inflexional morphology proper - recall §1.2, and see again Anderson 1992&: ch. 2. Both adverbs and Case-inflected nominals may thus incorporate a functor. We should, of course, recall too that some adverbs are clearly derivational, as with locally, for example, in which case the functor-nominal combination is provided by derivational (lexical) redundancy. Indeed, there has sometimes been controversy over the derivational vs. inflexional status of certain word forms, as in relation to the Classical Greek 'fifth case', or 'casus adverbialis' (Hjelmslev 1935: 3-4). We return in §§2.7-8 to the status of derivational and inflexional subjunctions, and of the inflexional/derivational distinction. Together, these (Case-inflexion and adverbiality) constitute one kind of

Relations between elements 37 circumstance whereby functors are not expressed by the word class adposition: we have 'portmanteau' expression of functor and nominal. In many languages this is typical of functor expression: in the languages of Australia, for instance, prepositions are not common and postpositions very few (Blake 1987: §1.2). Another possibility is illustrated by the (unfortunately) so-called 'postpositions' of e.g. Finnish; these do not realise a functor simply, but are inflexional functornominal complexes which typically are in their turn complemented by a further functor complex, as shown in (2.32): (2.32)

{ }{loc,int}

I

{ Hgen}

{N}

{N}

kanssa

pojan

'with'

'boy'

(We are again not concerned at this point with the character of the secondary features, such as 'gen(itive)', here (i.e. in the notation of (2.32)) simply juxtaposed to the categorial specification with which they are associated, or with the full categorial structure of pojan.) More commonly, as in many Indo-European languages, adpositions are not themselves inflected but impose Case inflexions on their arguments. I shall suggest in §2.7 that such Case inflexions once more involve a functor-nominal complex. Further, functors may be neither sequenced distinctively nor reflected lexically or inflexionally. This is the case with the higher of the two nodes associated with Fred in (2.29/30'), an amplification of (2.29/30): (2.29/30')

{N}

Fred

{N}

lives

here

38 Fundamentals of a notional theory Here the content of the functor may be said to be expressed by the word order. In the English pronoun system, for the most part, the value of the functor in such instances is also expressed inflexionally (as with he vs. him but not it). The functor here is the 'neutralised' one associated with subject-formation, thus expressing a 'grammatical relation': see §3.1, once again. Primary arguments participate in predications by virtue of providing the value to satisfy the (unmarked) valency of functors. Roger Bohm (personal communication) points out that this can be regarded as providing the rationale for the 'case filter' on overt or 'lexical' NPs of Chomsky (1981: 49), for example: Case filter *NP if NP has no phonetic content and has no Case The alleged distribution of lexical NPs vis-a-vis 'abstract case' reflects the necessarily functor-complementing character of primary arguments. (We should note too that the 'phonetic content' clause is unnecessary, indeed impossible, in a framework without 'empty categories'.) Return again to (2.29/30)'. The dependency arcs therein associated with Fred and with the adverb each link a head and modifier not distinct in precedence (cf. Anderson igjib). We can distinguish the relationship between these two nodes as one of subjunction, vs. the adjunction of a modifier which is linearly distinct from its head. Such a distinction exploits the relative independence of the dimensions of subordination and linearity. (2.29/30) should be further amplified to include another instance of subjunction, associated with the verb, as in (2.29/30"): (2.29/30")

{P} {N}

Fred

{N}

lives

here

Anderson (1976) suggests that this illustrates a derived subjunction, created in the syntax; and it allows us to distinguish formally between the role of the verb as head of the sentence, the construction including the highest (root) node in

Relations between elements 39 (2.29) and all those nodes subordinate to it, and its role as head of a constituent VP, the construction including the node subjoined to the highest node and all the nodes subordinate to it. Given that a constituent VP is well-motivated, in some languages at least, such a distinction is clearly appropriate. Anderson (ibid.) proposes, further, however, that the S/VP distinction is not only derivative, but also may not be universal, or even generalised throughout a single language. We return to the status of VP in the light of further relevant phenomena in §3.3 below. As it stands (2.29/30") violates the one category = one node principle; the resolution of this depends on the formulation of subject-formation proposed there, which provides for the adequate motivation of both nodes. In the present context, what is important is not the derivational status of VP or its crosslinguistic distribution but the viability of a characterisation in terms of syntactic subjunction. Anderson (1976: ch. 1; 1991b) argues that in this way the invoking of subjunction overcomes one of the major objections that has been brought against dependency representations of syntactic structure, the inability to allow an item to function as head of successively more inclusive constructions (cf. e.g. Matthews 1981: 84-90): the verb in (2.29/30") is successively the head of VP and S. Such a suggestion might seem to be in conflict with the traditional notion that the head is what is 'characteristic' of the construction, is what identifies it as a construction type. But it is possible to claim that S and VP are in this sense the same construction type, without this leading to indeterminacy, given the head convention introduced in §2.2.1 above. In terms of the head convention, reference by a syntactic generalisation to {P} will be taken to include the whole S unless the subject (a dependent of {P} outside VP) is also mentioned in the generalisation, in which case {P} is VP. (We should note that sometimes particular instances of reference to 'VP', however, involve reference rather to non-finite forms: see again §3.3.) Moreover, VP in English is differentiated from S by direction of modification, as well as inclusivity: S is left-modified, VP to the right. Invocation of subjunction does not necessarily impair our capacity to distinguish constructions. Thus, representation of successive-headhood is unproblematical for dependency-based representations. Over the past few years there has arisen some controversy over the appropriateness and sufficiency of dependency representations of syntactic structure (see e.g. apart from Matthews (1981: ch. 4): Hudson 19800, b\ 1984; 1987; 19900: ch. 6; Zwicky 1985; Dahl 1980; Corbett, Fraser and McGlashan 1993). What follows here does not directly enter into this controversy; rather, I shall be attempting to show that the minimum of structural notions introduced in our discussion (basically: dependency, linearity and association) for the representation

40 Fundamentals of a notional theory of the complementee-complement relation is sufficient and appropriate to the structural characterisation of the major areas of syntax we shall survey, including the allegedly more problematical ones, such as that resolved above in terms of subjunction. This in itself I take to support the restrictiveness of the assumptions made here concerning syntactic structure (including, crucially, the restrictions on 'phrase structure' associated with adopting dependency as the basis for such). However, I should at least comment that it seems to me mistaken to try to equate dependency or headhood with one or more of a set of distinct morphosyntactic notions (involving the determination of concord or rection, or functioning as the 'morphosyntactic locus') such as are discussed by Zwicky (1985) and others; we shall find that these interact with dependency in a number of different ways. (And see too the discussions in Corbett, Fraser and McGlashan 1993.) Thus, for instance, under rection, in the presence of an item of a particular category or subcategory another item is required to assume a particular distinct morphological shape; so that in English a pronoun is 'objective' when accompanied by a preposition (functor). A little more precisely, a rectee, such as the English pronoun, is dependent on its rector, the preposition in English. Rection accompanies dependency; it goes from head to modifier. Unsurprisingly, the term 'government' has been used of both the head-modifier and the rection relations. Concord, on the other hand, at least in the unmarked instances, involves the agreement in some morphological property/ies of a head with a modifier, as e.g. with English subject-verb concord. Concord is anti-dependency; it goes from modifier to head. See further here Anderson 1979&; 1986c; to appear a. Such a formulation obviously involves 'non-standard' assumptions concerning e.g. the relationship between 'attributive' adjectives and the nouns they accompany, and sometimes show concord with. (We return to attribution of adjectives in §3.7.) Neither of these phenomena should be regarded as providing criteria for the identification or definition of headhood, or as involving a conflict in criteria. They involve principles which take head assignment - the structure of complementation - as a startingpoint. The inappropriateness, indeed circularity, of attempts to define headhood in terms of some independent property of a particular constituent is underlined by the fact that in a dependency grammar constituency itself is derivative, a property of dependency structures. And, in the basic case, syntactic dependency, and thus, derivatively of that, constituency, follow from the subcategorisational properties of the syntactically atomic items. See, however, §2.8 for a refinement of this notion (which does not, however, alter the derivative status of both dependency and constituency).

Relations between elements 41 2.2.3

Internal dependency

The representation for here given in (2.30) includes an item-internal dependency, an internal subjunction: there are two categorial specifications so linked. If we introduce, further, the possibility of asymmetrical combination, subjunction, within a single categorial representation itself, then, in place of simple {P,N}, i.e. non-specific combination of P and N, we can differentiate between two categories differing in preponderance of the two features: (2.33)

{P;N}

{N;P}

with V again indicating dependency (with, by convention, the head on the left). (Compare this carefully with the notation of (2.30b).) Given the one-category = one-node principle, such categorial representations do not of course induce more than one node in the syntactic dependency tree. §2.3 considers the instantiation of such categories in language. There too we investigate the further elaboration of systems showing dependency relations between the features which is allowed for by mutual dependency, indicated in (2.34): (2.34)

{P:N}

P governs N and N governs P. In terms of simple preponderance, (2.34) is equivalent to {P,N} in systems which lack dependency between features, i.e. lack (2.33); but in terms of complexity (2.34) outranks either of (2.33). Notice, as a further notational convention, that if we want to insist on the absence of asymmetry in a combination, then the ' {P.N}' notation is appropriate: '{P.N}' specifically involves no asymmetrical combination, whereas {P,N} is indifferent, and can be taken to refer to a set including all of (2.33) and (2.34). (See Anderson (1988a) for exploitation of the V vs. V distinction in the formulation of a historical (sound) change - or, rather, restructuring.) The internal dependencies in (2.33) are not associated with a head-modifier relation in the syntactic tree. Rather, they correlate simply, as indicated, with relative preponderance of the properties associated with the features. This does have syntactic consequences - as §2.6 illustrates in relation to hierarchical phenomena ('squishes' etc.) - but not in terms of syntactic dependency. One motivation for supposing that the same, dependency relation is involved in this case as in the syntactic tree is Occamesque: only one asymmetrical non-linear relation need be invoked. With representations such as that for maassa in (2.31b), involving dependency between categories, positing of the same relation item-internally and in the tree is supported by the isomorphism involved - and is in conformity with the dependency preservation condition proposed below. We return to this area in §2.6.1. Notice here, however, that, with respect to category-internal

42

Fundamentals of a notional theory

dependencies, there is at least, as observed above, a correlation between preponderance of P (expressed in terms of dependency) and capacity to take (a differentiated range of) dependants/complements. This type of categorial representation - and the syntactic dependencies discussed earlier - will be familiar to the reader acquainted with developments in dependency phonology (e.g., more recently, Anderson and Durand 1986; Anderson and Ewen 1987). Anderson and Jones (1974; 1977) argued that the dependency graphs which had evolved as representations of syntactic structure (particularly as embodied in Anderson 1971a) were also appropriate to the characterisation of phonological suprasegmentals: as intimated in chapter 1, rhyme, syllable, foot, tone group are headed constructions induced by (phonological) categorial representations (for fuller more recent treatments see e.g. Anderson 1986a; Anderson and Ewen 1987: part 1). And Anderson and Jones (1974; 1977) maintained further that the combination of features characterising categories also invoke the dependency relation in analogous fashion to what has been suggested here for syntactic categories - as illustrated by (2.33) and (2.34). In both phonology and syntax, combinations of primary categorial features are associated with nodes in the supra-tree; they are also associated with combinations of secondary features, which are responsible for, among other things, distributional 'fine-tuning', restrictions such as are illustrated by the English initial clusters /pi-, *tl-, kl-/ and by the Gender restrictions manifested in the anomaly of German *der Mddchen. In the phonology, the clusters of (primary) categorial and articulatory features have come to be designated as constituting 'gestures' (Lass 1976: ch. 6); here, I shall use the more neutral term partition for the bundles of primary and secondary features. We return to the secondary partition, i.e. that consisting of secondary syntactic features, in §2.7, which indeed proposes a fundamental revision of the status implied for them here. In the section which follows we explore the further articulation of the primary partition, on the basis of the relational properties introduced here. In the present section it has been suggested that, analogously in the phonology and the syntax, the relations of association, dependency and serialisation are relevant to both infrasegmental/word structure and suprasegmental/syntactic structure. Assignment of these various relations with respect to the latter is derivative; and even within the segment/word, linearity relations (as in - phonological and syntactic - compounds) are redundant, as are many particular instances of dependency - as we shall now see.

Further categories: the role of feature dependencies 43 2.3

Further categories: the role of feature dependencies

The combinations of features discussed in §2.1 allowed for a limited set of primary categories, and thus, where these correlate with a set of items showing a distinct distribution, of word classes. The categories are given in (2.13), repeated here: (2.13)

{P} verb

{N} name

{N,P} noun

{ } functor

§2.2 introduced in addition the possibility of 'complex' word classes involving a dependency between two partitions of primary features - specifically a functor and an argument partition, characteristic of 'adverbs' - cf. (2.30b), such a combination being associated with two nodes in syntactic structure. The alleged low-word-class-inventory languages discussed in §2.1 apparently display such a set of word classes, though some of them may be even more restricted in this respect. And we shall note below even some others where the verb/noun distinction has not been controversial. But clearly, on the other hand, there are languages where the set of word classes, and (especially) the set of categories invoked by the syntax, are more extensive. The availability of dependencies between features (internal dependencies - vs. the external dependency involved with adverbs) means that we can allow for more extensive systems in what I shall argue is an appropriate way. 2.3.1

Adjectives

By invoking dependency we can substitute for the simple combination in (2.13) two categories differing in the preponderance of P and N, as in (2.35): (2.35)

{P;N}

{N;P}

so that there are two possibilities gradedly intermediate between {P} and {N}. As far as word classes are concerned, perhaps the most obvious application of (2.35) is to allow for systems in which a distinction is made between nouns and adjectives. Adjectives are, like nouns, classificatory, but traditionally they are said to denote 'attributes' rather than the entities denoted by central nouns; that is, their denotata are (perceived as) both less independent as potential arguments and conceptually simpler. According to Jespersen, 'on the whole substantives are more special than adjectives, they are applicable to fewer objects than adjectives, in the parlance of logicians, the extension of a substantive is less, and its intension is greater than that of an adjective' (1924: 75); cf. Lyons 1977: 447.

44 Fundamentals of a notional theory On the other hand, adjective denotata are typically less dynamic, more stable than the central verbs. Sometimes, on such grounds, adjectives have been described as denoting 'qualities'. Such considerations select as central adjectives those denoting simplex properties to do with size, colour, etc. In languages with a closed adjective class, notionally central adjectives of course preponderate. Dixon (1977), indeed, finds a cross-linguistic tendency for such closed classes to contain a rather specific subset, including basic dimensional, colour, age and evaluative terms. Schachter (1985: 14-5) cites Igbo as a paradigm case in this respect, with eight adjectives evenly divided through these four semantic areas, as shown in (2.36): (2.36)

a. ukwu b. ojii c. ohuru d. oma

'large' 'black, dark' 'new' 'good'

nta oca

'small' 'white, light' ocye 'old' ojoo 'bad'

(dimension)

(colour) (age) (value)

In English, with an open class, adjectives approximate at one extreme to verbs of state (cf. aware vs. know, hungry vs. hunger)', at the other, to nouns denoting entities associated with a particular salient property (cf. dead vs. corpse). (Cf. here e.g. Lyons 1977: 447-8.) There are other respects too in which adjectives fall between nouns and verbs, or approach one or the other. Typical simple adjectives show a lesser range of arguments than verbs, but more than nouns. Agentive adjectives {Be cautious!) are untypical, but less so than agentive nouns. Thompson found that in samples of discourse in English and Mandarin adjectives are used both for 'predicating a property of an established discourse referent' and for 'introducing a new discourse referent' (1988: 174). We can associate these properties of adjectives - intermediate between verbs and nouns - with a {P;N} specification, with {N;P} being attributed to nouns. And this is reflected in adjectival distribution: in English, they occur as (a nonpredicative, or 'attributive') part of arguments, as in (2.37a), though they only exceptionally 'complete' an argument construction, as in (b): (2.37)

a. the humble cottage b. the humble

which is normally interpreted only as plural and human, or possibly abstract; and they occur predicatively, though in many languages only if accompanied by a copula, as in English - though, unlike singular count nouns in English, they are not accompanied by a determiner such as a(n) (cf. (2.5)). I shall suggest below that the word-class system of English is rather more extensive than (2.38), which incorporates the distinction allowed for in (2.35), but also ignores for the moment complex categories like adverbs:

Further categories: the role of feature dependencies (2.38)

{P} verb

{P;N} adjective

{N;P} noun

{N} name

45

{ } functor

A system such as (2.38) seems, however, to be appropriate, as a first approximation, to a range of other languages, including Finnish - and Old English. The basic distribution of adjectives therein is as in (Modern) English, but they show in addition 'concord' in case and number with the the noun to which they are attributed or of which they are predicated, as in the Finnish examples of (2.39): (2.39)

a. iso talo 'large house' isot talot 'large houses' b. Talo on iso 'The house is large' Talot ovat isot 'The houses are large'

Sinhalese, for example, shows a similar distribution for adjectives (though no copula is required in the predicative use); but they do not show the inflexional categories exhibited by either nouns or verbs (Gair 1970: §2.41). Attempts have sometimes been made to establish either the attributive or the predicative use of adjectives as basic, with the other being derived therefrom. Thus, in early transformational accounts (e.g. Smith 1961), attributive adjectives are derived via reduction of relative clauses containing a predicative adjective. Whereas Cresswell (1973: 142-3,183—5; see too Montague 1974), for example, takes the attributive use as basic, with the predicative adjective being in effect a reduced attributive construction. Neither position is easy to reconcile with the fact that in languages lacking or with reduced adjective word class, quality words may be either primarily verbs (predicators) or nouns (arguments). Schachter (1985: 17-18), for instance, illustrates the distributional parallel between 'quality nouns' (corresponding to adjectives in other languages) and other nouns in Quechua. The quality nouns occur, for instance, without accompanying noun, as verbal objects, with an accusative suffix, and markable for number: (2.40)

a. Rika ska: alkalde(-kuna)-ta I-saw mayor(-PL)-ACC ('I saw the mayor(s)') b. Rikaska: hatun(-kuna)-ta I-saw big(-PL)-ACC ('I saw the big one(s)')

and both may be attributive or predicative: (2.41)

a. chay that b. Chay That

alkalde/hatun runa mayor/big man runa alkalde/hatun man mayor/big

(kaykan) (is)

46 Fundamentals of a notional theory In Mandarin, on the other hand, quality verbs (corresponding to adjectives in other languages) may be predicative, of course, but in attributive position are relativised like other verbs: (2.42)

a. liajie de niihaizi understand REL girl ('girl who understands') b. piaoliang de niihaizi beautiful REL girl ('girl who is beautiful')

(Schachter 1985: 18)

For samples of such languages see Thompson 1988: 170-1. These correspondences suggest that neither predicativity nor attributiveness is more basic. Perhaps even more problematical for accounts making predicativity basic are the familiar instances in languages like English of attributive adjectives such as those in (2.43a) which are not predicative, as shown in (b), or where the predicative use is (on the salient reading for the attributive) markedly different semantically, as in (c): (2.43)

a. the late/present/honorary/former/initial/mere president b. The president is ?honorary/*former/*initial/*mere c. The president is late/present

(even if we ignore the denominals studied by Levi 1978: ch. 2 - see too Postal 1969; and §2.6.2 below). Admittedly, these are scarcely central adjectives; and, typically, too, they incorporate a deictic or ranking element. But such attributive uses present a problem for deriving attributives in all instances from the obvious predicative source. Cresswell's contrary proposal is based on the semantic properties of gradable adjectives, specifically implicit reference to a standard of comparison, made explicit in attributive uses such as (2.44): (2.44)

a. A small elephant is a big animal b. Dumbo is a small elephant/big animal

but not the predicative (2.45): (2.45)

Dumbo is small/big

The predicatives in (2.45) involve, on Cresswell's account, a covert element (A) interpreted pragmatically ('for an elephant'/'for an animalV'for his age'/...) to which the adjective is attributed. But such considerations, while, on the one hand, being also applicable to gradable nouns, as in, say, (2.46), which would then also have to be interpreted as reduced attributives, presumably:

Further categories: the role of feature dependencies 47 (2.46)

Dumbo is a dwarf/giant

are, on the other, scarcely relevant to many adjectives, including those in (2.43); nor do they account for the failure of predicativity with them. Also problematical are adjectives which may occur only predicatively: (2.47)

a. The president is alive/asleep/prone/remiss b. *the alive/asleep/prone/remiss president

(Siegel 1980: 179)

Anderson (1989Z?; 199ib) suggests that English adjectives are lexically marked as attributives and that predicativity is provided by a lexical redundancy to which e.g. initial and the relevant late are marked as exceptional, perhaps on the basis of their semantic character. Adjectives are a word class with two categorial specifications, both including a common core ({P;N} in terms of (2.38) above; {P:N} in terms of the proposals of §2.3.3 below), with the difference allowed for lexically. However, if the redundancy involved takes attributiveness as basic, then adjectives such as those in (2.47) would have to be marked as obligatorily undergoing it, unless (taking a hint from the history of many of them) we interpret alive (cf. Old English on life) etc. as categorially complex, in (like adverbs) involving a functor-argument internal structure, and thus only apparently adjectival (see further §2.6.1 below). We return to the question of the relationship between attributive and predicative adjectives, briefly in §2.6.1, and slightly more fully in §3.7, after a more detailed consideration of the internal structure of arguments. There also I take up further distinctions associated with adjectives, particularly attributives, notably restrictive vs. non-restrictive and what Siegel (1980) terms intersective vs. non-intersective: cf. Bolinger's (1967) distinction between referent vs. reference modification; also Kamp 1975. Here already I want to have a preliminary look at the latter distinction, however, in that, and in so far as, the phenomena involved are directly relevant to our present concern with the categorial and word-class status of adjectives. Many adjectives in English may be either intersective or non-intersective, as illustrated by Siegel's (1980: 2-3) example reproduced in (2.48): (2.48)

Marya is a beautiful dancer

On one interpretation, Marya is beautiful 'as a dancer' (non-intersective, reference modification); on the other, beautiful 'absolutely' (intersective, referent modification). In predicative position the adjective is merely vague, like any gradable, with respect to standard of comparison: (2.49)

Mary a/the dancer is beautiful

48 Fundamentals of a notional theory The necessarily attributive adjectives of (2.43) are only non-intersective; and we can associate with this their failure to undergo the redundancy alluded to above (on the analysis of Anderson 1989Z?, 1991Z?). However, some adjectives that can be either predicative or attributive normally show only an intersective interpretation: (2.50)

a. The president is sick b. the sick president

These phenomena are crucial to any account of the structure of attribution, and again we return to them in §3.7. Siegel (1980: ch. 2) also shows that the intersective vs. non-intersective distinction correlates with the selection of short vs. long form for an adjective in Russian. This alternation involves a productive relationship marked morphologically. The long form occurs both as attributive and predicator; the short form is only predicative. This leads to the kind of contrast illustrated in (2.51): (2.51)

a. Studentka umnaja student intelligentiLF (The student is intelligent') b. Studentka umna student intelligentiSF (The student is intelligent')

where (2.51a) 'means that the student is intelligent in general, absolute terms', whereas (b) 'is most likely to mean that she is intelligent in her role as a student' (Siegel 1980: 11). Here, the intersective vs. non-intersective distinction is clearly marked in predicative position. This suggests that (2.51a) shows a reduced (nonintersective) attributive construction, such as may be appropriate in English to (at least) those few non-intersective adjectives (such as temporary) which can occur predicatively. Predicative adjectives in Kusaal (Voltaic) also show a morphological contrast in predicative position: (2.52)

a. Pua?-la ane velirja woman-the is beautiful (The woman is beautiful') b. Pua?-la vel woman-the beautiful (The woman is beautiful')

(Ladusaw 1985: 201)

The predicative form in (2.52a) shares morphosyntactic properties with nouns (Ladusaw 1985: §3): unlike verbs, or the predicative form in (b), it shows number agreement with the subject (cf. the plural Puap-la ane velise); it takes the

Further categories: the role of feature dependencies 49 coordinator nc and rejects the intensifier sed 'really' - like nouns, and unlike verbs or predicators like that in (b), which take ka and may be modified by sed. Only (a) forms occur in attributive position. If the predicator in (2.52b) is a predicative adjective, then the predicative (a), which, like predicative nouns, requires the copula anc, is again plausibly a reduced attributive construction. Unfortunately, Ladusaw's discussion does not make it clear whether the two constructions in (2.52) are also associated, as one might predict, with an intersective vs. non-intersective distinction. We should note here too that Ladusaw concludes (1985: 205), quoting Welmers (1973: 267), that 'It would require more data and analysis to define the status of qualificatives satisfactorily in terms of the total structure of the languages, but it is clear that one must be most suspicious in respect to a class of "adjectives".' However, I suggest that the word-class status of adjectives in Kusaal is ensured by the very uniqueness of their distribution, as both attributive and predicative, whatever sub-distributions and morphology may be shared with nouns and verbs. In some languages with a closed class of adjectives these are confined to attributive use (Schachter 1985: 16). Ngamambo has only seven basic (underived) adjectives; these occur attributively only. As Siegel (1980: §v.i) shows, these are also non-intersective only. This confirms the primitiveness of the attributive use of adjectives, though it does not necessarily militate against the primitiveness of the predicative use: all basic adjectives in Ngamambo are nonintersective, and so, as is the general pattern, resistant to predicativity. The proposed categorial specification of (2.38) allows in principle for the predicativity of adjectives: any item associated with P may be predicative. But it does not as such provide for their role in the structure of arguments, or for the intersective vs. non-intersective distinction: as indicated, this will be a primary concern of §3.7. At this point, however, I am concerned simply to differentiate adjectives as a word class in a way that is appropriate in a general way to their syntax, without committing ourselves to the structure of attribution, which, clearly, is not as simple as involving an equation of attributive with modifier. 2.3.2

Auxiliaries

The system in (2.38) involves a minimal increment over that in (2.13); we pursue the significance of minimal incrementation in the following section. I conclude this one with consideration of a minimal incrementation of the system given in (2.38): namely, that which results from adding to the possibilities of (2.35) the still more complex category characterised by mutual dependency,

50 Fundamentals of a notional theory which I shall represent as {P:N}. Let us look at the empirical motivations for such an elaboration of the system of syntactic categories. This will in turn lead us to a reconsideration of the interpretation of the representations in (2.38). In a number of languages one can establish a lexical distinction, based on distribution, between verbs that are limited to non-finite positions and those which are not, the latter corresponding to what are often called 'auxiliaries'. Auxiliaries are closed-class items. Thus, in the Australian language Wunambal most verbs occur in uninflected form accompanied by one of a small set of auxiliaries which signal secondary categories, as in (2.53a), while most auxiliaries can also occur alone, with in that case unreduced semantics, as in (b): (2.53)

a. Yala ngu-wanban hunt I-AUX:PRES ('I hunt') b. Ngu-wanban I-fall:PRES ('I fall')

(Vaszoli 1976: 629, 640; see also Blake 1987: §7.2)

What characterises non-finite forms is that they typically cannot occur as the predicator in a 'simple' sentence. In Wunambal the universally non-finite yala 'hunt' thus never occurs alone. In other Australian languages the auxiliate is overtly marked as non-finite, and the form is usually referred to as a 'participle', in that it also marks subordinate adverbial clauses (Blake 1987: §7.3). In all of these instances, auxiliaries and non-auxiliaries have distinct distributions, with that for the auxiliaries being more verbal, conferring finiteness. In a sense the verbal functions are shared in such auxiliary-auxiliate combinations between auxiliary and non-auxiliary, with the auxiliary determining the basic distribution, and carrying the independent secondary categories, and the non-auxiliaries allowing different argument structures, and showing, if anything, only rectional secondary categorisation (as 'participles'), marking them as subordinate. The word classes of such systems require the range of categories shown in (2-54): (2.54)

{P}

{P;N}

{P:N}

{N;P}

{N}

{ }

aux

verb

adjective

noun

name

functor

wherein all the less than binary combinations are closed class, and adjectives remain intermediate between verbs and nouns in relative preponderance of the notional features. Such a system is also appropriate to languages like Ngabere (Chibchan), wherein auxiliaries do not monopolise finitehood but where their distribution is otherwise distinctive, in this case in taking their non-subjective complements to the right rather than the left, as illustrated by ndin in (2.55a):

Further categories: the role of feature dependencies (2.55)

a. Ti na-in I

gO-FUT/DIST

kri

nugwa-e

log

bum-NF

51

( T m going to burn the logs') b. Niara-gwe ngobagare buga-i III,SG-ERG

child

feed-FUT

('She will feed the child') whereas non-auxiliaries in the language are basically clause-final, as in both of (2.55) (with, respectively, the non-auxiliaries nugwae and bugai). (For discussion see Young and Givon 1990: particularly §2, from which the examples are drawn.) Only the auxiliaries are basically finite; with non-auxiliaries, lexically non-finite, a finite distribution would be allowed for by redundancy. In Finnish, on the other hand, although the copula associated with the adjectival predicator of (2.56): (2.56)

Kivi on kova stone is hard (The stone is hard')

is also used to form 'compound tenses', as in (2.57): (2.57)

Olette

erehtynyt

you-are

CITIPAST-PART

('You have made a mistake') and though Finnish even has a negative verb, as illustrated in (2.58): (2.58)

ole erehtynyt Ette You-not be err:PAST-PART ('You have not made a mistake')

these items are not distributionally distinct from other Finnish verbs, some of which can appear in the same constructions, governing infinitives and participles. They are not syntactic auxiliaries, then. (This is not to deny that in the grammatical traditions associated with a number of languages such items have been labelled 'auxiliaries', on 'functional' grounds, grounds reflected in the notion 'helping verb'; merely to deny the relevance of these considerations to the determination of syntactic categories.) In this respect, the set of categories given by (2.38) appears to be sufficient for the word classes of Finnish and other languages lacking syntactic auxiliaries; there is apparently no need to invoke mutual dependency in representing their word classes. In many languages auxiliaries can occur as such (with no semantic differential, as in Wunambal) as non-finites as well as finites. This seems to be true of Basque (though there is some controversy concerning the categorisation of the

52 Fundamentals of a notional theory auxiliaries - cf. e.g. Manandise 1987). Before illustrating this, it will be helpful, I think, to outline some of the main characteristics of the Basque verbal system, in accordance with what, I think, is a rather traditional view. In Basque, most verbs occur only as non-finites: to form a 'simple' sentence they must be accompanied by an auxiliary; this is the so-called 'analytic' construction. (Of the so-called 'synthetic' verbs, which display a full(-ish) finite paradigm, only about a dozen are in common use.) The form of the auxiliary, however, reflects the argument structure of the auxiliate, as illustrated by (2.59): (2.59)

a. Joan

da

go:PART AUX,PREs:(s)he

('(S)he left/has gone') Joan

zen

gOIPART

AUX,PAST:(s)he

('(S)he had gone') Joaten

da

gOIGERUND

AUX,PRES:(s)he

('(S)he goes/is going') Joaten

zen

gOIGERUND

AUX,PAST:(s)he

('(S)he used to go/was going') b) Igorri du sendiPART AUX,PREs:(s)he-it ('(S)he sent/has sent it') Igorri

zuen

sendiPART AUX,PAST:(s)he-it

('(S)hehadsentit') Igortzen du send-GERUND AUX,PREs:(s)he-it ('(S)he sends/is sending it') Igortzen

zuen

sendiGERUND

AUX,PAST:(s)he-it

('(S)he used to send/was sending it') c) Gustatu zaio pleaserPART AUX,PREs:it-him/her ('It (has) pleased him/her') Gustatu zitzaion pleaseiPART AUX,PAST:it-him/her ('It had pleased him/her')

Further categories: the role of feature dependencies 53 Gustatzen zaio please:GERUND AUX,PREs:it-him/her ('It pleases/is pleasing to him/her') Gustatzen zitzaion please:GERUND AUX,PAST:it-him/her ('It was pleasing to/used to please him/her') d) Eman dio telliPART AUX,PREs:(s)he-him/her-it ('(S)he (has) told him/her it') Eman zion telliPART AUX,PAST:(s)he-him/her-it ('(S)he had told him/her it') Emanen dio tell-.GERUND AUX,PREs:(s)he-him/her-it ('(S)he tells/is telling him/her it') Emanen zion telliGERUND AUX,PAST:(s)he-him/her-it ('(S)he was telling/used to tell him/her it')

(2.59a) illustrates the use of the auxiliary with intransitive verbs, (b) the transitive auxiliary, (c) the 'oblique transitive', and (d) the ditransitive. This dimension of variation in the form of the auxiliary (that reflected in the division into (a)-(d)) correlates with the argument structure of the auxiliate; we return to this in §3.3.4. Here I want to focus on other aspects of the 'external' distribution and morphological structure of the auxiliary and auxiliate. The auxiliary is the locus of tense variation and person and number marking, while the non-auxiliary occurs in a non-finite form, a form which elsewhere can function as a noun (the 'gerund') or adjective (the 'participle'). The Basque auxiliaries, as in some cases in English, as well as forming constructions with verbs (as in (59)), also take non-verbal complements, as illustrated in (2.60): (2.60)

a. Hirian da town-in (s)he-is ('(S)he is in town') b. Liburua du book-the (s)he-has-it ('(S)he has the book')

(cf. e.g. Saltarelli 1988: §1.2.1.1), in which situation the Basque forms, with no distinct accompanying (auxiliate) 'main' verb, would be translated as 'be' and 'have', respectively. The Basque auxiliary verbs may be appropriately described

54 Fundamentals of a notional theory as such, i.e. both 'auxiliary' and 'verbal': with respect to most verbs, they are distributionally distinctive (with respect tofiniteness)and mark distinctive tense/ aspect distinctions; and, as well as sharing a finite paradigm with the 'synthetic' verbs, they share with non-auxiliary verbs as a whole the possibility of occurring as non-finite, as illustrated in (2.61) for the 'be' (auxiliary) verb: (2.61)

Alegera izaiten da lively be:GERUND (s)he-is ('(S)he is usually lively')

This distribution as non-finite is common to all Basque verbs; what is striking is that the auxiliaries are, as in Wunambal, the only finite verbs (with the few ('synthetic') exceptions we have noted), despite consistently being notionally non-central verbs. We return in the following subsection to the non-centrality of auxiliaries in this respect. Here I consider a couple of further related questions raised by the Basque phenomena. Since, on the one hand, the Basque (non-'synthetic') verb has a basic distribution included in that of the auxiliary, are the two sets simply subclasses? On the other hand, in languages or subsystems where auxiliaries only are finite and all non-finites are non-auxiliaries, are we justified in labelling auxiliaries as 'verbs'? The latter question might seem to be purely terminological, non-systematic. However, on notional grounds, and in relation to language comparisons and to the formulation of associations between primary and secondary categories, I suggest the term is appropriate. I propose the criterion that any item whose preponderance of P is greater than or equal to the proportion attributable to central verbs is verbal, and will attract typical secondary categories, such as Tense. The Basque auxiliaries, though notionally non-central, are, as the overwhelmingly predominant finites, highly P-full, predicationinducing. And the auxiliaries of Wunambal (recall (2.53)) are also verbal, on such grounds. So too are the so-called 'auxiliary particles' of Kalkatungu, illustrated in (2.62): (2.62)

a. A-ni nuwa? AUX-you see ('Do you want to see him?') b. A-kin nuwa? AUX-you see ('He wants to see you?')

Blake (1987: §7.5) denies verbal status to such on the basis of the fact that 'they cannot occur on their own as the sole verb form of a clause', and thus 'they are

Further categories: the role of feature dependencies 55 dependents within their clauses'. However, (verbal) headhood is quite compatible with the taking of an obligatory (verbal) complement, as with the English finite form of (2.63a): (2.63)

a. Frances tends to fall over b. *Frances tends

which is surely uncontroversially a head complemented here by to fall over, and necessarily complemented by some (infinitival) verbal form - cf. (b). Such a conclusion is quite generally applicable: see further §§2.3.3, 34~5- We must not confuse 'dependency' with the taking of an obligatory argument; this represents one more misinterpretation (cf. §2.2.1) of the nature of syntactic dependency. The first question raised by discussion of Basque - involving the word class status of non-auxiliary and auxiliary - returns us to the issue of criteria for word classes. In the major system of that language - i.e. if we ignore the 'synthetic' non-auxiliaries - the distribution of non-auxiliaries is included in that of the auxiliaries; and the set of secondary categories associated with the former is similarly included in that carried by the latter. But it is still plausible to claim that this involves a difference in basic distribution rather than the 'fine-tuning' that we can associate with subclasses and secondary features, such as place of articulation in the phonology and Gender-choice in the syntax (cf. §2.2.3). Finite vs. non-finite is a fundamental determinant of the erection of syntactic structure, as will emerge very clearly in chapter 3. Particular combinations of categorial features may not be lexically distinctive in particular languages - say, {P} vs. {P;N} in Finnish - but they may still be crucial therein to determining syntactic structure; and they can be regarded as defining word classes even when, as in Basque, the distribution of one class (non-auxiliaries, {P;N}) is included within another (auxiliaries, {P}and{P;N}). We can represent the Basque auxiliaries and non-auxiliaries lexically as in (2.64a), with auxiliaries being susceptible to redundancy (b): (2.64)

a. {P} {P;N} aux verb b. {P} ^>;N

which provides for the overlap in distribution, by adding a possible dependent N to the lexical specification for auxiliaries. I assume that in this way any requirement that the distribution of potential word classes not show an inclusive overlap can be overridden by the salience of the difference between the overlapping and non-overlapping distributions. Distributional salience is associated with distributional differences which

56 Fundamentals of a notional theory can be interpreted as realising distinctions in primary category and are thus frequently associated with word-class bifurcations. 2.3.3

Finiteness

Finiteness is manifested in the capacity to typically constitute the predicator of a 'simple' sentence; finite clauses are thus also more isolating syntactically, more resistant to 'extractions'. A non-finite, as governed, may also be rectionally marked (as 'infinitive', 'participle' etc.), as well as often showing reduction, compared with finites, in the non-rectional categories distinguished in their morphology - though the categories involved may vary from language to language (George and Kornfilt 1981; Joseph 1983: ch. 2), so that the unmarked non-finite, the 'infinitive', for instance, is not necessarily 'untensed', or 'non-concordial', or whatever (see further §3.6). In the previous subsection we distinguished between languages (like Finnish) in which finiteness is not lexically relevant and those (like Wunambal) in which only a closed class - of auxiliaries - could be finite. In some systems, however, finiteness may be associated either with an auxiliary or a non-auxiliary: though the auxiliary can in such instances be said to be more {P}-full, it does not monopolise finiteness. Let us return, for illustration of this possibility, to the minority ('synthetic') verbal system of Basque alluded to above. Compare with the corresponding expressions of (2.59a/b) the 'synthetic' forms of (2.65): (2.65)

a. Doa go:PRES-(s)he ('(S)he goes/is going') Zoan go:PAST-(s)he ('(S)he was going/used to go') b. Badaki know:PRES-(s)he-it ('(S)he knows it') Bazakien know:PAST-(s)he-it ('(S)heknewit')

Now, we might characterise these lexically as in (2.66): (2.66)

{P}&{P;N)

Further categories: the role of feature dependencies 57 (though there are considerable gaps in the paradigms of the various 'synthetic' verbs), i.e. as basically both finite and non-finite, with auxiliaries and most other verbs distinguished as in (2.64a), so that, lexically, only auxiliaries are uniquely {P}, and most non-auxiliaries are {P;N}. But in other languages a lexical treatment of the alternation offinitenessbetween auxiliary and non-auxiliary is much less apparent. Thus, in English, as is familiar, almost all verbs have a full finite paradigm, and distribution offinitenessbetween auxiliary and non-auxiliary depends on the range of syntactic circumstances associated with the so-called 'NICE' properties (e.g. Quirk et al. 1972: §3.5; Huddleston 1979), giving such familiar sets as (2.67): (2.67)

a. Flo works Does Flo work? Flo doesn't work b. Flo is working Is Flo working? Flo isn't working

with a finite auxiliary in all of the positive declarative, interrogative and negative sentences in (b), but with the finite non-auxiliary being limited in its syntactic distribution, specifically to a positive declarative where occurrence of an auxiliary has not been opted for, such as in the first example of (2.67a); the 'corresponding' interrogative and negative sentences (instantiating two of the NICE properties) contain an (expletive) auxiliary. Only have, be and (perhaps) do show the full range of finite and non-finite occurrence that would warrant attribution of (2.66) (with modals - having no non-finite forms - being {P} only). But if other verbs are lexically {P;N}, how do we allow for the finite occurrences of such, as in (2.67a)? Let us note, in this connexion, a possible parallel between the behaviour of {P} elements and that of functors, as described in §2.3.2. There I suggested that functors may be expressed either as adpositions or (only) via inflexional marking (i.e. morphosyntactically); and this duality may be manifested even in a single language (as, say, Latin). Finiteness is analogous: in English, for example, it may be manifested either by an auxiliary or by the form of a non-auxiliary; indeed, it may be given no overt expression except in terms of syntactic potential, so that the finiteness of the verb in e.g. (2.68): (2.68)

The plumbers repair the cistern

is manifested in its capacity to head a simple clause. Further, just as Latin prepositions exercise rection (recall §2.2.2) on a dependent argument (in the form of

58

Fundamentals of a notional theory

case-marking), so finites impose secondary categories on a dependent non-finite (giving infinitives or participles, for instance). Such parallels suggest that finiteness is a category, {P}, which may also both occur independently and be manifested morphosyntactically. So that the non-auxiliary in the first example in (2.67a) is categorially complex: it is associated with a (provisional) representation such as that in (2.69): (2.69)

{P}{non-past,m,sg} I {P;N}{X}

Cf. (2.31b) for inflexionally marked functors. If this is extended to languages like Finnish, so that the finite forms of verbs are distinguished from non-finite forms as {P};{P;N} vs. {P;N}, then the same set of primary categories would be appropriate to it, i.e. that in (2.54), with the proviso that simple {P} is lexically empty, so that Finnish lacks syntactic auxiliaries. Such a suggestion involves the rejection of the strong requirement that a primary category be associated with an independent word (cf. e.g. Anderson 1976: ch. 2); only in some syntactic circumstances, and in some languages, is this ensured in the case of {P}. But we have already adopted such a relaxation with respect to functors, { }. In many languages, the other simple combination, {N}, characterising among other things determiners, is manifested inflexionally in some instances, at least, as with the Basque (singular) definiteness marker in liburua 'the book' (cf. liburu 'book'); elsewhere, definite vs. indefinite, or specific vs. non-specific determination may be given no lexical or morphosyntactic expression at all, as generally in Czech, as illustrated in (2.70): (2.70)

Nad obilim tancil zar 'over' 'corn' 'danced' 'heat' ('Heat danced over the corn')

(Dvofakova 1964: 131-2)

where the 'thematic' obilim has already been established in the context and would in English require a definite article (at least); or, as I shall argue in §3.7, with plurals in English, such as those in (2.71): (2.71)

a. Fred was attacked by gannets b. Fish are attacked by gannets

Contrast the specific and the non-specific ('generic') plurals of (a) and (b) respectively. There is no overt marking of the (non-)specificness of the arguments in (2.71). These (combinatorially) simple categories {P}, {N} and { } are also closedclass; contrast the typically open-class non-unary combinations {P,N} associated

Further categories: the role of feature dependencies 59 with nouns, verbs and adjectives. Certainly, many languages display a large class of adpositions, but most of these are arguably categorially complex (like the Finnish postpositions discussed in §2.2). Names (vs. pronouns) are perhaps more seriously exceptional here; on the other hand, in lacking sense, they are, as we have noted (§2.1.4), all (apart from Gender differences) lexically (as opposed to referentially) equivalent. For related reasons Thrane (1983: 162) excludes names (along with functors and auxiliaries) from the set of 'lexical items': Generally, no proper name can be shown to contract hyponymical relations with any other form, so, according to (7), proper names are not lexical items on the basis of: (7) A lexical item L (in language A) is a form which contracts hyponymical relations with other forms (in A). Whatever contrast-relations L contracts are contracted with lexical items belonging to the same hyponymical system as L. {P} and {N} are in general semantically attenuated with respect to {P;N}, (nonauxiliary) verbs, and {N;P}, nouns: as verbals, auxiliaries are notionally noncentral, they are rather abstract situation-deflners; names/pronouns are denotatively empty. We can associate these properties with the set of functional categories specified by simple (unary) combination of the primary features. Roger Bohm (personal communication) points out that such a provision for (primary) categories that are not necessarily realised as a distinct word remains highly constrained, both by the architecture of the system of categories (so that extension of the set of functional categories is non-arbitrarily bounded) and by the notional content. A class of auxiliaries characterised as {P} shares with a class of non-auxiliaries {P;N} the capacity to induce arguments, and, as we shall see in chapter 3, the same is true of the 'absorbed' {P} that I am proposing in relation to English and Finnish. Compare here e.g. Ouhalla (1991), where the absence of a '0-grid', or argument-induction, is claimed to be a defining property of 'functional category'. This opens the door to a possible (and, to some extent, actual) unrestricted proliferation of 'secondary categories'. If, despite its failure in a number of languages to be manifested lexically or morphosyntactically, we posit {P} as a universal category or even a possibly lexically empty universal word class, then our tentative minimal system (for adjectiveless languages) now assumes the shape of (2.72): (2.72)

{P}

{P;N}

{N;P}

{N}

{}

finite

verb

noun

name

functor

with the system of (2.54), required for 'adjectival' languages like English, Finnish etc., being a minimal increment thereof:

60 Fundamentals of a notional theory (2.54)

{P} aux

(P;N) verb

(P:N) adjective

{N;P} noun

{N} name

( ) functor

and with the alleged 'sub-minimal' languages perhaps requiring only the (simplex) classes of (2.73): (2.73)

[P]

{P,N}

{N}

{}

finite

full-word

name

functor

so that {P} is realised by e.g. the copula of Inland Olympic Salish (recall (2.22b) above), and is otherwise manifested as part of the complex category characterising predicator use of 'full words'. It is appropriate to note at this point that either lower bound is, of course, not to be attributed to the early stages of first-time acquisition of categorial systems. It seems clear that auxiliaries and names/pronouns/ determiners are developmental specialisations of more inclusive categories including verbs and nouns, respectively, involving a split of the finiteness and referential functions of P and N from the sense-carrying. We can think of auxiliaries and names as retaining the more pragmatic (modal, referential) attributes of P and N. I suggest, too, that such a view is compatible with e.g. Radford's (1990) observations concerning the relative lateness of development of functional categories among children acquiring English. See further §2.4 below. Such a strategy as I have followed in this section in relation to the finiteness category {P} in part reflects the kind of traditional view expressed in Latham's 4 a verb is a word which can, by itself, form both the Predicate and the Copula of a Proposition, as, The sun shines' (1862: §689); except that I would substitute 'predicator' for 'Predicate' and insist on the verbality of the 'Copula' itself. The approach might also be said to underlie in part proposals concerning the universality of a category AUX (Steele 1981), or of Infl (e.g. Reuland 1983). Indeed, Manandise (1987), for instance, interprets the auxiliaries of Basque as manifestations of AUX, and Wasow and Akmajian (1981) attribute an inflexional AUX to Old English and German. The present proposal differs, apart from being embedded in a general explicitly notional theory, in insisting on the essential verbalness and nominality of AUX and, say, DET, respectively, and their status as heads of their respective constructions (recall §2.1.2 on determiners as complement-takers, transitive pronouns) - with this latter proposition now being rather less controversial. Such insistence must confront, for instance, the alleged non-verbal character of AUX in some languages. This I cannot pursue here; I merely observe that arguments concerning the non-verbalness of (some) AUX typically involve comparison with (other) verbs in the same language rather than a general

Markedness and category continuity 61 characterisation of the notion verb. Also problematical for the proposals made here are languages whose morphosyntax (as well as lexicon) allegedly makes no reference to a finite/non-finite distinction. Joseph cites, for example, Cree, 'in which every verb form is variable, changing according to person and number of its subject and object, mood, and to some extent tense and aspect as well' (1983: 10). But we cannot simply conclude from this that the finite/non-finite distinction is categorially irrelevant. Notice, for instance, that Cree distinguishes a 'conjunct' (vs. 'independent') mode for verbs, a paradigmatic set 'typically used to modify a noun' (Wolfart and Carroll 1981: 74), i.e. with a use that is primarily attributive. Further, 'conjunct' status is marked by a set of 'word-like elements' (Wolfart and Carroll 1981: 76) whose morphosyntactic character is similar to that of other elements expressing notions to do with 'time'; and the categorial status of all of these may very well be characterisable as 'auxiliary'. Henceforth, I shall refer to those categories with prominent P as verbal(s) and those with prominent N as nominal(s), which constitute primary arguments. Adopted category labels are as in (2.54/72/73); when there is in a language a distinct class of finites I shall, however, refer to them as auxiliaries. §§2.5 and 2.6 attempt to provide an explicit measure for the notion 'prominence' or 'relative preponderance'. We turn now firstly, however, to the expression of markedness by the notation. 2.4

Markedness and category continuity

I have been suggesting that the distributionally established categories of (2.54/72) are characterised appropriately by the notional features assigned to them therein. The nature of the particular combinations of features also provides us with a straightforward measure of relative complexity, a measure that reflects markedness. For instance, in a very obvious sense, the adjective of (2.54) is the most complex category there: it not only involves both features, but they are also related in the most complex fashion, by mutual dependency. And it is arguably the most marked category there. The markedness of particular linguistic properties is established by empirical phenomena that show them to be less accessible than corresponding unmarked properties. I assume that markedness should correlate with the relative complexity of the independently motivated linguistic characterisation of the properties concerned: this imposes an important constraint on linguistic theory - in this instance, on our theory of categories. I thus eschew as circular the view that markedness is an independently stipulated property of linguistic representations (Chomsky and Halle 1968: ch. 9; Aoun 1981) - cf. e.g. Lass 1975; Lass and Anderson 1975: app. iv; Anderson

62 Fundamentals of a notional theory and Ewen 1987: §1.3.3 - though it does correlate with grammar complexity/ attainability (Rouveret and Vergnaud 1980; Kean 1981). The markedness of adjectives is associated with their limited distribution through the languages of the world (recall §2.3.1): they are apparently lacking in e.g. Quechua and Mandarin, and numerically marginal in other languages (e.g. Igbo). In Cherokee (Lindsay and Scancarelli 1985) most 'adjectives' are derived (based on noun or, more commonly, verb roots), and so categorially complex (see §2.6). This is a different kind of paucity from that exhibited by the closed class { }, whose status as such, and whose occurrence as a category, is universal. Adjectives are potentially open-class; functors are extensible in a major way only by incorporation in a complex category, as made overt in the postpositions of Finnish (recall (2.32)). I interpret this distribution of adjectives in languages as revealing reduced accessibility (compared with nouns and verbs, and functors). This reflexion of markedness correlates with the greater internal complexity of their categorial representation, as in (2.54). The relative markedness of adjectives and other categories is also revealed developmentally, I suggest. Acquisitional data are notoriously difficult to interpret with respect to their syntax (cf. e.g. the succinct discussion of Elliott 1981: ch. 5), given notably the very limits of the linguistic abilities of early-stage acquirers. But children's acquisition of an adjective class can be argued to be quite late, compared with the other distinctions in (2.54), at least in relation to English and other languages for which materials are available. I do not pursue this here. Anderson (in prep) offers a rather speculative scenario of word class development along these lines - but one which I do not think is inaccurate with respect to the status of adjectives and other classes. Again, this scenario relates in an obvious way to the relative complexities embodied in the representations of (2.54), in so far as order of acquisition reflects relative complexity. Let us now look more closely at the measurement of complexity. The complexity measure provided by categorial representations can indeed be calculated in various ways. Most simply, we can associate each increase in complexity of relation with a successive integer in the series o, /,..., n, as indicated in (2.74): (2.74)

o ;

= =

1 2

'-

=

3

so that categories with no combination ({N}, {P}, { }) have zero-complexity, simple combinations ({N,P}) are one step more complex, combinations which

Markedness and category continuity 63 show an asymmetrical relation ({N;P}, {P;N}) yet more so, and adjectives, with a double (mutual) asymmetry, are most complex, with a complexity of three. So much is in itself relatively trivial, except that the categorial representations are motivated not simply by a desire to express relative complexity but also by the need to allow expression of the other phenomena surveyed in this chapter (involving particularly distinctiveness, cross-classification (§2.5) and gradience (§2.6)) on the basis of combinations of notionally based features. The motivations for the representations are largely independent of their role in the measuring of complexity. Further, we can constrain evolving systems on the basis of the hierarchy provided by (2.74); changes must be minimally incremental or decremental in terms of complexity. A system without combinations cannot evolve immediately into one displaying :-combinations (and none with ;). Moreover, in-/decrementation must result in systems that are internally consistent: there cannot e.g. develop a system with {N;P} and no {P;N}. This, and minimality, follows from what Anderson (1992&: §7.1) formulates as the category continuity condition: Category continuity condition With respect to a particular language system: (a) a category {A,B} presupposes categories {A} and {B}; (b) categories {A:B} and {A;B} presuppose a category {B;A} (where A and B, at this point, are variables over the features P and N), which is a well-formedness condition on systems of categories, limiting, for instance, by (b), the occurrence of {N:P} to systems which also contain {P;N}, and thus also, by (b) again, {N;P}. The systems in (2.75) are well-formed: (2.75)

a. {N} {N} b. (N) c {N}

{P} { 1 |N,P} (N;P) {N;P} {P;N} {P} IP) { {N;P) {N:P} (P;N} {P}

{ }

•se in (2.76) are not: (2.76)

a. b. c. d.

{N} {N} {N} {N}

e- { 1

{N,P} { } |N;P) (P) { ) {N;P) (P;N} 1 ) |N:P) IP} {v} (N,PI (N) {N;Pi

{P;N}

{P}

{v}

(2.76a) violates category continuity (a), (2.76b) violates category continuity (b), (2.76c) again violates category continuity (a) in that P appears in (in this case asymmetrical) combinations without appearing alone, and (2j6d) once more violates category continuity (b). (2.76c), on the other hand, is deviant by virtue of having a non-distinct category ({N,P}): all three of {N;P}, {N,P} and {P;N}

64 Fundamentals of a notional theory involve combinations of N and P, and the specification 'N,P' does not uniquely select any one of them. Some such continuity condition has been implicit in our discussions of the systems appropriate to different languages (§§2.1, 2.3), as well as relating to markedness; and it is explicitly deployed in the discussion of category change in Anderson 1992a; 1992&: ch. 7; 1993a. Its viability depends on our being able to identify classes notionally and on the appropriateness of the categories which are assigned to them. This latter (in particular) might be seen to be undermined by the system-relativism of category assignment. Thus, Anderson (in prep a) suggests that in the development of word classes in child language nouns first distinguish themselves from names by virtue of being categorised as {N,P} (vs. {N}), but are later categorised as {N;P}. Similarly, the sub-minimal system of (2.14) that we tentatively associated with Salish in §2.1.5 accords to nouns (i.e. 'full words') the specification {N,P}, whereas in English etc. they are again {N;P}. But appropriateness, and determinateness, is maintained if, recognising the primacy of naming and nominals suggested and motivated in Anderson (in prep a), in particular, as manifested in the staging of category acquisitions, or categorial distinctions, proposed there and reproduced in table 2.1, we associate with nouns, where they are distinct from names, the property of having a N which is not dependent on P (as in both stage 2 and stage 3 in table 2.1), and with verbs, where distinct from (a closed class of) auxiliaries, the property of having a P governing N (as in stage 3). This formulation makes it 'easier' to be a noun within the superclass of nominals than to be a verb within the superclass of verbals, in accord with the developmental scenario of Anderson (in prep a), while allowing a consistent correlation of categories with notional features. 2.5

Cross-classification

The previous section has suggested that (primary) categorial representations such as those in (2.54), repeated here, once more: (2.54)

{P}

{P;N}

{P:N}

{N;P}

{N}

{}

aux

verb

adjective

noun

name

functor

appropriately express the relative markedness of the various categories, and (potential) word classes, in providing an inherent measure thereof in terms of the complexity of the combinatorial relations involved. The representations are independently motivated on notional and distributional grounds. And the notionally based distribution of features determines further syntactic properties. On the

Cross-classification 65 Table 2.1: Order of acquisition of categorial combinations nominals 1

verbals

{N}

2

{N}

{N,P}

(P)

3

{N}

{N;P}

{P}

{P;N}

names

nouns

auxs

verbs

one hand, the categorially intermediate position of adjectives revealed in (2.54) is reflected, for instance, in their intermediate capacity as argument takers vis-avis verbs and nouns: as already observed, nouns in English are only marginally subcategorisable for an agentive argument (Be a good chap!), whereas with a small subset of adjectives an agentive argument is normal (Be careful!, Be discreet!), and agentivity is a major subcategorisational parameter with verbs. On the other hand, the distribution of features enables us to define classes of categories: thus, for instance, the capacity to be predicative is associated with the presence in a categorial representation of the feature P. We return in the section which follows to further manifestations of the former kind of property, i.e. of gradience - manifestations some of which are perhaps less controversially syntactic. Here we consider the expression of the latter, i.e. of crossclassification. At an informal, intuitive level, the cross-classificatory expressibility of the notation deployed in (2.54) is apparent, and arguably appropriate. Thus, as well as defining classes simply in terms of (a) shared feature(s) (e.g., as above, all categories whose representation includes P), we can also characterise (for example) the class of verbals as those categories showing a preponderance of P: P is either the only feature present (auxiliary), or it is the governing feature (verb). But we need to consider more carefully whether the notation indeed allows us in detail to satisfy another measure function, that associated with the notion of natural class, such that the representation of a cross-class intrinsically reflects its relative generality and its potentiality for recurrence in linguistic generalisations. Anderson (1980a: 187) formulates this desideratum with respect to phonological segments as part of the componentiality assumption, replicated here: Componentiality assumption The representation of the internal structure of segments is such as to optimise the expression of phonological relationships that are (a) recurrent and (b) natural.

66 Fundamentals of a notional theory (See too Anderson and Ewen 1987: ch. 1.) Requirement (b) is not our principal concern at this point; the notional features introduced here are intended to be cognitively natural, just as the phonetic features of Anderson and Ewen (1987) are intended to correlate with perceived phonetic dimensions. Rather, I want to focus on recurrence and optimisation, facilitation of the expression of cross-class generalisations. Let us approach this via a familiar notion of natural class. 2.5.7

Natural classes

The notion of natural class is perhaps most familiar, indeed, with respect to the phonology, and with respect to binary features (cf. e.g. Lass 1984: §5.2). Take, for instance, a hypothetical vowel system such as that in (2.77): (2.77)

III

Id

I2J

IXJJ

lol lal

with its members distinguished by the (binary) feature value assignments in (2.78): (2.78)

+high -back

+high (-low) +back

—high —low —back

-high — low +back

(-high) 4-low -back

-high) +low +back

(-low)

Each segment constitutes a realisational class; and the representations allow us to characterise cross-classes which satisfy componentiality, such as those in (2.79): (2.79)

a. [-back] b. [+high]

(/i/, /e/, /a/) (liljul)

'[-back]' and [+high] can be argued to have a phonetic denotation; (cross-) classes specified in this way are recurrent; and the generality of the classes is reflected in a representation which is obviously simpler - say in terms of counting feature-value pairs - than that for each of their members. Among the vowels, the members of the class in (2.79b) are minimally distinguished as [+high, —back] and [+high, +back], respectively; those in (a) as respectively [+high,

Cross-classification 67 —back], [—high, —low, —back] and [+low, —back]. (Redundant feature-value pairs are bracketed in (2.78).) To the extent that recurrence correlates with this measure of simplicity, so that, for instance, [-back] recurs in linguistic generalisations but, say, the conjunction of [+high, -back] and [+low, +back] does not, the notation is in accord with componentiality. As Lass (1984: 82) points out, this does not always appear to be the case, given the feature sets commonly proposed; and Anderson (1980a) and Anderson and Ewen (1987: ch. 1) argue that many of these failures follow in principle from the use of binary features. However that may be, in a range of instances the binary feature notation can be said to define appropriate sets of natural classes. So too the definition of the categories noun, verb, adjective and preposition in terms of the feature values given in (2.80): (2.80)

[+N, -V]

[-N, +V]

[+N, +V]

[-N, -V]

noun

verb

adjective

preposition

(Chomsky 1970) allows for the satisfaction of componentiality to the extent that cross-classes such as [+N] etc. are recurrent in linguistic generalisations, and 'classes' such as [+N, - V ] and [—N, +V] are not. (I assume that here, as in the phonology (cf. e.g. Anderson and Ewen 1987: 12-15), the use of 'Greek-letter' variables is illegitimate - so, there is no [aN, - a V ] ; apart from anything else, their availability renders the notion natural class largely vacuous.) And such evidence as there is does appear to support the natural classes provided for by the assignments of (2.80), though not unproblematically. It should also be noted in qualification that the only direct counter-evidence would be offered by recurrent reference to the above 'class' and/or to [+N, + V] and [-N, - V] - provided we are allowed to refer to any grouping of three of the categories, say noun, verb and adjective, by excluding the fourth. If we are not, then that particular grouping (noun, verb and adjective vs. adposition) would seem to provide counterexamples, in typically dividing open from closed class. Of course, this can be allowed for by invoking a further feature; but this considerably weakens the interest of the classification provided in (2.80). The content, if any, and particularly the status of any such content, of the 'N' and ' V invoked in this familiar system of classification is unclear. Chomsky and Lasnik suggest that 'in more or less traditional terms, we may think of [+N] as "substantive" and [+V] as "predicable"' (1977: 430, note 16). But this suggestion does not appear to have any consequences for the grammar (as opposed to the reader, who is thereby provided with some familiar-seeming referencepoints); and this is perhaps just as well, given e.g. that, as is 'traditionally' recognised, nouns as well as verbs and adjectives are 'predicable'. But it does seem

68 Fundamentals of a notional theory clear that the suggestion is not to be interpreted as claiming a notional content for the categories. I do not pursue this notation, which, as with its phonological analogue, is incapable of expressing both componentiality and gradience. 2.5.2

The representation of cross-classification

Evidence for cross-classes is not as straightforwardly established or interpreted as is sometimes supposed. Nevertheless, groupings of classes do play a role in the expression of linguistic generalisations. I do not have in mind here the crosslinguistic 'neutralisations' cited by e.g. Stowell (1981: 25). The fact that in some languages it is not appropriate to recognise a class of adjectives (such that adjectives in other languages 'correspond to' nouns or verbs or both in such languages) reflects rather the marked/complex status of adjectives. And the fact that semantic relations may be signalled by nominal (case) inflexions and/or verbal items or inflexions rather than overt functors depends on functors constituting the empty class much of whose content (of semantic relations) is determined by subcategorisation requirements, and as such susceptible to be combined in expression with the associated argument or to be left unexpressed in the presence of an appropriate predicator or predicator morphology. These considerations introduced by Stowell are not germane to the establishment of cross-classes. Rather, concerning cross-classification, we can say that certain groupings of categories are indeed universally appropriate, such as the set of potential predicators - i.e. items whose categorisation contains P - or the set of classes with open membership - i.e. items whose categorisation involves (in a non-sub-minimal system) a dependency-invoking combination. Further, as discussed in §2.5.1, the complementation requirements of particular sets of items require reference to cross-classification; such requirements, if recurrent, should be reflected componentially by the notation. Thus, as well as the pattern illustrated by the English verb of (2.81): (2.81)

a. He expected her to like cheese b. He expected that she would like cheese

which takes a complement with predominant P, i.e. verbal, non-finite (= P;N) or finite (= P alone), we have, for example, (2.82): (2.82)

a. She seems to like cheese b. It seems that she likes cheese c. She seems happy (with cheese)

where the complement in (c) shows merely a governing P, together with governing N (mutual government), so {P:N} (= adjective), and also the like of (2.83):

Cross-classification 69 (2.83)

a. He wants (the wine) to lie in the cellar b. He wants the wine cool

where the complement involves specifically P;N (no *He wants that the wine will improve, in British English, at least), combined (b) or not (a) with N;P. Further, verb complementation must distinguish between different classes of non-finite (so far undifferentiated as all P;N), given that (2.84c) is available to like but not to e.g. want. (2.84)

a. He likes (the wine) to lie in the cellar b. He likes the wine cool c. He likes lying in the cellar

and that (2.85) shows a finite complement alternating with an '-/rcg-form', rather than an 'infinitive': (2.85)

a. He mentioned that he'd visited Pamela b. He mentioned (his) visiting Pamela

while (2.86) shows all three: (2.86)

a. He intends that Barbie should resign b. He intends to resign c. He intends resigning

Such phenomena are familiar, and obviously involve a number of other considerations, including the question of the representation of different non-finites, and other 'complementisers', thus far not developed here (see §3.6 in particular). Their relevance at this point is merely to illustrate something of the range of cross-classes referred to by the subcategorisation of verbal-complement-taking verbs. We must now inquire how in principle such cross-classes are to be represented in a componentially satisfactory way in terms of the notation we have been developing, which cannot refer to individual feature values (given that there are no values). Workers in dependency phonology (e.g. Anderson and Ewen 1987) have argued that representations built on the analogous simplex features of the phonology can indeed be seen to satisfy componentiality in this respect. Before proceeding to consider such a claim in relation to the syntax, however, we should note that the representations which we have been attributing to word classes, or phonological segments - at a contrastive, lexical level while indeed being contrastively unambiguous, are nevertheless ambiguous if considered as specifying the domains of derivative processes or contextual information such as subcategorisation. Thus, the word class 'name' is unambigously differentiated from 'noun' in terms of {N} vs. {N;P}. But say we want to refer,

70 Fundamentals of a notional theory e.g. in some subcategorisational formulation, to the class consisting of nouns and names: {N} in itself is now ambiguous, as a designation of the class containing N or of the class containing only N. The latter class is conceptually more complex; and such complexity is reflected in the representations that have been proposed for the phonology by adoption of the operator I I, for 'only'; so that Anderson and Ewen (1987: 158) differentiate between vowels and consonants as in (2.87): (2.87)

{IVI}

{C}

vowel

consonant

with vowels being the class characterised as containing only V, the vocalic feature, whereas consonants are characterised by non-exclusive presence of C. The latter class may thus include voiceless plosives (lexically {C}), voiced plosives ({C;V}), voiceless fricatives ({C:V}), sonorants ({V;C}), etc., depending on the specific language system. The specification within 'I I' is thus exhaustive; in its absence the representation is interpreted as not necessarily exhaustive. At a lexical level no such distinction need be invoked categorially: representations are necessarily exhaustive. In subcategorisations, and in reference in derived representations, given that 'I P, ';' and ':' contribute to complexity, the natural class {C} emerges, appropriately, as less complex than any of its members, such as {ICI} or {IC;VI}. So too in the syntax the class of predicatives is {P}, and the class of finites {IPI}. We can think of class reference as being regulated by an analogue of the head convention, roughly: Class convention Any (non-lexical-categorial) regularity mentioning feature(-combination) F is to be interpreted as applying to any category containing F unless other aspects of the content of the category are also mentioned. So that {F} can designate e.g. all of {IF;GI}, {IFI}, {IG;FI} and {F:G}, involving F (and some other feature G), but {F;G} designates only {IF;GI} and {F:G}. Componentiality can thus in principle be satisfied in the case of cross-classes characterised by presence of a particular feature or combination. However, in order to ensure that the notation is able to express an appropriate range of natural classes, we need too to be a little more precise concerning the notion of 'preponderance' invoked at various points in the preceding discussion - such as in the characterisation of verbals as showing 'preponderant' P. It is clear that, given the range of primary syntactic categories proposed so far (cf. (2.54) above), in some intuitive sense (as noted initially in the present section) P in

Cross-classification 71 {IP;NI} and {IPI} can be said to be 'preponderant', whereas in {IN;PI} and {INI} and {P:N} it is not. But how do we express the cross-class with preponderant P in a componentially satisfactory way? Let us consider some of the possibilities that have been suggested. We can interpret {IPI} and {INI}, the exhaustive interpretations of {P} and {N}, as {P;0} and {N;0} respectively; i.e. as government by each feature of the null element, whose presence, naturally, is less costly with respect to complexity than those of P and N. {P;} will then generalise, naturally, over {P;N} and {P;0}/{ IPI}. But such a specification will also include adjectives, {P:N} = {(P;N)&(N;P)}. The inclusion of a cost-free negation operator '~' allows us to specify a cross-class ~{N;}, the complement of the class in which N governs which would exclude adjectives. But this cross-class would also include functors. It would also be componentially unsatisfactory as the specification of a cross-class which includes functors, whose own specification, { } or {0}, is simpler (but see below). However, perhaps this offers a principled basis on which to exclude functors from the domain of ~{N}: as a consequence of the requirement that a cross-class cannot include as a member a class whose specification is simpler. This effectively excludes functors from cross-classification, perhaps a desirable result. But notice too that the representational proposals just made also appear to exclude, or at least complicate, satisfaction of the category continuity condition. We have introduced two categorial specifications, {P;0} and {N;0}, which so far lack converses, with governing 0 . Now this may be a property of 0 . On the other hand, there are classes for which the converses are arguably appropriate. As we have seen, there are, for instance, functors which are complemented internally; some adverbs are {0;N}: cf. the discussion of here in §2.2.2. However, the notion of internal complementation introduces other factors to which we must return, most immediately in §2.6.1. Some questions thus remain concerning the expression of cross-classes via such a notational simplicity metric as discussed here. In the subsection which immediately follows we consider an alternative measure of naturalness of cross-classification which, I think, emerges more immediately from the class representations we have been developing. I conclude this one by indicating how, with reference to a notation using the 'IT and ' - ' operators, some of the subcategorisational cross-classes exemplified in the preceding might be characterised. The alternative verbal arguments of expect (2.81), mention (2.85) and intend (2.86) constitute cross-class (a) in (2.88); the verbal/adjectival arguments of seem (2.82) cross-class (b); like (2.84) takes (c); while want allows only (d):

72

Fundamentals of a notional theory

(2.88)

a. b. c. d.

~{N;} {P;} {P;N} {IP;NI}

(={IPI}, (={IPI},(={IP;NI

with (b) depending on the convention that {IPI} = {P;0}. Some of these verbs also take nominal (non-subjective) arguments. Clearly other factors are involved here, specifically, as indicated, the character of the 'complementiser' introducing the verbal arguments, which is not always 'neutral' (as signalled overtly in e.g. / want for to go). Moreover, although, for convenience of exposition, the preceding has ignored a possible intervening overt 'complementiser' in the constructions we have been looking at, traditionally it has often been considered that it is indeed they for which the verbs are subcategorised; so that, in terms of the present notation e.g. expect might be subcategorised for a non-subjective functor phrase of the character of (2.89): (2.89)

{/~{N;}}

Cf. (2.88a). Things are not quite like that, as will emerge in §§3.3 and 6. Here, however, I have been concerned to illustrate simply the cross-classificatory potential of a notation based on simplex features and dependency, on the basis of a complexity measure analogous to that which has been associated with binaryfeature-based notations, and already deployed in the phonology.

2.5.3

^n alternative

measure

I want to conclude this section with a brief consideration of an alternative measure of class-naturalness which perhaps relates more directly to a notation based on 'preponderance'. We can represent relative preponderance directly if, very straightforwardly, we interpret the internal weightings of the component features of each of the categorisations in (2.54), again repeated: (2.54)

{P} aux

{P;N} verb

{P:N) adjective

{N;P) noun

{N} name

{ } functor

in terms of the proportions suggested in (2.90): (2.90)

4P::oN aux

3P::iN verb

2P::2N adjective

1PH3N noun

oP::4N name

oP,oN functor

which are intended to make more explicit our intuitive understanding of the notion of 'preponderance', on the basis of the weighting equations of (2.91): (2.91)

X alone = 4

X; = 3

X: = 2

;X = 1

absence of X = o

Gradience and second-order categories 73 where X is (at this point) a variable over P and N (or V and C in the phonology). In these terms, the cross-class of predicatives is 4>oP': categories whose P weighting exceeds o - excluding names and functors. Likewise, the cross-classes in (2.87) are representable as in (2.92): (2.92)

a. >2P

b. >iP

c. <4P, >iP

d. 3P

The measure of generality is thus not primarily based on any 'symbol count' or such like: the characterisation of the more general cross-class (2.92c) is in an obvious sense more complex than that for the specific (d). Rather, even more obviously, the more general a cross-class the greater the number of values the weight characterisation allows, as illustrated in (2.93): (2.93)

a. >2P = 4P, 3P b. >iP = 4P, 3P, 2P c. <4P, >iP = 3P, 2P d. 3 P e. >oP = 4P, 3P, 2P, iP

Trivially, the longer the list of values the more general the class. However, it might be appropriate to distinguish between equivalently weighted cross-classes, such as (2.93a) and (c), on the basis of relative complexity, to the extent that verbals are recurrently more referred to by regularities than (non-auxiliary) verbs and adjectives. A benefit of making the preponderances associated with the notation explicit in this way is that it also leads to a transparent characterisation of gradient phenomena, phenomena which have often been seen as incompatible with categoriality (cf. e.g. Ross 1972). The section which follows tries to show that an account of different varieties of gradience is highly dependent upon categorial representations of the type we have been developing and the complexity measures they induce. In exploring this we shall also extend the range of categorial distinctions that can be made available to the syntax: it is perhaps with respect to such more delicate distinctions that gradient phenomena are more apparent. 2.6

Gradience and second-order categories

Categorial properties ieak', but arguably in an orderly, hierarchical fashion. Not only is it possible in principle to distinguish non-central members of the word classes, but also, among these, there can be some which show properties more centrally associated with another minimally distinct class; moreover, these properties may even spread to more remote classes, but less so. Thus, as we have observed, subcategorisation for an 'agent' is a central property of verbs ({P;N}),

74 Fundamentals of a notional theory but is less common, and non-central with adjectives ({P:N}) - Be careful!, etc. - and rather marginal with nouns ({P;N}), where a straightforward 'agentive' interpretation may not be obvious - Be a hero! Ross (1972) surveys a range of properties with respect to which adjectives are intermediate between verbs and nouns. These display one manifestation of gradience, one which correlates with the hierarchy displayed in (2.90) above, measured in terms of preponderance of P. I should perhaps qualify my term for this notion as 'relative gradience', in that I shall be suggesting that the categorisations identify cardinal points on particular gradients; Bolinger's well-known discussion of gradience (1961) is concerned, on the other hand, with 'strong gradience', such that, with respect to intermediate points, 'for there to be gradience it is sufficient to show that no definite number can be established between the two poles' (p. 23). The availability of some properties to some categories involves more subtle judgments, including estimates of relative acceptability. Such phenomena are basic to Ross's (1972, 1973*2, b) notion of 'squishes' as involving orderly gradations in acceptability. Again, I shall argue that, at least for the limited subset I shall be able to consider here, these are in accord with the measure provided by our discussion in §2.5.3, so that the correlation between relative acceptability and categorisation exhibits relative gradience: see §2.6.3 below. Firstly, however, I want to examine carefully a rather striking 'leak' in English involving full acceptability, one whose interpretation has occasioned some controversy but which I shall argue illustrates relative gradience. 2.6.1

Transitive adjectives in English

It is a commonplace of English syntax that certain items traditionally regarded as adjectives nevertheless appear to take a 'bare' NP as (non-subjective) complement, i.e. an 'unmarked object', as illustrated by (2.94): (2.94)

a. He is not worth his salt b. He is like his father

(Jespersen 1924: 163)

and (2.95): (2.95) The bowl is near the fireplace a phenomenon otherwise restricted to verbs. Apparently, a property associated with verbs 'leaks' down into the next most P-full class, to be reflected in members which, as 'relational', are more verb-like than the central membership of the class. However, Huddleston (1984: 348), for instance, argues that such items are 'at the borderline between the two classes' of adjective and preposition, and that the

Gradience and second-order categories 75 classification of near 'remains somewhat indeterminate'. He claims that although near can, like adjectives, appear attributively, and shows a morphological comparative and superlative: (2.96)

his near(est) relatives

'its prepositional properties are evident in examples like He buried it near the fence, where it has an NP complement, heads a phrase functioning as adjunct and is in paradigmatic contrast with such central prepositions as at, by, beside, under, etc' But the status of the taking of 'bare-NP' complements is exactly what is at issue; and other 'adjectives' show a similar ('adjunct') function while taking a PP: (2.97)

He buried it close(st) to the fence

(Consider too Huddleston's the one which he had buried nearest (to) the fence.) We have here a phenomenon independent of near's ability to take a 'bare NP', namely the capacity of spatial adjectives to complement (in subjunction) an unexpressed functor functioning as an 'adjunct' - i.e. to appear in a structure such as (2.98): (2.98)

,

{P:NJ

near/close

(to)

the fence

where with near the dependent functor need not be expressed independently, but is realised as to with close. That is, both near/close are 'adjunct' adverbials as well as (as I'm suggesting) adjectives. And even if such a configuration were also to be associated with use of near as a complement, as in (2.95), i.e. here too it is interpreted as (a complement) 'adverbial', this does not account for the failure of near to take a PP rather than a NP, given e.g. (2.99): (2.99)

The bowl is close to the fireplace

with overt functor. Near illustrates, whatever, a 'leak' of transitivity from an adjacent word class. Maling suggests that near is 'perhaps the only surviving relic of the class of

76 Fundamentals of a notional theory transitive adjectives' (1983: 266), though she also acknowledges the possibility that due and opposite might be such (note 22). Her arguments against such a status for like and worth and for their interpretation as prepositions are of some interest to our present concern; but I shall suggest rather that they realise configurations like that in (2.98), containing an adjectival categorisation which takes a complement with unexpressed functor, and that they provide evidence of another instance of gradience. Maling cites three sets of properties whereby adjectives and prepositions are distinguishable. One set, the morphological, is indecisive, as inapplicable in English (there is no agreement of adjectives), or at best only confirmatory: the fact that near shows a (morphological) comparative can be taken to confirm its status as an adjective, but the absence of such with like and worth is indecisive. Similarly, among Maling's 'semantic or functional' criteria, the fact that both like and near are modifiable by very and how, so and too, as in (2.100): (2.100)

a. very like, very near, *very worth b. how like, how near, *how worth

confirms their status as adjectives, while not disbarring worth, given that not all adjectives are so modifiable. And all three, like (other) degree adjectives, can complement seem: (2.101) It doesn't seem like/near/worth it We should note, in passing, that seem-complementation is another candidate for ieaking'. Thus, verbal complements to seem are pretty much unrestricted lexically; and most central adjectives are potential complements. But some noncentral nouns can also constitute viable complements, as with Bill seems an idiot. (Cf. Bolinger 1972: 77-9.) We have a hierarchically diminishing 'leak', with the ieak' into nominals being restricted to 'evaluative' nouns. Maling rejects these latter properties, illustrated by (2.100-1), as failing to constitute 'strictly categorial' criteria, principally on the ground that certain, 'metaphorical' PPs also satisfy them, as illustrated by (2.102): (2.102)

a. Jed is very out of condition b. How out of condition is Jed? c. Jed seems out of condition

Arguably, however, these are derived adjectives, associated with the configuration (2.103): (2.103)

Gradience and second-order categories 77 (cf. e.g. Quirk et al. 1972: App. 1; 1985: App. 1 52), and thus also occur attributively: (2.104) An out of condition athlete Maling objects (1983: 257-8) that not all such 'metaphorical' PPs can be attributive (thus *A« onto something reporter hounded the president), and, conversely, not all those that can occur attributively can be also predicative. But, as we have seen, this is true of the class of adjectives as a whole. Moreover, the nonattributives also tend to resist modification by very etc. (*Joe is very onto something). It may be that these are simply not recategorised; they are functor phrases simply, rather than being adjectivalised. As Maling notes (1983: 158), there is considerable variation between speakers in this area; I take it that this may reflect varying presence vs. absence of (lexical) recategorisation as regards particular items. Paradoxically, perhaps, the 'fused' PPs of the alive, asleep, etc. type mentioned in §2.3.1 above, which are also unhappy with very-modification, and do not occur attributively - while some of them, unlike (other) adjectives, allow modification by well (cf. Bolinger's (1972: 38) / was well awake etc.) - are among the least plausible candidates for recategorisation as adjectives. Maling also considers a number of criteria she regards as 'strictly categorial', including occurrence in 'prenominal position'. If there are (other) adjectives which are only predicative, then this is indecisive, as is the second such criterion, 'intransitive' use. If, on the other hand, apparently uniquely predicative 'adjectives' are of the character I have suggested for asleep, then such behaviour on the part of like and worth would argue against an adjectival status. However, attributive use of like is more general than suggested by Maling's aknowledgment (1983: 267) of 'a few marginal uses of like in prenominal position' (illustrated by The like-subject constraint was proposed by Perlmutter, or You'll need boots, raincoats, and the like), as shown by (2.105): (2.105) Jocelyn offered a like suggestion And its limited occurrence there can be attributed to the very fact that it is transitive, so that its normal position is quite regularly postnominal: (2.106) Jocelyn offered a suggestion like yours with (2.105) being elliptical. So too with worth, except that, as more resistant to ellipsis, it is never prenominal. Curiously, while Maling asserts that 'if worth was an adjective, then the only possible analysis would be to claim that the NP-complement were an inverted measure phrase' (1983: 269), she goes on to show that its complement need not

78 Fundamentals of a notional theory be a 'measure' expression. The fact that it often takes 'measure' expressions would be quite compatible with status as a 'transitive' adjective, which, moreover, obviates any need to appeal to 'inversion'. Similarly, on one use, one of the objects of due is typically a 'measure' expression (Derek is due me five francs), just as the subject is on another (Five francs are due me); but the conclusion that it is a (di-)transitive adjective is hard to escape. The 'transitivity' of like and worth would also account for their failure, as putative adjectives, to show 'enough-shiff to post-head position: (2.107)

a. Bill is tall enough b. Bill is similar enough to the portrait c. *Bill is like enough the portrait

(cf. Jackendoff 1977). However, as with the transitive verb in (2.108b), which similarly excludes enough from immediate-post-head position: (2.108) a. Beppo travels enough to the continent b. *Beppo visits enough the continent enough can occur after the object complement: (2.109)

a. Bill is like the portrait enough b. Beppo visits the continent enough

We have a manifestation of the familiar 'interpolation ban' with respect to head and 'bare' nominal complement (e.g. Postal 1974; Maling 1983: 263-4). On the other hand, the greater acceptability of (2.1 ioa), with interpolation between transitive near and its object: (2.110)

a. ?The box is near enough the fence b. The box is near enough to the fence c. The box is near enough

can be seen as parasitic upon the prepositional-complement (b) and intransitive (c) uses of near. However, as Maling observes (1983: 263, 266, 268), like and worth share with prepositions the capacity to take a preceding enough: (2.111)

a. Robin seems enough at home b. Chris looks enough like you to be your twin c. Sailing is great fun, but owning your own boat isn't enough worth the trouble for me to want to buy one

This is compatible with associating with like and worth a complex configuration such as that in (2.98); whereas near (when it is a complement rather than an 'adjunct') is simply an adjective:

Gradience and second-order categories 79 (2.112)

*The box is enough near the fence

Likewise, alike, and, to the extent that it can be conceived of as measurable, alive, as realising a categorisation with governing functor, but 'intransitive' (as incorporating a dependent nominal), show both preposed and postposed enough: (2.113)

a. Bobsie is enough alike/alive to surprise you b. Bobsie is alike/alive enough to suprise you

And all of these, except near (and other adjectives), can be premodified by very much (Maling 1983: 267-9). Near, then, is an adjective which, like other 'locational' adjectives, is associated with the (2.98) categorisation only in 'adjunct' function; whereas worth is inherently so. Like shares functor properties with worth, but, as we have also seen, it can occur prenominally and take modification by very (as well as very much). Notice too that, as Ross (1972: 317) observes, like and near both, as with other adjectives, form a -ness-noun that preserves the adjective's argument structure (likeness to, nearness to). This all suggests a hierarchy of categorisations intermediate between adjectives and prepositions, where the intermediate categories show graded mixtures of adjectivalness and functorness, just as adjectives themselves are graded between nouns and verbs. Perhaps we canfindthere too a place for opposite, to which many of the criteria discussed are inapplicable, but which, like near, often takes a preposition (... o/from) and can be attributive and accepts to some extent modification by very (the (very) opposite direction). However, it does share with like, on the other hand, the capacity for a nominal use (the like (of), the opposite (of)) also shown by some (complex) prepositions (the inside (of)), a use unlike those usually associated with adjectives (the poor (plural); the beautiful (abstract)) - except perhaps comparatives and superlatives. And, like functors, but unlike adjectives and the other items we have been considering here, it can be premodified by right. We can relatively straightforwardly allow for most of this gradience if we extend the system of categories allowed for by permitting second-order categorisations, involving combinations in dependency of the basic categorial representations of (2.54) above, giving in this case (2.114): (2.114)

{P:N} close due

{(P:N); } near

{(P:N): } like

{ ;(P:N)} worth

{) at

with 'prepositionality' increasing to the right; the representations for near and worth are equivalent to (the relevant part of) (2.103) a n d (2.98) respectively.

80 Fundamentals of a notional theory These intermediate representations constitute second-order categorisations, with complex first-order categories enclosed in (round) brackets; we consider their character in the subsection which immediately follows. What has emerged in this one is evidence for a gradience among the class of items whose categorisation includes P:N, as well as for the initial 'leaking' gradience of transitivity which initiated the discussion. Thus, I take due to be a ditransitive adjective equivalent to the verbal owe. I suggest further that opposite fits into the hierarchy between worth and at, by virtue of a 'third-order' categorisation: (2.115)

{ ;((P:N):)}

i.e. a functor that incorporates an adjective with incorporated functor (with opposite to the last is not incorporated). Notice that, appropriately, increasing prominence from left to right in (2.114/115) of the functor category (involving a simple relational label) is associated, in notional terms, with a decrease in the qualitative content - and gradability of the item (if we ignore the non-central adjective due). (2.114/115) is not quite the equivalent of Ross's (1972: 317-19) proposed squish; but, as he concedes, there are problems with some of his evidence, e.g. with respect to the ranking of near and opposite. There is at least a plausible partial match. The representations in (2.114/115) enable us to express relationships both hierarchical (in terms of relative preponderance of the adjective and functor specifications) and cross-classificatory (in terms of shared configuration or relative preponderance), so that, for instance, both opposite and at have highest weight of functorhood (and accept premodifying right) and like and worth are appropriately represented as intermediate between near and at. But rather than spelling out these relationships in terms of characterisations which are proposed here very tentatively, given the nature of the evidence, let us turn to another area of gradience which is both better represented (with respect to numbers of items involved) and, I think, better defined: in relation to it I shall try to show more explicitly how hierarchical placement can be formulated in terms of the measure developed in §2.5.3. However, by this point, the usual hawkeyed reader will have registered that there are two apparently different circumstances in which we have encountered phenomena involving, in some sense, 'second-order dependencies' among features. In §2.2.2 I proposed that here be characterised as in (2.30), repeated here:

Gradience and second-order categories 81 b.

(2.30)

{N}

and 'adverbial' near in (2.98) is shown as having the same configuration. The valency of the functor is satisfied internally, and each categorial specification included in ' {}' brackets induces a corresponding node in the syntactic structure, in accord with one category = one node, as expressed in (2.29/30"): (2.29/30")

{N}

{N}

Fred

lives

here

(again ignoring for the moment the problem of the two nodes apparently associated with the category {P}). The categorial dependency here contrasts with that attributed to nouns in e.g. (2.38) - {N;P} - which I have not interpreted as involving internal satisfaction, or as introducing two syntactic nodes. Let us call the dependency exhibited by (2.29/30") intercategorial, and that by the representation for nouns intracategorial. In both these cases, the terms of the dependency relation are not themselves internally complex, do not involve internal dependencies: (2.29/30") is 'second-order' only in the sense that it involves a dependency relation between potential categories. We have just introduced categorial representations in (2.114) that include dependencies I have explicitly dubbed 'second-order', dependencies one of whose terms itself involves (internal) dependency. I shall reserve the term 'second-order' for such. The question arises as to whether these second-order dependencies are intercategorial, as assumed in (2.98) above, or intracategorial. As involving intercategorial dependency, we might represent the structures induced by near and worth as (2.116a) and (b) respectively:

82 Fundamentals of a notional theory (2.116)

a.

„

(N P)

near

b.

(N)

the statue

{N P)

{N}

worth

five dollars

That is, near is an adjective with non-subjective complement satisfied internally, and this complement, the functor takes a nominal complement (here the statue); whereas worth is a functor with internally satisfied adjective complement (like locally, where the presence of the functor is overtly signalled by the derivational morphology), and this adjective is transitive (with here five dollars as object). Opposite is alike but incorporates a further functor. This seems to be appropriate notionally: near and opposite take as external complement elements (like the statue) typical of central functors (like at, in), while the external complement of worth (like two dollars) is more typical of adjectives (like due). I tentatively adopt the position that, with all word classes involving secondorder dependencies proper, that dependency relation is intercategorial. That is, in essence, (2.54) exhausts the set of basic word classes; other classes are categorially complex, in the sense of involving an intercategorial dependency. Often this internal (intercategorial) complexity is made overt by the derivational morphology, as noted in relation to locally, and as with the constructions to which we turn in the next subsection. But, as is apparent from the case of here, this is not a necessary condition for intercategoriality. We have another instance of lack of isomorphy between categorisation and morphological expression. In much of what follows, however, I shall not mark intercategorial dependencies distinctively, by appropriate bracketing, where this status is not itself at issue; rather the notation of (2.114) will be used for simplicity of presentation. Let us note finally in this subsection that intercategorial dependencies at least provide support for attributing the same (dependency) relation to syntactic structure and categorial structure, in terms of dependency preservation. The intercategorial dependencies of (2.116) are projected into sentential structure in such a way that the (internal) governor determines, as syntactic head, the external syntax, while the range of complements is determined by the internal complement. The dependency relation is preserved in the induced structure.

Gradience and second-order categories 2.6.2

83

Deverbal nouns in English

As just observed, some second-order categorisations, involving intercategorial dependency, may be reflected in the derivational morphology. So it is with the head of (2.26a) above, whose categorisation, as a nominalisation, we might now give as in (2.27'), i.e. that of a noun with secondary verbal specification (as suggested in Anderson 19890; 1991b; 1992b: ch. 7): (2.27')

{N;P};{P/{ntr},{agt}} humiliation

Hagt} {N} of

Rome

Hannibal

Thus, as a noun, humiliation can satisfy the (external) requirements of determiners and attributive adjectives (see further §3.7): (2.117)

a. the humiliation of Rome by Hannibal b. total/unexpected humiliation of Rome by Hannibal

but, as incorporating a verbal, it governs a full predicational structure, including, in this instance, an unmarked agentive, and interacts selectionally with attributives as an event-denoting item, parallel to the interaction of adverbial and verbal in (2.118): (2.118)

a. Hannibal totally/unexpectedly humiliated Rome b. Rome was totally/unexpectedly humiliated by Hannibal

We look a little more carefully at the relationship between (2.117b) and (2.118) in chapter 3, as well as at the character of the structures realised by (2.119): (2.119)

a. Rome's humiliation by Hannibal b. Hannibal's humiliation of Rome

wherein the initial element is, apparently, simultaneously determiner to (i.e. governor of) and argument of humiliation. We are concerned here with these nominalisations as alternative expressions of the argument structures also found in (2.118), with the crucial variable being the class of the ultimate head of the construction. This means too that the present discussion is limited to predicational nominalisations - those which Comrie and Thompson (1985: 349) label

84 Fundamentals of a notional theory 'Name of activity or state'; it does not include those they label 'Name of an argument' (illustrated by English divorcee, walker, drink, etc.). Unlike the (primary) verbals in (2.118), these nominalisations lack tense and agreement morphology, as well as both object-formation (so Rome in (2.27'), (2.117) and (2.119b) is marked with of) and subject-formation (so Hannibal in (2.27'), (2.117) and (2.119a) is marked with by), and thus also any manifestation of passive. Even the examples of what one might call determinerisation in (2.119) should not be regarded as showing the results of subject-formation, and (2.119a) etc. are not formed by passive, given that, apart from (2.119) lacking any morphological marking as such, the alternation between (2.117a) and both of (2.119) is paralleled not only by (2.120): (2.120)

a. the collapse of Rome b. Rome's collapse

with an intransitive neutral, but also by (2.121): (2.121)

a. b. c. d.

the collapse of the market on Friday Friday's collapse of the market the removal of the ban last month (by the minister) last month's removal of the ban (by the minister)

with in (b) and (d) an 'adjunct' determiner. Notice too the possibilities with the 'agentive intransitive' in (2.122): (2.122)

a. b. c. d. d.

the walkout by the garbos on Tuesday the walkout of the garbos on Tuesday the garbos' walkout on Tuesday Tuesday's walkout by the garbos Tuesday's walkout of the garbos

where the dual marking of the garbos (by or of) can be attributed to their dual semantic function (agentive and neutral), as argued for in §3.1; certainly this is not plausibly to be attributed to passive. The distribution of adpositions in these nominalisation structures reflects the semantic roles of their arguments. Such constructions have recently attracted a good deal of attention: see e.g. Anderson 1977: §3.5.10; 1979a; 1980b; 1982a: 14-6; 1987/7; Jackendoff 1977; Amritavalli 1980; Bohm 1982, 1983; Williams 1987; Wilkins 1988; Rappaport 1989; Lefebvre and Muysken 1988; Dik 1989: §11.3; and many more. Zubizarreta (1987: §2.1.1.3), for instance, illustrates restrictions on determinerisation which reflect a preference as such for neutral arguments that undergo a change of state (are 'affected'). And cross-linguistic comparisons have proved to be instructive with respect to their analysis. Anderson (1989/7), for instance, points to the absence, or very restricted occurrence of determinerisation in many

Gradience and second-order categories 85 languages - yet another indication that the variant in (2.149b) and the like should in no sense be considered basic, or its determiner a plausible 'subject'. Compare with the preceding the Italian of (2.123): (2.123) a. la distruzione della citta da parte dei Goti ('the destruction of the city by the Goths') b. la scomparsa dei soldi ('the disappearance of the money') c. ilritiroda parte dell'esercito ('the retreat by the army') d. il ritiro dell'esercito ('the retreat of the army')

(Anderson 1984a: 16)

where DI (dello, della, dei) marks the neutral argument and the complex DA PART DI the agentive, with again the agentive intransitive argument showing either (c) vs. (d). The characterisation of the nominalisation given in (2.116) involves a secondorder dependency relation (between N;P and P). As such, it implies, given category continuity, a 'converse' category, with P governing N;P. We might suggest that this is what is appropriate to gerunds in English; that is, the ing-forms in (2.124): (2.124)

a. John's building the factory b. John's disappearing c. John's leaving

are categorially {P;(N;P)} (cf. e.g. Anderson 1989b; 1991b; 1992b: §5.6). As such, so predominantly verbal, they show object- and subject-formation: there is no adpositional marker of the object, and no 'determinerisations' not licensed by subjecthood of the determinerised expression: (2.125)

a

- *the factory's building by John b. *Tuesday's opening the factory by John

and there is a passive, periphrastically and morphologically marked as such: (2.126) the factory's being built by John The gerund takes an adverb (such as unexpectedly) rather than an adjectival modifier (such as unexpected). However, there remain with gerundial constructions the marks of determinerisation, and the construction as a whole is a primary argument, in that it can be governed by an adposition, as in (2.127a): (2.127)

a

- Bill was surprised by/at John's building a factory b. Bill was surprised that John should build a factory

86 Fundamentals of a notional theory Cf. the finite argument of (b). This reflects the presence of the nominal partspecification. Fraser (1970) distinguishes between these gerunds - what he calls 'factive nominalisations' - and 'action nominalisations' in -ing such as (2.128), with regular determiner and/or overt marking of the argument that would be an object with the gerund: (2.128) a. b. c. d.

the chairing of the session by John John's chairing of the session the shouting by/of the crowds the decaying of the building

This terminology is based on the fact that whereas the gerunds are normally associated with a 'factive' reading, the examples in (2.128) are normally 'actional'; cf. Fraser's examples (1970: 84): (2.129)

a

- John's riding his bicycle (bothered her) b. John'sridingof his bicycle (startled them)

I shall refer to the latter here as verbal nouns. The constructions which they govern lack object-formation (note again the ofs in (i28a-b)) and subjectformation (note (a) and the post-head functor phrases in (c-d)): I assume that (b) shows simply determinerisation (without subject-formation), as with nominalisations. They also take attributives rather than adjuncts: (2.130)

a. John's riding his bicycle incompetently b. John's incompetent riding of his bicycle

Verbal nouns are thus, on a range of grounds only sampled here, clearly 'more nominal' than gerunds. But the verbal nouns are also more restricted with respect to nominal properties than nominalisations proper. Determinerisation, in particular, is more limited. Examples like (2.i24b-c) should be ambiguous between a 'factive' (gerund) reading and an 'actional' (verbal noun) reading, but the 'factive' reading is always more salient, at the least. Verbal noun constructions also exclude many 'adjunct' determinerisations - cf. (2.i3ia)-(b): (2.131)

a. ^Tuesday's striking by/of the garbos b. Tuesday's unveiling of the plaque (by the president)

Fraser also claims that 'there are no cases of the action nominalization in which the subject of a passive sentence (the original direct object) can become possessivized' (1970: 87), which he illustrates with examples like (2.132): (2.132)

*their attacking by the Indians (sounded the alarm)

Gradience and second-order categories 87 (cf. too (125a)). I don't consider this to involve passivisation, but rather simple determinerisation (as in (119a)). And some examples are better than others: (2.133)

?the plaque's unveiling (by the president) (took fully two hours)

But determinerisation again is markedly restricted in such cases too. Verbal nouns also share with gerunds unhappiness with the attributivisation of arguments. Compare with (2.134): (2.134) a. America's rejection of the proposal b. America's rejecting of the proposal c. America's rejecting the proposal the constructions in (2.135) with an attributivised argument of the nominalisation: (2.135)

a. the American rejection of the proposal b. ?*the American rejecting of the proposal c. *the American rejecting the proposal

(On such constructions see e.g. Levi 1978: ch. 2.) To the extent that attributivisation is associated with nominality of the head of the predication, such acceptability ratings (where '?*' marks an example more questionably bad than '*') reveal the verbal noun as 'less nominal' than nominalisations. (We return to the significance of complex acceptability markings such as '?*' in §2.6.3.) The verbal noun is syntactically intermediate between the gerund and the nominalisation. This is reflected in the ('second-order') categorisations of (2.136): (2.136) gerund

verbal noun

nominalisation

with the verbal noun showing mutually dependent P and N;P. The left-to-right ordering in (2.136) corresponds to relative preponderance of the P and N features. To make this more explicit: in terms of an extension of the measure introduced in §2.5.5, w e c a n establish the proportions in (2.137): (2.137)

a. {P;(N;P)J = 3P::I(3N::IP) = i2P::4(3N::iP) = I3P::3N b. {P:(N;P)} = 2P::2(3N::iP) = 8P::8(3N::iP) = ioP::6N = 5P::3N c. {(N;P);P} = 3 ( 3 N : : I P ) : : I P = I2(3N::IP)::4P = 7P-9N

The first equation in (2.137) simply instals the measures suggested in §2.5.5 c o r " responding t o ' ; ' and ':', at both first-order and second-order levels; the second enhances the second-order values to recognise the first-order total (2 + 2, or 3 + 1, = 4); the third sums the values given to P and N. This gives us a simple measure of relative preponderance. Such an extension, in making even more overt the relativistic basis of the measure, of course requires that we reconsider the formulations for natural classes

88 Fundamentals of a notional theory proposed in §2.5.5, which were based on absolute values for P and N. Thus, for instance, the representation for verbals, given as (2.94a), repeated here: (2.94)

a. >2P = 4P, 3P

can take the form of (2.138): (2.138)

^3P::iN

i.e. the proportion of P to N is greater than or equal to 3-to-i. But the generality of the class again correlates with the number of possible values available within the system. With respect to the phenomena considered in this subsection, we can say that subject-formation is associated with just this class, which includes gerunds (13:3) but not verbal nouns (5:3) or nominalisations (7x9). Non-subject determinerisation and attributivisation require (2.139): (2.139)

>IN::IP

(i.e. the proportion of N exceeds that of P), but they 'leak' into the verbal noun class (3::5), perhaps on the basis of the governing N;P component shared with nominalisations. Similarly, object-formation may 'leak' into the adjectival class (as described in §2.6.1 above) from the (verbal) cross-class defined by (2.138) on the basis of a P;N component shared with verbs. Primary arguments, on the other hand, are simply any categorisation including the configuration N;P but not P;N, thus including nouns, nominalisations, verbal nouns and gerunds, but not verbals, adjectives etc. Expression of cross-classes thus requires reference both to proportionality specifications and to shared subconfigurations. And reference to the latter may induce 'leaks' from the cross-classes defined by the former. Notionally, nominalisations are more verbal than nouns: they show a 'verbal' range of argument-types, including agentives, and the entity they denote is typically processual, 'second-order'. It may indeed be that we should interpret non-central processual nouns such as demise as morphologically covert nominalisations, categorially {(N;P);P}, given their insistence on a neutral argument undergoing a process. Typically, nominalisations allow either a 'factive' or an 'actional' interpretation: (2.140) the demolition of the theatre (took several months/enraged them) As noted, verbal nouns are generally 'actional' only (hence Fraser's (1970) 'action nominalization' terminology). We can legitimately associate this with their greater verbality, on the basis of the 'instability' associated with P (recall §2.1.1). However, what of gerunds, according to (2.137) the most verbal of these

Gradience and second-order categories 89 categories, but 'factive'? Gerunds, however, introduce another distinction which renders them non-commensurate in this respect. Let us now look at this aspect of the status of gerunds. Gerunds do not constitute a lexically distinctive category, a word class. In §2.1.5 w e drew a distinction between those categories that are given lexical recognition, are associated with different classes of items, and those which are merely required by the formulation of syntactic regularities. Gerunds have the latter status: they are a form of the verb which appears in certain syntactic circumstances, specifically as primary arguments. Tactivity' is not an inherent property of the class of verbs, but rather is associated with occurrence of a particular verbal form. Verbal nouns, however, constitute a lexical class, albeit a derivationally very productive one. Not all verbs can constitute the base for a verbal noun. Unsurprisingly, non-processual ('stative') verbs are resistant: (2.141)

a. b. c. d.

*the knowing of the truth (by/to/... Hilary) *the containing of an apology by/of/... the book ^Hilary's knowing of the truth *the book's containing of an apology

(cf. e.g. Fraser 1970: 91-2). Compare the gerunds of (2.142): (2.142)

a. Marilyn's knowing the truth b. the book's containing an apology

Even with processuals that are 'non-actional', nominalisation is preferred: (2.1431) a. b. (ii) a. b.

*the dying of his father *the declining of Rome the death of his father the decline of Rome

and many verbal nouns based on agentive verbs strike me as rather stilted, at best: (2.144)

a. b. c. d.

?the examining of the patient by the doctor (took several hours) ?the doctor's examining of the patient the examination of the patient by the doctor the doctor's examination of the patient

particularly if intransitive: (2.145)

a

- ?*the retreating of/by the Romans b. the retreat of/by the Romans

Some verbal nouns (such as that in the greening of the suburbs) have no obvious verbal base.

90 Fundamentals of a notional theory Such indications of lexicality confirm a status for verbal nouns suggested by the lack of evidence of verbal derived syntax, particularly subject and object formation, as illustrated by (2.128) above: they constitute a distinct lexical class. A rather striking further illustration of this lack is provided by a consideration of verbal nouns based on GiVE-class verbs, such as that in (2.146): (2.146)

a. the teaching of French grammar to that class (by Eloise) b. Eloise's teaching of French grammar to that class

I have suggested that the occurrence of o/here and in (2.128) is an indication of lack of object formation; of marks the neutral functor. The present class of verbal nouns offer further evidence for this. Constructions involving GiVE-class verbal nouns are often rather stilted; but the potential equivalents of the verbal (2.147): (2.147)

Eloise taught that class French grammar

are crashingly awful: (2.148)

*Eloise's teaching of that class (of) French grammar

Marking in such constructions by of, and to, reflects semantic function, not a derived, verbal object: again, the verbal noun lacks the syntactic stigmata of verbalness. Gerunds, in contrast, are forms of the verb; their nominality is further grammaticalised, it is syntacticised, provided for by (non-word-class-changing) morphosyntactic redundancy. They are a further grammaticalisation of the verbal noun: so, their gross 'external' syntax is nominal (they constitute a primary argument), but their complementation and modification - recall the differences of this kind (re-)illustrated by (2.149): (2.149)

a

- Bill's secret demolition of the factory b. Bill's secretly demolishing the factory

- and their derived ('internal') syntax are verbal. Whatever else is involved in grammaticalisation - i.e. syntacticisation - of (a derivative of) a lexical distinction, the 'external' syntax of the original is retained: we consider a further example in §2.6.4. Gerunds are derived by lexical (morphosyntactic) redundancy, of, say, the form, for English, of (2.150): (2.150)

{P;N}

allowing gerunds to all verbals categorised as {P;N}, i.e. all except the modals. This means that in lexical entries we need to differentiate, in the relevant area, between verbs, verbal nouns, nominalisations and nouns, only, as in (2.151):

Gradience and second-order categories 91 (2.151)

{P;N} verb

{P;(N;P)} verbal noun

{(N;P);P} nominalisation

{N;P} noun

with verbal nouns being 'displaced' to the right on this hierarchy by the application of (2.150). See, however, §2.6.5 below (and, further, §3.6), for a reconsideration of these categorisations in the light of a wider range of phenomena, and of a richer system of categories. 2.6.3

Nouniness

In an unduly neglected (because awkward?) series of studies, Ross (1972; 1973a, b) sought to establish a number of hierarchies of 'categories' constructed on the basis of the interaction of the 'categories' with a range of syntactic regularities. The interaction defines a squish, whose basic structure can be represented, schematically, as in table 2.2, where categories A...D are successively more available to the regularities involved. We have a hierarchy if possession of property 4, for instance, implies possession of j , and 3 of 2, and so on: i.e. if there are no holes in the matrix. The schema of table 2.2 represents a 'wellbehaved squish' in this respect. Fragmentary squishes can also be established in the phonology on the basis of phenomena (involving especially syllable structure and lenition/fortition in different languages) such as have been invoked in the constructing of 'sonority hierarchies': cf. e.g. Anderson and Durand 1986: §3.4; Anderson and Ewen 1987: §4.5. It is argued there that the capacity to express such phenomena of the notation they advocate, which is analogous to that proposed here, confirms its appropriateness for phonological representation. See too Anderson (1992a) for more detailed illustration of this expressibility in relation to English syllable structure and to various lenition ('vocalisation') phenomena reconstructed for early Middle English. Typically, unacceptability is gradable rather than simply on/off (OK/*); so that we might have table 2.3 rather than table 2.2 as a schema for the typical squish, (where '?', '??', '?*', '*', '**' indicate increasing unacceptability). Though the positioning in the matrix of particular increases in unacceptability may very well vary from speaker to speaker, provided that this remains 'orderly' - there are, in particular no (horizontal or vertical) reversals in acceptability grading - the squish can again be considered to be 'well-behaved'. On the basis of a wide range of phenomena, and of the associated squish, Ross (1973a) assigns degrees of 'nouniness' to a number of categories, viz. the complement-types labelled (following his nomenclature) as in (2.152):

92

Fundamentals of a notional theory Table 2.2: A squish Regularities Categories

1

2

3

4

5

A

OK

*

*

*

*

B

OK

OK

*

*

*

C

OK

OK

OK

*

*

D

OK

OK

OK

OK

*

5

Table 2.3: A squish with multivalued cells Regularities Categories

(2.152)

1

2

3

4

A

OK

9

99

*

B

OK

OK

9*

*

C

OK

OK

OK

9*

D

OK

OK

OK

OK

*

The nouniness squish that >for to>Q> Ace Ing > Poss Ing > Action Nom > Derived Nom > Noun

which constructions Ross (1973a: 141) exemplifies (from left to right) as in (2.153): (2.153)

that Max gave the letters to Frieda for Max to have given the letters to Frieda how willingly Max gave the letters to Frieda (embedded question) Max giving the letters to Frieda Max's giving the letters to Frieda Max's/the giving of the letters to Frieda Max's/the gift of the letters to Frieda

(see particularly his (2-111)).

Gradience and second-order categories 93 Actually, the nouniness squish is more complex than the patterning shown in table 2.3, in that it includes regularities which invert the pattern of acceptability, i.e. which, in reference to the categories in (2.152), would be more acceptable the closer the category is to the 'top' of the hierarchy, rather than to the bottom. This pattern Ross, following Quirk (1965) - but, it seems to me, not very closely - terms a 'serial relationship' (19730: 232-3). This, however, need not concern us here: the point is that the (serial) squish defines nouniness. On the basis of this, Ross argues for a non-discrete view of categorisation; so that he proposes that 'the previously used node S, sentence, be replaced by a feature [aS], where a ranges over the real numbers in [0,1]. Each of the complement types in [(2.152) - JMA] would be given a basic value of a, and rules, filters and other types of semantic processes, would be given upper and lower threshold values of a between which they operate' (19730: 188). And he goes on (§2.5) to argue that the 'lexicalist' view then being developed (e.g. in Chomsky 1970; 1972) 'gives the incorrect impression that there is a discrete difference between derived nominals and all other kinds of complements' (19730: 230). What I have been suggesting here is that we can establish hierarchies independently of the squishy phenomena that manifest the hierarchies, and that e.g. degree of predicativity can be computed on the basis of the measure suggested in §2.5.3, which in turn interprets the configurations of notional features appropriate to the various categories. It is then an interesting empirical question to what extent this measure would correlate with Ross's (19730: §3.1) computation of the 'distance' between different categories based on the details of the squish. But the squish phenomena themselves do not require abandonment of categoriality; indeed, they can be said to involve relative rather than absolute gradience, as distinguished above. It will be apparent, further, that I take the view that, though a squish may cut across the lexical/non-lexical boundary (and thus the distinction between intercategorial and intracategorial combinations), this does not undermine this distinction, which is based on other considerations, mainly associated with lexical idiosyncrasy (cf. e.g. Anderson 1984b: ch. 1; and see further below). It may be that there are squishes, or parts of squishes, which do not conform with the predictions of a metric based on notionally-based categories; it may be that some 'non-discreteness' is ultimately inescapable. But, though I cannot hope here to consider more than a tiny fraction of the wealth of evidence adduced by Ross - his work lays out a lengthy programme of research for any theory of syntactic categories (even, or particularly, for those which have failed

94 Fundamentals of a notional theory to acknowledge it) - nevertheless, it can be shown at least that the partial hierarchy established in this section correlates rather well with relevant observations offered by Ross - as is already indicated in outline in Anderson 1989b; 1991b; 1992a: ch. 5. So, too, the comparative material on nouniness adduced by e.g. Hopper and Thompson (1984) and Givon (1990: §12.6) can be interpreted as reflecting relative preponderances of the notional features. Here, however, let us focus on Ross's observations on the constructions in English discussed in the previous subsection. Anderson (1991b), for instance, shows that the relative unacceptability of complements with an (unincorporated) negative registered by Ross (1973a: §2.15) is directly associated with the (relative) preponderance of the N property. Ross records amongst others the judgments reproduced in (2.154): (2.154)

a. b. c. d. e.

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

(c), (d) and (e) contain respectively a gerund ('Poss Ing'), a verbal noun ('action nominal') and a nominalisation ('derived nominal'); the proportion of N associated with each is shown in (2.137) above, repeated here: (2.137)

a. [P;(N;P)J = 3P::I(3N::IP) = i2P::4(3N::iP) = 13PH3N b. [P:(N;P)J = 2P::2(3N::iP) = 8P::8(3N::iP) = ioP::6N = 5P-3N c. {(N;P);PJ = 3 ( 3 N : : I P ) : : I P = I2(3N::IP)::4P = 7P-9N

The finite does of (2.154a) has only P, so is 4oN'. The relative weightings of P and N in the case of the infinitive construction is as in (2.155): (2.155)

{P;(P;N)J

= 3 P : : I ( 3 P : : I N ) = I2P::4(3P::IN)

=

I5P::IN

with the infinitive form again being provided for by an extension of the redundancy (2.180) above, viz. what I now give as (2.156): (2.156) {P;N}

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

infinitive participle gerund

which allows a range of non-finite forms to verbs (see further Anderson 1991b: 309; §3.6 below); the infinitive is highly verbal. It emerges from a correlation of the proportionalities given in (2.137) a n d (2.155) with the judgments recorded in (2.154) that acceptability gets to be questionable when N is close to 1:13 (the gerund of (2.137a) - example (2.154c)), and increases markedly as the proportion of N increases.

Gradience and second-order categories 95 As Ross points out, 'some negative items are more offensive to nouny complements than others' (1973a: 162). Thus, among the examples in (2.157): (2.157)

a

- That no children prepare dinner is good for her health b. For no children to prepare dinner is good for her health c. *No children's preparing dinner is good for her health d. **No children's preparing of dinner is good for her health e. **No children's preparation of dinner is good for her health

even the head with more than 3:: 1 of P (the gerund of (c)) is markedly unacceptable. But the gradation of acceptability remains consistent with the hierarchy. As this is replicated elsewhere in Ross's material (with one or two acknowledged pieces of 'bad behaviour') - and even allowing for speaker variation in judgment of relative acceptability, provided this remains overall 'well-behaved' with respect to the hierarchy, we gain powerful support for the measure developed here and the categorial representations it interprets. It may be that syntactic nouniness is affected by factors other than the categorisation of the head of the embedded predication. The examples of (2.154) and (2.157) omit some intermediate types examined by Ross - cf. (2.152/3) above; and one of these, Ace Ing, appears to involve a gerund, for instance. However, the overall construction differs from Poss Ing, the gerund construction discussed above, in lacking a 'determiner', which categorially is simply {N} (recall §2.1.2 above). If we interpret marking with the genitive as evidence of determinerisation, whatever the categorial structure of the genitive in the gerund construction, it includes N as a dominant element. The oblique of the Ace Ing construction, however, simply marks the argument of a non-finite and provides no evidence of a {N} (determiner) node associated with the gerund complement. This may account for the hierarchical position of Ace Ing in (2.152), less nouny than Poss Ing. Admittedly, that makes the computation of nouniness that bit more complex - though in principle still based on the distribution of the notional features. 2.6.4

Deverbal adjectives in English

As is familiar, we can draw a distinction in English, parallel to that between nominalisation and gerund, between adjectivalisation and participle; and we have anticipated the characterisation of participles in the form of (part of) the redundancy (2.156) above. But also, in rather traditional terms (as exemplified by Gildersleeve and Lodge 1895, for Latin), we can distinguish between an 'active' and a 'passive' participle, exemplified respectively in (2.i58a-b) and (c):

96 Fundamentals of a notional theory (2.158) a. The farmer was killing the duckling b. The duckling was dying c. The duckling was killed (by the farmer) (I now have to write the textual equivalent of the exemplificatory The farmer killed the duckling.) The subject of the passive construction in (2.158c) corresponds to the object of the active (a), or, more exactly, of The farmer killed the duckling - in terms of semantic function and other aspects of semantic selection. There is no passive equivalent to The duckling died: in English the 'passive' participle is a form of verbs with two arguments, corresponding, centrally, to the object and subject of the corresponding active. (The characterisation of the discrepancy in assignment of grammatical relations is not our concern at this point: see further §3.3 below.) In other languages, there are impersonal passives corresponding to some intransitives: see further, once more, §3.3, in particular. The situation in English is complicated by the fact that the same morphological form as that in (2.158c) is also used in the active (2.159a): (2.159) a. The farmer has killed the duckling b. The duckling has died and similar formations occur in intransitives such as (b), to form the 'perfect' construction. Huddleston (1984), for instance, following another tradition (cf. e.g. Latham 1862: §715), thus distinguishes between 'present' and 'past' participles; but then is compelled (1984: 321) to distinguish between 'perfect past participles' (of (2.159)) a n d 'passive past participles' (of (2.158c)), even though in Present-day English the latter, at least, can be considered in no sense pastreferring. Such considerations, as well as those underlying my nifty use and nonuse of quotation marks around 'active' and 'passive' in the preceding, have led some scholars (such as Jespersen 1931: §7.5; Strang 1970) to prefer the notionally empty terms 'first' and 'second participles' for the forms in (2.i58a-b) and (2.158/159), respectively - or even a mixed nomenclature: cf. Mitchell's (1985) 'present participle' vs. 'second participle'. We should note in relation to this last that it is also not at all obvious what is 'present' about the 'present participle'. I shall adopt here the non-committal (and therefore ultimately undesirable) terminology of 'first participle' vs. 'second participle'; notional and other distinctions between participles are explored on a more general basis in Anderson 19926: ch. 7; 1993a). A further complication in English is that what I am now calling the first participle is morphologically the same as what in the preceding subsections was called the 'gerund'. That this is not simply an idiosyncratic property of Modern English is suggested by the fact that the translational quasi-equivalents of

Gradience and second-order categories 97 (2.i58a-b) in a number of languages, i.e. expressions of progressiveness or of imperfect in general, involve 'nominal forms' of the verb, often governed by a functor of the character of 'at' or 'in', as in Scottish Gaelic (2.160): (2.160)

Bha e ag gearradh craoibhe was he at cutting of-tree ('He was cutting a tree')

(For extensive cross-linguistic exemplification see e.g. Anderson 1973a; Comrie 1976.) Early Modern English 'progressive' constructions such as are exemplified in (2.161): (2.161)

a. Are you crossing of yourself b. who were merrily a working

(e.g. Jespersen 1931: §12.3 (4), (2)) show evidence of nominality (2.161a) and a (reduced) functor (b) (cf. the 'adjectives' like asleep discussed in §2.6.1). The evolution of the Modern English progressive is a rather complex and controversial area (cf. e.g. Nickel i960), particularly as concerns the role in it of such constructions and of the Old English 'verbal adjective' and 'agentive verbal noun' in -end; and its synchronic status remains such, with Bolinger (1971), for instance (and see too Anderson 1973a), arguing that the verb form is a locative nominal. Even those who wish to maintain a distinction between gerund and participle are compelled to concede that 'on account of the identity of form between Verbnoun and Verb-adjective in -ing, it is sometimes difficult to determine to which part of speech a particular form belongs' (Onions 1904: 131); and the bases for their decisions are not always compelling. Thus, for Onions (1904: 1303), only (a) and (c) of (2.162): (2.162) a. b. c. d.

What is the use of his coming? What is the use of him coming? He prevented them from leaving He prevented them leaving

are gerunds, where the preceding genitive in (a) and preposition in (c) are apparently decisive. (Cf. too Bolinger 1961: 21, on 'the haziness of the -ing\) For the moment, let us adopt the position that it is necessary to maintain a distinction between a first participle in -ing and a second participle in -N/-T (-(e)n, -t, -(e)d, ablaut), leaving aside any relationship with gerunds. Certainly, as concerns the representation of such forms, it is difficult to deny some adjectival status to the -ing formation in (2.163a): (2.163)

a

- The result was (very) disturbing (to most of us) b. Most of us were (very) disturbed (at the result)

98 Fundamentals of a notional theory as to the -N/-T formation of (b). These, however, are derived forms, rather than forms of the verb. Wasow (1977: §4) surveys a number of 'adjectival' characteristics of such -N/-T 'participles', including premodification by very (as in (2.163b)) and prefixation by un-, which, again, is also available to 'adjectival' -ing forms, as shown by the verb-based derivatives in (2.164): (2.164)

a

- That was undisturbing b. We were undisturbed

(Though some verbs show prefixation by an-, that set does not include disturb, etc.) The potential bases for such 'adjectival' participles are also restricted: central are verbs which take an experiencer object and a causal-source subject, such as perturb, surprise, astonish, delight, and so on; but not all such potential bases undergo both adjectivalisations (calm, seduce, etc.). And we also find, for instance, non-verbal bases such as that in five-legged (cf. e.g. Hirtle 1969). There is also much evidence of apparently idiosyncratic (non-compositional) formations, such as benighted, uplifting. Unlike the verbal construction of The result disturbed most of us, which shows object-formation, the adjectival (2.163a) spells out the 'experiencer' functor as to (cf. Fred was nice to us). In (2.163b) the 'experiencer' is subject and the 'source' of the disturbance, again not a 'bare' nominal, is marked with at. And we should note (2.165) a s a further possibility: (2.165) We were (very) disturbed by the result one containing by. We return below to this difference, and to the apparently 'passive' character of these adjectival constructions of (2.163b), (2.164b) and (2.165). The 'verbal' participles have, however, a verbal distribution, except that they, like adjectives, require a copula for forming a finite construction. As verbs they retain an element of 'dynamism': (2.165) (without very) is ambivalent in this respect ('statal' vs. 'non-statal'); and compare the sentences in (2.166): (2.166) a. The results were disturbing to us b. The results were disturbing us Like other verbs, the -ing form in (2.166b) takes an object, a 'bare' nominal, as non-subjective complement, and its phrase-internal syntax is that of a verb; and it has the 'dynamic' interpretation associated with the simple verb (and not the adjective). If thus, as with gerunds, we interpret 'verbal' participles as grammaticalisations, specifically syntacticisations, of (in their case) a verbal adjective, we can

Gradience and second-order categories 99 differentiate between them and 'adjectival' participles in terms of the 'secondorder' categorisations in (2.167): (2.167)

(P;(P:N)}

{(P:N);P)

participle

adjectivalisation

where (and henceforth) I substitute the terms participle and adjectivalisation for, respectively, 'verbal participle' and 'adjectival participle'. Again, the notation permits us to define an appropriate hierarchy, in this instance on the verb/ adjective dimension. It is not clear that in the case of the -ing forms we are considering there is an intermediate category parallel to the verbal noun discussed in the immediately preceding subsections (i.e. a {P:(P:N)} category). There is, it is true, a restricted set of (intransitive) forms that can occur in attributive position: (2.168) a. the (incessantly) falling rain b. (rapidly)risingunemployment But this looks like a 'leak' into (the first participle form of) the verb category from the adjectival: exceptionally, these verb forms occur attributively. But they contrast with the adjectivalisations in (2.169): (2.169)

a. (very) upstanding citizen b. (very) exciting games

in having a necessarily 'progressive', 'dynamic' interpretation. They do not correlate with an independent notional distinction vis-a-vis other verb uses. There is a similar 'leak' with -N/-T participles (transitive and intransitive): a captured enemy, a fallen tree. But here too, with -N/-T forms, we may also find an intermediate category. As well as the 'experiencer' formations of (2.163^165), we find another class of 'statal' -N/-T forms based on actional transitive verbs, which occur only with a (optional) by argument and are not gradable, but do show unprefixation: (2.170)

a. The fruit is (un)touched (by human hand) b. The island was (un)inhabited (by Glaswegians)

We can perhaps attribute to the forms in (2.170) - and perhaps to 'statal' by formations in general - the verbal adjective categorisation of (2.171): (2.171)

{P;(P:N)}

{P:(P:N)}

{(P:N);P}

participle

verbal adjective

adjectivalisation

If we do associate ^-complementation with verbal adjectives, then we can

ioo

Fundamentals of a notional theory

perhaps differentiate between pairs like (2.163b) and (2.165) above, repeated here: (2.163) (2.165)

b. Most of us were (very) disturbed (at the result) We were (very) disturbed by the result

as adjectivalisation (with directional complement) vs. verbal adjective (with agentive complement, marked with by). Huddleston (1984: §9.2) tentatively suggests even more extensive informal 'squishes' along the verb-adjective dimension, particularly in the case of -N/-T forms (cf. p. 324); but the distinctions he makes are accommmodated by the combination of categorial differentiation and categorial leak' proposed here.

2.6.5

Adjectival nouns/nominal adjectives in Japanese

All of the second-order categorisations discussed so far have involved one simplex member (P or functor), as in (2.171). I want now to look at evidence for a complex of complexes; this will lead to a reconsideration of one aspect of the complexes proposed in the preceding subsections. Many grammarians of Japanese have recognized a category interestingly referred to as either 'adjectival noun' or 'nominal adjective' (cf. e.g. Nakau 1973; Martin 1975: §§1, 3, 13.5a; Kageyama 1982; Miyagawa 1987). (2.172a) offers an example of such: (2.172)

a. Hanako ga kirei da H. NOM pretty AUX ('Hanako is pretty') b. Hanako ga utukusi-i H. NOM beautiful ('Hanako is beautiful')

while (b) contains an adjective. I shall refer to the putative category as adjectivenoun. Miyagawa (1987) specifically argues that adjectives and adjective-nouns be differentiated, in terms of an extension of the system of Chomsky 1970 (cf. §2.5.2 above), as in (2.173): (2.173)

[ + V] adjective

[ + V, +N] adjectival noun

such that for adjectives [±N] is neutralised, given that adjective-nouns share properties with nouns ( [ - V , +N]) which are not associated with adjectives including taking the da copula of (2.174):

Gradience and second-order categories (2.174)

IoI

Hanako ga sensei da H. NOM teacher AUX ('Hanako is a teacher')

Ohkado (1991) argues that such a characterisation is inappropriate, in that both adjectives and adjective-nouns share some other properties with nouns, as well as with verbs. He suggests that they are both categorially [+V, — N], so that the complication of neutralisation need not be introduced into the system of categorial classification; and that the alleged 'nominal' properties of adjective-nouns can to be accounted for otherwise. Now, it does seem that there are generalisations that involve a cross-class of adjectives, adjective-nouns and nouns (cf. e.g. Ohkado 1991: 79-80, on soo da replacement) and one of adjectives, adjective-nouns and verbs (cf. again Ohkado 1991: 80-1, on co-occurrence with -soo 'appear' and modification by zibun 'very (much)'; also Nakau 1973: §1.1.1). And Ohkado also points to a number of (positive and negative) properties shared exclusively by adjectives and adjectivenouns, such as their adverbial use, modification by totemo 'very', appearance in comparative constructions and rejection of the emphatic particles sae 'even', sura 'even' and mo 'also' (1991: 76-8; and see too Nakau 1973: 17-24, 26). But some of the evidence for the greater nouniness of adjective-nouns is not easily dismissed. Ohkado (1991: 70-2) points out that the form of the copula is not always the same with nouns and adjective-nouns; and he argues 'that the copula da is just one instance of the manifestation of INFL and that the surface forms of it in the context illustrated in [(2.172a)] and [(2.174)] happen to be the same'. But, even if the analysis in terms of 'INFL' is accepted, it is, other things being equal, unsatisfactory to have to say that its forms in the syntactically least marked context 'just happen to be the same' when in construction with nouns and adjective-nouns. Ohkado specifically cites, in support of the suggestion of 'coincidence', the discrepancy between the relativised forms of da with nouns and adjective-nouns {no vs. na)\ but, on the other hand, such overt marking of relativisation occurs only with the noun and adjective-noun constructions and not with verbs or adjectives (Nakau: 1973: 25-6). Martin also notes that 'where you would expect to hear A[djectival]N[oun] na N[oun] you may instead find, especially in written Japanese, AN no N* (1975: 766) Similarly, even though (Ohkado 1991: 72-4) not all speakers accept the adjective-noun + -mitai 'seem like' construction in (2.175a):

102 Fundamentals of a notional theory (2.175)

a. sizuka-mitai ('seems to be quiet') b. sensei-mitai ('seems like a teacher') c. *utukusi-mitai (' seems to be beautiful')

(cf. the acceptable noun and unacceptable adjective constructions in (b) and (c)), and though it may simply reflect a marginally acceptable 'leak' from the noun to the adjective-noun category, it does at least argue for hierarchical adjacency of the adjective-noun to the noun. We can allow for the distinctiveness of adjective-nouns and their hierarchical and cross-classificatory behaviour if they are accorded the categorisation in (2.176): (2.176)

{P:N) adjective

{(P:N),(P;N)} adjective-noun

{P;N} noun

involving a second-order (simple) combination (rather than dependency relations), a combination of internally complex categorisations. To the extent that notionally central 'nouns' and 'adjectives' respectively cluster in the noun and adjective classes (rather than the adjective-noun), the categorisations are also appropriate in notional terms. The Japanese adjective-noun involves, then, a second-order combination of subrepresentations which are both complex, P:N and P;N. In the light of such a possibility, let us return, briefly, to the characterisation of the various deverbal formations in English suggested in §§2.6.2, 2.6.4, repeated here: (2.136)

{P;(N;P)}

{P:(N;P)}

{(N;P);P)

gerund

verbal noun

nominalisation

participle

verbal adjective

adjectivalisation

(2.171)

And let us now observe that nominalisations are specifically deverb rather than deverbal: they are not based on modals. Given that verbs are {P;N}, more appropriate representations would involve the second-order complexes of (2.177): (2.177)

a. {(N;P);(P;N)} nominalisation

b. {(P:N);(P;N)} adjectivalisation

These formations are based on verbs, not onfinites,and they reflect the argument structures of such. They can be contrasted lexically with denominal and deadjectival verbs:

Gradience and second-order categories (2.178) a. {(P;N);(N;P)} denominal verb

103

b. {(P;N);(P:N)} deadjectival verb

illustrated respectively by embus, detomb, shovel, colonise, etc. and deepen, beautify, tidy, equalise, enlarge, etc. Verbal nouns and adjectives are correspondingly: (2.179) a. {(P;N):(N;P)} verbal noun

b. {(P;N):(P:N)} verbal adjective

again, appropriately, most marked. Calculations of weighting emerge as is shown for categories involving N;P (noun) in (2.180): (2.180)

a. {(P;N);(N;P)} = i2(9P::3N)::4(3N::iP) = ioP::6N = 5P-3N b. {(P;N):(N;P)) =4(3P::IN)::4(3N::IP) = 4P::4N= IP::IN c. {(N;P);(P;N)} = I2(9N::3P)::4(3P::IN) = 6P::ioN = 3P-5N

with the formations of (b) and (c), of course, being less verbal than gerunds, {P;(N;P)}, I3P::3N (recall (2.137a) above). The various kinds of non-finite, recall also, do not constitute lexical classes: all verbs are provided with such specifications by redundancy. The interesting question arises, however, as to whether, on the assumption of category continuity even with respect to derived representations, there is a lexical (or derived) category with reversal of the second-order dependency associated with gerunds, for example; i.e. a category characterised as in (2.181a): (2.181)

a. {(N;P);P} deauxiliary noun

b. {P;(N;P)} gerund

The {P} class is small - modals + have, be and do (which are {P}&{P;N}) and its members typically take verbal complements; so one can expect any derived class not to be numerous and its members to be complex. Possible examples are: (a) has been, (the) have nots, (the) can dos, (one of the great) might have beens, as well as the 'frozen' a must. Notice too, maybe, a formation established as an 'adjunct' - so { };{(N;P);P}. However, let us now note that not only nominalisations but also gerunds are based on verbs rather than verbals in general; and that the representation in (2.181b) is therefore more appropriate simply for denominal (finite) auxiliaries, if such there be (English need seems to be at least diachronically such), while that in (2.178a) is more suitable for gerunds. But how then are gerunds to be distinguished from denominal verbs, to which the characterisation in question was originally ascribed in (2.178a)? Certainly, denominal verbs are typically based on nouns in a particular semantic function (cf. e.g. Anderson 1984b: §§4.1-2), as with the examples embus (loc), detomb (abl) etc. listed above. Their

104 Fundamentals of a notional theory categorisation is thus more complex than that in (2.178a), which we can perhaps limit to gerunds. However, this scarcely captures the sense that gerunds are essentially deverbal nouns 'grabbed back' by the verbal system - syntacticisations of the nominalisation construction. For that, a more apposite suggestion would be a more complex representation of the character of {(P;N);((N;P);(P;N))} - which embeds the representation for a nominalisation within that for a verb. This representation proposed for gerunds involves, appropriately, 2 iP:: 1 iN. On similar grounds, we can also argue that a parallel complex forms the basis for the representation of participles. 2.7

Secondary categories

I have been careful to acknowledge that the preceding section was concerned with 'relative gradience'. This means, among other things, that for different speakers the 'turn-over-point' for particular categories may differ: not all speakers will necessarily agree with the individual judgments of Ross recorded in (2.154) and (2.157), f° r example. Further, languages may differ in their typical 'turnover-points' in terms of properties relevant to the verb-to-noun hierarchy, even when they show the same categorial distinctions. Thus, the -dikl-ecek 'verbal nouns' in Turkish, for instance, whatever their categorial specification - they seem to be nominalisations of participles (Lewis 1967: ch. ix, §7) - retain more verbal properties than any of the second-order verb-noun categories of English discussed in §§2.6.2-3, while being, like a noun, marked as ACC and showing a genitive argument: (2.182)

Cocuk-lar-a asagiya inip kendisi-ni sokak-ta child-PL-to down having-descended her-ACC street-in bekle-dik-leri-ni sb'yle-di await-VN-their-ACC say-m,PAST ('She told the children that having descended they waited for her in the street') (Comrie and Thompson 1985: 362; from Lewis 1967: 254)

The verbal noun (VN) beklediklerini not only takes an accusative (kendisini) cf. further Comrie and Thompson 1985: §2.1.2.1.3 - but is marked as non-future (by -dik rather than -ecek)\ in (2.182) there is no overt genitive argument, but it is signalled by the affix -led 'their'. Comrie and Thompson (1985: §2.1.1.1.3) also point to Turkish 'verbal nouns' in -me marked with the suffix -il also found in verbal passives, and with a genitive argument corresponding to the subject of a verbal passive (cf. Lewis 1967: ch. x, §7), as the genitive in (2.182) corresponds to an active subject. Their §2.1 is indeed concerned with illustrating the varying verbality/nominality of 'verbal nouns' in different languages; to the

Secondary categories

105

extent that this distribution is 'orderly', in Ross's sense, with respect to verbs and nouns, in particular, the position adopted here is quite compatible with there being varying 'turn-over-points' in categories intermediate between verbs and nouns. A crucial component in such comparative discussions of 'intermediate' primary categories is the observation that certain secondary categories are recurrently associated with particular primary categories or word classes. I suggested in §2.1 that there is a natural basis for these recurrences; that the notional character of particular word classes and of the secondary categories themselves forms a basis for explaining them. I now want to look at this suggestion in a little more detail; and, indeed, to try to articulate more explicitly the notion 'secondary category'. What is the internal structure of what I called in §2.2.3, o n analogy with the organisation of the phonetic features of the phonology, the 'secondary partition' of notional features? Let us firstly survey those categories that recur with particular word classes.

2.7. /

The notional basis for secondary categorisation

For Varro, verbs in Latin are words that vary in form to show Tense; nouns (wherein, as we should recall as general in the Classical tradition, he includes adjectives) inflect for Case (see e.g. Robins 1951: 54). And the intermediate category of participles exhibits both Tense forms and Case inflexions. There are, of course, problems with such characterisations as general definitions; and we have in what precedes established word classes on a different (and, to some extent, even more ancient) basis. Tense-marking on verbs is far from universal; and there are a few languages where Tense differences are marked on nouns, though in terms suggestive of a 'leak' from the verb class. Cf. e.g. S. R. Anderson (1985: 179), who offers the examples in (2.183) from Kwakw'ala: (2.183)

a

- xan xwakw'ana b. xan xwakw3na c. xsn xwakwsnxda

('my canoe') ('my future canoe') ('my past canoe')

Likewise, inflexion for Case is restricted in its distribution; and in some languages even apparently finite verbs can be inflected for Case, when functioning as a complement (secondary argument), as in the Kanuri (East Saharan) of (2.184): (2.184)

Sava-nyi ishin-ro tsmansna friend-my come+m,SG-DAT think+m,SG,PERF ('I thought my friend would come') (Noonan 1985: 47, from Lukas 1967)

106 Fundamentals of a notional theory The DAT marker attached to the subordinate finite verb in (2.184) can be seen to be attached to the pronominal goal argument in (2.185): (2.185)

Ava-nz3-ye shi-ro kurj3na father-his-NOM him-DAT money ('His father gives him money')

cin give+m,SG

while (2.186) illustrates independent use of the finite which is subordinate in (184): (2.186) Sava-nyi ishin friend-my come+m,SG ('My friend is coming') However, both traditional associations (noun and Case, and verb and Tense) are recurrent. If one includes in the notion 'case', as recommended by e.g. Hjelmslev (1935/37), expression by adposition and position, i.e. if (as suggested here) one equates 'case' and functor, then the noun-'case' association is arguably universal (with substantives). This of course removes us from the domain of putative morphological definitions of the word classes, and of the traditional secondary categories, but it does highlight a correlation with our proposed notional characterisations (§2.1.1 above). Morphological Case and, more generally, functors are associated with nouns - or, again more generally, nominal or 'name' phrases - because as names the latter provide stable labels for arguments whose functions are specified by functors: having preponderant N, they constitute primary arguments. Other secondary categories recurrently associated with nouns again reflect their status as potential stable labels: Gender, in the wide, 'noun class' sense (cf. for instance Dixon 1982: §5.2; Craig 1986a; Corbett 1989) - including, for instance, the prefix systems of Bantu (e.g. Manessy 1967; Denny and Creider 1986), and involving classification by relatively stable (though sometimes obscured) properties; Definiteness and Specificity marking (as Basque liburu-a 'book-the'), enhancing the naming capacity; variation in Number, which allows for discrete manifestations of a name. S. R. Anderson (1985: §2.1.1) appropriately groups these latter as 'inherent' categories of the noun, whereas Case is 'relational'. Case is certainly syntagmatic; and some of the 'inherent' categories (but typically not Gender) are paradigmatic, in the sense of each of their members being available to (a set of) nouns (or rather name phrases). Thus, LIBER is Masculine, but it may be realised as either Singular or Plural. But Case is also specifically rectional; in traditional terms, unless it is 'adverbial' (recall §2.5.3), it is determined by a governing predicator and/or functor.

Secondary categories 107 Anderson (1979&; 1986c; to appear b) suggests that rection - determination of a secondary category by presence of (members) of a class (recall §2.3.3; and see §3.2 for a more formal statement) - 'follows' dependency; in a sense, it is one manifestation of government (traditionally, as we've noted, an alternative label for rection itself). Conversely, concord typically proceeds contradependency: heads attract the (secondary) category values of their subordinates. From such a perspective, it is significant that nominals, while very generally showing (the results of) rection, are characteristically not agreement targets. S. R. Anderson (1985: §2.1.3), f° r instance, notes that 'rules of agreement in most languages function to copy inherent or relational features from nouns onto other parts of the structure, rather than the other way round, and it is thus quite rare to find a situation in which nouns are marked for some feature to agree with something else'. I suggest that this correlates with the other aspect of their notional character, as minimally P, minimally predicative/relational: they are not typically complementees, and thus not typically in an agreement-target position. The major exception, nominal agreement with a possessor, is illustrated by the Turkish (2.187): (2.187)

Ali'nin gomleg-i Ali+GEN shirt-poss ('Ali's shirt')

(Swift 1963: 207; cf. Lewis 1967: ch. Ill, §17)

where the non-genitive is inflected as 'possessed' (POSS). Some languages distinguish in this respect between 'alienable' and 'inalienable' possession (bodyparts, kinship, etc.): in Algonquian the latter are always Possessed (Bloomfield 1946: §32). Inalienable possession, at least, involves nouns which are inherently relational, as recognised overtly in Algonquian; in the case of kinship terms in Algonquian, the Possessed forms are indeed (derivatively) morphologically verbal (cf. again Bloomfield 1946: §32). Even agreement with alienable possessions can be related to the effects of determinerisation: see Anderson to appear b. At any rate, nouns are only marginally agreement targets. Verbals, on the other hand, show agreement with categories of their arguments, commonly in Person and Number, sometimes in Gender or Definiteness/ Specificity (S. R. Anderson 1985: §2.2.3), consonant with their relational centrality as preponderantly P. And most of the many 'relational' categories listed by Anderson (§2.2.2) as associated with the verb are non-rectional; rather, they involve registering on the verb the number of arguments (transitivity) or (derivational) changes therein (detransitivisation, causativisation), or 'foregrounding' or (non-)coreference of arguments (voice, reflexivity, reciprocity, cross-reference and switch-reference). This again reflects the verb's relational centrality, as

108 Fundamentals of a notional theory asserted by a number of scholars over the years (see e.g. Miller 1985, for some discussion), and as made explicit in dependency grammars; in the present framework, this is a property of P. Subordinate verbals are, of course, accessible to rection. Participles and infinitives, for instance, as forms of the verb, are often selected by a governing verbal (e.g. an auxiliary - recall §2.3.3 above); and relativisation of the verb reflects subordination to a nominal head. Typically, a 'subjunctive' form is required by the presence of a particular governing verb class. Thus, what Noonan (1985: §3.1) describes as the 'discourse-dependent' complement of Spanish commentative verbs: (2.188)

Lamento que Juan I-regret that Juan

salga/*sale

esta noche

leave+m,SGSUBj/*iNDic this night

(Noonan 1985: 98)

is headed by a subjunctive rather than an indicative verb. We return to these phenomena in §3.6, and briefly in §2.7.3; n e r e I a m concerned merely to indicate that they are not incompatible with the central relational status of verbals. It is perhaps significant in this regard that most instances of rection of a verbal involve another verbal as trigger. As S. R. Anderson (1985: 189) observes, 'a complete catalog of the distinctions in meaning that can be indicated formally by verbs in the languages of the world ... would be extraordinarily long and difficult', and, as concerns inherent' categories, 'the bulk of the "complete catalog" would come in this area'. The most recurrent inherent' categories, however, are associated with the predication's relation to 'event-descriptions' (Tense, Aspect) or 'propositions' (Polarity) and 'speech acts' (Modality, including evidentiality/inferentiality/ report). These again clearly relate to the verbal's predicativity/relational centrality, but also, particularly in the case of Tense and Aspect, to the minimality of the N feature, and thus to the description of mutability. Verbals are associated with event-specificity rather than entity-specificity. I am suggesting, then, that there is a natural notional relationship between the primary categories which define the word classes noun and verb and the (types of) secondary categories which are recurrently expressed in the morphology of these word classes. Let us, however, try now to be a little more precise about this relationship. 2.J.2

Periphrasis and nominal categories

Thus far we have envisaged the formal relationship between primary and secondary categorisation as involving in all cases a simple partition of features,

Secondary categories

109

with the primary partition being the determinant of basic syntactic structure. But one striking characteristic of the secondary features of verbals and nominals is that the distinctions they make may also be made, in most instances at least, though not necessarily in the same language, by periphrases, involving typically closed-class, or functional-category items bearing some syntactic relation (for us to make precise in what follows) to the 'full' word class which might otherwise (elsewhere in the same language, or in another language) signal morphologically what the periphrasis conveys. We have already recognised and partially implemented in our analysis such a relationship between adpositions and Case: Cases are functors that are not independently serialised; alternatively, as Hjelmslev (1935/37) and others have recognised, adpositions are periphrastic Cases. What I am now going to argue is that such relationships are typical of the traditionally recognised secondary categories of nouns and verbs, and that this is crucial to our understanding of their status. Thus, distinctions in Gender may be marked morphologically, as in Latin, or Swahili, or Dyirbal, or the Sesotho of (2.189), where 'the numbers refer to the concordial classes which agree with each of the nouns' (Demuth et al. 1986: 456): (2.189)

mo-tho e-mo-holo 6-rata o-ntja e-ntle ea-hae 1-person 1-1-big i-like 9-dog 9-beautiful 9-1 (The old man/woman likes his/her beautiful dog')

or by the presence of different classifiers (cf. e.g. Denny 1976; Allan 1977), as in the Yidiny of (2.190), with 'generic' classifiers mayi and bama: (2.190)

Mayi jimirr bama-al yaburu-ngu vegetable yam person-ERG girl-ERG (The girl-person dug up the yam-vegetable')

julaal dig+PAST (Dixon 1982: 185)

Indeed, according to Craig (1986a: 4), 'Jacaltec ... is an example of a noun classifier system at the fuzzy edges between prototypical noun classes and prototypical sets of numeral classifiers' (cf. Craig 1986/?). Similarly, Definiteness can be marked morphologically, as in Basque (liburu 'book' vs. liburu-a 'the book'), or by an 'article', as in English; and 'unreduced' (demonstrative) deictic categories associated with the noun may be manifested morphologically, as in Yuma la1 ve-va-c 'snake-this-NOM' (Halpern 1946: 263), or periphrastically, by demonstrative {this snake). We find Number marked both in the morphology and by periphrasis: by special plural markers, as often in Polynesian (Krupa 1982: 101), as well as by quantifiers/numerals many, two, three,... men vs. one man. In some languages, such as Hungarian, Plural marking is normally excluded in constructions with numerals/quantifiers.

I io

Fundamentals of a notional theory

Such mutual exclusiveness can be regarded as reflecting at least partial equivalence. Often a single periphrastic head realises more than one secondary category, as in the Samoan nominal phrases of (2.191): (2.191) a. b. c. d.

le va'a va'a se va'a ni va'a

('the canoe') ('the canoes') ('a canoe') ('canoes')

(Krupa 1982: 100-1)

Cf. too English this/these vs. that/those and the like. In Tongan Number and Gender are co-expressed: kau 'plural marker used for people' ...,fanga 'plural marker for animals and objects qualified by the word/:/'/ 'small'. (Krupa 1982: 101) [italics (and some minor punctuation) added - JMA] Compare here the plural classifiers of Jacaltec (Craig 19866: §1.2). Such coexpression parallels the cumulation typical of inflexional systems. And elsewhere we also find agglutination of morphemes which express periphrastically notions associated with nominal secondary categories, as in Yagua jiy-nu jddcachoonu 'this-animate/singular parakeet' (Payne 1986: 125). What are we to make of these similarities in expression, and of the general parallelism between inflexion and periphrasis? Let us approach this via our earlier look at Case and functors. In §2.2.21 associated the Finnish Inessive with the configuration repeated here from (2.31) above - wherein the functor and nominal nodes are serialised simultaneously, with the secondary categories associated with the former being reflected in the morphology of the manifesting item, whose root realises the {N} component: (2.3O

b.

.

{ }{loc,int)

I

{N}

maassa

('in (the) country')

Contrast the independently sequenced functors in the English of (2.27') above, partly replicated in (2.192):

Secondary

categories

ill

(2.192)

}{agt}

by

{N}

Hannibal

This embodies the notion that secondary category of Case is simply a functor denied independent (periphrastic) expression. Distinctions otherwise associated with different members of the functor category (realising lexical features of dimensionality, motion, orientation) are reflected in the morphology of the manifesting item (recognised in traditional classifications involving 'adessives', 'inessives', 'allatives', 'superessives', etc.). However, independent functors and Cases can co-occur, as in the familiar Latin examples of (2.193a): (2.193)

a

- Ad urbem iit b. Romam iit

('He went to (the) city') ('He went to Rome')

Cf. (b) with only a morphological functor. Such instances cannot be identified with the Finnish postposition construction discussed in §2.2.2, and illustrated by (2.32), once more repeated here: (2.32)

}{loc,int}

{ Kgen}

I

{N}

{N}

kanssa

pojan

'with'

'boy'

which involves an inflected nominal governing a Case-marked further nominal. (2.193a) shows no evidence of such a structure. It may be that Latin prepositions are, nevertheless, nominals of fixed inflexion which are complemented by an inflected nominal; but let us examine an analysis involving less covertness.

112 Fundamentals of a notional theory In this connexion, we should also recall that a single Latin preposition may be in construction with different Cases: (2.194)

a. In portu navigo in harbour+ABL I-sail ('I'm sailing in harbour') b. in magnificam domum venire in grand+ACC house+ACC to-come ('to come into a grand house') (Gildersleeve and Lodge 1895: 246, 214)

The Case inflexion discriminates 'motion whither' from 'place where' - as we're all no longer taught. These Cases express inflexionally features otherwise associated with lexical classes of verbs/adpositions; specifically, they express a subpart of the subcategorisational requirements of these classes: they differentiate their valencies. We can represent the situation rather more fully as in (2.195), with (a) and (b) therein corresponding to (2.194a) and (b) respectively, and (c) to (2.191b): (2.195)

a.

b.

{/{loc}

{/{loc}} {loc ,int}

{loc

in

portu

{P;N/{locgoal}

{loc ,int}

{loc,goal}

venire

c.

{P;N/{ locgoal}} {loc,goal} Romam

{ }; {loc,goal} {P*,N/{ locgoal}} {N}

nt

Romam

nt

Secondary categories

113

where the secondary categories are shown overtly as associated with the primary (rather than this being signalled simply by juxtaposition, and the Latin ABL = { } {loc} and ACC = { } {goal} (not necessarily loc). Latin nouns are subject to a redundancy which assigns to them a governing empty category which may or may not be associated with an independent node in the syntactic tree. In (2.i95a-b) the dependency is intracategorial. Whereas the Romam name in (2.193b), of course, does not require an independent functor, and so, as involving an intercategorial dependency, introduces two nodes in the syntactic tree, as shown in (2.195c). The directional verbs are subcategorised for an argument that is both ioc' and 'goal', such that the 'goal' component may optionally be part of the subcategorisation of the 'loc'. But again the morphology expresses a configuration which in other circumstances is associated with an adposition, as the alternative presentation on the right in (2.195c) perhaps makes clearer. We can think of the inflexional Case system of a language like Finnish as involving partial morphologisation: here the Case-marked nominals have the (syntactic) role of functors. The Case system of the examples in (2.i95a-b) is fully morphologised: the Cases in themselves do not have syntactic consequences. These represent different degrees of incorporation. Latin as a whole is a mixed system, with (2.195c) showing only partial morphologisation. Such is typical of the 'older' Indo-European languages. But in both instances the Cases are provided to nominals by morphosyntactic redundancy, such as will be elaborated below. The inherent' secondary nominal categories are susceptible to a similar account, as involving partial morphologisation: they involve elements capable of independent syntactic expression and, though not given such in these instances (of morphologisation), nevertheless retaining a syntactic role. Classifiers and Gender, for instance, can be differentiated as independent vs. superjoined incorporated - transitive {N}s, so structurally perhaps as in (2.196): (2.196)

a.

b.

{N/}{class a )

{N;P}

{N/} {class a )

I

{N;PJ

Classifiers are subcategorised for a nominal (where the precise character of the specification is left open in (2.196)), though in many languages the classifier may also occur intransitively: 'in Burmese, classifiers are the

114 Fundamentals of a notional theory only forms that correspond to third person inanimate pronouns in other languages' (Dixon 1982: 212; cf. too Craig (1986Z?: § 1.1) on Jacaltec). Classifiers and Gender are usually mutually exclusive (Sanches and Slobin 1973), as alternative, syntactic and partially morphologised, expressions of a particular {N} type, though occasionally a language may show co-existing subsystems of classifiers and Gender (see again Craig 1986b). Gender involves an incorporated classificatory {N}; as such, the {N} is provided to nouns ({N;P}) by the morphology. (As elsewhere in this discussion, incorporation' should not be given a 'processual' interpretation; it refers to a morphological vs. a syntactic status.) A similar interpretation seems to be appropriate with definiteness and Number/ numeral, except that the latter, at least, very often shows 'agreement' rather than simple (non-)incorporation. Thus, Number in English, for example, shows both 'agreement' and simple incorporation: these men, (the) men; whereas, as noted, Hungarian has only independent serialisation of the quantifier or incorporation (as Plurality) - recall (2.191). We should note too that some classifier systems, as well as (of course) Gender, also exhibit agreement (cf. once more Craig 1986Z?: §1.1; Demuth et al. 1986). We return briefly in §2.7.5 to the expression of 'agreement' in the syntax. The suggestion of such a relationship - as is embodied in (2.196) - between e.g. classifiers and Gender is not, of course, to deny 'grammatical differences' (Dixon 1982: 213) between them. But the fact that one variant is (inflexional-) morphological and the other not accounts for most of these: Gender typically exhausts the class of nominals, whereas some nominals may be normally not accompanied by a classifier; classifiers are often optional, or are permitted/ required only in the presence of a numeral (Indonesian), or a numeral or a demonstrative, or a possessive; a single noun may co-occur with different classifiers; sets of classifiers are in general more numerous in their membership, and the membership may be fuzzy-edged (Yidiny). So too, again, with Number and numerals/quantifiers, and definiteness affixes and articles. Thus, for instance, numeral systems are typically larger than Number systems; though in some Australian languages this is scarcely the case (Hale 1975). It is also suggestive, concerning the posited relationship, that some Gender systems seem to have developed from an earlier classifier system (Creider 1975; Denny and Creider 1976; Dixon 1982: §§5.4, 6.5); and cf. e.g. S. R. Anderson (1985: 178) on the development of the Swedish and Norwegian Definiteness marker. That is, in some instances at least, the notion of morphologisation/incorporation can, after all, be interpreted diachronically in 'processual' terms.

Secondary categories

115

I am interpreting these inherent secondary nominal categories, then, as transitive names/pronouns ({N/}) which, unlike the corresponding periphrases, take their subcategorised nominal in subjunction; their valency is satisfied internally. Their relationship with the primary category is not only notionally non-arbitrary but also structurally identical (barring sequencing) to that of potential namephrase heads. However, whereas classifiers etc. are offered independently to the syntax, the Gender etc. configuration is created in the morphology. That is, in languages with the appropriate secondary (morphological) categories, nouns can be provided with the appropriate governing category lexically, by morphosyntactic redundancies of the character of (2.3 ic) above, for Case in a language like Finnish, repeated here: (2.3D

c.

{ }"<{C} I {N} =» where C is a variable over the set of conjunctions of case features

with that category then determining their syntactic distribution. The secondary categories are morphologisations of configurations which are elsewhere expressed syntactically (periphrastically), and they and their members are differentiated by lexical features also required in the lexicon to distinguish between, say, deictics and numerals and among the deictics. We return in the next subsection to the generation of the configurations which I am suggesting carry the instantiation of secondary categories. Historically, as noted, some Gender systems at least are patently 'processual' morphologisations of classifier constructions. Similarly, many classifiers are transparently grammaticalisations of nouns (specifically 'class terms'), and some items retain a distribution as such, even, in some cases, apparently (contra Allan 1977), without a difference in meaning (between classifier and noun). Adams (1986: 245) cites Vietnamese ngu'o'i 'people': 'this form occurs as a classifier, as an independent noun and as part of nominal compounds all with the same meaning'. The Tai system described by DeLancey (1986) is indeed suggestive of a classifier-noun squish, with {N} and {N;P} as the endpoints. §3.7 takes up the character of the differentiation between different kinds of transitive name, or determiners, including the nature of their subcategorisation (left open in (2.196)), and thus also the character of the secondary categories. Here I proceed to examine the viability of such a strategy - of associating the traditional secondary categories and periphrases - in relation to the secondary categories of verbals. In the first place, let us consider whether we can take (2.196b) to be characteristic of inherent (secondary) categories.

116 Fundamentals of a notional theory 2.7.3

Periphrasis and verbal categories

The recurrent inherent verbal categories are indeed also matched crosslinguistically with corresponding periphrastic expressions, involving typically closed-class auxiliaries. There are thus languages with tense and/or aspect auxiliaries (cf. the Wunambal of (2.53a) or the discussion of tense and aspect particles in Polynesian by Krupa 1982: 108-10), as well as those with morphological Tense/Aspect. Negation too may be expressed by the presence of an auxiliary (as in Finnish: (2.58)) or by verbal inflexion (e.g. in Agaw: Appleyard 1984; Chickasaw: S. R. Anderson 1985: 165; Abkhaz: see (2.197) below). Evidentiality and other, more traditional, modal notions are also expressed either inflexionally or by periphrasis. Thus, for instance, as well as the modal periphrases of e.g. English, we find the 'potential' verb forms of Abkhaz etc.: if in Abkhaz the verb is negated then the morphological 'potential' form of (2.197a) is an alternative to the periphrasis of (b): (2.197) a. Sa-

z- co-m

I,SG,ABS-POT-gO-NEG

('I can't go') b. A-ca-ra sa- 1- so- yt' ART-go-iNFi,SG,DAT-PREV-possible-FiN

(Hewitt 1979: §2.1.3.4.7)

These categories are apparently paradigmatic: they correspond to Number among the nominal categories rather than to Gender. In some languages, however, we do find a verbal analogue to Gender/classifiers. Such are the 'classifiers' of the Athapaskan languages (Landar 1967: §111), or the 'auxiliaries' of the North Kimberley group of Australian languages. In the latter, verbs, which are uninflecting, are classified by the inflecting 'auxiliary' with which they are accompanied, and which mostly can also occur without another verb. The semantic relation between verb and 'generic' auxiliary is varyingly transparent. Dixon (1980: 427) notes for Ungarinyin the correlations in table 2.4. The semantic connection, if any, underlying some of these correlations, even allowing for an abstract, 'metaphorical' interpretation of e.g. wa, is at the very least 'uncertain in default of a detailed study of the semantic systems of these languages' (Dixon 1980: 427). But they form a plausible analogue to noun classifiers - though the latter are unsurprisingly, given the classificatory character of nouns, much more frequently encountered. Austin (1981: §3.5.10) and Donaldson (1980: ch. 7) provide further exemplification and discussion of 'generic'/'classificatory' auxiliaries.

Secondary categories

117

Table 2.4: Verbal classifiers in Ungarinyin Verb

Auxiliary

dadayi 'clothe' barruwi 'satisfy' darrag 'enter' mardu 'walk' jolij 'return' goyij 'drink' nyirrijba 'sew' lay 'like, desire' wej 'sleep' malurjorjo 'echo'

rjurlu 'give' a 'come/go' II II II II

wa 'fall'

Similarly, Gender-like verb classification - as opposed to differentiation within the verb, via agreement, of nominal Gender classes - is relatively uncommon. The most widespread manifestation of inherent classification involves differential marking of Stative vs. Active verbs. Thus, Ubykh Stative verbs display different Tense/Aspect possibilities and realisations from Actives (S. R. Anderson 1985: 190-1). And in Chamorro Statives differ from Actives in Number agreement, as well as many of them bearing a particular 'fossilized prefix' (Chung and Timberlake 1985: 233). With these cases of inherent categories and their corresponding periphrases, suggestion of a similar relationship to that between nominal secondary categories and periphrases seems to be appropriate, as expressed, schematically, for the moment, in (2.198): (2.198)

a.

b.

{P/}

{P;N}

{P/J

I {P;N}

Such secondary verbal categories are morphosyntactically incorporated transitive P elements. Abkhaz provides some interesting support for a configuration such as (2.198b) as a characterisation of the morphological 'potential'. Notice that a transitive verb, otherwise marked when finite for its absolutive and ergative arguments, as in (2.199a) (Hewitt 1979: §2.1.1.2.2):

118

Fundamentals of a notional theory

(2.199)

a. Wa-

p5-

r-

q'o-yt'

II,MASC,SG,ABS-PREV-III,PL,ERG-CUt-FIN

('They cut you') b. YaS3z5- q'a- c'o-m III,SG,ABS-I,SG,DAT-POT-PREV-d0-NEG

('I can't do it') appears in (b) (Hewitt 1979: §2.1.34.7), when the 'potential' affix is incorporated therein, in a form which shows a DAT (preceding PREV) corresponding to the usual ERG (which follows PREV, if present, as in (a)). As Hewitt remarks, this (DAT) affix 'is in effect, "governed" by the potential marker' (1979:194): I think his quotation marks are superfluous, in so far as the 'potential' affix realises the head of the verbal configuration, as in (2.198b), and as such it imposes a DAT argument, just like the 'potential' verb in (2.197b). We have a striking parallel between the unincorporated and the incorporated construction. Informally, and as suggested by the traditional terminology, it is apparently a 'copying' strategy which characterises the 'agreement', or concord, categories of verbs: 'copying' from a nominal argument (of Person, Number, sometimes Gender, Definiteness) on to either the head of a periphrasis or on to a 'simple' verb (He writes, He has written). Such represents a rather traditional view of concord, appropriate perhaps for English. However, in many languages, the putative 'original' of the 'copy' may not be given overt expression, but the 'copy' rather simply appears as an incorporation; as when the 'source' nominal would otherwise be an unfocussed simplex variable name, or pronoun, in socalled 'pro-drop' or 'null'-subject languages (e.g. Chomsky 1981: §4.3; Rizzi 1982: ch. iv), like Italian, as illustrated in (2.2ooa-d): (2.200) a. b. c. d. e.

Ho trovato la lampadina Abbiamo trovato la lampadina Ha trovato la lampadina Fafreddo Giuseppe ha trovato la lampadina

('I found the lightbulb') ('We found the lightbulb') C(S)he found the lightbulb') ('It's cold') ('G. found the lightbulb')

with, in such circumstances, Person/Number of the subject being marked only on the verb. Indeed, we can say that all the sentences in (2.200) except (e) lack syntactic subjects; subjecthood is morphosyntactic only. That is, with serialisation, we can represent (2.2ooe) and (c), omitting a number of details, as in (2.201a) and (b), respectively:

Secondary categories 119 (2.201)

b. ..

a.

{sbj}

{P/}

{Pi N)

{P/}

I

{P N}

{sbj}

{sbj} {III SG}

Giuseppe

ha

trovato

Ha

trovato

(2.201a) contains two manifestations of subjecthood, apparently, one syntactic, the other morphosyntactic. The subject in (2.201b) is incorporated; it receives only morphosyntactic expression. We take up the topic of subject-formation in more detail in chapter 3 (particularly §§3.3.1, 3.3.4); but the suggestion I have just made concerning a distinction between syntactic vs. morphosyntactic subjects demands some further comment at this point. Anderson (1985&; 1988), for instance, distinguishes between 'cyclic' and 'post-cyclic' subject-formation, such that, for example, in an 'existential there' sentence such as (2.202a): (2.202)

a. There are two philosophers in the room b. There seem to be two philosophers in the room

There, the 'cyclic' subject, occupies subject position and is susceptible to 'raising', as in (b), the 'post-cyclic' subject, two philosophers, controls concord on the most immediately superordinate finite. Discrepancies arise between 'cyclic' and 'post-cyclic' subject because, although both are selected in accordance with the same hierarchy of case relations (functor types - see §3.1), and hence the term 'subject' is appropriate to both, with some predicators particular functor types may be projected out of the hierarchy (with respect to selection as 'cyclic' or 'post-cyclic' subject), and expletivisation invoked (in the former case), as in (2.202).

Here I prefer the terms syntactic and morphosyntactic subject, in order to avoid commitment to the notion of 'cycle' (which is not a primitive property of the present valency-driven approach), and as a reminder that the morphosyntactic subject need not be realised as an independent syntactic element. Indeed,

120 Fundamentals of a notional theory I suggest provisionally that Giuseppe in (2.2ooe/2oia) is a syntactic subject only; as such it is required to agree with the (incorporated) morphosyntactic subject. Whereas it is the incorporated concord nominal in English that must agree with the overt morphosyntactic subject, such as two philosophers in (2.232). We return below to the mechanism whereby such agreement requirements may be expressed. At this point, let us pursue a little the consequences of recognising the discrepancy between syntactic and morphosyntactic subjects and of typological differences in the status of these. Anderson (1988: 25-6) argues further that 'inverted' Italian sentences such as (2.203a): (2.203) a. Sono rimasti dei profughi ungheresi nel paese have remained some refugees Hungarian in-the country ('Some Hungarian refugees remained in the country') b. Dei profughi ungheresi sonorimastinel paese ('Some Hungarian refugees remained in the country') (cf. Perlmutter (1983), who terms these 'impersonate') lack a syntactic subject. Thus, as Perlmutter observes, such 'inverted' arguments as dei profughi ungheresi in (2.203a) fail to 'raise'; cf. (2.204a) and (b): (2.204)

a

- Sembrano essererimastidei profughi ungheresi nel paese b. Dei profughi ungheresi sembrano essererimastinel paese ('Some Hungarian refugees seem to have remained in the country')

In such constructions, with a potential syntactic subject which is not a variable name, formation of a syntactic subject is optional; whereas in (2.200), as noted, except for (e), there is no syntactic subject; in all cases we have a morphosyntactic subject. Other properties that have been associated with the 'pro-drop parameter' fall out from the assumption of optionality of syntactic subject-formation in Italian. Thus, it is unsurprising that the argument of abbia visto in (2.205) tna t: is coreferential with Vuomo can undergo 'long w/z-movement': (2.205)

l'uomo che mi domando chi abbia visto ('the manj that I wonder whom (hej) saw')

(Chomsky 1981: 240)

or that the argument of partira in (2.206): (2.206) Chi credi che partira ('Whoj do you think that ((s)he; will leave?') appears to violate the ^[that-t] filter' (idem), since, given the optionality of subject formation, they are not syntactic subjects in Italian, and thus not constrained as such (Rizzi 1982: ch. iv, §4). In English, on the other hand, syntactic subject

Secondary categories

121

formation within dominant P predications is pervasive, necessitating e.g. the presence of the default ('expletive') subject there of (2.202). The obvious major exception is perhaps with the dependent predicator (auxiliate) in passives, whose syntax again might be said to devolve, in a sense, around absence of subjectformation - but the passive predicator itself is at least non-finite. Passive is one of S. R. Anderson's (1985: §2.2.2) 'relational' categories. It too is expressed either inflexionally (as in Latin delebitur 'it will be destroyed') or by periphrasis (Latin deletum est 'it has been destroyed'). If, however, each of the finites in (2.207) is a 'raising' verb, as suggested in §2.6.4, so that its subject is an argument of the subordinate non-finite: (2.207)

a

- Fred happened to kill the duckling b. Fred had killed the duckling c. The duckling was killed by Fred

then, whereas (2.207a) and (b) show 'raising' of the subordinate subject, what is 'raised' in (c) is not a subject. Bohm (1993: §3.1) associates this with lack of subject-formation in the subordinate predication in (c), such that, in the absence of a subject, the term next on the subject-selection hierarchy (§3.1 below) undergoes 'raising', to become eventually the subject of the superordinate. See too Anderson 1986b; 1992b: ch. 4; and the more detailed discussion in §§3.3-4 below. All I want to indicate at this point is the possible relevance of absence of subject formation to phenomena other than those associated with 'pro-drop'; indeed, as we shall find, the recognition of such a possibility has extensive explanatory potential. I also do not pursue here the relationship with finites between subject incorporation and absence of syntactic-subject-formation. Following Jaeggli and Safir (1989) and others, one might associate absence of a syntactic subject for finites with a distinctive 'morphologically uniform paradigm' for finites - thus excluding e.g. English, which shows frequent identity of stem, infinitive and finite form. However, not all languages with such morphology permit the absence of pronominal subjects (cf. e.g. Sigurdsson 1993, on Icelandic); and, on the other hand, absence of syntactic-subject-formation is a much more general phenomenon than is involved in examples like (2.230): I have already indicated this in relation to (2.233); and see too Anderson 1977: ch. 3; 1979b; 1980b; 1986b; 1988; 1992b: chs. 3 and 4 - and the further discussion in §3.3.2 below. Moreover, there is no necessary association between 'pro-drop' (absence of syntactic subject) and 'inversion' (presence of a potential syntactic subject, optionally unsubjectivised): Safir (1985: ch. 6) shows, for instance, that Portuguese is a 'pro-drop' language which lacks '(free) inversion'.

122 Fundamentals of a notional theory As well as the familiar Person/Number agreement we have been concerned with here we should also note the Gender incorporation evidenced in e.g. the Athapascan languages (cf. e.g. Dixon 1982: §8.4.2). In this case, different classes of noun correlate with suppletive variants of certain verbs. Thus, 'in all the Apachean languages there is no simple verb to give but a number of parallel verb themes consisting of a certain sequence of prefixes plus a classificatory verb stem. The sequence of prefixes is the same for each theme but the stem varies with the class of objects referred to ...' (Hoijer 1945: 13-15). Suppletion is a less common morphological carrier of concord than affixation, but not unknown elsewhere. Compare the marking of Number by verb suppletion in Luiseno or Udak (Moravcsik 1978), or in the Eastern Porno examples of (2.208): (2.208) a. sa'k' 'kill one' b. ka' 'one sits'

vs. vs.

du'ley 'kill more than one' nafph6 'more than one sits' (McLendon 1978; Anderson 1980&)

with suppletion marking the Number of the Absolutive argument. Here too belongs, as involving agreement in class-marking, the signalling of the Gender class of the relativised argument in a Swahili relative clause on the verb of that clause (Keenan 1985: 161). Again, I suggest that (2.208) and the like involve incorporation of a configuration such as that in (2.201): concord consists of incorporation 'from below'; inherent categories are incorporated 'from above', as in (2.196) and (2.198). That is, concord involves a subjoined configuration otherwise expressed by a complement of the item concerned; whereas inherent categories have the 'full word' category subjoined to them and they are otherwise expressed by an element (a periphrastic head) that takes the 'full word' as a complement. As we would expect, incorporation 'from below' is characteristic of the relationally central verbals; its pervasiveness with them follows from a high preponderance of P. The 'incorporation' terminology again perhaps suggests that the (secondary) elements involved are 'incorporated' in the course of building syntactic structure. And Anderson (1972), for example, pursues just such a strategy. But once more such configurations can be constructed by morphosyntactic redundancy, as suggested in §2.7.2 above: recall (2.31c) as a formulation of incorporation 'from above'. However, with concord of subject (etc.), if there is an external (morpho-)syntactic subject, as in (2.203) (but not (2.200), apart from (e)), the configuration redundantly subjoined to the verb must 'agree' with the relevant nominal categories of external subject, as in (2.201a): as already indicated in the preceding subsection, we return to the characterisation of this, and to the differences implied by the 'pro-drop' phenomenon, in §2.7.5.

Secondary categories

123

With the nominal 'relational' property of Case, involving rection, we have, as with inherent categories, incorporation 'from above' (as in (2.225) above)), but here there is an external category given independent syntactic expression whose valency must be satisfied by the rectee. We can still maintain the traditional distinction between agreement, or concord, and rection, in so far as morphosyntactically the former involves inflexional expression of shared categories whereas with rection paradigmaticity is manifested only on the rectee. And the generalisation offered in §2.2.2 above is maintained: rection accompanies dependency, concord is anti-dependency. But we have now also explicitly characterised both concord and Case rection in terms of subjunction; and rection of Case involves satisfaction by a functor superjoined to a noun of the valency of a higher category, while concord involves 'agreement' of a subjoined functor phrase with a lower category. In the light of this, let us turn now to the (other) 'relational' categories discussed by S. R. Anderson with respect to verbs (1985: §2.2.2). These are rather a 'mixed bag', but incorporation/subjunction strategies are also appropriate in the case of most of them, at least, such as those marking Focus, Reflexivity, Reciprocity, Cross- and Switch-reference, which involve the relation between the predicator and one or more arguments, and those marking detransitivisation and causativity (valency change). Of these, causativisation involves incorporation 'from above'; the others, 'from below'. Further, causativisation, though conforming to this characteristic of inherent categories, is apparently highly lexical (i.e. derivational or word-formational, rather than inflexional - and typically exhibits semantic and lexical exceptionality - cf. e.g. Comrie 1985b; but also §2.7.4 below), and so neither paradigmatic nor rectional. Reflexivisation, however, is typical of the others in involving the incorporation ('from below') of a coreferental variable name argument. This is illustrated by the Yalarnnga of (2.209): (2.209) Mirnmirri wala-nyama-mu thukani-yu woman

hit-REFL-PAST

yamstick-iNSTR

(The woman hit herself with the yamstick')

(Blake 1987: §4.3.1)

As with subject 'agreement' in 'pro-drop' languages, such phenomena differ from standard agreement in lacking an external source of agreement; they differ from rection in lacking an overt 'trigger' whose valency must be satisfied, and in showing incorporation from below rather than above, which latter also differentiates them from inherent categories like number in nouns or tense in verbs. I shall refer to these generically as categories of cross-reference, to be distinguished formally from the agreement, rectional and inherent categories in terms of the properties just mentioned.

124 Fundamentals of a notional theory We can represent the various possibilities for the derivation of secondary categories we have considered as in (2.210) (2.210)

Inherent

Rectional

Concordial

Cross-referential

where '©' indicates a node realised inflexionally, and each such node is derived as a result of a morphosyntactic redundancy by incorporation/ subjunction, 'from above' in the case of inherent and rectional categories, 'from below' with concord and cross-reference. Concord and cross-reference involve 'agreement with' or 'replacement of a subordinate, and do not affect the basic distribution of the verbal or nominal involved. Inherent and rectional categories partition that basic distribution. The double-headed arrow is a rough indication of contextual demands. Let us conclude this subsection with a brief look at those verbal 'relational' categories that are fairly uncontroversially rectional, unlike the cross-referential we have just considered. As we have noted, many languages display a distinct finite form, the subjunctive (§2.7.1), which marks, possibly among other things, sentential 'complements that are in some way dependent' (Noonan 1985: 92). The nature of the 'dependency' varies, but typically the subjunctive is required by a particular verb class, as illustrated by (2.189) above: we have a rectional relation. However, once more, subjunctiveness may be marked by a periphrasis, as is familiar from English: (2.211) a. Burt insisted that Sally leave b. Burt insisted that Sally should leave There are a number of complications here: for instance, some (British) speakers also allow Burt insisted that Sally left; and for many speakers (2.21 ib) is felt to be 'more tentative'. But again we can distinguish the subordinate verbals in (2.211 a-b) as involving incorporation vs. independent expression of a governing rectionally determined {P}; and derivation of the subjunctive thus conforms to the rectional schema of (2.210). 2.7.4

Periphrasis and adjectival categories

The following two related conclusions emerge from the brief survey of secondary categories attempted in the preceding two subsections: (a) it is unnecessary to

Secondary categories 125 recognise as secondary categories of the noun and verb those sets of distinctions marked in their inflexional morphology, in that the morphology of nouns and verbs reflects the incorporation via morphosyntactic redundancy of { }, {N} and {P} nodes which mark the distinctions; (b) the primary manifestation of 'secondary categories' is not inflexional but involves contrasting lexical items (periphrastic heads), as with systems of classifiers. Exceptional here are perhaps arbitrary declensional and conjugational classes. In this subsection we shall consider whether these conclusions also hold with respect to adjectival secondary categories. As S. R. Anderson observes, 'unlike nouns and verbs, adjectives are comparatively poor in inflection' (1985: 198); and, concerning agreement properties of the adjective, 'typically, any of the inherent or relational categories of the noun ... may also be reflected in adjectives modifying it' (p. 200). Such agreement confirms that the noun is not head of the nominal phrase, and in particular is not in a head-modifier relation with an attributive adjective: agreement does not proceed from heads to subordinates. (We take up the status of attributives in §3.7, in the light of this and other observations.) Such 'relational' categories as adjectives display accord with the rectional pattern of (2.210). So, in most Germanic languages, we find the kind of alternation shown in (2.212), for Old English: (2.212) a. Hwi stande ge her ealne daeg aemtige? why stand you here all day idle b. Da underfengon hi anlipige penegas Then received they single pennies c. ealle da geleaffullan geladunge all the faithful congregations The -e ending of the adjectives cemtige and anlipige in (2.212a) and (b) and the -an of geleaffullan in (c) all mark the NOM/ACC PL; the former are strong forms, the latter is weak. Occurrence of the Weak form is triggered by a governing demonstrative (including 'possessives'), da in (c): we have a classic rectional configuration, confirming the governing role of the determiner in the nominal phrase, with respect to the adjective, at least (see e.g. Anderson 1986c). We return, once more in §3.7, to the precise character of the relationship between determiner, as head of the nominal phrase, and adjective and noun. Apart from arbitrary declensional classification, the only recurrent candidate for an inherent adjectival secondary category is grade, or comparison. Though Gildersleeve and Lodge (1895: §§86-90), for example, assign comparison in Latin unquestioningly to 'Inflexion of the Adjective', and though this frequently continues to be assumed in relation to English (cf. Quirk et al. 1985: §7.74), its

126 Fundamentals of a notional theory status as such (rather than derivational) has not been uncontroversial. Thus, for Bauer, 'the comparative cannot be unambiguously assigned to either inflectional or derivational morphology' (1983: 40; cf. Matthews 1974: 48-50; S. R. Anderson 1985: 199). Like causativisation, comparative formation involves valency increase: (2.2131) a. Thessaloniki is bigger than Edinburgh b. Thessaloniki is big (*than Edinburgh) (ii) a. Athens is more extensive than Thessaloniki b. Athens is extensive (*than Thessaloniki) Typically, though, it does not introduce the semantic exceptionality ('noncompositionality') and lexical exceptionality ('gaps') associated with the latter, except that, in English, for example, the morphological comparative of (2.2131) is in a suppletive relation with the periphrasis of (ii) (cf. Cygan 1975, on the basis for selection of one or the other). Bauer, following Matthews (1974: 49-50), illustrates the claimed ambivalence of comparison with respect to a proposed 'test' whereby 'a derivative could be replaced by a simple root form in sentences' (1983: 40). So, given that It's getting colder is paralleled by It's getting cold, the comparative is a derivative; but the lack of parallel in (2.213) fails to confirm this, in that the comparative in such circumstances 'cannot be replaced by a simple root form'. However, there are many speakers of English for whom a sentence like Edinburgh is different than Thessaloniki contains a form derivationally non-complex in the appropriate respect. I do not think that this reflects doubt or disagreement among English speakers as to whether comparatives are certainly derivatives or possibly derivatives (ambivalent); rather, it suggests that the 'test' is simply inappropriate if seen as an indication of a derivationality/inflexionality bifurcation. It may be that we have to recognise a scale of lexicality on which location of any division into derivational vs. inflexional is arbitrary, or at least 'smeared'. Moreover, individual categories may be varyingly lexical: consider, for instance, Connie's (1985: §1.1.2) discussion of the role of markers of reflexivisation in Russian and other languages in indicating 'valency decrease'. However, comparison in English (at least) exhibits little evidence of lexicality. Whatever the status of the comparative in this regard, the existence of the periphrasis suggests that the morphological comparative is (like causativity, or Number) an inherent category derived by incorporation from above of what otherwise appears as the head of a periphrasis. In the case of comparatives other than the simple comparison of inequality, periphrasis is even more common. In English, comparisons of equality, or negatively oriented inequality, are only periphrastic:

Secondary categories

127

(2.214) a. Edinburgh is as big as that town b. Edinburgh is less big than Thessaloniki Welsh has a morphological equality comparative, but usually it is accompanied by a preceding 'particle' (Morris Jones 1913: §147). The local headhood of pre-adjectival more, as and less is confirmed by their being subcategorised for both the adjective and the following functor construction (headed by than/as). We are not here concerned with the precise character of this functor construction, which may, of course, be sentential as well as phrasal (e.g. Kuno 1981), and may involve a predicative 'standard', as in (2.215): (2.215)

a

- Alice is more vivacious than pretty b. She is more (a) wife than (a) mother

where (b) shows in addition (the more marginal) comparison of a noun predicator (cf. e.g. Rusiecki 1985:4). Nor shall I explore the variable properties associated with a typology of 'comparison' (Stassen 1985). But we should at least note that, even in central instances corresponding to (2.214/215), apparently not all 'comparison' involves adjectival periphrasis or morphology, as with the different kinds of 'exceed comparative' of e.g. Duala and Margi discussed by Stassen (1985: ch. 8). However, with adjectival comparison of the English type, at least, we have the familiar pattern of non-incorporation vs. incorporation of the head of a periphrasis. But what is the category of this head? With nouns and verbs the incorporate heads are {N/} and {P/}, respectively (if we ignore here Case, involving incorporation of { }); they are members of the transitive closed class that is a highly N/P-full specialisation of the corresponding open class. {N} and {P} are the closest dependency-free equivalents of {N;P} and {P;N} respectively; the equivalent for adjectives would be {P.N}, i.e. a necessarily simple (dependency-free) combination of P and N. More etc. - let us call them comparators - would then be the closed class {P.N/}. Apart from being characteristic of the comparative construction(s), comparators show vis-a-vis adjectives a distinct set of (non-complement) modifiers, as shown in (2.216): (2.216)

a. Fred is (very) much more/less noisy/noisier b. Fred is very (*(/)much) noisy

so that very can occur as modifier of an adjective or of much, but not of a comparator. Even the equality comparator takes modifiers normally associated with (non-gradable) adjectives which normally reject comparison:

128 Fundamentals of a notional theory (2.217)

a

- Fred is (very) nearly as noisy b. Fred is (very) nearly dead

But, like most adjectives, comparators can also be attributive, not merely with an adjectival complement, as in (2.218): (2.218) a. a more/less beautiful city than Dresden b. a city more/less beautiful than Dresden but also, in the case of the inequality comparators, as part of a quantifier structure, as in (2.219a), with noun complement: (2.219)

a

- more money than sense b. more tastier/more tasty cheese

with (b) combining the two constructions. The details of this need not concern us. Here I merely want to highlight the adjective-like distribution of comparatorheaded constructions. Specifically, comparators are like adjectives such as similar and different, except that they take an adjectival complement, and that, in English and other languages, they show a distinctive set of (non-complement) modifiers, as I have just illustrated. Notionally, comparators highlight the contingency - in this case, of 'intensity' - we associated with (the quality-denoting central members of) the class of adjectives in §2.3.1 above. Bolinger provides evidence from English for 'the adjective as the basic intensifiable' (1972: 268-71), and argues that 'the underlying intensifiability feature is adjective-like'. Comparative constructions spell out this 'feature', which I have interpreted as {P.N}. Each of the simple, functional classes {N}, {P} and {P.N} is, then, a closed-class specialisation of the corresponding open class, with members which are denotatively desemanticised, more 'abstract', less specific concerning entity/event/quality type. The full set of functional categories, which may be expressed periphrastically or inflexionally, is constituted of the four dependency-free combinations {P.N}, {P},

2.7.5 Concord and prosodies The distinction between the English verb forms in (2.220a) and (b): (2.220) a. They like cheese b. He likes cheese reflects the incorporation ('from above') of a {P} configuration otherwise linearised independently in (2.221):

Secondary categories 129 (2.221)

a. They do not like cheese b. He does not like cheese

But this in turn reflects incorporation 'from below' - concord (recall (2.210) above) - of the categories independently realised as they and he, respectively. I am assuming that the same categories govern nominal phrases such as those/the men and that/the man (see further §3.7); and that a nominal like men involves, whatever else, a configuration of the character of (2.222): (2.222) I {N;P}

with an incorporated configuration whose features are here realised morphologically, but which, when it is independently expressed, determines an independent item (such as those). (Here association between the Person/Number features and the categorial specification is represented for simplicity by juxtaposition.) Anticipating somewhat the discussion of structure building of the following chapters (but proceeding in general along the lines of Anderson 1965; 1989c; 1992b), we can represent the operation of concord, schematically, and provisionally, and only with respect to relevant features (so that e.g. the deictic property of they is ignored), as in (2.223): (2.223)

}{sbj)

{P}

{P N)

(D they /some men

like

cheese

That is, the subject pronominal/simplex-variable-name specification (but not anything below that) is attached 'prosodically' to the syntactic head projected by {P}. The internal configuration governed by {P}, introduced by redundancy (see below), must be non-distinct from that specification: we would otherwise have an inconsistent subjunction path. However, elsewhere in the construction, 'agreement' is optional. Indeed, as a

130 Fundamentals of a notional theory prosody - i.e. a substantive specification attached to a non-terminal syntactic node - of the construction headed by {P}, this specification may also be realised on accessible elements throughout the construction, as in They like themselves or They sold it to themselves, which are thus marked by the reflexive element as referentially non-distinct; the object in *They like himself is incorrectly marked as non-distinct. Normally a referentially distinct argument blocks spreading, but certain arguments, such as the so-called 'picture nouns', are not blockers to realisation within the constructions they themselves head: They liked the pictures of themselves. In English, too, elements within a subordinate {P}-headed construction - introducing a potentially distinct prosody - are inaccessible (as revealed by *Bill believes that Emma loves himself). We should associate a Person-Number prosody with the projection of any predicator in English (so Fred expected his guests to entertain themselves, They are proud of themselves), but it is realised morphologically in the predicator, i.e. as concord, only if it is uniquely {P}; other predicators are simply transparent (except nouns with respect to Number - as reflected in They are convicts). Compare here the discussion of phonological prosodies in e.g. Anderson, Ewen and Staun 1985; Anderson (1987a; 1992Z?). I prefer here this prosodic account of concord to the view put forward by Anderson (1979&; 1986c), whereby determination of concord involves simply the reverse of rection - control of a head by a modifier. As sketched out here, the prosody also allows in principle for 'anaphoric' phenomena, provided accessibility can be appropriately delimited. Moreover, it may be that there are exceptions to the claim that concord goes from modifier to head: thus, Evans (1988), for instance, describes Kayardild as showing arguments which agree in Tense with their verb. See too Anderson (to appear a). Moreover, as emerges in what follows, the prosodic account of 'agreement' phenomena in general may, after all, allow a definition of concord, as a central manifestation thereof, along the lines proposed by Anderson (1979Z?). The Person/Number configuration of the {P} element in Italian, unlike in English, is independently referential, and itself provides the Person-Number prosody which may also be realised in a distinct expression of the syntactic subject, as in (2.2ooe) (vs. (2.200c)), repeated here: (2.200) c. Ha trovato la lampadina e. Giuseppe ha trovato la lampadina

C(S)he found the lightbulb') ('G. found the lightbulb')

- cf. the representations in (2.201b) vs. (a) - or in (2.203b) (vs. (2.203a)): (2.203)

a

- Sono rimasti dei profughi ungheresi nel paese have remained some refugees Hungarian in-the country

Secondary categories

131

('Some Hungarian refugees remained in the country') b. Dei profughi ungheresi sonorimastinel paese ('Some Hungarian refugees remained in the country') In (2ooc/2oib) there is no syntactic subject, and the valency of the verb is satisfied 'internally', morphologically, by the morphosyntactic subject alone; while with (2.203a), involving so-called 'inversion', the optional 'agreeing' argument is in apposition with the morphosyntactic subject, and appears in circumstantial position. The Person/Number/Gender properties of the appositional argument, just like a syntactic subject, must be consistent with the prosody launched by the incorporated (morphosyntactic) subject. We return in §3.3.4 to a rather more detailed discussion of morphosyntactic subjects and of appositional 'agreement'. I have related these various consistency requirements involving PersonNumber to the satisfaction of syntactic prosodies. We can, however, perhaps distinguish concord proper in English finites from satisfaction of the personnumber prosody by reflexives, or by external (non-morphological) arguments in general in Italian, as involving obligatory morphological inflexional expression of 'agreement' on the head of the construction subtending the prosody. The expression of consistency in 'pro-drop' languages requires no appeal to 'null' elements: only the supposition of universal syntactic subjecthood (for finites, at least) requires that. We shall, indeed, find in general that reference to 'null' elements in the syntax is unnecessary; in particular, the erection of syntactic structure (as discussed more fully in the chapters which follow) and the formulation of appropriate constraints thereon need have no recourse to such. On the other hand, there need to be established constraints on the formation of prosodies, i.e. of attachments of elements to syntactic heads. The instances we have looked at thus far involve attachment to a projection of the predicator of a functor phrase associated with a dependent of that projection; chapter 3 suggests some further prosodies associated with {P} and {N} (and cf. already Anderson 1989c; 1992&: chs. 5 and 6). But this is an area that demands much more extensive treatment than can be afforded it here, including the role of prosodies in licensing the non-expression of arguments ('control'). In the absence of this, I shall not attempt here a theory of prosodic constraints. With regard to the primary concerns of the present section, if such an approach to concord is just, and extensible (e.g. to Tense and (sentential) negation, which may also be expressed by 'circumstantials'), we can regard all secondary categorisation as involving features associated with the simple-combinatorial categories { }, {N}, {P} and {P.N} which as well as being morphologically expressible (by 'incorporation') also may determine individual items. To put it another way: inflexional morphology - and derivational, for that matter - represents

132 Fundamentals of a notional theory the further grammaticalisation of conjunctions of notional features which otherwise characterise independent items, items realising the simple-combinatorial, or functional, categories. This seems to be compatible with the apparent historical sources of inflexional categories, where reconstructable (cf. e.g. Connie (1980: §2) on the Mongolian Person-Number suffixes), and with uncertainties between, say, what constitutes concord and what pronominal cliticisation (e.g. S. R. Anderson 1985: §0.1.4). A range of further questions arises from this perspective, questions again I cannot attempt to answer here. Consider, for instance: why are some notional properties, such as tense, more susceptible to morphologisation than others, such as 'progressiveness' (Dahl 1985)? Morphologisation seems to be favoured by inherent relative simplicity, and perhaps greater notional affinity; but much remains to be elucidated here - hopefully on the basis of careful surveys such as Dahl's. The present proposal concerning the secondary categories of the syntax, which effectively reduces them to morphologically expressed instances of primary (functional) categories, also raises a question with respect to analogy with the phonology. Interestingly, in this regard, Anderson and Ewen (1987: §6.1.2) already suggest identification of the 'secondary' (articulation) feature a (sonority) with the 'primary' V; and subsequent work by van der Hulst in particular has sought to reduce further the distinction in content between the two gestures/ partitions. 2.8

Non-complements

In §2.2.1 it was proposed that syntactic dependencies are induced by the complement/complementee relations encoded in the lexical representations of individual items. Thus, the node relations in e.g. (2.27), expanded as (2.27') in §2.6.2, here modified in the light of §2.6.5, s u c n that deverbal bases are characterised as '; {P;N}': (2.27")

{N;P};{P;N/{ntr},{agt}} humiliation

{ }{ntr} of

{N} Rome

( Hagt} by

{N} Hannibal

Non-complements

133

are established on the basis of the categorisation of humiliation, and, crucially, of its subcategorisational requirements being satisfied by the two functors, and on the basis of their valencies (they are redundantly subcategorised as 7{N}') in turn being given value by the two names which complement them. And the governing category of the head allows for the whole construction to function as part of a nominal phrase. We have, however, in the preceding section, encountered a set of items which have traditionally been regarded as modifiers/dependants of items which they apparently do not complement. Indeed, the very of (2.216b), which I explicitly labelled as 'non-complement modifier', is a paradigm case of one pervasive traditional view of what constitutes a modifier: it is an optional item whose distribution is determined by the (adjectival/adverbial) head to which it is attached. But it does not complement that head: there is not a class of items which requires the presence of a very-class member, though there is one that 'permits' such a modifier. Of course, there are elsewhere complements which might be said to be 'optional' for particular (classes of) items. So that with an 'ergative' verb like topple the agentive argument may be lacking: (2.224)

a

- The Government has toppled b. Gregor has toppled the Government

It may be transitive or intransitive. But there is both a class of verbs subcategorised for the neutral semantic relation which must lack an agentive and one that must be accompanied by such a functor phrase: (2.225)

a

- The Government has fallen/*overthrown b. Gregor has overthrown/*fallen the Government

Requiring an agentive is relevant to subcategorisation. This is not the case with very: there are ('non-degree', non-comparable) adjectives which typically reject such modification, or require in such circumstances a 'non-standard' interpretation {Margo is very pregnant/English/d), but there is no class of adjective that has to be modified by very. And, perhaps even more crucially, modifiability by very does not establish a subclass independent of that required by the comparator class. Gradable adjectives are those that can complement (provide a value for) a comparator; modifiability by very is a derivative property. We must therefore now investigate the categorial representation that would be appropriate for such items as very, and the syntactic configuration that it induces. This is our concern in the subsection that immediately follows. We then, in §2.8.2, take up similar issues in relation to another familiar set of non-complement modifiers, those Anderson (1992&), for instance, labels circumstantials. There

134 Fundamentals of a notional theory then arises the question: what is the relationship/difference between very etc. and 'circumstantials'? 2.8.1

Specifiers

Very is not a complement. It is also not a complementee, complemented by an adjective. In §2.7.4 we contrasted it in this respect with comparators, which enhance the valency of the construction, are subcategorised for both adjective and 'standard', and which, indeed, show a different class of non-complement modifier from adjectives (much/*very more beautiful), a class which can in turn be modified by the very-class: (2.226) very much more beautiful (cf. e.g. Quirk et al. 1985: §7.89). The notional basis for this distinction between comparators and what I shall call specifiers, including (at least, for the moment) the very-dass and the much-class, is reflected in the difference in interpretation between (2.227a) and (b), for example: (2.227)

a

- Janice is very articulate b. Janice is more articulate

As is well known, of these only (2.227a) loosely implies the proposition expressed by (2.228a), while being incompatible with (2.228b): (2.228) a. Janice is articulate b. Janice is inarticulate Crudely, in (2.227b), as we would expect, the dominant interpretational element is positive placement given by the comparator, relative to some standard, on a dimension labelled by the adjective, such that the standard itself may not be positively placed thereon - i.e. may fall below that portion of the dimension normally labelled by the adjective, rather than an antonym; such that (2.227b) is equally compatible with (a) and (b) of (2.228). In (2.227a) the modifier merely enhances the positive placement attributed by the adjective, which remains dominant. We can relate 'dominance' of the comparator to the characterisation suggested for such in §2.7.3, associated with configurations like (2.229): (2.229)

{N.P/{N;}{ }}

{NIP}

more

articulate

Non-complements

135

which omits, for present purposes, the 'standard' functor phrase (vestigially subcategorised for - as '{ }' - therein). The 7{N;}' specification is intended to allow for such structures as She is more victim than villain, with nominal complement. The comparator is a complementee, then, complemented centrally by a central adjective. But what of the specifier? As not determining a construction, as non-complementable, the specifier has no valency; neither does it offer a value to satisfy a valency. Rather it occupies a non-subcategorised-for slot in an expansion of the construction induced by the head it modifies. I suggest the categorisation in (2.230a) as appropriate for very: (2.230)

a. {\{N:P}} b.

{\{N:P}}

{N:PJ

very

articulate

That is, as a 'retro-complement', it is characterised merely by the character of the head to which it may be attached, as in (2.230b). In a more precise treatment this head would be more fully characterised as an adjective that is a potential comparator complement; here I focus on the principle of 'retro-complementation'. Syntactically, the specifier is attached specifically to the head of a construction which takes the adjectival head in subjunction; 'V is, whatever else, an instruction to build just such a construction, based on the 'retro-valency' attributed to the specifier. Very takes an adjectival head ('\{N:P}'), whereas much takes, whatever else, a comparator. However, much shows (more obviously) further internal structure. This is suggested by the fact that it otherwise has the distribution of an adjective/ adverb: (2.231) a. She doesn't have (very) much money b. What she wants is not (very) much c. She doesn't like them (very) much or 'pronominal adjective': (2.232)

She didn't take very much

though largely limited to what Quirk et al. (1985: §10.61) call 'nonassertive' (negative etc.) contexts. If the much of (2.226) etc. - i.e. the specifier - also contains such a configuration, then it would account for its capacity to allow further

136 Fundamentals of a notional theory specification by very (as in that very example). So that we can associate with (2.226) the (relevant aspects of) structure in (2.233): (2.233)

{\{N:P}}

very

{\{N.P}};{N:P}

much

more

beautiful

(with syntactic nodes numbered for ease of reference). Node 6 is induced by more, whose valency is also satisfied by the adjective associated with node 7; by virtue of its intercategorial dependency much induces nodes 2 and 4, and, as a specifier, it is responsible for 5; similarly, the specifier very induces both / and the supra-adjectival node 3. Much is thus a deadjectival specifier. This much is a (deadjectival) comparator specifier. More numerous are deadjectival adjective specifiers, such as overwhelmingly in (2.234): (2.234)

{\{N:P}}

very

{\{N:P}};{N:P}

overwhelmingly

differing from much, of course, in their categorial requirement on the head: '\{N:P}' vs. '\{N.P}\ Descriptively, such a limited discrimination among different kinds of specifiers has obvious limitations. Specifiers belong to that set of 'degree words' which Bolinger (1972: 18-19) describes as 'an antidote to the confident description of language as a system'. And I shall not attempt here to explore the character of the constraints on such sequences (adduced by Bolinger 1972: 56) as so far too

Non-complements

137

much more objectionable or ever so very much too much maligned. I offer, however, the characterisations developed here as a preliminary theory of specifier structure - i.e. of the essential nature of such non-complement modifiers. What I now want to look at is whether a similar proposal is appropriate to other noncomplement modifiers. Let us consider the case of circumstantials, interpreted for the moment simply as non-complement modifiers of the verbal construction. 2.8.2 Circumstantials and specifiers Much in English is both a circumstantial, as in (2.231c) above, and a comparator specifier; and, typically, deadjectival adjective specifiers can also be circumstantials. Compare with the specifier use of (2.234) a use such as that of (2.235): (2.235)

She defeated him overwhelmingly

where overwhelmingly is not an element for which the verb is subcategorised, but involves an optional extension of the construction headed by the verbal. In other languages the same item may appear as the basic adjective specifier and verb degree circumstantial (corresponding to very and much in English) - cf. Greek: (2.236)

a. Ine poli omorfi b. Kapnizun poli

'She-is very beautiful' They-smoke a lot'

or the Runyonese of Then Dave the Dude comes over to me looking much worried (from 'Madame la Gimp'). There is recurrent overlap in membership of the specifier and circumstantial classes, and they share non-complement (and noncomplementee) status. A similar categorisation is suggested. But before pursuing the character of this, let us be a little more precise about the range of constructions involved. It is obviously unhelpful to think of circumstantials as simply 'adverbial'. The term 'adverb' is perhaps best reserved for functors whose valency is satisfied internally. Even in the familiar tradition of Quirk et al. (1985), some 'adverbials', which need not be 'adverbs' in the suggested sense, are 'obligatory' (complements), such as that in (2.237): (2.237) You must put all the toys upstairs (Quirk et al. 1985: 53; cf. too their §2.18) Circumstantials, however, whether an adverb (upstairs) or not (in the loft), are optional modifiers of a construction - for the moment, of a verbal-headed construction - as illustrated by (2.238): (2.238) They make the toys upstairs

138

Fundamentals of a notional theory

We can recognise this status by attributing to upstairs a 'retro-complementation' indicator such as is embodied in (2.239): (2.239)

{ \{P}}{loc} I {N}

This circumstantial is, then, a functor phrase - in this instance one satisfied internally, thus an adverb, and hence the dependent {N} - which attaches itself to a construction with {P} as head to create a more inclusive construction with the same head, analogously to specifier-adjective attachment. The 'retrocomplementation' induces a higher node, associated with the verb. The resultant structure is illustrated below, in (2.247), for example. The same functor phrase may be a participant, a complement of the verb, as in (2.237). There, upstairs, as a complement, need be specified simply as in (2.240): (2.240)

{ }{loc} I {N}

in satisfaction of the valency of put; overall, '\{P}' is optional. Circumstantials are only optionally specified as such. Again analogously, much in (2.232) above lacks the '\{N.P}' specification of (2.233). The much of (2.231c), on the other hand,is'\{IP;NI}\ The proposed representations for circumstantials provide a provisional distinction between 'sentence' and 'predicational' circumstantials (Quirk et al. 1985: §§8.27-38): upstairs may be attached to a projection of {P}, much necessarily to a projection of {P;N}. As such the upstairs of (2.238) is readily 'preposable': (2.241) Upstairs they make the toys unlike the {\{IP;NI}} of (2.242): (2.242) a. She uses drugs excessively b. ^Excessively she uses drugs Clearly further differentiations among 'adverbials' are necessary, involving e.g. the Quirk et al. (1985: e.g. §8.24) differentiation of 'adjuncts' (such as we have been discussing), 'subjuncts', 'disjuncts' and 'conjuncts', and distinctions within them. But more problematical in the present context, perhaps, is the fact that the drawing of a complement vs. circumstantial distinction, and the placement of the boundary, are not uncontroversial.

Non-complements

139

Thus, Fillmore (1968a), for instance, includes in the set of 'propositional cases', or verb complements, 'instrumental' phrases such as the poison phrases in (2.243a): (2.243)

a

b. c. d.

She killed John with a poison John was killed with a poison A poison killed John John was killed by a poison

And we might argue for such a status on the basis of the phrase's occupying subject position in (2.243c) (and consequently being marked by the by of the passive construction in (d)) and the fact that it is restricted even in (a) to modifying certain verb classes (say 'agentive' verbs). Anderson (1977: ch. 1) argues, however, that the poison-phrases of (2.243c-d) do not have the same function as those in (a-b), but are non-central agents rather than 'instrumentals', and display the appropriate syntax; and that, while the ('instrumental') with a poison phrases of (a-b) may be restricted to modifying certain verb-types, they do not further subcategorise the verbs concerned, which are independently established as agentive verbs - an agentive verb may be modified by an 'instrument' (though, of course, different subtypes may select different kinds of 'instrument': cf. e.g. kill with poison, travel by car). The latter position is the one I shall adopt in the discussion of verb complementation in §3.1 below: some circumstantials, though not themselves valency-satisfying, may select a head more fully specified than simply in terms of the primary categories; in particular, they may select verbs with a specific valency to modify. The importance of this in the present context is that adoption of such a position allows for circumstantials to display different 'closenesses of relation' to the predicator they modify, without this obscuring the distinction between complement and circumstantial. I thus include as complements adverbs and prepositional phrases which independently subcategorise predicators. These are rather obviously locational (including directional) in notional character, involving spatial, temporal and other 'metaphorical' (more abstract) interpretations. The scope of localist analyses (Anderson 1971a; 1977; etc.; §3.2 below) is controversial; but it is clear that complement 'adverbials' constitute the least abstract (most obviously spacebased) locationals, not to be obscured by, for example, the fact that Quirk et al. (1985: 56), curiously, describe (2.244): (2.244) He is without a job as belonging to a set of 'obligatory adverbials to which a locational metaphor cannot be applied' - curiously, given the well-established relationship between

140 Fundamentals of a notional theory 'possession' and location (cf. e.g. Lyons 1967; 1977: §15.7 - and given that we can directly compare with (2.244) He is out of work - as well as... without a city wall). Adverbials necessarily associated with more 'abstract' domains (such as 'manner') are not complements; we can ignore here e.g. the alleged example of a complement 'adverbial' offered by Quirk et al. (1985: 56) involving the idiomatic treat Xly, viz. They treated her kindly: this no more illustrates an obligatory syntactic complement than the 'instrumental' of They were hoist with their own petard. That the participant/circumstantial distinction involves subcategorisation potential is confirmed by consideration of another kind of problem that arises in the treatment of 'adverbials' proposed by Quirk et al. (1985). They observe (p. 481) that whereas (2.245a) has the corresponding question (b): (2.245)

a

- He is travelling in Yorkshire b. What is he doing in Yorkshire? Travelling?

there is no such acceptable question corresponding to (2.246a): (2.246)

a. He is travelling to/from Leeds b. *What is he doing to/from Leeds? Travelling?

and they conclude that 'this suggests that, in addition to the semantic distinctions, the position [non-directional] adverbial is different from the others grammatically as well'. But this particular kind of discrepancy reveals simply that the prepositional phrase in (2.245a) is a circumstantial, whereas that in (2.246a) is a complement. Travel is inherently directional, even though a directional argument may be given no overt expression, as in (2.245a) - but cf. He is travelling around in Yorkshire, with overt complement around. The ability to take directional arguments distinguishes a class of verbs. The difference between complement and non-complement modification involves not 'optionality' but subcategorisational potential. Circumstantials and specifiers in English differ in various ways, apart from in typical position, with almost all specifiers being pre-head only. Thus, {P}circumstantials, for instance, may be stacked, as indicated schematically in (2.247):

Non-complements

141

(2.247)

she

bought

shoes

in

Lucca

on

Tuesday

whereas sequences of same-category specifiers modifying the same adjective are appositive: (2.248) He was exceptionally, excessively happy The adjectival specifiers we have looked at here are also typically uncomplemented (externally), unlike circumstantial in and on in (2.247), though they may themselves be specified; and their complement (when one is present) occurs on the other side of the head - specifiers head discontinuous constructions when complemented (so large that... etc.). And the same properties seem to be true of specifiers in general - which we should now recognise are not restricted to adjective (or comparator) modification, although notional kinship promotes a more extensive role for them in adjectival constructions. Thus, the specifier only may modify an essentially unrestricted range of constructions (only (very) stupid(ly), only John, only the women, only big men, only in Lucca ...), with some potential scope ambiguities being typically resolved prosodically, as with (2.249): (2.249)

She only stroked the CAT

represented as in (2.250):

142 Fundamentals of a notional theory (2.250)

she

only

stroked

the cat

vs. (2.251): (2.251)

She only STROKED the cat

represented as in (2.252): (2.252)

she

only

stroked

the cat

(where as modifier of the head alone, the specifier introduces a syntactic node below those induced by stroked), but with others introduced by the accessibility of pre-VP specifier position, as with (2.249/250), or, even more strikingly, with (2.253): (2.253) Fred only wants to speak to his brother Quirk et al. (1985: §§7.56-69) provide a range of examples of specifier constructions. Lexically, central circumstantials are, unlike specifiers, inherently categorised for other than 'retro-complementation'; they are functor phrases that may be non-complement modifiers. Syntactically, the specifier/circumstantial distinction in English reduces to placement - pre- vs. post-head - and complexity restrictions on pre- and post-head placement, with the latter being categoryspecific. Thus, to illustrate this last point, while specifiers, pre-head noncomplement modifiers, are typically unmodified, except by a specifier - i.e. they

Non-complements

143

head atomic constructions - and post-head modifiers of the adjective are typically modified, phrasal: (2.254O a. very/exceedingly beautiful b. *beautiful very/exceedingly (ii) a. beautiful to excess b. *to excess beautiful simplex non-complement modifiers of the verb may occur in both pre-head (or specifier) or post-head position: (2.255O a. b. (ii) a. b.

Bert doesn't much like her Bert doesn't like her much Bert doesn't like her a lot *Bert doesn't a lot like her

With {P}-modifiers - corresponding notionally to what can be regarded as central verbal circumstantials, simplex instances can occupy - though sometimes rather marginally, perhaps - a medial position as well as initial and final: (2.256)

a. Bert doesn't like her now b. Now Bert doesn't like her c. ?Bert doesn't now like her

We can thus distinguish lexically a class of specifiers (such as very) as noncomplement modifiers which occur only in immediate pre-head position. Circumstantials are either (centrally) functor phrases that can otherwise occur as complements or functor phrases based on adjectives {usually, excessively etc.). These latter and other simplex circumstantials {now, then etc.) can also occur like specifiers in medial position (as in (2.256)). We return to the characterisation of non-complement modifiers in the chapter which follows. At this point, all I want to conclude is that, despite such differences as we have noted, both specifiers and circumstantials are in principle non-complement modifiers representable in terms of the 'retro-complementation' structures proposed in this section. This gives whatever unity there might be to a set of 'adverbials' or 'adwords'. We cannot, of course, as noted, equate 'adwords' with adverbs or prepositions, as these labels are commonly used: these also constitute or introduce complements. Prepositions realise functors, complement or non-complement; adverbs are functors whose complementation is satisfied internally. And with both complement and non-complement functor phrases the functor may be given no independent expression (as in They come this way every week), or be realised inflexionally (recall (2.86) above).

144 Fundamentals of a notional theory 2.8.3

Complements and non-complements: conclusion and prospect

With the present brief (re-)look at (non-)complementation we have come round again almost to the beginning of the discussions in this chapter, and our concerns (particularly in §2.2) with the relationship between categorisation and syntactic structure. The existence of non-complements enhances the relative independence of syntactic dependency trees. The latter are projections of the categorial representations associated with lexical items, but not only do they provide a preliminary guarantee of well-formedness, in terms of valency-value satisfaction, and in general subtend syntactic generalisations not transparent in the categorial representations themselves, but also the relationship between categories and syntactic tree is more complex than implied by the discussion of §2.2: not all modifiers are complements, not all of them are there to satisfy a valency requirement. This means that we must extend the principles for projecting syntax as follows: Syntactic projection' a. associate a node with each primary category b. make node} dependent on nodej iff the category associated with nodej has a value which satisfies a valency requirement of the category associated with j

c. subjoin nodej and adjoin nodej to a newly-created nodek iff the category associated with nodej has a value which satisfies the retro-valency requirement of the category associated with d

Parts (a) and (b) are as before; the additional part (c) allows for the creation of non-complement modifier structures discussed in this section. It thus governs the assignment of syntactic structure in examples such as (2.230b), repeated here: (2.230)

b.

{\{N:P}}

very

{N:P}

articulate

such that the node associated with articulate (node^ is subjoined to a new node k , and that associated with very (nodej) is adjoined to node k , given that articulate ({N:P}) satisfies the retro-valency of very ({\{N:P}}). In this way a greater degree of complexity is allowed to the mappings at the category-syntax

Non-complements

145

interface, while assignment of syntactic structure remains narrowly determinate with respect to categorial information. As indicated at various places throughout the chapter, the role of dependency relations in expressing syntactic generalisations will continue to be explored in the chapter to follow. There too I shall be attempting in the main to further refine the categorial representations whose preliminary elaboration has been the major concern of the present chapter. In so doing, we shall subject the notionally-based notation offered here to more detailed and wider-ranging scrutiny than was appropriate in this preliminary exposition. Here I have tried to indicate the appropriateness of a notional view of syntactic categories, and to develop a notation based on notionally grounded simplex features and restricted relations (combination, dependency) between them that is adequate to characterise what is in common among different linguistic systems and to allow for variation and change in a principled way (e.g. in terms of category continuity), as well as to provide the basis for generalisations involving cross-categoriality and hierarchisation (in terms of markedness and of gradience). An ultimate aim is to render plausible the idea that such categorisations are adequate to a non-structure-changing specification of the syntactic possibilities in (a) language.

3

The syntax of categories

By now he suspected his own syntax, but Arthur would not notice syntax.

The preceding chapter was concerned with establishing a scheme of notionally based categories. This categorisation forms the basis for the selection of word classes made in particular languages, and it determines the basic distribution of these word classes. This chapter is concerned to make more explicit in detail how syntactic structure is erected on the basis of these categories. Thus, part of our concern will be with the subcategories we can associate with the various categories of chapter 2, subcategories which further define the distributional potential of items belonging to a particular category. It should already be clear that these subcategories are not simply to be equated with the traditional secondary categories (Tense, Gender etc.) as such. In §2.7 (in particular) I reinterpreted the traditional secondary categories as manifesting configurations elsewhere expressed syntactically (as periphrases); in the central cases they are partial morphologisations of types of the functional categories { }, {P}, {P.N} and (particularly) {N}. When one of these categories governs a lexical category, the valencies (complement-requirements) of the types of functional category involved impose subcategorisation on that category, as with the classifier or Gender {N} governing nouns; but also the valency requirements themselves subcategorise the governing {N}. Both value and valency are, in this sense, subcategorisational. And these are the subcategories with which we are concerned here. Let us be a little more precise concerning the character of subcategorisation; return, for the moment, as an illustration, to a construction headed by a functional category. For nouns, Gender is a subcategory set whose members divide up the class of nouns in terms of their satisfaction of the valency of either an independent classifier or an incorporated one, and, for classifiers, Gender is a subcategorisation in terms of the valency requirements of members of the class, as indicated schematically in (3.1): 146

The syntax of categories 147 (3.1)

a. {N;P}{animate} b. {N/{animate}}

The value in (3.1a) provides satisfaction either syntactically (it complements a syntactically distinct classifier) or morphologically (it inflects for Gender). The values are notionally based, but may undergo grammaticalisation (as with many systems of morphological Gender, or with the 'generic' auxiliaries of Ungarinyin mentioned in §2.7.3 - cf- table 2.4). (3.1b) formulates a classifier's valency. As is the case in this instance, nouns, forming primary arguments, typically supply values, rather than themselves being subcategorised as to arguments, i.e. by valency. Indeed, classifiers are exceptional as nominals in showing relatively strong subcategorisation by valency. Verbs, on the other hand, as notionally relational (dominant P), are the valency imposers par excellence, just as the categories they incorporate come 'from below', i.e. reflect potential arguments (as with concord and cross-reference). We take up the question of verb valency in the first section of this chapter. But the asymmetry between verbs and nouns proposed here - with nouns as centrally value-suppliers and verbs as valencydemanders perhaps warrants some comment at this point, particularly since it is, at least partially, in conflict with one influential tradition in the study of syntactic categories, that initiated by Chomsky 1970. One facet of lexicalism has been an emphasis on the parallels between the syntactic structures projected by different lexical categories; and this has prompted notational proposals (notably X' theory - Jackendoff 1977 etc.) part of whose motivation is to facilitate the expression of such parallels. This emphasis seems to me rather misleading. Certainly, there are nouns which are normally complement-taking ('relational' nouns such as mother and back are the most obvious example), even if with many of these the complement is usually implicit (as with e.g. stranger). But the bulk of central members of the noun class are not complement-takers; and there are no nouns which require an explicit complement (cf. most verbs - i.e. all non-impersonals). Even if 'relational' nouns are not accorded an internal derived predicational structure (as with overt nominalisations - as we have seen, not necessarily 'transformationally' based) - i.e. even if there is not an absolute distinction between verbs and nouns in this regard, there is at the very least a marked difference of 'emphasis' between verbs and nouns: nouns are at most only marginally complementtaking. And this accords with their notional character. We return to a consideration of nominal complementation in §3.7. Let us merely observe at this point that many of the examples of alleged noun

148

The syntax of categories

complements adduced by Chomsky (1970: 196), even if they are not straightforwardly attributive, as in (3.2a), or appositive, (b): (3.2)

a. a war of aggression b. the question whether John should leave

are nevertheless not necessarily complements, in the sense of subcategorised-for modifier. Chomsky (1970: 197) indicates that a house in the woods, for example, exhibits 'narrow restrictions on the head noun', and goes on to argue: 'we have the phrase John's house in the woods meaning the house of John's which is in the woods', but we cannot form John's book (dog, brother,...) in the woods (on the table, ...). If John and I each have a house in the woods, I can refer to his, with contrastive stress on John's, as JOHN'S house in the woods; if we each have a book on the table, I cannot, analogously, refer to his as JOHN'S book on the table. Such observations suggest that the surface structure of John's house in the woods is John's - house in the woods, with house in the woods being some sort of nominal expression.' This may be so; but it does not mean that the 'nominal expression' involves a 'complement', in any more interesting sense than 'apparent phrasal co-constituent to a lexical category'. Such a reading for 'complement' as this last conflates what I have distinguished as complement and circumstantial. I suggest that the prepositional modifier in John's house in the woods is indeed circumstantial - as it would be in John's jogging in the woods - as well as attributive. As such, it does not subcategorise nouns in terms of its functor type (locative); any nominal referent is localisable in some domain. As we observed in §2.8 with regard to 'instrumental', the status of a modifier as a circumstantial does not preclude the existence of selectional restrictions holding between the item modified and the circumstantial. And the nature of the present restrictions reflects the notional character of nouns, specifically their role as persistent labels for referents. Thus, given the spatial stability of houses, in the woods constitutes a stable means of identification by circumstance (of place), a means of identification that is at least as stable as the attribution of John's; John's mobile home in the woods is accordingly less satisfactory. Similarly, in John's book on the table, given the mobility of books, the prepositional phrase does not provide a circumstantial identification that is more stable than that associated with John's; whereas in this instance identification by means of the circumstance of content, again locative, but 'abstract' - as in John's book on negative discrimination - is at least as stable. Nominal circumstantials are stable attributes. This stable-reference requirement is also specifically associated with deter-

Verbal valencies 149 minerised genitives. Indeed, the postposed genitive in (3.3a) is less happy than that in (b): (3-3)

a. ??the house of John's in the country b. the book of John'son the table

even though both of (3.4) seem to be equally viable: (3.4)

a. the house of John's which is in the country b. the book of John's which is on the table

(3-3) comes close to reversing the acceptability judgments associated with (3.5): (3.5)

a. John's house in the country b. * John's book on the table

Again, we return to this area, involving the distinction between circumstantial and non-circumstantial attributives, in §3.7. The pervasive kind of circumstantial with nouns is one that allows persistent reference to a specific entity. With verbs, circumstantials contribute to the unique identification of a typically non-persistent specific event, and they are most pervasively spatial and temporal locatives. We turn now to a rather more extended look at the modifiers of verbs, involving not merely a consideration of the distinction between participant (required by valency) and circumstantial (not so) - where, of course, some circumstantials can also be syntactically specifiers - but also of the character of the substantive elements in terms of which valencies are couched. I have assumed in the preceding that verbs are subcategorised with respect to functor type, where functor type is notionally defined. But, until recently at least, this has not been a common assumption - though it can be said to be the crucial characteristic of case grammar from its inception (cf. e.g. Fillmore 19680; 1969). I propose, therefore, to embark on the initial section of this chapter, concerned with the nature of valency, with a consideration of the background to the case grammar assumption, before returning to a consideration of the substantive character of participants and circumstantials. 3.1

Verbal valencies

Implicit or explicit in most discussions of syntax is a distinction between 'basic' and 'non-basic' distribution for an item, so that the occurrence of KISS in (3.6a) is said to be 'basic' relative to that in (b): (3.6)

a. Benjy kissed the girl who was crying b. The girl Benjy kissed was crying

150

The syntax of categories

in showing, overtly, a following argument of a particular character. The presence of such an argument partly defines the 'basic' distribution of KISS as opposed to many other verbs. And it is the categorial aspects of the distributional environment that form the core of the information in the lexical entry for an item that we can refer to as subcategorisational. Much of the controversy of the last few decades in syntax has devolved from competing interpretations of how to characterise 'non-basic' distribution and its relation to the 'basic'; we shall be concerned below to offer a characterisation which is appropriately restrictive. But the formulation of 'basic' distribution has also not been uncontroversial: there has been disagreement over the nature of the 'categorial' information invoked by subcategorisation, and over its extent (how much of the categorial environment determines subcategorisation), and also concerning what other structural properties might be relevant. Let us consider briefly this last issue. Representations which incorporate an 'environment bar', as in (3.7a), and/or sequences of syntactic categorial labels, as in (b): (3.7)

a. — NP b. — NPPP

(suggested for KISS and DONATE respectively by Roberts 1987: 8) make the claim - though this is seldom discussed, as such (even to be disclaimed) - that sequence is relevant to subcategorisation; so that, by implication, items in a language might be distinguished, subcategorisationally, solely in terms of whether they take a preceding or following argument of a particular type or in terms of the sequence of the argument types they take. The more interesting assumption - one I shall maintain here (and cf. e.g. Anderson 1992&: §3.4), and one that seems to underly most actual practice - is that this is never the case: sequence is irrelevant to subcategorisation. There are, for instance, no languages in which there is a class of, say, verbs differing subcategorisationally from another class only in terms of whether they take 'NP' and 'PP' in the sequence stipulated in (3.7b) or the reverse. Subcategorisation involves only the categorial identity, and not the relative sequence, of modifiers - or phrasal 'sisters' in terms of constituency. I have argued, moreover, that not all modifiers are complements, or subcategorisationally relevant. Circumstantials and specifiers, whose presence does not define a distinct subclass of items, are not subcategorised-for but themselves are specified as modifying second-order heads of a particular category (as e.g. in (2.277) °f §2-8 above); in terms of constituency, they are not first-order 'sisters' to the non-phrasal head. Let us assume that a distinction between these and

Verbal valencies 151 complements is well-founded: the set of categories in the potential environment relevant to the subcategorisation of a particular item is so circumscribed. As observed above, however, the drawing of such a distinction, and the elimination of other types of information from subcategorisation, does not exhaust controversy. More complex and tortuous still, though often unacknowledgedly so, has been the argument concerning the substantive character of the 'categoriaT information invoked by subcategorisation. The subsection which immediately follows offers a brief history of relevant aspects of a couple of decades of disputes concerning the character of subcategorisation; and it attempts to reaffirm its notional basis. 3.1.1

The crooked history of subcategorisation

The subcategorisational statements of (3.7) refer to phrasal syntactic categories; in this they are typical of the tradition that stems from Chomsky 1965, and is defended by a body of work including, as a recent example, Jackendoff 1990b: see p. 159. An older tradition invokes grammatical relations rather than phrasal categories. Thus, Gildersleeve and Lodge (1895: 208-22) distinguish, for Latin, among verbs that take a direct object (e.g. regere 'govern'), verbs that take an indirect object (e.g. invidere 'envy') and verbs that take both (e.g. dare 'give'), where the category involved is in all instances NP and the different functions are signalled inflexionally, as (respectively) in (3.8): (3.8)

a. Mens

regit corpus

mind:NOM rules body:ACC (The mind governs the body') b. Probus invidet nemini upright:NOM envies nobodyiDAT ('The upright man envies nobody') c. Facile omnes... recta consilia aegrotis damus readily all:NOM goodiACC counsehACC sick:DAT we-give ('Readily, we all give good counsel to the sick')

Work within relational grammar (see e.g. Blake 1990, and references therein) is a recent exemplar of such a tradition, as is lexical-functional grammar (e.g. Bresnan 1982; Levin, Rappaport and Zaenen 1983). I am not concerned here with the relative merits of these traditions. Anderson (1977: §1.2), for instance, argued some time ago that the appropriate range of distinctions in grammatical relations cannot be provided on the basis of configurational definitions of the kind proposed by Chomsky (1965: ch. 2, §2.2), and that - as well as the notion 'subject' not being well-defined in structural terms

152

The syntax of categories

- subcategorisation therefore cannot be framed simply in terms of presence/ absence of particular phrasal categories. And the problems are greatly enhanced by various proposals to generate subjects VP-internally (e.g. Fukui 1986; Kuroda 1988; Sportiche 1988; Speas 1990). However, it may be that some distinctions (such as those relevant to (3.8)) might be made in terms of the invoking, with respect to some languages and some functions, at least, of 'incorporated' functional categories, typically signalled morphologically (pursuing the accounts of'non-configurational' languages initiated in Chomsky 1981:128-35). But then such a proposal would serve to considerably reduce substantive differences between the two traditions. More important here is that on either view such 'syntactic' subcategorisation is supplemented with a specification of the semantic relations (or theta-roles) that arguments bear to the verb; if, indeed, verbs are not subcategorised for subject (given that every clause has a subject position and/or the subject is not a sister of the verb), then verbs may bear semantic relations to more elements than they are subcategorised for. Thus, according (once more) to Roberts, '6-roles are listed in the 0-grids associated with lexical items in the lexicon' (1987: 8), as in (3.9): (3.9)

a. donate [6,,92, 03 ] b. kiss [6,,e 2 ] c. smile [ 6, ]

(Roberts' (12) of ch. 1; cf. here, for lexical-functional grammar, e.g. Bresnan 1982; compare too Allerton 1982, building on the tradition of 'valency grammars'). This means that there must also be some mechanism associating arguments (identified configurationally or in terms of serialisation, or by grammatical relation) with semantic functions: by stipulation in individual lexical entries, by principle, or by some combination of principle and stipulation (i.e. exceptions). Case grammar has offered a rather simple proposal concerning semantic relations, subcategorisation and arguments: only the semantic relations which specify the value of modifying functors (the case relations of case grammar) are specified in lexical entries; configurations like VP and grammatical relations, as well as sequence, are assigned in the syntax, principally on the basis of the selection of semantic relations within the predication. (Compare here Fillmore 19680; Anderson 1977: ch. 1.) Given the derivative status of grammatical relations, and on the assumption that they are uniquely determined by the array of case relations, the grammatical relations and positions assigned to clauses correspond to those associated with 'S-structure' in the transformational tradition; there are

Verbal valencies 153 no 'deep' grammatical relations; grammatical relations and positions are not relevant to subcategorisation, and thus to lexical regularities as a whole. The absence of 'deep' grammatical relations/positions can be seen to follow from the strictest interpretation of the highly restrictive inalterability condition of chapter 1: Inalterability condition

The relations of dependency and sequence assigned to an element are inalterable. Dependency and sequence specifications cannot be lost, or reassigned to an 'empty category': relations 'change' only by being added to. The positional interpretation of this is straightforward. It means, for instance, that whatever the relationship between (3.10a) and (b), it cannot involve movement: (3.10)

a. Maria taught Greek to beginners b. Maria taught beginners Greek

There can be no 'dative movement' (either way - cf. Dryer 1987, on the 'noncanonical' direction). Nor is it sufficient to try to limit apparent structure change in terms of requirements like the 'projection principle' of Chomsky (1981: 29): Projection principle Representations at each syntactic level (i.e., LF, and D- and S-structure) are projected from the lexicon, in that they observe the subcategorization properties of lexical items. in that satisfaction of this principle in the framework developed by Chomsky requires the positing of 'empty categories'. Say, however, that the relationship between (3.10a) and (b) is viewed as 'directly' relation-changing (cf. e.g. Blake 1990); say (b) involves a direct object (beginners) which is initially indirect (as in (a)). The characterisation of grammatical relations, interpreted as primitive, or at least as syntactic elements, is contentious; but, whether they are interpreted as labels on dependency arcs or as nodes, a 'change' from indirect object to direct would likewise violate the inalterability condition, in involving a change in dependency relation. It is simply obscurantist to try to exclude the 'stratal' formulations of relational grammar from such inalterability-based criticism on the basis of their being 'non-derivational': inalterability is in principle applicable both to successions of derivational 'stages' and to successions of oriented 'strata'. There can be no 'indirect object advancement' in either instance. These conclusions coincide, within the present area of exemplification, with independent evidence that (3.10a) and (b) are not related syntactically: see e.g. Oehrle 1975; Anderson 1977: ch. 2; 1978; Faltz 1978; Kayne 1984; Bohm 1986;

154 The syntax of categories Pinker 1989; Jackendoff 1990a (vs. Larson 1988). We return to more detailed analysis of 'dative' constructions in §3.3. Anderson (1992b; §4.1) argues that 'dative' and other putative 'clause-internal' relation/position-changing rules are excluded even by the less restrictive strict cyclicity condition, which he interprets as essentially limiting structure-changing rules to bi-clausal (derived) environments (cf. Bohm 1982: §1.1.2; and see also Anderson 1987a1, on such rules as involving violations of a strong alternation condition). Thus, to the extent that a syntactic 'passive' relationship can be motivated, such a status depends on passive constructions being bi-predicational (Anderson 1977: §3.3; 1992b: 96-8). Since it is only in subsequent discussion - particularly in §3.6 - that we shall explore how 'long-distance' dependencies such as that exhibited (between cheated and whom) in whom does Bill say Jack cheated? and the like are reconcilable with inalterability, for the purpose of the present discussion I shall associate case grammar in what immediately follows with the (weaker) assumption of strict cyclicity - say along the lines of the following adaptation from Kiparsky (1982): Strict cycle condition a. Cyclic rules apply only in derived environments b. A representation cp is derived with respect to rule R in cycle j iff cp meets the structural description of R by virtue of (i) a combination of syntactic elements introduced by cycle j , or (ii) the application of a syntactic rule in cycle j which governs the application of structure-changing rules. Anderson (1992a: §4.1) interprets strict cyclicity as disbarring (except under condition (ii) - if this is admitted) structure changes that involve either only elements available on previous cycles or only elements not so available: there are no mono-clausal rules. If grammatical relations/positions are assigned cyclically in the syntax, then they can 'change' only by virtue of the item involved being assigned a new grammatical relation/position in a superordinate clause, as e.g. by raising. As observed, there can be no intraclausal relation changing. Even with respect to this relatively weak requirement, it is clear that a syntactic theory which permits such derivational(/stratal) relationships, in positing a distinction between (intraclausal) 'deep' and derived grammatical relations/positions, is seriously underconstrained. This continues to be true of such frameworks as are advocated in Grimshaw 1990 and Jackendoff 1990b, as well as in the tradition stemming more directly from Chomsky 1981. Grammatical relations/positions are assigned to arguments, according to case grammar, on the basis of the array of semantic relations associated with a predicate, rather than being stipulated in lexical entries. This depends on there being

Verbal valencies 155 a hierarchy of semantic relations with respect to assignment of subjecthood etc., either as a default (so that some lexical items will have to be associated with marked subject assignment) or unexceptionally. Anderson (1977: §2.1.5), f°r instance, argues for the latter, though, cross-linguistically, this depends on the recognition that subjecthood is not universal; and that there are systems of grammatical relations which do not involve such a hierarchy (1977: §3.5). It is argued in §3.3 that such a position is independently motivated. Within subject-languages or subsystems, evidence for orderly, universal hierarchisation of semantic relations is striking, though any proposal concerning the character of the hierarchy depends in detail on a substantive theory of semantic relations; and the absence of consensus concerning this has led to contention over particular examples e.g. as to whether the like/please pair in English provides evidence for an exception to the hierarchy, which is necessarily the case only if the two predicators are associated with the same set of semantic relations (cf. Anderson 1977: §2.1.5; Croft 1991: 214-16, for suggestions of a distinction in relations even here). But even in the absence of consensus, profound regularities are apparent. Thus, S. R. Anderson (1977: 367), for instance, observes that 'the Agent of a (nonpassive) sentence is generally the Subject NP, regardless of the transitivity of the verb or the presence of other oblique NP [sic - JMA] in the clause'. Removing the hedge ('generally'), we can formulate this as the agent rule: Agent rule If subjecthood is assigned to a participant in a predication, an Agent, if present, is subject. Apparent exceptions, like (3.1 ia-b): (3.11)

a. Beppo died at the hands of his best friend b. Beppo died from overwork c. The duckling was killed by the farmer

involve a non-participant and/or a non-agent: the circumstantial in (3.11a) is arguably a locational whose 'agentive' interpretation derives from the meaning of the idiom at the hands of; and that in (b) involves a non-agentive causal (abstract) source (even though one might argue that in Overwork killed Beppo the subject is a non-central agent). S. R. Anderson's 'nonpassive' qualification is also unnecessary: even though the farmer in (3.1 ic) realises the agentive argument of kill, the /^'//-predication does not show a subject; the duckling is subject of be, with respect to which the farmer is not a participant. Given these assumptions concerning the relationship between semantic relations, grammatical relations and subcategorisation, the subcategorisation for

156

The syntax of categories

a verb like melt can take the form of (3.12a), which abbreviates the pair of environments of (b): (3.12)

a. melt b. melt

/ {ntr} / {ntr} {agt} /{ntr}

(cf. Anderson 1992b: §3.4), where, as above (e.g. (3.1b)), V = 'takes as a complement', '<>' indicates optionality, and 'ntr' and 'agt' abbreviate 'neutral' and 'agentive' respectively (recall (2.24) above); the latter are secondary features associated, in terms of the framework developed in chapter 2, with the functor category; they specify the values for the individual functors dependent on melt. Ntr is the least specific semantic relation, with the detailed interpretation of its argument's relation to the predicator being largely determined by the predicatortype: 'located/moving entity' with locationals/directionals (live/come), 'effected entity' with factitives (create), 'affected entity' with mutatives (as in (3.12)). Though these particular labels remain provisional, I assume in what follows that the assignments in (3.12) are relatively uncontroversial, and that the agent rule is viable (at the very least, as a default). The assignments of the subject relation/position in (3.13): (3-13)

a

- The marshmallow melted b. Brad melted the marshmallow

are in accord with the agent rule, in that only in the absence of an agent, i.e. in (a), does the ntr acquire subjecthood, by default. Obviously, the agent rule needs to be supplemented with assignments based on selections of semantic relations not including an agent, including the default just alluded to, and with rules for objects. And we return to the character of the hierarchy determining subject selection below. For the moment, we can, as proposed, simply regard the subjecthood of the marshmallow in (3.13a) as in default of a hierarchically superior argument. Objecthood assignment seems to be variable over languages, but objects always involve a subset of the set of ntr arguments (Anderson 1984c), so that the following object rule is appropriate (though, obviously, not sufficient): Object rule

An object is a ntr denied subjecthood by an agt. This rule is responsible for the object status of the marshmallow in (3.13b). Examples like (3.13) have often been cited in support of the unique relevance of semantic relations to subcategorisation, given that (a) the distribution of grammatical relations is predictable from the semantic, and (b) selectional restrictions cut across the grammatical relations, so that a possible object of the

Verbal valencies 157 transitive (3.13b) is a possible subject of the intransitive (a). Case grammar is based on the assumption that the very restrictive view concerning semantic and grammatical relations exemplified by the discussion of (3.13) is generalisable throughout the syntax. Fillmore (1977a) abandons the restriction that I have characterised here in terms of inalterability or strict cyclicity, and proposes a framework including a level at which 'deep' grammatical relations may be defined, a framework of which such recent proposals as are offered by Baker (1988), Grimshaw (1990), Jackendoff (1990b) and Speas (1990) are reminiscent (though for Jackendoff (e.g. §2.2) 'thematic roles' are themselves derivative). The projective relationship between semantic relations and 'deep' grammatical relations/positions is articulated by Perlmutter and Postal's (19840) universal alignment hypothesis, and Baker's uniformity of theta assignment hypothesis: Uniformity of theta assignment hypothesis Identical thematic relationships between items are represented by identical structural relationships between those items at the level of D-structure (Baker 1988: 46) as well as being made more explicit by recent versions of the projection principle (e.g. Ouhalla 1991: §1.4.2.1), and particularly developments leading to 'minimalism' (Chomsky 1992), and the demise of 'D-structure' and 'S-structure' as systematic levels. Unelaborated case grammar has always lacked differentiations based on such notions: 'initial' and 'final' grammatical relations/positions are identical. This is the longstanding assumption I am developing here. The major motivation for this elaboration of Fillmore's was the argument developed in S. R. Anderson (1971) allegedly demonstrating the necessity for linguistic generalisations to refer to the notion 'deep object', which is not available in a case grammar. The centrepiece of the argument is the (much discussed, before and since) pairs of sentences exemplified by (3.14): (3.14)

a. Hick loaded hay onto the wagon b. Hick loaded the wagon with hay

The definite the wagon argument in (3.14b) is interpreted 'holistically': i.e. the action denoted by the predicator is interpreted as exhausting the relevant dimensions of the object referred to by the wagon. In (3.14a) this is not necessarily the case; here the wagon is interpreted 'partitively'. If the sentences in (3.14) are both accorded the same set of semantic relations - say as in (3.15): (3.15)

Hick = agt hay = ntr the wagon = loc

158

The syntax of categories

then it looks as if we have to say that 'holisticness' is associated with the loc phrase only when it is 'deep' object, given that such an interpretation does not reflect superficial position: (3.16)

a. The wagon was loaded with hay b. It was the wagon that Hick loaded with hay c. The wagon is certain to have been loaded with hay

The sentences in (3.16) share the 'holistic' reading of (3.14b); and, though superficially structurally diverse, particularly as to the role of the wagon, they also share, in a framework with 'deep' grammatical relations/positions, the attribution of 'deep'-objecthood to the wagon. In a grammar without such, so the argument goes, it is difficult to see at what level the generalisation concerning 'holisticness' can be expressed. That (3.14) are not themselves syntactically related (with the 'holistic'/'partitive' distinction correlating with (non-)operation of some syntactic operation) is confirmed by the divergent selectional restrictions and morphological potential associated with them: (3.17)

a. Harry overloaded the wagon with hay b. *Harry overloaded hay onto the wagon (Fraser 1971; cf. too Jackendoff 1990b: §8.6)

Now, despite this, if passive, like the other constructions in (3.16), is bipredicational, then we can associate 'holisticness', in a case grammar, with assignment to the loc of objecthood in the cycle that applies to the most deeply embedded clause (and there is thus no (intraclausal) distinction between 'deep' and 'derived' object); but then differences in selectional restrictions and morphological potential would also have to be sensitive to this. However, Anderson (1975; 1977: §1.8) argues that it is inappropriate to invoke objecthood at all in relation to such phenomena, and that case grammar assumptions provide a preferable account. 3.1.2

Case grammar and 'holisticness'

Let us observe, as an approach to the counter-proposals made in the works just cited (to which I refer the reader for more detailed argumentation), that the examples in (3.14) apparently present yet another problem for case grammar: objecthood is accorded either to the ntr or the loc; it seems not to be hierarchically determined. Elsewhere, ntr is preferred to loc, whether prepositional or not: (3.18)

a. He keeps his money in the bank b. He took his money to the bank c. He keeps his money there

Verbal valencies 159 - in line with the object rule (above). A proper account of the distribution of 'holisticness' should also resolve this discrepancy, if the case grammar position is to be maintained. A starting point for an account is to register that a definite ntr also typically involves 'holisticness'. Consider again, for instance, the examples in (3.18): the normal interpretation is exhaustive with respect to the ntr argument; all of his money is located or transferred. Ntr arguments and the the wagon argument of (3.14b) share a property; the argument in (3.14b), being locative, involves exhaustiveness with respect to relevant dimensions, whereas the ntr arguments are exhaustive with respect to whatever comprises the referent. Anderson (1975; 1977: §1.8) proposes that these arguments share a relational property which I shall follow Anderson (1977) in labelling abs(olutive), so that: (3.19)

his money (3.18) = ntr = abs the wagon (3.14b) = loc,abs

That is, the pair in (3.14) do not involve identical semantic relations; rather, we have the associations in (3.20): (3.20)

Hick hay the wagon

(3-Ha) agt abs loc

(3.i4b)

agt abs loc,abs

Assignment of grammatical relations/positions is determined by the agent rule and the complex abs rule: Complex abs rule An {,abs} participant is preferred to {abs} with respect to assignment of grammatical relations where '{,abs}' denotes abs in combination with some other semantic relation. Thus, the wagon in (3.14b), as {loc,abs}, is preferred as object to the simple {abs} hay, with Hick being selected as subject by the agent rule. This complex abs rule refines on the (simple) abs rule: Abs rule An {abs} participant is second only to agt with respect to assignment of grammatical relations which alone is operative, along with the agent rule, in (3.14a). Note too that we should also now subsitute 'abs' for 'ntr' in the formulation of the object rule given above: Object rule An object is an abs denied subjecthood by an agt.

160 The syntax of categories The proposed (complex) characterisation of the the wagon argument in (3.14b) thus resolves both the problems noted above, viz. the characterisation of the distribution of 'holisticness' and the assignments of grammatical relations/positions. The characterisation of the the wagon argument in (3.14b) violates a widely entertained restriction on semantic relations/case relations/theta-roles, namely that restricting each argument to one such relation (cf. e.g. Fillmore 19680: 24; Chomsky 1981: §2.2). However, given the interpretation of semantic relations suggested here, as features associated with the functor category, the fact that the individual features may combine is unsurprising: each argument is still dependent on only one functor, but the content of the functor may involve a complex representation in terms of semantic relations. Moreover, it is clear that such complex articulations are appropriate elsewhere: see e.g. Anderson 1968: App.; 1977: §1.4; Huddleston 1970; Jackendoff 1976; 1990Z?: §3.1. A straightforward example of this is provided by the subject of (3.2 ii), which is simultaneously 'source of the action' and 'moving object', so {agt,abs}; selection of only one or the other obscures both the semantics and the (morpho-)syntax of such predications: (3-211)

(ii)

Bert walked home a. mi'tJ be'kal duleya b. befkhmi'pal sa'lcakiya c. mi'tJ kaluhuya d. befkhkalphiTliya e. be'kal de'xelka

'he them killed' 'they him killed' 'he went-home' 'they went-home' 'they slipped'

In some languages such a dual relational assignment has a morphological reflection, as exemplified by the sentences of (3.2 iii) from Eastern Porno (see McLendon 1978; and, for further discussion, Anderson 1980b; 1987J: §2): the shape of the pronoun reflects whether it is agentive or not, so that mvp 'he' and be'kh 'they' are both such, marking the source of the action in both the transitive examples (a) and (b) and the intransitive (c) and (d), whereas be'kal 'they/them' and mrpal 'he/him' signal the entity represented as undergoing the action or process, i.e. abs, both in the transitive examples (a) and (b) and the (non-actional) intransitive (e); the suppletive alternation illustrated by (a) and (b) reflects the number of the absolutive, and the single argument of (c) and (d) that we have already labelled agt on the basis of the pronoun shape also triggers, as simultaneously abs, (partial) suppletion in the verb. In this way the morphology reflects the {agt,abs} role of the arguments in (c) and (d). Such relationalfeature combinations are not objectionable, then, but rather desirable, to the extent that they enable appropriate generalisations concerning the semantic role and morphosyntax of arguments.

Verbal valencies 161 The subcategorisation for (3.14b) suggested in (3.20) also violates, in the case of abs, another widely entertained condition: it contains two instances of abs (e.g. Fillmore 1968a: 22; Chomsky 1981: 36). Anderson (1977: ch. 1) argues that double presence in a subcategorisation frame is appropriate just in the case of abs. In §2.1.2 it was suggested that the post-copular phrases in (2.6a) and (2.7a), repeated here: (2.6) (2.7)

a. The man with the shakes is Fred a. Fred is the man with the shakes

are not predicators. Rather, the copula takes two arguments, both abs (hence the reversability, determined ultimately by discourse), providing the only instance in which subject assignment is arbitrary with respect to the array of semantic relations. (3.20) also invokes two abs, but one combined with loc. Below I shall associate this capacity with another property of abs, its obligatory character. Anderson (1975; 1977: §1.8) observed further that formulation of the appropriate generalisation is frustrated if the 'holisticness' of the the wagon argument of (3.14b) is associated with 'deep' objecthood. For we find the same contrast with intransitives like that in (3.22a): (3.22)

a. Sewagefloodedinto the tank b. The tankfloodedwith sewage

(cf. e.g. Chomsky 1972a; S. R.Anderson 1977: 369-70; 1988&: 292-5), which I associate with the semantic relations in (3.23): (3-23)

sewage the tank

(3.22a) abs loc

(3.22b) abs loc,abs

Again we can associate the {loc,abs} argument of (3.22b) with exhaustion of the relevant dimensions ('holisticness'), whereas in (a) the 'flooding' is associated with the volume of the referent of sewage and does not necessarily indicate exhaustion of the capacity of that of the tank. And again the complex abs argument is preferred with respect to grammatical relation/position (in this case as subject), while the assignment in (a) is in accord with the (simple) abs rule. This is part of the reason that the formulations of the complex abs rule and the abs rule refer to assignment of grammatical relations rather than simply assignment of object or subject: the same hierarchy relates to subjecthood and objecthood. The abs argument denied a grammatical relation is marked here, as elsewhere, with with; though with 'source-based' 'holistics' the marker is of (cf. He cleared the drain of leaves/He cleared leaves out of the drain).

162

The syntax of categories

I have spent a little time on this elderly debate precisely because it seems to me that the wrong conclusions have been, and (at least tacitly) continue to be, drawn from considerations of the 'holistic'/'partititive' alternations: they do not motivate weakening of the case grammar assumption concerning the status of grammatical relations. On the contrary, a proper account of the phenomena suggests that positing as relevant of a level of 'deep' grammatical relations/positions to which subcategorisation is sensitive frustrates both the formulation of subcategorisations and the expression of the 'holisticness' generalisation. More generally, Anderson (1984&) attempts to show in some detail with respect to English derivational morphology that the invocation of grammatical relations is irrelevant and indeed obstructive in the formulating of a wide range of lexical relationships, beyond mere subcategorisation. If valid, this provides strong support for the case grammar position, in terms of which the non-idiomatic lexicon does not have access to grammatical relations/positions. 3.1.3

The delusion of unaccusativity

One characteristic lexical/derivational pattern noted in Anderson 1984Z?, not restricted to English (Moravcsik 1978), is illustrated, with respect to subcategorisation, by a verb like melt, this instantiates what Lyons (1968: §8.2) calls an 'ergative' pattern. I have suggested that ntr, or rather (given the preceding discussion) abs, is pivotal here, in that it is constant, an agt being optional, and that the divergent grammatical relations/positions illustrated in (3.12) follow from the agent, abs and object rules. Subcategorisation of such items in terms of grammatical relations is again obstructive to the formulation of the appropriate generalisations. And we have seen that 'holisticness' of a loc is also associated with combination with abs, whether or not an agt is also present; we have here too an 'ergative' distribution, with the {loc,abs} becoming object or subject in accordance with the agent, abs and object rules. The pervasive abs-based derivational pattern discussed by Anderson (1984&) may be exemplified by deadjectival verbs ending in -en in English. Whether the derived verb is transitive: (3.24)

a. The head of department chastened his colleagues b. Alys softened the bread in milk

or intransitive: (3.25)

a. The incline steepened at that point b. The bread softened in milk

Verbal valencies 163 the argument of the base adjective corresponds to the abs argument of the verb (here involving 'affected objects'), which is subject in (3.25), object in (3.24) (see particularly Anderson 1984&: §3.3). Once more, we have an 'ergative' pattern, wherein the assignment of grammatical relations cuts across the relevant arguments, and frustrates any formulation of the appropriate generalisation. However, while such phenomena are clearly compatible with the case grammar position, and not with earlier ideas about 'deep' subjects and 'objects', it has been argued more recently that what these allegedly abs-based phenomena reflect is the 'deep' objecthood of some intransitive subjects, such as those in (3.25), as well as that of the non-subjects with the transitives in (3.24) etc. Soften would be a verb subcategorised for a (direct) object (which is abs/theme) but only optionally require an agentive subject. This constitutes the core of the unaccusative hypothesis (Perlmutter 1978; Hoekstra 1984: ch. 3; Burzio 1986: ch. 1; Levin 1988; Grewendorf 1989; Grimshaw 1990: §2.5.3; etc-)> whereby in the following or equivalent terms - some 'intransitive' verbs are subcategorised for an object (and have an empty subject). It is striking in this respect that Horn (1980) uses the same kind of word-formation material as Anderson (1984b), as described above, deploys in favour of the case grammar hypothesis to argue for the unaccusative character of many derivational processes. In such terms, what I have been calling 'ergative' patterning reflects shared 'deep'objecthood, thus unaccusativity. From the case grammar perspective, such a hypothesis is, first of all, simply unnecessary. Though other factors (such as 'aspectual' - e.g. Rappaport-1989) may also be involved, 'unaccusative phenomena' correlate principally with subjects that are (like objects) non-agentive abs; non-unaccusative (unergative) intransitive subjects are, like that in (3.21), {erg,abs}. This correlation is conceded by Perlmutter and Postal's (1984) universal alignment hypothesis, or Baker's (1988: §2.2.1) uniformity of theta assignment; Rosen (1984) argues against such an alignment hypothesis, but what she demonstrates is simply that there may be lexical exceptions to (particularly morphological) generalisations based on notional classes. Similarly, Rappaport concedes, vis-a-vis the unaccusative/ unergative distinction, that in languages with no morphological indication of this alleged distinction 'class membership must be completely determinable on the basis of meaning' (1989: 120). But then attribution of objecthood to nonagentive abs arguments is unnecessary, given that they share the abs semantic relation with (transitive) objects. Master Occam would not be doing with 'deep objects'.

164 The syntax of categories As partially acknowledged above, some indeterminacy is introduced into the evaluation of alleged 'unaccusative phenomena' by neglect of the fact that some of these (e.g. perfect auxiliary selection in, say, Italian or German) also - indeed, more centrally, or rather - reflect 'aspectual' distinctions (cf. e.g. Shannon 1987; Rappaport 1989; van Valin 1987; Bohm 1993: §4.3.2; and see further the introduction to §3.3 below). But that all such phenomena do not simply correlate with (non-)agentivity does not motivate the introduction of a level at which e.g. the bread in (3.25b) is an object; on the contrary, such conflicts of criteria serve only to further undermine the unnecessary hypothesis of unaccusativity. On the other hand, a typical example of the semantic-relational basis for alleged unaccusativity is provided by the pattern of acceptability associated with the by-now-rather-familiar Dutch sentences in (3.26) and their equivalents in the many other languages with impersonal passives: (3.26i) a. De jongelui dansen hier vaak the young-people dance here often b. Er wordt hier door de jongelui vaak gedanst it is here by the young-people often danced (ii) a. De kinderen verdwijnen uit dit weeshuis the children disappear from this orphanage b. *Uit dit weeshuis wordt (er) door vele kinderen verdwenen from this orphanage is (it) by many children disappeared The {erg,abs} argument of (3.261) can appear in an 'impersonal' passive (b), unsurprisingly marked by the agentive functor door, whereas the simple abs of (iia) has no such privilege, and (iib) is unacceptable. Unaccusative analyses have been offered of a wide range of syntactic and(/or) lexical phenomena. Thus, for instance, Simpson (1983: 146) claims that 'the controller of a resultative attribute must be an OBJECT, whether that OBJECT is a surface OBJECT, as in transitive verbs, or an underlying OBJECT, as in passive and intransitive verbs of the Unaccusative class ...', as illustrated in (3-27): (3.27)

a. I froze the icecream solid b. The icecream was frozen solid c. The icecream froze solid

But such claims must yield to the prior shared property of abshood, which renders the attribution of objecthood to all of these NPs superfluous. We take up further alleged syntactic evidence for unaccusativity in §§3.3 and 3.6, where I shall again argue that reference to (direct) objecthood is unwarranted. However, the unaccusative hypothesis is not merely unnecessary: the derivation it requires - change from object(-position) to subject(-position) of the same

Verbal valencies 165 clause - violates not merely inalterability but also strict cyclicity (or the strong alternation condition); as with dative, the relational/positional change is not motivated by any extra-clausal context. Such a proposal - involving unnecessary elaborations (such as a level to accommodate 'deep' objects and (anti-economical) unaccusative rule applications) which require theoretical dilution (abandonment of even strict cyclicity) - must surely be rejected. For more detailed argumentation, see Anderson 1980b; 1984b; 1986b; 1992b: §4.1.1 do not pursue here Belletti's (1987) ('partitive') revision of the unaccusative hypothesis, which seems to me to deprive it of any relevance to the current discussion, as well as obscuring the fact that partitives reflect nominal-phrase-internal relations rather than 'case' or semantic relations (cf. e.g. Grewendorf 1989). It will be clear that I do not accept the Levin and Rappaport contention, allegedly supported by their analysis of phenomena related to those invoked in the debate concerning the 'spray paint cases', that 'operations on lexical representations may not have access to 6-role labels' (1986: 657). Contrariwise, as we have seen, the case grammar position is that 'grammatical relations' should be substituted for '9-role labels' in such a formulation (though this depends on what count as 'operations on lexical representations'): this is the main burden of Anderson 1984b, for example. However, even if we adopt the latter, i.e. casegrammar, perspective, the suggestion of Levin and Rappaport (1986) that, on the other hand (from their point of view), the obligatory vs. optional status of semantic-relationally characterised arguments is relevant to the expression of lexical relationships provides the startingpoint for consideration of another aspect of subcategorisation. Levin and Rappaport (1986) observe that the viability of the attributive constructions in (3.28): (3.28)

a. the stuffed pillow b. *the stuffed feathers

in senses corresponding to (3.29): (3.29)

a. Bob stuffed the pillow with feathers b. Bob stuffed feathers into the pillow

correlates with the fact that whereas the prepositional phrase in (3.29a) is optional, that in (b) is not: (3.30)

a. Bob stuffed the pillow b. *Bob stuffed the feathers

The availability of an unmodified deverbal adjective construction - cf. with (3.28) the modified:

166 The syntax of categories (3.31)

a. the pillow stuffed with feathers b. the feathers stuffed into the pillow

reflects, in terms of case grammar, the subcategorisations (for the 'holistic' and 'partitive' constructions, respectively) given in (3.32): (3.32)

a. stuff / {agt} {loc,abs} b. / {agt} {abs} {loc}

Only (3.32a) has, on suppression of the agt, a one-argument possibility suitable as a prenominal attributive. The interest of this is not merely that the generalisations involved need have no recourse to the arbitrary apparatus of 'direct' and 'external' arguments appealed to by Levin and Rappaport 1986 (see further here Bohm 1993: §5.1.1), but rather what is revealed by an attempt to collapse (3.32a) and (b). What characterises stuff"is that it may have two abs arguments, or one, either combined with loc or alone, but it may not lack an abs altogether. This requirement reflects a general principle of predication construction: Universality of abs Every predication contains an abs. (This can be seen as a consequence of the proposal made in Anderson (1968a: App.), and is assumed by Anderson 1971a; 1977; see too Starosta (1988; also 1978) on 'Patient centrality'.) Given such a principle, we can collapse (3.32) as (3.33a), and the verb of (3.22) can be subcategorised as in (3.33b): (3-33)

a

- stuff / {agt} {loc} b. flood / {loc}

with the derived causative of (3.34): (3.34)

a. Algernonfloodedthe market (with ethnic underwear) b. * Algernonfloodedethnic underwear onto the market

being based, once more, on {loc,abs}. Satisfaction of the principle of abs universality requires that one or other, at least, of the optional abs arguments for which stuffand flood are subcategorised must be present in any predication involving them. If there are predicators that are, at least in one sense, not subcategorised for an abs (even optionally) - as has been suggested of e.g. 'weather' predicators - the abs required by the universality principle may be filled expletively, as exemplified by (3.35): (3-35)

a

- It has rained b. It grew late

Verbal valencies 167 or indeed by the 'transitive' non-meteorological constructions of (3.36): (3-36)

a. We hoofed it as far as the outskirts b. They hot-footed it out of town

with a predicator subcategorised for agt, but not abs. The distribution of the expletive abs - subject in (3.35), object in (3.36) - is again in conformity with the hierarchy established by the conditions introduced above. We can also associate the possible dual presence of abs in subcategorisations with the universality principle: as with other semantic relations, only one instance of abs is truly contrastive, selectable for; the other is to be expected. We return to aspects of 'optionality' in the following section. To conclude this one: it is clearly not possible to review here the full range of possible evidence for the relevance to subcategorisation of grammatical relations/positions; what I have tried to do is to show that one influential argument for such (that based on the 'holistic'/'partitive' distinction) is invalid, and that repair strategies for the construct 'deep' grammatical relation like the unaccusative hypothesis are both unnecessary and undesirable. I maintain the more economical and more restrictive position that only semantic relations are relevant to subcategorisation, and that neither the lexicon nor the syntax appeals to 'deep' grammatical relations/positions (where these differ from the 'surface' by virtue of some intraclausal process). Verbs are subcategorised with respect to functors; and, in accord with the traditional case grammar hypothesis, the values for the functor category required by verbs are notionally based. This means, of course, that I also reject the suggestion that with respect to the assignment of semantic relations subjects are distinctive in 'that the semantic role of the Subject is assigned compositionally, depending on the meaning of the unit V-NP' (Chomsky 19866: 60). This suggestion depends on the observation that there are V-object idioms which 'cancel' normal expectations concerning the semantic role of the subject, as in (3.37b), compared with the 'normal' (a), with agt subject: (3-37)

a

- John'threw the ball (to his friend) b. John threw a fit c. *John threw afitto his friend

But notice, on the one hand, that assignment of other participant relations may also be disrupted, as illustrated by (3.37c); sensitivity to the V-object idiom here is not unique to subjects. I observe, on the other hand, that these idioms are best not regarded as V-object idioms, but rather as V-abs. In a transitive structure this will indeed involve verb and object, as in (3.37). But such transitive

168

The syntax of categories

formations, as exemplified also by (3.38a), are paralleled by intransitives such as (3.38b): (3.38)

a. That joke killed the audience b. That joke died c. That joke died a death d. That sheep died a death e. Drunk driving kills f. *Bill kills g. The cat leapt onto the shelf h. *My heart leapt onto the shelf i. The lion consumed Bill j . Self-pity consumed Bill k. Bill took the coat to the cleaners 1. Bill took the company to the cleaners

which also require suspensions of expectations concerning semantic interpretation. We have here the familiar 'ergative' patterning which pivots on abs, whose susceptibility for idiom formation is consistent with its status as the least specific but most specifically selected participant (recall again the findings of Moravcsik 1978). (Again, of course, I reject an unaccusative analysis of such intransitives, which anyway would not provide support for the subcategorisational etc. distinctiveness of subjects.) Notice, finally, that (3.38c) and (d) illustrate that choice of subject at least affects the predicator's capacity to allow a (pseudo-)object, while (e) and (f) show that selection of subject determines whether or not an object is expressed, and (g) and (h) that choice of subject affects the viability of complementation by a Goal; and that the most obvious interpretations of (i) and (j) reflect that choice of subject can radically change how the manner of participation of the object referent is interpreted, while (k) and (1) illustrate the same for object and choice of ^-complement. 3.2

The content of the functor category

Let us now look rather more carefully at the subcategories of functor, which provide the values for the subcategorisation discussed in the preceding section. The arguments of a predicator identify the entities involved in the perceived situation identified by the predicator itself. The nature of the roles played by these entities can be discriminated in more or less detail. In a sense, each predicator prescribes a unique set of roles. But it is possible, in the first place, to generalise over various 'fields' of the vocabulary; and in certain institutionalised situations, in particular, these roles are made lexically explicit in the language. Thus, in the

The content of the functor category

169

situations described by English verbs like sell, buy, barter etc. one recurrent role is occupied by a 'customer'; in those described by concede, justify, accuse etc. there recurs a 'defendant', perhaps (see e.g. Fillmore 1971b, 1972: §42,1977b). More generally still, we can recognise that in many situations it is possible to attribute to a particular entity the role of 'source of the action', the agentive role. The 'customer' in (3.39a) and the 'defendant' in (b): (3-39)

a

- Algernon bought a Lada from Bert b. Algernon justified his decision unconvincingly

are both agentive, as 'sources' of the immediate 'action' described by the verb. There is, however, no simple mapping between such generalised roles and the more specific institutionalised functions. The 'customer' in (3.40), for instance, is not presented as the 'source' of the immediate 'action': (3.40)

Bert sold a Lada to Algernon

even though the same 'real-world' event may be being referred to by (3.39a) and (34O). It is 'generalised' roles such as agentive that case grammarians identify as case relations, those semantic relations which are basic to the lexicon and/or syntax: as we shall see, it is e.g. agt rather than 'customer' etc. that is linguistically distinctive, or contrastive. 'Customer' vs. 'salesperson' are, in a different manner, no more linguistically contrastive than selection of subject or direction of complementation: the 'situational' categories are irrelevant to subcategorisation, subjecthood follows from it, and direction of complementation is not sensitive to it. There has been some agreement, and much disagreement, concerning the set of roles that fulfil this basic function in the grammar. For recent surveys see e.g. Somers 1987; Cook 1989; and for a fuller account of the system assumed here than follows see Anderson in press b, and, for earlier views, 1971a; 1977. Here indeed I do not enter again into this debate: for present purposes I adopt the set of case features argued for in Anderson (1977), where there is proposed the set of only four case relations of table 3.1, with each relation characterised in terms of combinations of the notional components PLACE and SOURCE, such that abs is unmarked and erg is a non-PLACE SOURCE, perceived source of the event or situation, physical or mental, potentially in control of it. This embodies the localist claim that the semantic domain of case is structured in terms of spatial (locational and directional) relations; there are no necessarily 'abstract' case relations. (Amongst subsequent discussions based on rather different assumptions, and despite its combative presentation, see Ostler 1980, for a similar articulation.)

170

The syntax of categories

Table 3.1: Localist case components erg

abs

case relations'. CASE COMPONENTS:

loc

abl

PLACE

PLACE

SOURCE

SOURCE

abs = absolutive; erg = ergative; loc = locative; abl = ablative

Some possible combinations and their implementation are given in (3.41): abs erg erg,abs abs loc,abs erg,loc erg,loc,abs abs erg

(341)

abs loc abs abl abs

loc abl

loc

and (3.42) respectively: (342)

a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i.

The plan has improved/disintegrated Harry has improved/read the plan Harry has improved/worked The ball is on the table John/The room is warm Barbie knows/likes Greek John is warm/sad The ball rolled from the door to the window Oliver transferred the cable from the hairdrier to the toaster

Thus, for example, the experiencer subject of (3.41/421) is represented as the loc(ation) of the state denoted by the verb and also the source of responsibility (erg) for it. (3.41/42!), on the other hand, is an example where each semantic relation is associated with a distinct argument; such predications represent the maximal valency structure allowed for in Allerton's (1982) analysis of English: see particularly his §3.5. Concerning the interpretation of the experiencer/dative as {erg,loc}, Anderson (1978; 1987J) argues that they share semantic, syntactic and morphological properties with both locatives and agentives. Agentives and experiencers, for instance, as well as sharing the selecting of human arguments

The content of the functor category

171

as central, both also select adverbials like secretly, as illustrated by the pattern of acceptability in (3.43): (3.43)

a. b. c. d.

Fin* secretly killed the cat Fin* secretly loves cats Fin* left secretly *Fifi toppled secretly

wherein we can assign roles to the respective subjects as in (3.44): (3.44)

a. {erg}

b. {erg,loc}

c. {erg,abs}

d. {abs}

The problems in interpreting (3.43d) reveal that what is involved here is not simply a preference for animate subjects; and the strangeness of (3.45): (3.45)

*Fifi died secretly

confirms, further, that secretly doesn't merely select predicators which normally take an animate argument. Despite having this property, die takes an abs argument: it is the 'movement-out-of-existence' verb used with animate 'moving entities' (cf. e.g. Fifi passed away), which are thus abs. Secretly is specifically associated with erg or {erg,loc} arguments such as those in (3.43). This is, of course, not to deny that there are other adverbs, such as deliberately, which select non-locative ergs (agts), and still others, such as sincerely, which prefer arguments (apart from locutionary agents) that are specifically {erg,loc} (experiencers). The 'locative' character of experiencers/datives, on the other hand, is confirmed by the interpretative parallelism between the pairs in (3.46): (3.461) a. b. (ii) a. b.

Greg has gone to Stuttgart Greg is in Stuttgart John has told Fifi the news Fifi knows the news

for example. From (the truth of) the directional (346ia) we normally infer (the truth of) the locational (b); and such is characteristic of goal/place pairs. The pair in (346ii) allows the same inference, with Fifi in them playing the same part (locative/goal) as Stuttgart in (3.46O. Anderson (1977: §2.6-8) argues indeed that experiencer/dative and loc are mutually exclusive in terms of subcategorisation. One plank in his proposal that experiencer/dative be eliminated from the set of primitive semantic relations (in conformity with the dictates of the localist hypothesis) is a contention that no predicator is simultaneously subcategorised for loc and experiencer/dative; they are in complementary distribution. There is thus no infringement of the

172

The syntax of categories

one-instance-per-clause constraint deriving from the loc component we are attributing to experiencer/datives. The same, however, does not seem to be true of the erg feature, which the analysis of (346iib) I am assuming attributes to two participants in a single simple clause, John ({erg}) and Fiji ({erg,loc}). That analysis seems to me well motivated in this respect, as I shall argue below (§§3-3-3, 3-4)- And I shall take up this problem at that point. Note finally here that in many languages the experiencer is marked by a Dative case inflexion which is also associated with the expression of concrete location/goal. Hjelmslev's remarks on Tabassaranian are typical: 'ce cas designe d'abord l'objet indirect, en y comprenant ce qui dans les langues europeennes est le sujet des verba sentiendi... Mais ensuite le datif admet des emplois concrets-locaux ou il indique un rapprochement ou la direction vers' (1935: 154). Anderson (1971(3: §7.22) also notes that the Dative marker is often historically a specialisation of a Locative (as apparently in Indo-European Kurylowicz 1964: 190-5). And compare more generally the material surveyed in Anderson 1984a1. The characterisations in table 3.1 recognise a general substantive principle determining the character of case relations, to complement the distributional and individual properties mentioned above. As noted, they instantiate one articulation of the localist hypothesis whose history is charted by Hjelmslev (1935/37), in terms of which the domain of case is structured by components utilised in our perception of spatial situations: there are no necessarily 'abstract' case relations. On localism see further Hjelmslev 1935/37; Anderson 1971a: parts in and v; 1973a; 1977: ch. 2; 1982; 1987a1; 1989&; Lyons 1977: §15.7; Bohm 1982; Miller 1985. The hypothesis is one attempt to provide a general definition of (notional) case, avoiding the problems of uncertainty and overlap associated with notional definitions particular to individual case relations. The importance of a nonparticularist approach to case is forcibly expressed by Hjelmslev (1935/37: 4): Delimiter exactement une categorie est impossible sans une idee precise sur les faits de signification. II ne suffit pas d'avoir des idees sur les significations de chacune des formes entrant dans la categorie. II faut pouvoir indiquer la signification de la categorie prise dans son ensemble. Apart from within the localist tradition, and despite the proliferation of particularist localist analyses (generally unacknowledged as such) by others (e.g. Gruber 1965 and Jackendoff 1976; 1983; 1992Z?), it is only recently (with developments in cognitive grammar and elsewhere) that there has been a more general recognition of the need for such a holistic viewpoint.

The content of the functor category

173

The postulation of a universal theory of case is, of course, not to say that the 'same' situation will be expressed in terms of the same 'case frame' in different languages, or always in the same way in a particular language, or that what can be an {erg}, say, in language A will necessarily correspond to an {erg} in language B (cf. e.g. Dahl 1987). The English experiencer ({erg,loc}) usage of (347): (3.47) Tuesday saw Brenda's departure is alien to a large number of languages, for instance. Rather, these relations form the basis for constructing clause structures in any language, and their applicability is seen to be limited primarily, within the localist tradition, by the spatial templates with which they are associated. The central instances of loc and abl involve positive vs. negative orientation with respect to a 'concrete' PLACE, as illustrated in (342i). Abs (non-PLACE, non-SOURCE) is non-specific, with the relation between its argument and the verb being interpreted in accord with the other types of functor present ('thing located', etc.), but central instances are intimately and exhaustively involved in the situation denoted by the predication; abs arguments enter into the most detailed selectional restrictions with the predicator they complement (cf. e.g. Moravcsik 1978). Such a character appears to be entirely appropriate to the null combination; to the extent that abs is the unmarked semantic relation, Jackendoff s contention that 'the notion of a default conceptual role is incoherent' (1990: §2.2) seems to me quite unwarranted. Erg is a non-PLACE SOURCE, the 'source of the situation', central instances of which are human and volitional, with the central 'situation' being seen as 'actional'; the Silverstein hierarchy (1976) describes decreasingly central ergs. The SOURCE component shared by erg and abl is reflected in recurrent syncretism in expression of the two relations: cf. Latin a(b), German von (Schuchardt 1922: 244-6); and, for further exemplification, see e.g. Green 1914; Anderson 1971a: §11.22. Notionally, the presence of erg and abl render, respectively, abs and loc directional, 'goals' of the action or the movement. I shall assume in what follows that this exhausts the set of semantic relations to be attributed to functors: all contrastive roles are reducible to (combinations of) these four. I shall also assume that circumstantials reduce to the same set of functor features. This involves a claim that putative distinctive circumstantial roles such as 'cause' or 'purpose' instantiate abstract sources and goals (Anderson 1986&; 1992&: §4.3). Even in some systems of inflexional Case, however, it is clear that the range of distinctions allowed for by the set of semantic relations in table 3.1 is not sufficient to provide for all the alleged differences in Case (see already Hjelmslev 1935/37). But I suggest that these further dimensions

174 The syntax of categories (involving distinctions like interior/non-interior- 'inessive' vs. 'adessive' - and deictic/non-deictic - e.g. 'posterior' vs. 'non-posterior') involve incorporation of nominal elements (subjoined to the functor, as with Finnish postpositions: see (2.32) in §2.2.2). 3.3

The basic syntax of predications

In §3.11 attempted to articulate and defend the idea, anticipated in chapter 2, that verbal valencies - the subcategorisation of verbs (indeed, predicators in general) - are formulated with respect to semantic relations only: only the semantic relations subclassify predicators in terms of complement type, with the other contextual subclassiflcation, in terms of argument type, also being semantically based (selectional restrictions); only these aspects of the 'syntactic' environment are contrastive for predicators. Other, recently often seen as more central, aspects of syntactic structure are not contrastive within predications; they don't in themselves serve to distinguish between lexical items, and they are derivative of the distribution of semantic relations in a predication, or they reflect 'pragmatic' (rather than lexical) contrasts (involving topicalisation etc.). We are concerned here with the grammatical aspects of the determination of these redundant syntactic properties, notably the distribution of grammatical relations/positions, which, in so far as this does not correlate directly with 'pragmatic' considerations, can be said to manifest grammaticalisation of semantic relations. The proposal appended to the projection principle (recall §3.1.1 above, and see further below) that: Projection principle (b) Every clause must have a subject

(Chomsky 1982)

entails that subjects (however characterised) are irrelevant to strict subcategorisation. They are also, as argued here, derivative, unless the association between subjecthood and semantic relation were to be idiosyncratic, so contrastive. In §3.11 suggested (following Anderson 1977, in particular) that subjecthood in a predication is indeed derivative of the array of semantic relations associated with its predicator (with, at the very most, marginal exceptions). There are apparently languages in which the obligatory grammatical relation - 'subject', only in some extended sense - is not (non-arbitrarily) determinate with respect to the array of semantic relations (as discussed in §3.3.2 below), but in this case this status is freely available to any participant, and thus again need not be part of individual lexical entries. 'Subjecthood', even in this extended sense, is derivative,

The basic syntax ofpredications

175

redundant; its universality, both within and across languages, is one issue to be taken up in the subsection which immediately follows. It has been observed that the derivative status of subjects emerges rather transparently from a consideration of their role in the putatively structure-changing rule of raising (e.g. Anderson 1977: §1.9.2; 1986&; 1992&: §3.5). Unlike the alleged structure-changing rules (or rule instances) of dative and unaccusative, raising is in conformity with the strict cycle condition, discussed in §3.1 above, and repeated here: Strict cycle condition a. Cyclic rules apply only in derived environments b. A representation cp is derived with respect to rule R in cycle j iff cp meets the structural description of R by virtue of (i) a combination of syntactic elements introduced by cycle j , or (ii) the application of a syntactic rule in cycle j Raising 'moves' an argument into the immediately superordinate clause. Thus, in (3.48a) an argument which bears a semantic relation to the subordinate verb becomes ultimately subject of the superordinate: (3.48)

a. Fred seemed to like Linda b. Bill expected Fred to like Linda

(3.48b) I take also to involve raising, and not to be an instance of ad hoc 'exceptional case marking' or the like (cf. again e.g. Anderson 1992b: §3.5 - and see Postal and Pullum 1988, on possible objections to 'raising-to-object'). In terms of the framework of Chomsky 1982, seem is neither subcategorised for its subject (just like any other verb) nor does it (unlike most other verbs) assign to it a semantic relation (0-role); this subject position is thus accessible to the argument moved out of the subordinate clause. The verb expect, I suggest, is, in these terms, subcategorised for an object to which it does not assign a G-role. This is undesirable in such a framework. But in the context of the present proposals, the subject of seem and the object of expect are abs arguments for which the verbs are not subcategorised; they - as opposed to the {erg,loc} argument of expect - are present in predications only by virtue of the universality of abs principle of §3.1.3: Universality of abs Every predication contains an abs. So too are the expletive subjects of (3.35) and the objects of (3.36), repeated here: (3-35)

a

(3 36)

a. We hoofed it as far as the outskirts b. They hot-footed it out of town

- It has rained b. It grew late

176 The syntax of categories which are abs arguments for which again the verbs are unsubcategorised. Compare with these Rain has fallen and They ran out of town, where the predicators are subcategorised for an abs (subject), an abs which is also erg in the case of the latter. The empty - unsubcategorised-for - abs in both of (3.48) is filled by the lower subject; in (3.35/36) no such is available, and the position is by default occupied by an expletive. These empty abs arise from the fact that the predicational universality of abs required by the principle reintroduced above does not ensure its universality (with predicators) in the lexicon. We return to the analysis of raising structures within an even more restrictive set of assumptions, embodying inalterability (cf. §3.1.1), in §§3.3.3. At this point, what is important is the observation that whereas the 'host' for raising is identified in terms of semantic relations (it is an empty abs), the 'raisee' is characterised by its grammatical relation. With respect to the lower clause, Fred in (3.48) is what in a finite clause containing them would quite uncontroversially be subject of like. What unites the superordinate clause hosts is their abshood; their grammatical relations are distinct. And, quite regularly, subjecthood in the upper predication is accorded to the abs argument in (3.48a), in accordance with the abs rule of §3.1.2 (its only competitor is a non-finite verb - see §3.6), and to the {erg,loc} argument of (3.48b), in accord with a modification of the agent rule of §3.1.1, a modification which generalises the rule to erg participants in the light of the proposals of §3.2: Erg rule If subjecthood is assigned to a participant in a predication, an erg, if present, is subject while the abs therein becomes object by virtue of the object rule: Object rule An object is an abs denied subjecthood by an erg (cf. again §3.1.2). The effect of raising, viewed here again for the moment in structure-changing terms, is to substitute the relation abs (in the superordinate) for subject (in the subordinate). This discrepancy in relational reference is unsurprising if subject-formation (and object-formation, whatever their character) are, in a cyclic framework, (structure-building) cyclic rules. So that, without arbitrary stipulations of order of application, the identity of the subject and object (if any) is unavailable on the current cycle: the host of raising cannot be identified in these terms, but only with respect to semantic relations. However, the identity of the subject of the subordinate clause has been established on the cycle previous to that on which raising applies. Raising involves as host the universal

The basic syntax ofpredications

177

relation of initial (and subsequent) structure, abs, and as victim the argument bearing the 'obligatory' grammatical (so derived) relation, subject. Another consideration to which we return - in §3.3.3 - is why it is that it is the subject that is selected as victim: the invocation of 'case theory' here, whereby the lower subject moves because an untensed INFL (or whatever) cannot assign case (e.g. Chomsky 1981: §2.3), is circular, non-explanatory - why can't such an element assign case? - and not obviously generalisable, as we shall see in the course of a consideration of finiteness. Anderson (e.g. 1977: §1.9.2) suggests that even the above (incomplete and informal) formulation offers a preferable account of raising to that available to relational grammar, where the identity of the host is stipulated by the 'relational/ functional succession law/principle' (Perlmutter and Postal 1983), whereby the raisee 'inherits' the grammatical relation of the clause out of which it is raised - which is taken to be subject in (3.48a) and object in (b), even though the appropriateness of these relational assignments to the clauses concerned is far from evident. The envisaged development also violates the core requirement of the projection principle, whereby: Projection principle (a) Representations at every syntactic level... are projected from the lexicon, in that they observe subcategorisation properties of lexical items (cf. Chomsky 1981: 29) - which surely incorporates a minimum requirement. As observed in §3.1, it is not significant here that relational descriptions are typically cast in the form of 'relational networks' rather than (it is claimed) derivations: the proposed relational description of raising equally fails to satisfy any analogue within the framework to the projection principle (surely, again, a minimum requirement). Of course, we can unify an account of raising invoking grammatical relations/ positions alone if appeal is made to the unaccusative hypothesis (discussed in §3.1.3 above). If the superordinate construction in (3.48a) is unaccusative, then raising can uniformly involve the taking on of the (direct) object role in the superordinate clause by the subject of the embedded one (cf. Perlmutter and Postal 1984&). And, certainly, the Italian intransitive raising verb of (3.49) selects the essere perfect auxiliary which Burzio associates with unaccusatives: (3.49)

Molti studenti erano sembrati superare l'esame 'Many students had seemed to-pass the exam'

(1986: 72, note 1)

If, further, (3.35) are also unaccusative, then the distribution of the expletive too is restricted to (initial) object arguments. Unfortunately for an account in terms

178

The syntax of categories

of unaccusativity, such 'weather' verbs select the avere perfect auxiliary in Italian: (3.50)

Ha piovuto 'It has rained'

and elsewhere. This is but one indication that auxiliary choice in Italian (and other languages) is not primarily related to unaccusativity: we shall shortly encounter others. However, any suggestion of unaccusativity here would, in my view, be even more unfortunate than elsewhere. (3.35) would have to have initially two empty positions, two positions not 0-marked: both the object and the subject positions, the former subcategorised for, the latter not; and this would violate the restriction (in a framework that does not invoke semantic relations) of un-0-marked participants to subjects. Similarly, if we reject for (3.48) an account in terms of 'relational succession', as violating the projection principle, for instance, and attribute unaccusativity to the main clause in (3.48a), then this superordinate would also have to have these two empty positions. Further, as elsewhere with unaccusatives, the object position can never remain lexically filled (given the assumption that unaccusative verbs do not assign (syntactic) case). Such derivational dyseconomy is suspect, even (or, perhaps, particularly) in frameworks allowing for intraclausal structure change (i.e. which do not observe strict cyclicity - recall §3.1). This would also mean that the derivation of (3.48a) would apparently involve the 'raising-to-object' typically rejected outside accounts couched in terms of relational grammar (in favour of 'exceptional case marking') in relation to (3.48b) - in this instance ensuring observance of strict cyclicity. In the optimal non-case-grammar analysis, extension of the unaccusative hypothesis to raising constructions and the assumption of 'exceptional case marking' are mutually exclusive; in the optimal (case-grammar) analysis, neither is necessary. Concern with the apparently construction-specific designation of 'hosts' and 'victims' for raising might not seem to be relevant to frameworks which do not appeal to such a rule, where neither 'host' nor 'victim' is specified in the only movement rule ('move-a') - which the derivation of (3.48a) (at least) involves merely an instantiation of. However, in such terms, what an examination of raising shows is that empty participants (possible participant 'landing-sites') are abs; and this is general. In other words, 'lack of 0-marking' is not limited to subjects, and, indeed, does not involve reference to subject. We can formulate the appropriate generalisation if we think not in terms of ©-assignment but in terms of instances of abs which are not required subcategorisationally, which are present in a predication only to satisfy the abs universality principle. Such an

The basic syntax ofpredications

179

abs may occur either in subject or object position, as illustrated by (3.48) and (3.35/36). We have a striking confirmation of the relevance of semantic relations to (initial) syntactic structure, as well as evidence of a principled basis for the distribution of participant 'landing-sites'. Notice that assignment of abshood to the subject of (3.35a) is quite compatible with the selection of avere in (3.50), given that auxiliary selection correlates primarily with 'aspectual' distinctions, as anticipated in §3.1.3 above. Thus, in Italian the telic arrivare, which may be interpreted agentively or not, selects essere as perfect auxiliary, while the non-agentive but atelic piovere selects avere (as in (3.50)), just like the agentive telefonare (Burzio 1986: § 1.0) and the non-agentive tremare 'tremble': (3.51)

a. Giovanni ha telefonato b. Giovanni ha tremata

Bohm (1993: §4.2.2) illustrates variable auxiliary choice with the German agentive intransitive tanzen 'dance': (3.52)

a. Molly hat auf der Biihne getanzt 'Molly danced on the stage' b. Molly ist auf die Btihne getanzt 'Molly danced onto the stage'

with selection by this (otherwise unergative) verb (so constructed with haben in (3.52a)) of sein when telic, as in (b). In the familiar terms originating with Vendler (1967), (3.52a), with circumstantial loc, represents an 'activity'; (b), with goal argument, expresses an 'accomplishment'. Auxiliary selection does not correlate directly with (non-)agentivity nor with other manifestations of alleged unaccusativity. The characterisation of raising, and in general of the notion 'participant landing-site', provides us with further motivations for adopting, in keeping with the notional view advocated throughout the present work, the case grammar position that semantic relations are basic to the syntax and grammatical relations/ positions are assigned derivatively and, in the case of subjecthood and objecthood, on the basis of the distribution of semantic relations in a predication. Let us now consider in a little more detail the character of and the principles of assignment for grammatical relations. 3.3.1

Presence and absence of subject

In many languages, the co-presence of the various derived-relation-assigning rules formulated in §3.1 conspires to establish a hierarchy of semantic relations

180 The syntax of categories with respect to assignment of the grammatical relation traditionally labelled subject. On the basis of the agent rule, generalised now to refer to erg: Ergative rule If subjecthood is assigned to a participant in a predication, an erg, if present, is subject and of the two rules involving abs: Abs rules An abs participant is second only to an erg with respect to assignment of grammatical relations; and an {,abs} is preferred to an {abs} we can establish a hierarchy for subject selection: Subject-selection hierarchy

erg < <,>abs where V = is to be interpreted as 'outranks as potential subject', and where a complex abs is preferred to a simplex, given the usual conventions for the expansion of formulations invoking abbreviators such as the angled brackets ('optionality'). This inverts Keenan's formulation of the relation between subject and 'semantic role' (1976: 321), in adopting the case grammar view that subjecthood is defined by the hierarchy. Recognition of the relevance of such hierarchies is now rather widespread (cf. e.g. Klaiman 1991: ch. 6), and there is also growing recognition of the associated derivativeness of grammatical relations/positions, though perhaps not always of the non-necessity of positing 'deep' grammatical relations/positions: recall the discussion of §3.1.1. The derivativeness of designation of the subject also means that some alleged 'subject properties' are rather to be associated with particular semantic relations: just as the host of raising is not to be described in terms of subjects/objects, but rather as abs, so (cyclic-clause) controllers - of equi, reflexivisation, etc. - are (a subset of) erg (Anderson 1977: ch. 3; 1992a: §§3.5,4.4). Keenan's other 'subject properties' (where appropriate) reflect either the subject's role as unmarked topic slot or its (derived) syntactic centrality, associated with its obligatory character - in certain predication types. If assignment of subjecthood were to be universal in predications (in a particular language, and in any language), provided a suitable participant is present, then, given also the universality of abs, we would indeed predict, trivially: Projection principle (b) Every clause must have a subject.

The basic syntax ofpredications

181

I.e., projection principle (b) need not be stipulated. It has become clear, however (except to the insistently aprioristic), that such a principle is not merely unnecessary but inappropriate. Let us note firstly some problems of interpretation. In §§2.7.3 a n d 5 above I distinguished between a syntactic and a morphosyntactic subject - characterised by Anderson (e.g. 1988; 1992b) as 'cyclic' vs. 'post-cyclic': syntactic subjecthood is manifested by position and eligibility for 'movement' and 'control', whereas a morphosyntactic subject is marked by inflexion, locally and/or by concord. As is familiar, and as is illustrated in §2.7.3, the syntactic and morphosyntactic subject of a predication are not always identical. Thus, there in (3.53a), as syntactic subject occupies preverbal position, and is eligible for the raising manifested in (b): (3-53)

a

- There is aflyin my soup b. There seems to be aflyin my soup

whereas concord is controlled by the morphosyntactic subject a fly. Where they coincide, choice of both types of subject is in accordance with the hierarchy; and this motivates designating both entities 'subject'. Discrepancy arises when hierarchy-bound assignment is suspended, as in the case of the syntactic subject of (3.53), which is an 'expletive' default. However, whether we take projection principle (b) to refer to syntactic or to morphosyntactic subject, there is no compelling reason to insist on the universality of such. As again noted in §2.7.3, Anderson (1988; 1992a: §4.2) argues that in Italian the final verb-concording NPs in the so-called 'inverted' variants of (3-54): (3.54)

a. Arriveranno molti will-arrive many b. Esamineranno il will-examine the

esperti experts caso molti esperti case many experts

(Burzio 1986:21)

are not 'syntactic' subjects, unlike the initial NPs of (3.55): (3-55)

a

- Molti esperti arriveranno b. Molti esperti esamineranno il caso

As non-subjects, the final NPs of (3.54) are not available for raising - recall (2.204a) vs. (b): (2.204)

a. Sembrano essere rimasti dei profughi ungheresi nel paese b. Dei profughi ungheresi sembrano essere rimasti nel paese ('Some Hungarian refugees seem to have remained in the country')

18 2 The syntax of categories but they can, unlike subjects, be extracted over an overt complementiser: (2.206) Chi

credi che partira do-you-think that ((s)hej) will leave?

as can the English non-(syntactic-)subject of (3.56a): (356)

a. How many people do you think that there were in the room? b. *How many people do you think that were in the room

Cf. failure of syntactic-subject extraction in (b). As observed in §2.7.3, (1982: ch. iv, §4) provides evidence that the wh-form of (2.206) and the like is not extracted from subject position. It is, however, unnecessary to suppose that the 'inverted' NPs of (3.54) etc. exhibit loss of (syntactic) subjecthood, or movement out of subject position (with the problems attendant on such an analysis Burzio 1986: §2.4): the simpler hypothesis is that they never acquire (syntactic) subjecthood and their initial (and only) serialisation is in the position they occupy in (3-54). Italian is also a 'null'-subject language; recall (2.200): (2.200) a. b. c. d. e.

Ho trovato la lampadina Abbiamo trovato la lampadina Ha trovato la lampadina Fafreddo Giuseppe ha trovato la lampadina

('I found the lightbulb') ('We found the lightbulb') ('(S)he found the lightbulb') ('It's cold') ('G. found the lightbulb')

As (again) in §2.7.3,1 take this as another indication that predications in Italian need not display a syntactic subject. What unites these various phenomena is the availability of this option; in non-'null'-subject languages, subject pronouns, additional to concord on the verb, are there to satisfy the syntactic subject requirement. In Italian, the morphosyntactic subject is sufficient to fulfil whatever subjecthood requirements there may be, but in that case, despite its purely morphological manifestation, as 'concord', it must be potentially independently referring: it is possible that, in particular instances, only this 'concord' will be available to satisfy the valency of a predicator, as in (2.2ooa-c). On the other hand, this 'concord' may also fulfil an expletive role, as with 'weather' verbs such as (2.23od) or (3.50) above. Although (3.54) lacks a syntactic subject, the 'concord' in both it and (3.55) - and (2.206) and (2.2ooa-d), repeated immediately above - manifest(s) morphosyntactic subjecthood. But, clearly, morphosyntactic subjecthood, too, is non-universal. This is how, for instance, we can interpret 'morphological ergativity' (Dixon 1979) of a language or subsystem. The morphology of a language like Basque does not reflect assignment of subject- and objecthood:

The basic syntax of predications 183 (3-57)

a

- Ogia bread+DEF

itzdiXi

da

disappeared

AUX+III,SG

( T h e bread has disappeared') b. Gizonek ogia erosi man+DEF,PL,ERG bread+DEF bought ( T h e men have brought the bread')

dute AUX+III,SG+III,PL,ERG

if w e associate these terms with t h e subject-selection hierarchy. T h u s , ogia in b o t h (3.57a) a n d (b), c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o English subject a n d object, respectively, is not overtly inflected - a s w e h a v e seen, it is said t o b e in the ' N o m i n a t i v e ' o r A b s o l u t i v e case - w h e r e a s Gizonek

in (b), c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o the transitive sub-

j e c t of English, is inflected for the Ergative c a s e ; initial (prefixal) c o n c o r d with b o t h auxiliaries likewise c o r r e s p o n d s t o t h e ogia argument, terminal (suffixal) c o n c o r d in (b) is with Gizonek.

T h e m o r p h o l o g y d o e s not reflect the subject o r

object a s s i g n m e n t seen in English. W h a t e v e r else m a y b e g o i n g o n , t h e morp h o l o g y correlates m o r e closely with the distribution of semantic relations, with N o m i n a t i v e m a r k i n g a b s , and Ergative erg. In particular, w e h a v e n o evidence of a m o r p h o s y n t a c t i c subject. S. R. A n d e r s o n (1976) argues that almost all ' e r g a t i v e ' languages a r e ' m o r phologically e r g a t i v e ' only. T h u s , h e d e m o n s t r a t e s that the victim of raising in ( ' m o r p h o l o g i c a l l y e r g a t i v e ' ) T o n g a n is the syntactic subject; it is, in terms of the present proposals, the a r g u m e n t that w o u l d b e selected as subject in a c c o r d a n c e with t h e h i e r a r c h y of s e m a n t i c relations. T h e sentences in (3.581) illustrate a b s e n c e of raising with the predicator lava ' p o s s i b l e ' ; and the prepositions in the l o w e r clause (intransitive - (a) - a n d transitive - (b)) display ' m o r p h o l o g i c a l ergativity': (3.581)

(ii)

(iii)

a. 'oku lava ke hu 'a mele ki hono fale PRES possible TNS enter ABS Mary to his house ('It is possible for Mary to enter his house') b. 'oku lava ke taa'i 'e siale 'a e ferine PRES possible TNS hit ERG Charlie ABS DEF woman ('It is possible for Charlie to hit the woman') a. 'oku lava 'a mele ' o hu ki hono fale PRES possible ABS Mary TNS enter to his house ('Mary can enter his house') b. 'oku lava 'e siale 'o taa'i 'a e fefine PRES possible ERG Charlie TNS hit ABS DEF woman ('Charlie can hit the woman') *'oku lava 'a e fefine 'o taa'i 'e siale PRES possible ABS DEF woman TNS hit ERG Charlie ( T h e woman can be hit by Charlie')

184 The syntax of categories while (3.58ii) show raising, with the same predicator, of respectively an intransitive (syntactic) subject and of a transitive, the latter bearing the ERG marker associated with its semantic role vis-a-vis the 'hit' verb, while raising of a nonsubject is excluded, even, as in (3.58m), of an object also marked with the ABS of (3-58ia). It seems clear that Tongan has in such constructions a syntactic but no morphosyntactic subject. Anderson (1988) suggests that the same is true of the more restricted Old English 'impersonal' construction type shown in (3.59a): (3-59)

a. Him

ofhreow

he/they+DAT ('He pitied the b. ... him he/they+DAT

pitied+m,SG the+GEN man+GEN man') sceal scamian aetforan Gode must feel-shame before God

daes

mannes

which is a finite declarative and non-elliptical, but which does not contain a Nominative - (3.59a) contains a Dative and a Genitive argument only - or a 'controller' of concord - the verb is invariably third person singular in such a construction, when finite, as in (3.59a). Dative Case therein marks the experiencer argument, Genitive the 'abstract' source (cf. e.g. Fischer and van der Leek J 983). (3-59a) apparently lacks a morphosyntactic subject. It can nevertheless be argued on syntactic grounds, such as, again, eligibility for raising, as suggested by (3.59b), that the Dative in such Old English predications is a syntactic subject (cf. Cole et al. 1978: 51; Anderson 1986J: note 6). Such experiencer ({erg,loc}) predications rather commonly fail (optionally or obligatorily) to manifest morphosyntactic subjecthood even when this is found in non-experiencer transitives and intransitives, as further illustrated by the Georgian single-participant structure in (3.60): (3.60)

Bavsv-s si-a child-DAT hunger-m,SG

(Harris 1981: 36)

where the 'concord' on the verb is again invariant (and the Georgian 'presenttense' verb usually reflects morphosyntactic subjecthood). We can perhaps take this to reflect the inherent complexity (markedness) of experiencers/datives, which combine the specified non-PLACE relation (erg) and a PLACE relation. Central subjects do not bear a PLACE relation. Furthermore, absence of syntactic subjecthood with an experiencer presupposes absence of morphosyntactic: Experiencer subjecthood condition An experiencer is not a syntactic subject qua experiencer only if it is also morphosyntactically oblique

The basic syntax ofpredications

185

but not vice versa, for fairly obvious reasons. Let us look a little more closely at the manifestation of this condition. Experiences which are not morphologically distinguished as such subjectform like agts. But it is possible for a morphological Dative not to manifest syntactic subjecthood. Cole et al. (1978), for instance, claim that in Old Icelandic only pykkia 'believe/seem to' shows a Dative argument sharing a property with subjects, viz. control of reflexivisation; and we have good reason to believe that the exercising of such control is not a subject property, but that, as in other instances of control, the controller is identified in terms of its semantic relation (see e.g. Anderson 1977: §3.2; 1992b: §§3.5,4.4). And, even where they behave as syntactic subjects, Datives vary in 'strength' or 'activity' - i.e. in the range of properties they share with (other) syntactic subjects (cf. Kachru et al. 1976a,/?; Sridhar 1976; Anderson 1984J). Discussions of such matters tend to confound 'subject properties' and those attributable to semantic relations; but we can illustrate this status with the capacity of Datives in Hindi-Urdu to be, like (other) syntactic subjects, equi victims: (3.61)

Ram ne bhukh lagne kl bat betai Ram ERG hunger appearing GEN matter told ('Ram told of (his) being hungry')

(Kachru et al. 1976)

as well as the availability of raising to Old English Datives illustrated by (3.60b). More widespread lack of both syntactic and morphosyntactic subjecthood is what characterises a 'syntactically ergative' system, as has been attributed to the much discussed Dyirbal (Dixon 1972). Morphosyntactically, Dyirbal resembles Basque in this respect (recall (3.57) above), in that, in the structurally simplest predications, a semantically absolutive NP is in the uninflected Nominative/ Absolutive form, as with bayi ya\a 'man' in the examples of (3.62), respectively intransitive and transitive, whereas the agentive NP of (b) bears the Ergative/ Instrumental inflexion (cf. the Nominative balan q\igumbil 'woman'): (3.62)

a. bayi

yar,a banijiu

CLASS man came-here

(The man came here') b. bayi yaj;a barjgun cfugumbitu CLASS man

CLASS

woman+E/I

balgan hit

('The woman hit the man') Nominative-marking correlates with abshood, whether or not the abs is also erg (as with an agentive intransitive); whereas other ergs (including experiences) inflect for E/I. And, syntactically, it is also the NP that would otherwise appear as an unmarked Nominative that is the victim of 'equi' (or 'lower topic deletion'

186

The syntax of categories

- Dixon 1972: §5.4.4); that is, in the structurally simplest predications, the victim of equi is an abs. Both morphosyntactically and syntactically, then, in Dyirbal reference to abs 'replaces' reference to subject. In order for an erg to be a victim of equi the embedded predicator involved must appear in the -gay-form, or antipassive, in which the abs bears the Dative inflexion or that elsewhere associated with (non-abs) erg, and with instrumentals: (363)

rjacja bayi I

yar^a gigan bagun (Jugumbilgu

CLASS man told

CLASS

wawul-rjay-gu

ninungu

woman+DAT fetch-#dry-coMP you

mundal-rjay-gu bagu micjagu wambal-rjay-gu bring-gflry-coMP CLASS house+DAT build-gay-corn? ('I told the man to fetch the woman to bring you to build the house') Both these alternative -rjay possibilities are illustrated by (3.64): (3.64)

a. bayi CLASS

ya^a barjgul bargandu

(Jurga-najiu

man

spear-/7
CLASS

wallaby+E/I

('The man is spearing the wallaby') b. bayi yar,a barjgul bargangu CLASS

man

CLASS

wallaby+DAT

^urga-najiu spear-g^ry+NONFUT

The obliquely-marked abs in a -gay-predication is also readily omitted. I take the obliqueness markers to be indicating that the abs is relationally outranked by the other argument, which in turn I take to be {erg,abs}. Derivation of the antipassive involves addition of abs to the erg argument required by a predicator: the valency of the antipassive is 7{erg,abs} {abs}' (vs. the 7{erg} {abs}' of the basic transitive). In notional terms, we can associate with this representation the 'low semantic transitivity' (Bohm 1993: §6.3.1) - as well as other, primarily 'aspectual' properties - often attributed to antipassive constructions. Tsunoda (1988) provides a detailed discussion of antipassives in Warrungu, whose 'syntactic' ergativity he also illustrates. The syntax of Dyirbal thus shows a relational hierarchy which is a subsegment of the subject selection hierarchy, viz.: Abs selection hierarchy <,>abs and which accords syntactic primacy to a preferably complex abs (given again the usual conventions for the expansion of abbre viators). Recall for comparison subject selection: Subject-selection hierarchy erg < <,>abs

The basic syntax ofpredications 187 With respect to both hierarchies, any morphosyntactic generalisation invoking abs will be taken to refer to a complex abs unless only a simplex one is present. The complexity of the erg argument in alleged antipassives is often given expression by the occurrence of 'fake reflexive' markers (cf. once more Bohm 1993- §6.3.1). Thus, as an alternative to the -^^-construction in Dyirbal, exemplified again in (3.65a), we have the 'fake-reflexive' construction, marked by -riy, as illustrated in (b): (3-65)

a. bayi

yar,a cjabandu waga-najiu

CLASS man eel+E/i

spear-gory+NONFUT

(The man is spearing eels') b. bayi yaj;a (Jabandu wagayma-rijiu CLASS

man

eel+E/i

spear-REFL+NONFUT

(Dixon 1972: 91; Bohm 1993: §6.1.1)

The complex abs arguments of (3.64) and (3.65) take precedence over the simplex, and the 'displaced' omissible abs is marked obliquely (where present). We have a pattern analogous to that we associated with the 'holistic' constructions discussed in §3.1; the 'displaced' simplex abs of (3.29730a), repeated here with (b), for comparison: (3.29/30) a. Bob stuffed the pillow (with feathers) b. Bob stuffed feathers into the pillow is similarly omissible, and marked obliquely (with 'Instrumental' with), where present. In (3.64), {erg,abs} takes precedence over {abs}; in (3.29730a), {loc,abs}. We can allow for antipassive predicators by the redundancy of (3.66): (3.66)

{/{erg}}

=> abs

associated with the morphology of Dyirbal. This is related in an interesting way to the formation of morphosyntactic subjects: see §3.3.4. However antipassives are analysed, it seems clear that basic throughout the syntax of Dyirbal are arguments identified as bearing a particular semantic relation (though not necessarily uniquely), i.e. abs. On the other hand, no recourse need be had to reference to subject, in the sense of an argument identified with respect to the subject-selection hierarchy, which is my attempt to characterise the content and distribution traditionally ascribed to subjects. (For discussion of other subjectless (sub)systems, see e.g. Mithun 1991Z?.) Of course, we may choose to apply the term 'subject' to the Dyirbal absolutive, perhaps along the lines of Martinet's (1962) notion of 'subject' as the obligatory participant, or Marantz's (1984) identification of the Dyirbal abs as the 'external' argument (see too Keenan 1984; Verhaar 1985; Falk 1991); but this, it seems to me, would

18 8

The syntax of categories

be to obscure an important typological distinction, as well to display a perverse illiteracy, or anti-literacy. Basic to the traditional notion of subjecthood is the erg rule incorporated in the subject selection hierarchy - a rule, recalled here: Ergative rule If subjecthood is assigned to a participant in a predication, an erg, if present, is subject which is irrelevant to 'syntactically ergative' systems. Matthews (1981: 105) lists as one of the 'three main characteristics' of 'the subject in Latin or English' the fact 'that the Agent noun in the transitive construction - the noun which tends to identify the actor as opposed to the goal of an action - is grammatically the same as the single noun in the intransitive'. That is, we have the kind of 'anti-ergative' relationship between transitive and intransitive predications specified by the erg and abs rules. Admittedly, there has been much equivocation in the use of the term 'subject'. Thus, for instance, while Gildersleeve and Lodge (1895: §213) distinguish transitive and intransitive as follows: Verbs are called Transitive when their action goes over to an object (transeO, / go over); Intransitive when their action does not go beyond the subject...

and all non-passive verbs are described by them as denoting 'that the action proceeds from the subject', where central subjects (at least) are presented as agentive, the subject is nevertheless defined as 'that of which the predicate is said' (§201), reflecting perhaps its status as 'unmarked topic slot' (cf. here e.g. Latham 1862: §629). See Lyons (1968: §8.1) for dissection of the various sometimes conflicting - factors underlying traditional views of subjecthood. But even such uncertainties should deter from simple extrapolation of the term 'subject'. I shall reserve the term 'subject' for a functor phrase selected in accordance with the erg-headed subject-selection hierarchy. The subject and abs hierarchies provide alternative selections of what I shall call principal grammatical relation, selections with, depending on the language, consequences for both syntax and morphosyntax. Thus, for instance, whereas in subject-forming languages, the subject is the argument that is most accessible to relativisation (Keenan and Comrie 1977), in the 'syntactically ergative' Sama, it is only the absolutive that can be relativised. So that, of the arguments in (3.67a): (3.67)

a. B'lli d'nda daing ma onde' buy woman fish OBLIQUE child (The woman boughtfishfor the child') b. daing b'lli d'nda ma onde' ('thefishthat the woman bought for the child')

The basic syntax of predications

189

c. B'lli-an d'nda daing onde' ('The woman bought the child some fish') d. onde' b'lli-an d'nda daing ('the child the woman bought some fish') (van Valin 1992: 215-16, drawing on Walton 1986) only the abs daing is eligible for relativisation, as illustrated by (b). The 'applied' verbal morphology of (3.67c), and the absence of an obliqueness marker, indicates that onde' here is a complex (benefactive) abs, and thus uniquely available for relativisation, as in (d), in accordance with the abs-selection hierarchy. Despite parallelism between subject and absolutive, which I attribute to their status as principal (grammatical) relations, I'm suggesting it is inappropriate to conflate abs-as-a-principal with subjecthood (as in various proposals mentioned above), given the traditional, and well-substantiated, characterisation of subject, as based on a hierarchy favouring erg. I thus reject in general the extrapolation of the term 'subject' by Shibatani (1988: §5; 1991) and others to domains which do not obey this hierarchy. And this is not simply a matter of terminological appropriateness. Notice that, as is also familiar, 'traditional' subjecthood is marginally relevant even to the grammar of Dyirbal (and Warrungu, for instance), making even more implausible the identification of Dyirbal Nominatives with subjects. Pronouns in Dyirbal do manifest morphosyntactic subject vs. non-subject status. The initial arguments of (3.68a) and (b) are identical, as they would be in English and other 'subject' languages: (3.68)

a. rjacja banijiu I came-here b. rjacfa balan cjugumbil balgan I

CLASS woman

hit

('I hit the woman') c. nayguna barjgun (Jugumbir.u I

CLASS

woman+E/I

balgan hit

('The woman hit me') whereas that in (c), again as in English, is distinct (Dixon 1972: §§3.3.1, 4.1.2). The pronouns in (3.68a) and (b) are morphosyntactic subjects. On the other hand, the pronouns exhibit no behaviour associated with syntactic subjecthood: syntactic relationships continue to invoke abs, even though this cuts across the pronominal morphology. Thus, (3.69a), despite the discrepant morphology of the pronouns in (3.68a) and (c), is a viable 'topic-chain', whereas (3.69b), despite the occurrence of ycuja in both of (3.68a) and (b), is not:

190 The syntax of categories (3.69)

a. rjacja banijiun I

barjgun (Jugumbitu

came-here CLASS

balgan

woman+E/I hit

('I came here, was hit by the woman') b. *rjacja banijiun balan ojugumbil balgan I came-here CLASS woman hit ('I came here, hit the woman')

(Dixon 1972: §5.2.2)

Compare here those morphological Datives that are nevertheless syntactically subjective, such as that in (3.61) above. Dyirbal illustrates the possibility that morphosyntactically a language may invoke both abs and subject as principal grammatical relation; and more extensive manifestations of so-called 'split-ergativity' are well documented. There are also languages where abs and subject may both be invoked syntactically in the same construction-type and in relation to the same syntactic generalisation. Bohm (1983) illustrates this in relation to raising structures in Niuean (as discussed by Seiter 1978). The language is (at least partially) 'morphologically ergative', as is shown in (3.70): (3.70)

a. Nofo e tagata ia i Tuapa live ABS man that LOC Tuapa ('That man lives in Tuapa') b. Ne lagomatai he ekekafo e tama PAST help ERG doctor ABS child (The doctor helped the child')

with abs marker e in both intransitive (a) and transitive (b), and erg marker he. However, the raising structures of (3.7ia-b) apparently involve raising of a subject, whether it is abs (a) or erg (b), with the raised subject, as expected, being marked as Absolutive in its host clause (a is the ABS marker with names): (3.71)

a. Maeke a Pita ke nofo i Tuapa possible ABS Pita SBD stay LOC Tuapa ('Pita may stay in Tuapa') b. To maeke e ekekafo ke lagomatai e tama e FUT possible ABS doctor SBD help ABS child this (The doctor may help the child') c. To maeke e tama e ke lagomatai he ekekafo FUT possible ABS child this SBD help ERG doctor

But, on the other hand, as an alternative to (3.71b), we find raising of the abs argument in (3.71c). (3.71b) invokes subject as principal grammatical relation (only thus can a non-abs erg undergo raising); (3.71c) invokes (non-subjective) abs as raising victim; and, thus, with (3.71a) it could be either principal that is involved. Both principal grammatical relations must be available simultaneously

The basic syntax ofpredications

191

to the syntax of Niuean; they are not mutually exclusive syntactically; the two relations thus cannot be identified one with the other. The availability here of abs as a principal grammatical relation can be said to be 'supported' by the 'morphological ergativity' of Niuean - and of Dyirbal. We can, indeed, apparently maintain the implication concerning 'syntactic ergativity' expressed as: Syntactic ergativity condition Abs is syntactically a principal grammatical relation only if it is morphosyntactically such. As with experiencer subjectivity (above), the converse does not hold. Nor is there a syntactic subjecthood condition: we return to this in the course of the discussion of subject formation in §3.3.4. The ergativity condition means, among other things, that the Italian 'inverted' predications of (3.54) above cannot be 'syntactically ergative', despite the absence of a syntactic subject: there is raising of neither subjects nor absolutives. Such predications lack a syntactically relevant principal grammatical relation. Perhaps in this case we can formulate as an asymmetric condition: Obligatory subject condition There is obligatory presence in predications of a syntactic subject only if a morphosyntactic subject is obligatory in finite predications. This leaves it open for predications with a morphosyntactic subject to lack a syntactic one. Subject-formation is obligatory in both English and Italian finite predications, but, as observed initially in this subsection, in Italian this is satisfied by presence of a morphosyntactic subject alone; English finite predications have both a syntactic and a morphosyntactic subject. As discussed in §2.7.5, selection of only morphosyntactic subjects as obligatory (thus, the possibility of 'null'-subjecthood) requires that a purely morphologically expressed subject be potentially independently-referring, and thus valencysatisfying. Such an approach is thus rather different from Chomsky's (1981: 209-22) suggestion - and developments based on it - that' AGR' may constitute a'SUBJECT'. Let us finally in this subsection recall systems which distinguish morphologically between erg and (non-ergative) abs, whether transitive or intransitive. In contrast, the 'ergative' morphology of Basque etc. does not distinguish agentive and non-agentive intransitive abs. A system such as is illustrated ('concordially') by the Dakota examples of (3.72) is often referred to as 'active' (Klimov 1977):

192 (3.72)

The syntax of categories a. b. c. d.

ma-ceka 'I-stagger' ma-ya-kte 'me-you-killed' = 'you killed me' wa-lowa 'I-sing' ca-wa-pa 'him-I-stab' = 'I stab him'

(from Wolff 1951)

See too Merlan 1985; also, Anderson 1977: 264-5, where Matthews' (1965) 'syntactic' account of this distribution is rejected; and cf. Munro and Gordon 1982, on Chickasaw, Mithun 19910, on Central Pomo). (3.72a) and (b) appear to illustrate the usual 'ergative' situation, with ma- as first person Absolutive. But (c) reveals that the (first person) Ergative wa~ of (d) is also used with agentive intransitives. In the 'ergative' system the {erg,abs} argument patterns with {abs}; in the 'active', with {erg}. Here the 'active' system is reflected in agreement; but it also may be realised in the structure of arguments, particularly pronominals, but also more generally in Lhasa Tibetan (DeLancey 1982). One might be tempted to take the phenomena of (3.72) as a morphological manifestation of the unergative/unaccusative distinction, with, for instance, waas a (first person) subject marker and ma- as an object marker. But this is again unnecessary, given the independently required distinctions between semantic relations. Moreover, the suggestion that ma- is case-marked (for Objective/ Accusative) is in conflict with the alleged inability of unaccusative verbs to assign case, which is central to the supposed syntactic role of unaccusativity. Thus Baker (1988: 106), for instance, declares: 'it is a general property of unaccusative verbs across languages that they cannot assign accusative Case to their structural objects'. Recourse to unaccusativity here would introduce an internal inconsistency in the theory in which it is embedded. It is, further, unclear how such a hypothesis (unaccusativity) would extend to a system like that evidenced in the Eastern Pomo examples of (3.2 iii) above, repeated here: (3.2111) a. b. c. d. e.

mvf> be'kal duleya be'khmrpal sa'kakiya mvp kaluhuya befkhkalphiifya be'kal ce'xelka

'he them killed' 'they him killed' 'he went-home' 'they went-home' 'they slipped'

As observed in §3.1.2, the morphology signals that the argument of (c/d) is both erg, which determines the shape of the pronoun, and abs, given that the argument triggers number suppletion in the verb. A simple distinction between subject and object is insufficient to characterise the morphological distinctions between (d) and (e).

The basic syntax ofpredications

193

Anderson (1977: 263-4) also rejects Connie's (1973) 'syntactic' account of the 'active' system of Batsbi. It is true that use and non-use of the Ergative in intransitives in 'active' (sub)languages does not always coincide with a simple agent vs. non-agent opposition - cf. e.g. Holisky (1987) on Batsbi, and Mithun (1991a) more generally - but the semantic (and pragmatic) distinctions made are obvious extensions of such a base. This is true whether or not the 'active' marking has been lexicalised (as a property of particular verbs) or not - i.e. whether we have to do with what Dixon (1979) terms a 'split-S' system or a 'fluid-S'. It is presumably precisely because the marking with intransitives is in many instances redundant that such extensions are permissible. Unsurprisingly, too, such morphosyntactic differentiation among intransitives may mark 'aspectual' differences, as with auxiliary choice in Italian etc. (recall the introduction to §3.1 above). 3.3.2

Non-subject principals

Abs is a default principal grammatical relation; it figures as such in a (subsystem in the absence of a subject (or any other principal - such as we shall turn to shortly). I suggest that we can say, as a consequence of the discussion in the preceding subsection, that subjecthood should be associated with a (sub)system only if it meets the subjecthood criterion (Anderson 1979a; 1979c; 1980; Bohm 1983: 117; 1992: §2.1.1): Subjecthood criterion A (sub)system possesses subjects if, in the unmarked instances, the highestranking arguments in different predication types share unique non-contingent syntactic and/or morphological properties, where ranking is in accord with the subject selection hierarchy. Eligibility (exclusive or primary) for raising could be one such property. The principal grammatical relation is associated with the syntactically most 'active' argument; its determinateness allows for its reconstruction in circumstances otherwise rendered opaque (notably by 'movement' or 'omission'). (This is the third characteristic Matthews (1981: 107) associates with the traditional notion of 'subject'.) Abs as a principal grammatical relation is a grammaticalisation of the basic semantic relation; subject is a grammaticalisation of a hierarchisation of semantic relations with respect to topicalisability. If the hierarchical status of the semantic relations is invariant, then the only other possible kind of grammatical principal, apart from subject and (by default) absolutive, would be one to whose selection a hierarchy of semantic relations

194 The syntax of categories is not relevant; and if, on the other hand, only semantic relations are within the scope of any formulation selecting a grammatical relation, then the only other possibility is a principal whose assignment to a particular argument is not grammatically determined. That is, the argument sharing in the properties unique to the principal grammatical relation is variable within individual predications. Such a principal Anderson (1979a) suggests is appropriate to Tagalog, for example: he labels these arguments primes; in Philippinist terminology, they have mostly been known as the 'topic/focus'. Schachter (1976: 496-7) illustrates that in Tagalog the prime, though characterised by 'presupposed referentiality', is not uniquely so, and it does not necessarily exhibit (other) properties one might associate with 'topicality'; he refers specifically to the account of this offered by Li and Thompson (1976). (Cf. too, on Ilocano, Schwarz 1976: §§8-9.) Schachter comments further: 'when a sentence contains more than one noun phrase whose referentiality is presupposed, it is not always clear why one of these noun phrases, rather than another, is chosen as topic ... Under such circumstances, it seems that there is often a good deal of leeway with regard to the choice of topic, even in a fixed discourse context ...' (1976: 497). 'Presupposition of referentiality' does not determine choice of prime. Thus the sentence in (3.73): (3-73)

Dadalhin ni Rosa ang pera kay Juan para sa iyo BEN DIR you ABS-will-take ERG R. PRIME money LOC J. ('Rosa will take the money to Juan for you')

where the verb is marked for abs-prime ('goal-topic') and the abs functor is realised by the prime marker ang, contains arguments all of which are associated with 'presupposed referentiality'. In this connexion, we should also acknowledge a further local restriction concerning prime and referentiality: for the most part, a non-prime abs will be interpreted as indefinite (Schachter 1976: 516, notes 3 and 4), and in this sense selection of the abs as prime in (3.73) is not entirely 'free'. We return to the significance of this below. In any case, such interpretational preferences cannot disguise the grammaticalised status of the prime, though it differs from the subject in not being determinate with respect to the hierarchy of semantic relations. This, and the correlations with (in)definiteness, is illustrated by the alternatives in (3.74): (3.74)

a. Mag-salis ang babae ng bigas sa sako para sa bata ERG-will-take-out PRIME woman ABS rice DIR sack BEN DIR child (The woman will take some rice out of a/the sack for a/the child') b. Aalisin ng babae ang bigas sa sako para sa bata ABS-will-take-out ERG woman PRIME rice DIR sack BEN DIR child ('A/the woman will take the rice out of a/the sack for a/the child')

The basic syntax ofpredications

195

c. Aalisan ng babae ng bigas ang sako para sa bata DiR-will-take-out ERG woman ABS rice PRIME sack BEN DIR child ('A/the woman will take somericeout of the sack for a/the child') d. Ipag-salis ng babae ng bigas sa sako and bata BEN-will-take-out ERG woman ABS rice DIR sack PRIME child ('A/the woman will take somericeout of a/the sack for the child') (again from Schachter), in whose glosses I've substituted ABS for 'goal' and ERG for 'actor'. The 'subject-like' properties of primes that Schachter notes (1976: §2) are, rather, characteristic of principal relations in general, including the abs in 'syntactically ergative' languages. Thus, for example, Schachter invokes the 'accessibility hierarchy' of Keenan and Comrie (1977), in terms of which subjects are most (and thus possibly exclusively in a language) accessible as relativisees; and he notes that 'in Philippine languages it is clear that only topics can be relativized' (1976: 500). Schwarz (1976: §4) also cites this as evidence for the subjecthood of the Ilocano prime. But in the 'syntactically ergative' Dyirbal and Sama it is only abs that can be relativised (Dixon 1972: §§4.10, 5.5; Johnson 1974; Anderson 1977: §3.5.5; van Valin 1992): recall (3.68) above. Accessibility to relativisation does not differentiate or select between different systems of principal relation; it does not require that we identify prime with subject. On the other hand, the failure of the prime to exhibit other characteristics which Schachter attributes to subjects (1976: §3) does not weaken their claim to principalhood: the relevant characteristics (involving control in equi and reflexivisation) are to be associated primarily with erg rather than subject (cf. again e.g. Anderson 1977: ch. 3; see too Schwarz (1976: §3) on the role of linear precedence). Likewise, the fact that not all sentences in Tagalog contain a prime - they are unsurprisingly absent from existentials: (3-75)

May aksidente (Kagabi) 3 accident last-night (There was an accident (last night)')

- is not inconsistent with principalhood (or subjecthood, for that matter), as established in §3.3.1 above. Schachter eventually concludes that 'there is a division of subject-like properties between the category we have been calling the topic and the category we have been calling the actor, with a few subject-like properties reserved for the intersection of the topic and the actor, the actor-topic' (1976: 513). However, the 'subject-like' properties attributed to 'actors' are simply those capacities for control that we can in general associate with erg. I have labelled as ERG the functor in (3.73) that is traditionally called 'actor' to indicate that ni does indeed seem

196

The syntax of categories

to mark erg arguments: its distribution is semantically natural (as with other functor markers, though with some syncretism), and it certainly does not evince the large-scale grammaticalisation we can associate with principal grammatical relations other than abs. Schachter points out that 'actor' cannot be equated with 'agent' in the sense of 'the typically animate perceived instigator of the action' (1976: 497). But the examples he adduces to illustrate this are exactly of the types which are erg but not 'agents' (in this sense): they are inanimate (his examples (7)) or {erg,loc} (his examples (5) - experiencer - and (6) - recipient). It is therefore unnecessary to attribute to Tagalog and the like such a bizarre dispersal of 'subject-like' properties as Schachter envisages. The Tagalog prime is a principal grammatical relation that differs from subject in not being selected in accordance with the hierarchy of semantic relations, and displays the appropriate (derived) properties. Schwarz argues that the 'unmarked focus' (prime) in Ilocano is erg/'actor' (1976: §7). If this is so, then it is an indication of the potential of erg arguments for topicality which underlies the prevalence of the subject-based (rather than prime- or abs-based) system of grammatical relations; subject grammaticalises the unmarked topicalisation pattern, whereas prime simply grammaticalises topicalisation. On the other hand, Gil (1984) argues that the Austronesian languages, and specifically Tagalog, are 'patient-prominent'; this means, amongst other things, that the 'goal'/'patient' is preferred textually, and grammatically (e.g., as noted in relation to (3.73), definite 'goals' are necessarily primes). I take this as a reflection of the absence of subjecthood, and the consequent retained 'prominence' of abs, as in an 'ergative' or 'active' system. Tagalog is apparently an 'active' language, in distinguishing between agentive and non-agentive 'intransitives' (Schachter 1976:499): recall the Dakota of (3.72). At any rate, its system cannot be interpreted as simply 'ergative' (Payne 1982; Cooreman, Fox and Givon 1984); this ignores the superimposition of prime assignment on to the signalling of semantic relations. Part of Schwarz's evidence for 'actor-focus' as unmarked is the fact that whereas otherwise the prime usually occupies first post-predicator position in the sentence, as in (3.76a), a definite (non-prime) erg pre-empts this initial slot (1976: §6), as shown in (b): (3.76)

a. Ma-bisito ti babai (i)ti lalaki ABS-kiss girl boy (The girl can be kissed by a boy') b. Bisito-en ti babai ti lalaki kiss-ABS girl boy (The girl kisses the boy')

The basic syntax ofpredications

197

{Ma- in (3.76a) is an 'abilitative' ABS-as-prime prefix; hence the gloss.) Compare too, once more, the Tagalog sentence of (3.73). There is a strong correlation between the syntactically salient initial position and definite erg (whether or not also prime). Likewise, a prelude to status as full syntactic subject for Dative arguments is acquisition of subject position (Anderson 1984^: §3). On the other hand, morphosyntactic subjects may occupy a position not associated with syntactic subjecthood, as with those in English 'existential there' sentences. Having a consistent position does not in itself show that a morphosyntactic relation is also syntactically relevant otherwise (in particular, to control and 'movement'). This has a bearing on a consideration of non-principal relations, to which we now turn. 3.3.3

Non-principals

The traditional 'syntactic' Case theory that developed from the work of Rumpel (1845, 1866) saw the cross-linguistic determination of the manifestations of some Cases as basically 'syntactic', non-notionally-based. Thus, typically, the Nominative is viewed from such a perspective as the Case which (whatever else) marks the subject, the Accusative signals the direct object, while the Dative is the Case of the indirect object (for a concise illustration, cf. e.g. Mitchell and Robinson 1982:104-5); t n e s e Cases reflect the distribution of grammatical relations, on such a view. I'm not primarily concerned here with these alleged Case/grammatical relation correspondences, though they will be relevant; rather, I want now to consider what motivations there might be for recognising these further (to subject) grammatical relations. As to their status, I have already suggested, in the immediately preceding sections, that both subject and (direct) object are derivative (of the array of semantic relations), the latter in terms of the object rule (I leave aside the possibility of 'indirect objects' for the moment): Object rule An object is an abs denied subjecthood by an erg. As well as being consistent with the notional grammar position, this restricts objects to subject systems - though we must later consider to what extent it is only erg subjects that impose objecthood on an abs. Let us begin with a look at the former claim, the limitation of objecthood to subject-based systems - a claim not uncommon among students of ergativity (cf. e.g. Klimov 1984) - though the different proposals (as to the type of subject involved) that might be embodied in the object rule are necessarily intertwined in the discussion which follows. In a language like English (to take the usual random sample), the abs denied

198

The syntax of categories

subjecthood by an erg shows various (possibly, but problematically) distinctive morphosyntactic properties - vis-a-vis, crucially, other participant arguments. Morphologically, putative object pronouns are oblique, specifically Accusative, despite not being governed by an overt functor {to him) or used absolutely {Me!). We can, in Rumpelian fashion, associate the identification of Accusative in a language specifically with its being used to mark an object as defined by the object rule, however else it may be distributed - e.g. as the 'Accusative of Extent in Time' in Latin: (3.77)

Duodequadraginta annos tyrannus Syracusanorum fuit Dionysius ('(For) thirty-eight years Dyonisius was tyrant of the Syracusans') (Gildersleeve and Lodge 1895: §336)

Having such a morphological marker is necessarily not a feature of 'ergative' languages (which are necessarily 'morphologically ergative'), given that the abs in a predication also containing erg will be marked in the same as way as abs in a predication without erg. Similarly, though some subject-based systems show 'object concord', this is not associated with 'ergative' systems, where any concord with an abs in a predication also containing an erg is shared with the abs in a predication lacking erg. 'Ergative' (sub-)languages cannot have morphosyntactic objects - objects that are morphologically signalled as such. This is, of course, not to deny that a language may distinguish morphologically between a 'transitive' and an 'intransitive' abs while marking ('transitive') erg differently from both. Mixed systems provide instructive illustrations here. In Japanese, for instance, the postposition ga marks the morphosyntactic subject, as in (3.78a), or it realises the abs in a (experiencer) predication which lacks morphosyntactic subject-formation, such as we find in (3.78b): (3.78)

a. Otooto ga sensei o tasuke-ta younger-brother SBJ teacher ACC assisted ('My younger brother assisted the teacher') b. Taroo ni eigo ga wakaru T. DAT English ABS understands ('Taro understands English') c. Taroo ga eigo ga wakaru (Taro understands English') d. *Taroo ni eigo o wakaru

(Shibatani 1978: 59, 63)

That is, ga indicates the principal relation; as Sugamoto (1982: §3) illustrates, abs ga shares one or two properties with subject ga, but is otherwise nonsubjective. O in (3.78a) marks the object. We also find (3.78c) beside (b), with

The basic syntax ofpredications

199

both subject and absolutive marked with ga\ in such predications subjectmarking is optional. But we do not encounter (3-79d), with object-marking but no subject-marking. Objecthood depends upon subjecthood, as required by the object rule. Roger Bohm (personal communication) points out that problemetical here are instances like those in (3.79), respectively from Icelandic and Old English: (3-79)

a

- Mer/mig vantar

peninga

I,DAT/ACC lack+m,SG,PRES money+ACC ('I lack money') b. Him licade hire jDeawas III,DAT please+III,SG,PAST her way+PL,ACC ('He was pleased with her behaviour')

which exhibit just the configuration disallowed by Japanese, (pawas could be Nominative, but the lack of concord suggests not.) Apparently in such cases the syntactic subjecthood of the experiencer arguments is sufficient to license object-marking. This is a less restrictive relationship than suggested by Japanese, but it still links objecthood to the presence of a subject. It is perhaps worth recalling too, at this point, that objecthood depends not merely on subjecthood, but also on the subject's bearing a particular semantic relation, in terms of the object rule: Object rule An object is an abs denied subjecthood by an erg. The relation is one whose presence in a predication must reflect a subcategorisational requirement; it is necessarily not simply abs, which may be 'empty'. This means that the equivalent of what has come to be called 'Burzio's generalization' (deriving from Burzio 1981) is a consequence of the object rule. The 'generalisation' has been variously interpreted; I give it here, after Belletti and Rizzi (1988), as: Burzio's generalisation V assigns structural case only if it has an external argument Assignment of 'structural case', the object-marking Accusative, presupposes a non-empty subject. But, in terms of the object rule, assignment is seen as a consequence of the attribution of subjecthood ('externalisation') to a hierarchically designated participant, and thus may be absent entirely from a (sub)language. Let us return now to the question of 'syntactic' objecthood, before introducing further considerations relevant to the status of 'Burzio's generalisation'. It is not clear what motivation there might be for appealing to a 'syntactic'

200

The syntax of categories

object in the 'syntactically ergative' Dyirbal. Likewise, as concerns a primebased language, Gil argues that 'direct object... is not a viable construct in the grammar of at least one language, namely, Tagalog' (1984: 87). However, a demonstration that object is not syntactically relevant in such languages depends on the disengagement of an explicit syntactic characterisation of objects, which (in so far as it has been attempted) has proved elusive. But to the extent that syntactic objecthood correlates with morphosyntactic objecthood - i.e. that there is lacking an analogue to the discrepancies we have observed between syntactic and morphosyntactic subject, or, rather that discrepancies among 'object properties' do not simply coincide with the syntactic/morphosyntactic distinction (as evidenced below) - we can tentatively conclude that objects are lacking in nonsubjective (sub)systems. Before proceeding to further contemplation of the notion 'syntactic' object, let us also note that in English the property of being marked by an Accusative is apparently shared for many speakers with equative abs (which is not denied subjecthood by an erg), as in The person who called was her/me. For such speakers, objecthood - as far as Accusative-marking is concerned - could involve dropping 'by an erg' from the object rule: Object rule' An object is an abs denied subjecthood. Such a less restrictive formulation would also allow objecthood to the second argument with non-'holistic' {/{loc,abs} {abs}} verbs like those in (3.80) (on the analysis of Anderson 1984c, for example): (3.80)

a. The box contains his lunch/them b. His admirers include many children/them

as well as to the arguments denied subjecthood by the expletives in (3.81): (3.81)

a. It pleased them that the show was a failure b. It was raining cats and dogs

If the it is purely expletive, Burzio' s generalisation cannot be derived. However, since the latter has its major role in the explication of the alleged syntax of unaccusatives, this is perhaps no great loss. There is no point, moreover, in denying objecthood to the postverbal argument in even (3.81b), with (uncontroversially?) expletive subject. The postverbal argument in a 'holistic' like (3.22b), repeated here: (3.22)

a. Sewagefloodedinto the tank b. The tankfloodedwith sewage

The basic syntax ofpredications

201

would also have to be marked, apparently, as exceptional to the extended object rule'. But we can perhaps associate this exceptionality with the character of the lexical redundancy allowing for such as (3.22b) - say (3.82a) (which unpacks unidirectionally the composite lexical entry of (3.34) above), which regards the (3.22b) verb as a derived item with an incorporated absolutive argument: (3.82)

a. {P;N/{ absj} {loc}} =* {P;N/{ loc,abs}} : I holistic b. {abSi\{P;N}}

and where 'holistic' simply abbreviates the characterisation of the appropriate semantic class. Thus, the rule renders a verb semantically intransitive, as in (3.22b) vs. (a), by virtue of incorporating the abs and marking the loc argument as a {abs,loc}. The optional circumstantial {with sewage) which appears in (3.22b) will be marked lexically as in (3.82b), as seeking to retro-complement a verb with an incorporated {abs} argument to which it can be interpreted as being in apposition (a coindexed circumstantial). As elsewhere (cf. §3.2.2), the circumstantial abs is marked with with. On incorporation, see further §3.5. If we anticipate that discussion by proposing (as here) an appositional analysis for (3.22b) and the like, then the vwY/i-argument therein is no longer an exception to the extended object rule (object rule' above), as well as the optionality of the phrase being seen to follow from its circumstantial character. The observed distribution of Accusativity in English means, however, that even within a single language, with respect to a single property, there is variation (It's I/me) in the according of objecthood. Anderson (1984c) argues that this is characteristic of the status of objecthood in language: the subset of 'transitive' abs invoked by alleged 'object-based' phenomena is variable, intraand interlinguistically. Let us return now, in preparation for further consideration of this, to other suggested aspects of objecthood, and particularly to the question of the extent to which objects might be claimed to have a syntactic status. A NP of a character satisfying the object rule is associated in many languages with a particular position (hence comparisons of 'word order' involving 'S, O, V ) , though often occupation of this position does not necessarily coincide with the assignment of objecthood on other grounds. Thus, although the postverbal NPs in both (3.80) and (3.83) occupy the immediately postverbal position associated otherwise with objects - and may also satisfy the extended object rule:

202 (3.83)

The syntax of categories a. The car weighs two tons b. He looks the part c. She possesses a delightful disposition

- it has frequently been observed that, unlike (other) direct objects in English, they don't appear as subjects in 'corresponding' passives (for some discussion, cf. e.g. Granger 1983: §3.2.6.4; S. R. Anderson 1988b: 301-2): (3.84)

a. *Two tons are weighed by the car b. *The part is looked by him c. *A delightful disposition is possessed by her

However, it is not at all obvious that the formulation of active/passive 'correspondences' in English, at least, even requires reference to objecthood, or to a NP in an object position. Let us look at this before proceeding. In §2.7.3 we interpreted passive as a variant of raising in which the raisee is the argument second on the subject-selection hierarchy. In English, the central passive verb is one that takes an erg argument, with the rejected raisee marked with the by functor (as with erg in nominalisations). If the erg is also loc, a variant with to rather than by may be available: (385)

a. His books are known by a lot of people b. His books are known to a lot of people

Two-participant verbs with a ranking argument which is loc but not erg mark this rejected raisee with an appropriate {loc}: (3.86)

a. His lunch is contained in the box b. Many children are included among his admirers

Cf. (3.80a). In each of these instances, the raised argument is an abs, which, in the active, is also an object, in terms of the (extended) object rule. But 'passive' raising in English is not limited to object-'correspondent', or abs, apparently. Thus, (3.87), for instance, are passives: (3.87)

a. This pot has been cooked in (by generations of Smiths) b. This bed hasn't been slept in (by anyone)

with raisees which are the loc argument of a ('derived' (a) - on a non-cannibalistic interpretation - or not (b)) agentive intransitive: (3.88)

a. Generations of Smiths have cooked in this pot b. Nobody has slept in this bed

and the 'stranded' functor indicates this. The examples in (3.87) bring along interpretations which involve there being some sign of the activity denoted by

The basic syntax ofpredications

203

the non-auxiliary predicator having taken place (or not), of the locative having been affected - cf. e.g. Riddle, Sheintuch and Ziv 1977. We could allow for this by also attributing to these loc arguments the abs - and thus also object - relation, given that an abs argument in general denotes the entity perceived as undergoing an action. However, the interpretations in question seem rather to be a function of the conjunction of perfect and passive, given the viability of e.g. (3.89): (3.89)

a. This pot isn't cooked in (anymore) b. This bed isn't slept in (anymore)

and the absence here of these semantic properties. There is no semantic basis for assigning abs (and so objecthood) to the relevant arguments. No more need we attribute to the postverbal arguments of traditional 'prepositional' ('abstract' locational/directional) verbs such as those in (3.90): (3.90)

a. Freddie listens to the album b. Nellie has abstained from nothing

either the semantic relation abs or the grammatical relation object, unless we insist that the viability of a passive, as in (3.91): (3.91)

a. The album isn't listened to b. Nothing has been abstained from

must be associated specifically with them. However, it is not clear on what grounds one could maintain such insistence. The characterisation of passives in English need not invoke objecthood - or even abs - though the latter does seem to characterise the unmarked passivisee. The marked status of 'prepositional' passives in English is perhaps reflected in the range of factors which Hudson (1990: §12.5) notes as correlating with the viability of different prepositional passives in English. An even more drastic version of 'object-based' analyses of passives like (3-83) and (3.85), involving 'reanalysis' (lexically or syntactically) of the preposition of (3.84) and the like as part of the verb complex, is offered by Johnson (1979), Hornstein and Weinberg (1981), Bresnan (1982) and others. Any accounts invoking 'reanalysis', or 'restructuring', are thereby intrinsically suspicious. And Postal (1986: §6.1) offers a number of arguments against such an analysis in this case, while S. R. Anderson (1988&: 302-4) dismisses a treatment of such passives as involving a verb + 'particle' structure. What is perhaps most instructive, though, is what emerges from (Postal's discussion (1986: §6.3) of) the two partially viable arguments in favour of 'reanalysis' offered by Bresnan (1982). She observes that, unlike with other sequences of predicator

204

The syntax of categories

and preposition, a passive predicator and the preposition 'stranded' by passive cannot have material 'interpolated' between them, as illustrated by (3.92b) suggestive of a predicator-preposition unit: (3.92)

a. That was spoken of reverently b. *That was spoken reverently of

Likewise, passive predicator plus 'stranded' preposition behave like a verb unit in terms of eligibility for 'participle adjective conversion'; the adjectival status of such is illustrated in (3.93): (3-93)

a

- e a c n unpaid for item b. an unspoken of passion for chocolate

However, evidence that the passive predicator and the following preposition form a unit doesn't tell us anything about the corresponding active: if 'reanalysis' is optional, the viability of (3.94), compared with (3.92b): (3.94)

They spoke reverently of that

does not argue for absence of 'reanalysis' in actives, but it indicates lack of positive evidence of such 'reanalysis'. And (3.93) and the like are even further from demonstrating anything about the structure of Bill didn't pay for that item etc. Even if the passives in (3.92) and (3.94) involve some kind of 'reanalysis', evidence for this does not extend to the 'corresponding' actives. Moreover, availability for 'attributivisation', as in (3.93), is no more an indication that participle and preposition are a verb unit (independently of the results of 'attributivisation') than (3.95a) is evidence that the verb and preposition in (b) are such: (3-95)

a

- the sell-by/use-by date b. We must sell/use it (by) that date

What the 'reanalysed' structures share, apart from a passive predicator, is preposition 'stranding'. This in itself does not explain the interpolation prohibition, for instance, given the viability of Who did he speak most offensively to? etc. (Postal 1986: 217); but it is certainly not present in the actives. This suggests that any evidence for 'reanalysis', however interpreted, is consequent upon passivisation and preposition 'stranding'. The passive raisee in English is not necessarily abs, or an object, or in object position (however that is characterised). And Siewierska (1984: 71-4) notes some other languages (such as Hibena, Mashi and Olutsootso) showing apparent passivisation of locatives, in particular. But many languages do not permit 'stranded'-preposition passives, or passives where the subject would 'correspond' to a non-Accusative 'object'. Thus, in Old English, for instance, it

The basic syntax of predications

205

appears to be the case that a passive subject always 'corresponds' to an Accusative object (with one verb being possibly exceptional here - Mitchell 1985: §851), without preposition; Genitive and Dative 'objects' are retained (not raised) in impersonal passives (Mitchell 1985: §§848-54), and there are no passives involving stranded prepositions (Mitchell 1985: §855). Here, perhaps, the argument which 'corresponds' to the passive subject conforms to the object rule; and we have coincidence between morphosyntax (Accusative marking) and syntax ('correspondent' of the passive subject). Collinge (1984:19), however, reminds us that in Ancient Greek, on the other hand, a Dative argument (for example) may 'correspond' to the subject of a passive sentence. So there is variation in this respect - how closely the passive 'victim' coincides with the requirements of the object rule - even among languages with non-minimal oblique paradigms. Despite this variability, 'passivisability', together with distinctiveness of position and morphosyntactic characteristics, is perhaps the most widely used 'diagnostic' of (direct-)objecthood: cf. e.g. Hyman and Duranti (1982) on Bantu, Comrie (1982) on Huichol, Borg and Comrie (1984) on Maltese; more generally, Collinge 1984: §4. Consonant with this, the glossary of Borsley's (1991) textbook glosses 'object' as 'a complement of a verb which becomes a subject in a passive' (p. 229). Such criterial use of passivisability means that, given variation in what is passivisable, the semantic identity of objects, and their semantic role in different predication types, will vary from language to language. Thus, 'the grammatical relation defined internally in Huichol by control of verb-object agreement and correspondence to the subject of a passive sentence corresponds in part to what are called direct objects and in part to what are called indirect objects in other languages' (Comrie 1982: 97); and the 'indirect object' usurps object properties in predications containing both a 'direct' and an 'indirect' object: Huichol is a 'reverse object' language (e.g. Rosen 1990: §6.1.1.3): (3.96)

Nee waakanaari ne-meci-tikiiti eeki I chickens i,SG-n,SG-give you ('I gave you the chickens')

And in KinyaRwanda, both of the non-subject arguments in the 'double-object' construction are available for passive: (3-97)

a. Igitabo cy-a-haa-w-e umugore n'umugabo) book it-PAST-give-PASS-ASP woman by-man ('The book was given to the woman (by the man)') b. Umugore y-a-haa-w-e igitabo (n'umugabo) woman she-PAST-give-PASS-ASP book by man ('The woman was given the book (by the man)') (Kimenyi 1980: 127; also Rosen 1990: §6.1.1.2)

206

The syntax of categories

Whether or not the two arguments are simultaneously 'direct objects' in the same predication (cf. Zaenen (1984) on Kikuyu), the notion 'object' has a wider scope in this domain than in Huichol, or (as we shall see) Hebrew. In this respect, objects contrast with subjects, which are selected in accordance with the hierarchy of semantic relations, and where interlinguistic variation is associated with restrictions on the kinds of argument that can enter into particular semantic relations. As already observed, the apparently inanimate non-central English experiencer of (3.47): (3.47)

Tuesday saw Brenda's departure

for instance, would be very marked in many other language systems. What varies in the case of objects, on the other hand, is the set of abs that are counted as such on the basis of comparable criteria. Given such a background, we should finally explore here the consequences of what lies behind Givon's insistence that 'the DAT/BEN object is higher on the hierarchy of direct-objectivization than the ACC object - provided a language has any grammaticalized DO category at all' (1984&: 153). That is, the situation exemplified by Huichol - recall (3.134) - is what we should expect if 'a language has a grammaticalized DO category at all'. Let us look briefly now at Givon's proposed typology, as a prelude to a consideration of the associated hierarchy. In the terms proposed by Givon, Bill in (3.98) bears the 'semantic case' DAT, while the book is ACC: (3.98)

a. She gave the book to Bill b. She gave Bill the book

and (b) has undergone 'Dative Shifting'. Givon suggests that in Hebrew and Sherpa, for instance, with no alleged 'Dative Shifting', 'there is no grammaticalization of the pragmatic case of DO' (1984: 157). I am not concerned here with the alleged 'process' of 'Dative Shifting' as such. There can be no such 'process': as we have seen, like unaccusative, if syntactic, the 'process' would violate even strict cyclicity; if lexical, it would have to have access, illegitimately, to derived syntactic properties, such as 'grammaticalized DO'. (Cf. the extensive discussions of Anderson 1977: §§2.7-8; 1978; 1987J; 1992b: ch. 4; Bohm 1986; Givon's 'Dative Shifting' is not limited to DAT/BEN, but this only affords more extensive evidence against its existence. We return to the character of the relationship between (3.98a) and (b) and the like in §3.4.) However, the non-availability of a 'process' of 'Dative shift' that I am claiming is not unconnected with what I have to suggest concerning the semantic relations to be

The basic syntax ofpredications

207

attributed to the arguments in (3.98) - which is the issue I now want to address, before returning, on the basis of this, to the alleged hierarchical status of Givon's DAT/BEN. Contrary to what is suggested by Givon and others (such as Larson: 'the thematic roles assigned to these constructions are identical' (1988: 351)), I am assuming that (3.98a) and (b) differ in the semantic relations present; and specifically that, whereas the book in both is an abs, and she an agt (simple erg), Bill, though bearing a loc relation in both, is also erg in (b) only. That is, we can associate with the verb in (3.98) the alternative valency patterns expressed in (3.99): (3.99)

a. /{erg} {abs} {loc} b. /{erg} {erg,loc} {abs}

We can envisage the {erg,loc} specification as embodying the basis for Givon's observation that 'most commonly the dative is a conscious goal of the transaction' (1984: 88). Such representations as that in (3.99b) apparently (as noted in §3.2) introduce another violation of the 'one-instance-per-clause constraint' though here, unlike in equatives, one instance is combined with another semantic relation, as with the two abs in 'holistics' like (3.32b): we return to this in §3.4. Both the {loc} and the {erg,loc} in (98/99) show semantic properties associated with (spatial) goals (see Anderson 1978; 1987^), as well as, in the case of the alleged simple loc, being marked as such. However, the erg specification attributed to Bill in (3.98b) introduces additional restrictions associated with Givon's just-quoted observation. The {erg,loc} is involvable in the transaction being represented. We can highlight this with appropriate choice of items, as witnessed by the contrast between (3.iooia)and(b): (3.iooi) a. b. (ii) a. b.

She taught Greek to Bill She taught Bill Greek She taught Greek to an empty room *She taught an empty room Greek

(cf. Green 1974: §4-B; Anderson 1977: §2.7.3; S. R.Anderson 1988&: 299-300); only on the basis of (3.iooib) would one normally suppose that Bill had necessarily actually acquired some Greek. Similarly, the 'lack of involvement' associated with the simple loc allows for the viability of (iooiia) vs. (b), the latter of which, as involving an experiencer/dative (so erg), requires as an argument something denoting an entity normally conceived of as 'involvable', potentially capable of control. The character of the semantic distinction(s) involved here remains controversial: cf., as well as the works just mentioned, Pinker 1989; Johnson 1991.

208

The syntax of categories

However, again, I'm suggesting, distinct arrays of semantic relation are appropriate in the different syntactic environments in which the predicator occurs. I shall also argue in §3.4 that the {erg,loc} which occupies 'object position' in (3.94b/96ib) is derivatively, as a consequence of a quite general requirement, and by virtue of this specification, also an abs, as required by the object rule. The cross-linguistic distribution of DAT/BEN that Givon (1984) relates to a hierarchical ranking of DAT/BEN above ACC and presence vs. absence in the language of 'Dative Shifting' relates rather to the absence in particular languages of one or other of the variants allowed for in (3.99). In Huichol, in which DAT/BEN always outranks ACC, we have only (3.99b); in Hebrew, in which it never does, we have only (3.99a): but see further below for a refinement of this characterisation. Givon's other instances of 'promotion' to 'DO' in various languages can be interpreted as involving lexical rules associating abs with arguments showing a range of other relations: cf. e.g. Bresnan and Kanerva 1989, on 'applicatives' in Chichewa. Thus, we can assign to the arguments in the KinyaRwanda sentences (3.101)

a. Umugore y-oohere-eje umubooyi ku-isoko woman she-sent-ASP cook to-market (The woman sent the cook to the market') b. Umugore y-ooher-eje-ho isoko umubooyi woman she-sent-ASP-LOC market cook (The woman sent-to the market the cook') (Kimenyi 1980, via Givon 1984: §2.5)

where -ho on the verb in (b) signals the derivational relationship (analogous to that involving 'partitive'/'holistic' pairs in English), the respective semantic relations displayed in (3.102): (3.102) a. {erg} {abs} {loc} b. {erg} {loc,abs} {abs} It is consistent with the case grammar position that, whether or not it is appropriate to regard the hierarchically superior abs in (3.139/140) as objects, the derivational relationship itself need and can have no recourse to reference to 'object'. And we can at least say that the alleged object in all these instances would be an abs, in conformity with the demands of the object rule. Say we can maintain the position that the object is always an abs denied subjecthood. Even this is in doubt: the phenomena described in the preceding paragraph might be interpreted, contrary to the case grammar assumption, as involving simply alternative objecthood assignments (not 'promotions') - an

The basic syntax ofpredications

209

interpretation perhaps closer to Givon's intentions than his 'promotion'terminology might suggest - unless the abshood of the allegedly {loc,abs} argument in (3-97/98b) and the like can be positively supported. If not, abshood is at best merely a central property of objects. And even if objects are abs, there is still considerable cross-language variation in defining the appropriate subset, even on the basis of relatively constant criteria (agreement, passive). Thus, whereas for Givon (1984: §2.2) there are no {erg,loc} objects in Hebrew, with the ACC argument always being marked as object, as in (3.103): (3.103) Hu natan et ha-sefer la-isha he gave ACC the-book to+the-woman ('He gave the book to the woman') and thus no 'Dative Shifting' analogue to the (repeated) Huichol examples of (3.96): (3.96)

Nee waakanaari ne-meci-tikiiti eeki I chickens i,SG-n,SG-give you ('I gave you the chickens')

in the 'reverse-object' Huichol, as observed above, it is (in the present terms) specifically the {erg,loc} with 'ditransitive' verbs that is object, as in (3.96), as well as the abs of 'monotransitives'. Like the abs in 'monotransitives', the {erg,loc} in (3.92) controls concord and can have a 'corresponding' passive subject; the simple abs in (3.92) does not possess these (and other) shared properties, nor is there an alternative structure in which it does and the loc does not (parallel to English (3.98a), where the loc has no passive-subject 'correspondent'). (As noted, Huichol is, indeed, a nice illustration of Givon's claim concerning the primacy of 'DAT/BEN'.) Borg and Comrie (1984: §2) show a similar situation for Maltese, except that (§3), with the 'ditransitives' ta 'give' and wera 'show', either the {erg,loc} or the simple abs is 'passivisable', as in KinyaRwanda (recall the alternatives illustrated by (3.97) above). Borg and Comrie (1984) indeed argue explicitly for the 'diffuseness' of the (direct) object relation, such that also the {erg,loc} with Maltese ta and wera is 'a partial object'. Anderson (1984c: §3) presents evidence of an even more radical 'diffuseness': in English, properties which have been claimed to correlate with objecthood do not coincide in the the ranges of arguments they select as such. He considers specifically the criteria for objecthood invoked by Postal (1974) in his discussion of raising, and shows, for instance, that in English the passive, 'particle-placement' and the 'interpolation ban' are associated with different sets of 'objects'. Let us look briefly at these, even though it is already clear that passive in English is not limited to abs/object victims, and that the

210

The syntax of categories

class of abs involved will vary depending on what counts as passive - in e.g. including or not (3.86) above. Thus, the 'particle' back can precede or follow the simple abs in (3.104): (3.104) a. Bert gave back the money b. Bert gave the money back but it cannot precede the {(erg,)loc,abs} arguments in (3.105): (3.105) a. Bert crossed back *(over) the road b. *Bert gave back the bank the money unlike the non-abs loc with overt functor; nor can it immediately follow the {(erg,)loc,abs} of (3.106a): (3.106

a. *Bert crossed the road back b. ?Bert gave the bank back the money c. Bert gave the bank the money back

whereas in (b), where back follows a {(erg,)loc,abs} but precedes a simple abs, it is rather (for some people, markedly) more acceptable, and, with back following a simple abs, as in (c), there are again no problems. On the other hand, all of the immediately postverbal abs arguments with give (but not cross) are 'passivisable'. For many speakers, as illustrated by (3.107), an abs in a 'ditransitive' predication containing a (non-proniminal) {erg,loc} is not 'passivisable', though the {erg,loc} is: (3.107) a. *The money was given the bank b. The bank was given the money but the 'interpolation ban' applies to both: (3.108)

a. b. c. d.

He secretly gave the bank the money *He gave secretly the bank the money *He gave the bank secretly the money He gave the bank the money secretly

Compare (3.108) with (3.109): (3.109)

a. *Stan loves actually Mabel b. Stan is actually Mabel's lover

where the traditionally objective abs of (a) falls within the ban, and the postverbal abs of (b), not denied subjecthood by an erg but by another abs, is not susceptible. On the other, or perhaps third, hand, the interpolation before the abs of (3.110), whose subject also is not erg, but loc, is much less happy:

The basic syntax ofpredications (3.110)

211

a. The bag usually contains my lunch b. ?*The bag contains usually my lunch

So too (3.111b): (3.111)

a. He usually has the answer b. ?*He has usually the answer

which also illustrates that the viability of (3.109b) is not simply a result of the 'auxiliary', or 'function verb', status of the predicator. (One might wonder, incidentally, in the light of proposals made concerning (3.92) etc. noted above, what 'reanalyses' this 'interpolation ban' is a reflexion of.) I conclude that interlinguistic 'diffuseness' is matched by intralinguistic. This pervasive 'diffuseness' calls into question the theoretical status of the notion 'object'. Does labelling as 'object' represent any more than a vague gesture towards recognising, in a label, that varying subsets of abs denied subjecthood may have distinctive morphosyntactic properties attributed to them, and to this extent exhibit grammaticalisation? The original rule: Object rule An object is an abs denied subjecthood by an erg perhaps identifies a core of instances which will be associated with any 'object property', though it will exclude 'particle-placement' in English as such; but it has no more systematic universal significance than this. It identifies an area of potential grammaticalisation. 'Application' of the object rule itself allows for a further 'diffuseness', in that, given the non-uniqueness of abs, it provides for a predication to contain more than one object. If, for instance, both Bill and the book in (3.98b) above are (whatever else) both abs, then they both, in a sense, satisfy the object rule, even though subjecthood is more accessible to the {erg,loc} than the simple abs, as evinced by the acceptability of the passives in (3.107); and, despite differences in distribution that we can associate with distinctions in semantic relation, a 'double-object' interpretation is perhaps not inappropriate in the light of e.g. the 'interpolation' phenomena alluded to above, where (3.108) reveals a parallel between the two co-present putative objects (and see further Anderson 1977: §2.8.13; 1978). However, this provides further confirmation that an object is simply a non-subjective abs, one whose object status is variable in this respect too, given that, in Huichol - recall discussion of (3.96) above - apparently only the {erg,loc} can be ascribed objecthood, whereas in Hebrew (cf. (3.103) above) the locative argument is never object. 'Double-objecthood' is also variably attested.

212

The syntax of categories

S. R. Anderson (1988^: 313), on the basis of a critique of attempts to characterise (direct and indirect) objecthood, notably those of Jespersen (1927) and Quirk et al. (1972), also concludes that: direct object and indirect object ... do not represent significant and unitary grammatical categories in syntactic structure. It is of course convenient to have these labels available for discussing the parts of particular sentences, and in a large central core of cases, we can determine their reference with little risk of ambiguity. This convenience does not by itself justify them as terms of grammar, however. Anderson, however, rejects, further, the basis for the object rule, in so far as he argues that 4it is not its semantic role that makes a given NP a direct object' (1988Z7: 290). However, this argument is based on the assumption that only one semantic relation is assigned to each NP and on interpretative appeals that 'there is surely no difference whatsoever in the semantic role filled by a given postverbal NP in the (a) and (b) sentences' of pairs like that in (3.112): (3.112) a. Jones made a silk purse out of a sow's ear b. Jones made a sow's ear into a silk purse

(ibid)

appeals which there is 'surely' no reason to accept. Certainly, the two postverbal NPs in both of (3.n2) label the source (a sow's ear) and goal (a silk purse) in the representation of a change of 'existential state'; but the unmarked one signals in addition the NP that is presented as undergoing, being affected/ effected by, the process, the NP which is taken as the basic label for the entity. This relation is given separate expression in (3.113): (3.113) Jones changed our house from a palace into a slum in this instance, by our house', whereas each of the verbs in (3.114): (3.114) a. Jones created a silk purse out of a sow's ear b. * Jones created a sow's ear into a silk purse and (3.115): (3.115) a. *Jones turned a silk purse out of a sow's ear b. Jones turned a sow's ear into a silk purse allows only one of the directionals to combine with the relation given separate manifestation in (3.113). This relation, as introducing the label for the entity affected/effected by the process, is, as elsewhere, abs. So that we can associate with these sentences the distinct assignments of semantic relations given in (3.116):

The basic syntax ofpredications (3.116)

213

a. {erg} {loc,abs} {abl} (= (3.112a), (3.114a)) b. {erg} {abl,abs} {loc} (= (3.112b), (3.115b)) c. {erg} {abs} {abl} {loc} (=(3.113))

One cannot motivate attributing to different lexical items the same set of semantic relations merely on the basis of their 'describing (at least grossly) similar situations' (S. R. Anderson 1988&: 290). The same extra-linguistic situation may be presented linguistically such that different roles are overtly attributed to the participants. The classic instance of this, as noted in §3.1, is the buy/sell pair, which may occur in sentences relating to the 'same' situation, as imaginably in (3.117): (3.117)

a. Berndt bought the Audi (from Paul) (last Tuesday) b. Paul sold the Audi (to Berndt) (last Tuesday)

but where alternative agencies are made overt; linguistically, neither (3.117a) nor (b) contains two agents. The considerations introduced by S. R. Anderson (1988b) thus do not undermine the putative universality of the object rule, and the role of abs therein - though, as we have noted, there may be other reasons for regarding abshood as being an unmarked rather than a necessary property of objects. The status of objecthood is thus rather marginal, apparently. And, as already emerges from the above consideration of 'objects' in general, it is even less clear what substance can be given to the notion 'indirect object', distinct from the semantic relation Dative (directional {erg,loc(abs)}). The term has been used, more loosely, and with no theoretical consequence, for some defined grouping of participants (excluding subject and direct object), and even (also) for the complement of prepositions. A common, more restrictive tradition lies behind Quirk et al.'s (1972: 349) account of English: An INDIRECT OBJECT, where both are present, precedes the DIRECT OBJECT, and is semantically equivalent to a prepositional phrase. The successive postverbal NPs in (3.98b), repeated here, together with (a): (3.98)

a. She gave the book to Bill b. She gave Bill the book

are respectively 'indirect' and 'direct' objects, in these terms. Quirk et al. also claim that 'a direct object may occur without an indirect object, but not vice versa ...' (ibid.); but S. R. Anderson (1988a: 296) observes, as had Jespersen (1927: 295), that such a requirement cannot be maintained: cf. e.g. He teaches (boys) (Greek). As we have observed in relation to examples like (3.100), the

214

The syntax of categories

'semantic equivalence' between 'indirect objects' and prepositional phrases is somewhat limited. And the complex of properties associated with 'indirect objects' (in these terms) described in the preceding - and more fully in Anderson (1977: §§2.7-.8; 1978) - does not require reference to such a 'notion', rather than to a directional {ergjoc}, involving the independently motivated semantic relations. Adherents of relational grammar, on the other hand, distinguish the to-phrase in (3.98a) - i.e. the simple directional loc - from the two immediately postverbal NPs in (3.98) as an 'indirect object' vs. 'direct', and this is invoked along with subject and 'direct object' as a universal grammatical relation. There is no syntactic motivation for recognising these directional phrases as distinctive, apart from their alleged participation in 'Dative Shifting'; here, too, there is e.g. no correlation with obligatory vs. optional status (see e.g. Pinker 1989: 35). And the non-universality of this, as with the preceding, notion of 'indirect object', is, I shall suggest, even less in doubt than that of direct objects, or objects in general. The semantic relation experiencer/dative ({erg,loc}), on the (yet) other hand, is plausibly universal - signalled by an oblique (Dative) inflexion/ adposition or realised as an object or both, or as a subject in the absence of a simple erg. Even 'morphologically ergative' languages, such as Basque, show overt Datives, reflected 'concordially' in the examples of (3.118) (as well as, elsewhere, by nominal inflexion): (3.118) Chehetasunak eman niozkan/niozkaten/nauzkitzuen explanations given I-had-them-to-him/I-had-them-to-them/I-had-them-toyou-PL ('I had given explanations to him/them/you (pi)') though these languages necessarily lack objects, morphologically, at least. It is not that overt marking of 'datives' - as opposed to presence of the semantic relation itself - is universal; merely that they and their distinctive expression are not restricted to systems of a specific derived-relational type. The characterisation of English 'indirect objects' offered by Quirk et al. (1972) - whereby of the NPs in (3.98) only Bill in (b) is such - is eminently non-generalisable, given that not all languages have such NP + NP sequences, or predications in which an {erg,loc} is preferred as object to - or, at least shares objecthood with - the abs: recall the phenomena which are the basis for Givon's (1984) discussion of Hebrew and Sherpa as languages lacking 'Dative Shifting', such that there is no sentence corresponding to (3.98b), in which the simple abs is 'displaced' as object, but only the variant of (Hebrew) (3.103), repeated here:

The basic syntax ofpredications

215

(3.103) Hu natan et ha-sefer la-isha he gave ACC the-book to+the-woman ('He gave the book to the woman') Nor are 'indirect objects' in the relational grammar sense - realised by the fo-phrase in (3.98a) - universally attested: thus, the sentence in (3.96), again repeated: (3.96)

Nee waakanaari ne-meci-tikiiti eeki I chickens i,SG-n,SG-give you ('I gave you the chickens')

illustrates the unique possibility with such co-occurring arguments in Huichol, such that only the {erg,loc} exhibits 'object properties'. The absolute neutralisation that would be involved in suggesting that in such a language the 'indirect object' undergoes obligatory 'Dative Shifting' is obviously undesirable, and renders the proposal of universality vacuous - even if 'Dative Shifting' were not itself illegal - in violating, at the very least, the strict cyclicity condition. For more general discussion and exemplification see Anderson 1978, Faltz 1978. Anderson (1978) argues specifically that something like the array of semantic relations given to 'dative pairs' in (3.99), again repeated here: (3-99)

a. /{erg} {abs} {loc} b. / {erg} {ergjoc} {abs}

and exemplified, once more, by (3.98) or (3.iooi), the latter repeated here: (3.1001) a. She taught Greek to Bill b. She taught Bill Greek - and with the {erg,loc} amplified derivatively, as discussed in §3.4 below, to {erg,loc,abs} - provides for the various 'object-and-other properties' attributed to such sentences. Thus, for instance, Bill in (3.iooib) is preferred as object by virtue of relationally outranking Greek - as combined abs vs. simplex - and, as the hierarchically second argument to the erg, it 'corresponds to' the passive subject {Bill was taught Greek), whereas in (a) Greek is hierarchically second (Greek was taught to Bill). As we have seen, the abs associated with this instance of the 'dative' Bill is also the basis for its resistance to 'interpolation' (recall the examples in (3.107)); and the {loc,abs} conjunction is what is resistant to interpolation of 'particles' (recall (3.105)). As indicated above, we take up the potential problem posed by the cooccurrence in the same predication of {erg} and {erg,loc} in §3.4. In the subsection that follows now I look at the character of subject-formation and its relation to sequencing of elements, or linearisation. In this one, I have tried

216

The syntax of categories

to document the 'diffuseness' of objecthood, and also the variability in the distribution of what Givon (1984) calls DAT/BEN. And we are now in a position to refine upon the characterisation of this offered above (in the discussion following (3.100)). Whereas both arrays in (3.99) are available to a single predicator in a language like English, in others, such as Huichol, only one of (3.99a) and (b) is found with a single predicator. Huichol and Old English (together with Hebrew, perhaps) differ in turn in that whereas in the former, as in (Present-day) English, the {erg,loc} in the equivalent of (3.98/1 oob) is derivatively also abs, and so an object, as in (3.96), in Old English this is not so, and the {erg,loc} remains morphosyntactically non-objective, marked as Dative - except with a few verbs (such as Iceran 'teach') that take two Accusatives (Mitchell 1985: §§1083) and non-passivisable (except with Iceran etc. This reflects a failure of the {erg,loc} in Old English to raise/subject-form, thus acquiring an abs specification (§3.4); raising in such constructions is abs-based (we have an ergative subsystem). A final possibility is represented by those languages, or subsystems, which apparently lack an equivalent to (3.99b), as represented, according to Faltz (1978), by K'ekchi and Tamazight. This and the other major possibilities in the area of 'Datives' are presented in table 3.2. Old English is actually, as shown in the table, a mixed system; verbs, such as Iceran 'teach', which take two Accusatives, pattern, in terms of passivisation, as the corresponding arguments in Huichol (or Present-day English): only the {erg,loc,abs}, not the {abs}, has a corresponding passive subject (Mitchell 1985: §835). This is not uncommon. We have here another dimension of variability in language categorisation which is obscured by inappropriate claims for universality of derivative properties. And §3.4 below offers further motivations for such an account of this variability as I have sketched here, as well as providing a more explicit formulation of the structure of 'ditransitives'. 3.3.4

Subject-formation and linearisation

I now want to look rather more carefully at the implementation of subjecthood in the (morpho)syntax, and at the interaction of this with (other aspects of) the erection of syntactic structure, including linearisation. I have differentiated between syntactic and morphosyntactic subjecthood, since they may not coincide, as in examples of the familiar type of (3.119): (3.119) There are fairies at the bottom of the garden

The basic syntax ofpredications 217 Table 3.2: Dative object constructions Tamazight I-sa urgaz lesGap i Gmaftufl: m,MASC,SG-give man book to woman (The man gave the book to the woman') Huichol (3.96) Nee waakanaari ne-meci-tikiiti eeki I chickens i,SG-n,SG-give you ('I gave you the chickens') Old English ]3e him hringas geaf that II,DAT rings+ACC gave ('who gave him rings')

{erg} {abs} {loc}

{erg} {abs} {erg,loc,abs}

{erg} {ergjoc} {abs}

{erg} {erg,loc,abs} {abs} siddan he his cnihtas gelaered haefde done craeft daes lareowdomes after he his followers+ACC taught had the+ACC craft+ACC of teaching ('after he had taught his followers the craft of teaching') English (3.1001) a. She taught Greek to Bill b. She taught Bill Greek

{erg} {abs} {loc} {erg} {erg,loc,abs} {abs}

KinyaRwanda (3.97) a. Igitabo cy-a-haa-w-e umugore (n'umugabo) book it-PAST-give-PASS-ASP woman by-man (The book was given to the woman (by the man)') b. Umugore y-a-haa-w-e igitabo (n'umugabo) woman she-PAST-give-PASS-ASP book by man (The woman was given the book (by the man)')

The central instances of syntactic and morphosyntactic subject do coincide in English: selection in each case satisfies the hierarchy of semantic relations that determines subjecthood. As we have observed, the non-coincidence in (3.119) results from failure to select a syntactic subject, with the (English) requirement for a syntactic subject being satisfied by an expletive. Morphosyntactic subjecthood may be signalled by adposition or inflexion or verb concord, and such a subject may contingently occupy a characteristic position that does not coincide with the unmarked position for the syntactic subject, as in English 'existential there' sentences such as (3.119). The morphosyntactic subject may be realised only morphologically, in 'null'-subject languages such as Italian; here 'concord' satisfies the requirement for a morphosyntactic subject, and the realisations of

218

The syntax of categories

syntactic and morphosyntactic subject are discrete, with possible absence of a syntactic subject, and with the morphosyntactic subject being possibly expletive. In English, on the other hand, the expletive syntactic subject may also be the morphosyntactic subject. In (3.120) the expletive it controls concord, and the finite verb is singular, despite the coordinate complement: (3.120) It seems equally likely at this point that the president will be reelected and that he will be impeached even though this other, sentential argument is capable of exercising control of concord, in appropriate circumstances, as in (3.121): (3.121) That the president will be reelected and that he will be impeached are equally likely at this point These examples are discussed by McCloskey, who associates occurrence of plural concord with sentential co-ordinations which 'specify a plurality of distinct states of affairs or situation-types' (1991: 564). Both syntactic and morphosyntactic subjects are selected on the basis of the subject-selection hierarchy of §3.3.1: Subject-selection hierarchy

erg < <,>abs As noted, it is on this basis that, despite the discrepancies recalled above, the term 'subject' is appropriate to both constructs. Implementation of subjecthood is different in the two instances - as suggested by the discrepancies motivating the terms 'syntactic' and 'morphosyntactic'. Let us look first at the nature of morphosyntactic subjecthood. The effect of formation of a morphosyntactic subject is 'neutralisation': as is familiar, assignment of subjecthood obscures morphological clues as to the semantic relations of subject NPs. So that, for example, all of the morphosyntactic subjects in (3.122) - which are also syntactic subjects - control concord on the predicator: (3.122) a. b. c. d.

Fifi killed the cat Fifi loves cats Fifi left Fifi toppled

The basic syntax ofpredications

219

though they are arguably (semantic-)relationally disparate - say, as in (3.123): (3.123) a. {erg}

b. {erg,loc}

c. {erg,abs}

d. {abs}

I suggest, however, that the rule of formation for morphosyntactic subjects is not in itself mutational, but involves addition of a feature. If we interpret subject-formation as a grammaticalisation of the status of ergs as unmarked topics, then a plausible rule is perhaps: Morphosyntactic-subject-formation

{ }

{IPI} {P;N}

where { }{is the secondary specification of that functor (represented by the upper { }) which is highest on the hierarchy of semantic relations.

This confers morphosyntactic subjecthood on the hierarchically highest argument of a verb that depends on (in adjunction or subjunction) a finite element. (Typically, as we shall see when syntactic-subject-formation is formulated, the finite element will also govern the relevant functor phrase, but not in the case of 'existential there' sentences, for example, where a more subordinate argument is preferred to the syntactic subject (there) of the {IPI} concerned, as in (3.119) above.) Subjects are thereby 'honorary' obligatory ergs. The rule applies vacuously in the case of (a)-(c) in (3.122), given the lexical specifications in (3.121); but its effect is to collapse the functor specifications of the highest arguments of (c) and (d). The functor and the predicator invoked in the rule are syntactically distinct, but a particular serialisation is neither invoked by the rule nor prescribed by it. Concord involves the spread of the pronominal specification for this erg argument - whether it originates as (3.122a), (b), (c) or (d) to the {IPI} predicator via 'prosodic' attachment to the syntactic projection of {IPI}, indicated schematically as subject concord:

220

The syntax of categories Subject concord

{erg}

{IPI}

{N}

{P;N}

This prosody is also manifested in reflexive 'anaphors' such as that in (3.124): (3.124)

Fifi loved herself

which (in English) have this {IPI} as the {IPI} to which they are most immediately subordinate - unlike in (3.125): (3.125)

*Fifi saw the boy who loved herself

where the concord prosody of the most immediately superordinate {IPI} is incompatible with the reflexive. In order to allow for non-subject (sub)systems, we should generalise the preceding formulations as morphosyntactic-principal-formation and principal concord, with implementation differing in how the victim is selected. We need also to allow for systems with multiple concords, as evidenced by the Basque of (2.59), partially replicated here: (2.59)

d. Eman

dio

telliPART AUX,PREs:(s)he-him/her-it C(S)he (has) told him/her it') Eman zion telliPART AUX,PAST:(s)he-him/her-it (*(S)he had told him/her it') Emanen dio tell:GERUND AUX,PREs:(s)he-him/her-it (*(S)he tells/is telling him/her it') Emanen zion tell:GERUND AUX,PAST:(s)he-him/her-it ('(S)he was telling/used to tell him/her it')

I do not pursue this, except to observe that the Basque forms provide strong support for the generalisation of something like the concord rule, crucially its involvement of both {IPI} and {P;N}. As predicted by this view of concord, it is the argument structure of the {P;N} (verb: eman(en) in (2.59d)) that is reflected in the shape of the {IPI} (auxiliary: dio/zion in (2.59d)). On the other hand, we

The basic syntax ofpredications

221

should acknowledge that such formulations are appropriate to central instances of concord only, in so far as there as there appear to be languages in which concord extends to non-finite forms (§3.6). In 'null'-subject languages, formation of morphosyntactic subject is morphology-internal. The dependency relations between {IPI} and {erg} are not the result of syntactic projection but are created by morphological redundancy; indeed, if we interpret the subcategorisation slash V as an instance of the dependency relation, they are already specified in the lexicon. Thus, if we formulate subject-formation as: Morphosyntactic-subject-formation' {IPI} {P;N}

where { }, is the secondary specification of that functor which is highest on the hierarchy of semantic relations then we can formulate the difference between 'null'-subject languages and non'nuir as involving whether or not the functor node in the reformulated formation rule must be distinctively realised (from the {IPI} node) in the syntax; in 'null'-subject languages (morphosyntactic-) subject-formation takes place in the (inflexional) morphology and the configuration specified in the formation rule is a subjunction path. Likewise, we can generalise subject concord over 'null'-subject languages as, again schematically, subject concord', which abstracts away from linearity relations: Subject concord'

I

{P;NJ

L

{erg} {N}

222

The syntax of categories

with, again, a requirement for non-'null'-subject languages that the predicator must be realised distinctively in the syntax from the specified subordinate functor. In 'null'-subject languages, both syntactic subjects and appositions to the morphosyntactic subject (so-called 'inverted' arguments - recall §2.7.3) - as re-exemplified here in (3.126a) and (b), respectively: (3.126)

a. Giuseppe ha trovato la lampadina ('G. found the lightbulb') b. Sono rimasti dei profughi ungheresi nel paese ('Some Hungarian refugees remained in the country')

are obligatorily sensitive to the prosody associated with the {IPI} within whose domain they fall, rather than themselves being the source of concord, which, just as in 'null'-subject (2.230c), has its source in the verb. In such languages, where morphosyntactic-subject-formation is pre-empted by the morphology, the source of concord is, syntactically, within the predicator itself. We have here, then, a strictly morphological subject. For suggestions along similar lines see e.g. Lehmann 1983; Dik 1989: §§6.6, 15.1.4, 15.3. In most instances, subject-formation has no effect on the set of relations attributed to an eligible argument; only victims originally lacking erg are affected, by the addition of an erg. It is attributable to this perhaps, rather than merely their complexity (cf. §3.3.1), that ranking {erg,loc} arguments in a subject-forming system may persist in lacking the stigmata of morphosyntactic subjecthood. Recall at this point the above discussion of examples of so-called 'impersonals' from Old English such as (3.59a), repeated here: (3-59)

a

- Him

ofhreow

daes

mannes

he/they+DAT pitied+III,SG the+GEN man+GEN

('He pitied the man') The predication contains arguments which are, whatever else, {erg,loc} (experiencer: him) and {abl} ('abstract' source: dees mannes); the former is marked with a Dative inflexion, the latter with a Genitive; neither controls concord, which is invariably third person singular; there is no Nominative argument and no (other) syntactic concord-controlling argument. Contrast with the arguments in (3.59a) the manifestations of morphosyntactic subjecthood in (3.127): (3.127)

a. Ne seowe J)u god saed on JDinum aecere? ('Did you (NOM) not sow good seed in your field?') b. Hi hinelufedan... ('They (NOM) loved him ...') c. Eode he in mid ane his preosta ('He (NOM) went in with one of his priests')

The basic syntax ofpredications

223

d. ]3a he on lichoman waes ('when he (NOM) was in the flesh') e. Se maessepreost JDaes mannes ofhreow (The priest (NOM) pitied the man') even with the same predicator as in (3.59a), as exemplified in (3.127c). The (directional) {erg,loc} in (3.128), outranked as subject by the simple {erg} (see §3-3-5). is also marked with a Dative inflexion: (3.128) ac he forgeaf eordlice ding mannum ('but he gave earthly things to-men (DAT)') Suppose then we have in Old English a morphological rule associating {erg,loc} with Dative, as, say, in (3.129): (3.129)

{erg,loc} => Dative

where 'Dative' is intended merely to indicate that there is some distinct morphological shape for {erg,loc} arguments. Things are, of course, more complex than this, in that, for instance, {erg,loc} may also be marked with Accusative (often with the same predicator); but I don't think this affects the core of the situation under consideration. (For discussion of relevant material, see e.g. van der Gaaf 1904; Elmer 1981; Ogura 1986; Anderson 1986J; 1988b.) Say that there is also for Old English a subject-realisation rule of the character of (3.130): (3.130)

{erg} => Nominative

The impersonal (3.59a) and the personal (3.127c) exhibit potential conflict between rules (3.129) and (3.130): so that, if (3.129) has priority, as more specific, then the arguments of the experiencer-source verb are marked as in (3.59a); if (3.130) applies quite generally, with (3.129) being limited to directional {erg,loc} not eligible for subjecthood, then inflexion is as in (3.127c). This situation in Old English may reflect diglossia of the character suggested by Lightfoot (1991: §6.1), though not involving the kind of alternatives envisaged by him. (He envisages juxtaposition of a system with 'inherent' case and one without, which does seem at all to meet the case (with apologies!) for Old English: 'inherent' case is associated with both personal and impersonal predications, as evidenced by (3.127c) and (3.59a).) Subsequently, (3-59a)-type variants become non-available. Often this is attributed to the loss of (most) case inflexions in English (cf. recently Fischer and van der Leek 1983; Lightfoot 1991: §6.1). I suspect that something like the reverse is the case. Examples like (3.59b), again repeated here:

224 (3-59)

The syntax of categories b. ... him sceal scamian aetforan Gode he/they+DAT must feel-shame before God

suggest that such Datives are already interpreted as syntactic subjects (here undergoing raising) before loss of the case marking. What seems to be happening subsequently in the history of English is development of a closer matching between syntactic and morphosyntactic subject, with selection of morphosyntactic subject coming to conform with that of the syntactic subject. The 'existential' of (3.119) represents a rather isolated exception to this, and even it is under threat, as witnessed by the colloquial (3.131): (3.131) There's fairies at the bottom of the garden and the like, in which the postverbal argument fails to control concord. I am suggesting that it may be this development - reinterpretation of morphosyntactic non-subjects in accordance with their syntactic subjecthood - that allows for cases to be lost, rather than vice versa. Syntactic subjecthood is manifested not, of course, by morphological expression but in eligibility for raising and the like, and with an unmarked position (which may not be occupied by the merely morphosyntactic subject). Morphosyntactic subjecthood (in the unmarked case, at least) is associated with finite verbs: in the formulations of morphosyntactic-subject-formation and concord offered above, the governor is ' {IPI} '.It would look as if non-finite predicators, and non-verbal, even - to judge from eligibility for raising - have, in a sense, syntactic subjects as readily as finites. It would appear that the governor of the relevant construction with syntactic subjects is simply 4 {P}', P is present. But syntactic subjecthood as such is not manifested in predications that are not finite, merely eligibility for raising or 'equi'/licensed absence. In English, an overt syntactic subject is associated with presence of both a {IPI} node and a dependent node with dominant P. I suggest therefore as a provisional characterisation of syntactic-subject-formation the following: Syntactic-subject-formation

where { }j is the secondary specification of that functor which is highest on the hierarchy of semantic relations.

The basic syntax ofpredications

225

That is, the syntactic node associated with the hierarchically highest functor of a P-dominant predicator is further associated with a node attached to the governor of this governor, its metagovemor, and, in English, for example, serialised to its left ('<'), as in the derived structure of (3.132): (3-132)

{abs) {erg}

{P}

{abs}

{N}

{P: N}

{N}

John

read

Rasselas

I

I

(3.132) is intended to indicate that the {N} realised as John is dependent on two functor nodes, the lower one being associated by syntactic-subject-formation with an upper one dependent on the metagovemor. Let us now look at the source of this metagovemor. We must also investigate how such secondary attachments are to be triggered and constrained. In accord with projection principle (a), the upper, metagovemor node invoked by syntactic-subject-formation must be unsaturated; it must have an empty, unsubcategorised functor phrase, to serve as host to the syntactic subject. This provides a motivation for the secondary attachment stipulated by subject formation: viz. the satisfaction of the functor's complementation requirements. It also severely constrains possible metagovemors, given the restricted circumstances wherein empty functor phrases may be generated: viz., basically, as a consequence of satisfying the universality-of-abs principle. Say we assume that, following the discussions in §§2.3.3 m& 2-7-3> the verb in (3.132) is lexically {P;N/{erg} {abs}}; as a non-auxiliary, it is also subject to morphological redundancy (3.133): (3.133)

(IP"} {P;N}

which allows it to occur in finite position when this can coincide with the position of the non-finite - as in (3.132), for example - but not in NICE

226

The syntax of categories

contexts. Given also the redundancy providing {N}s with functors, repeated here: (2.31)

c. {N} where C is a variable over the set of conjunctions of case features

the categories underlying (3.132) will induce the unserialised syntactic structure (3.134): (3-134)

{P}

{erg}

{abs}

{P .N}

{N}

{N}

read

John

Rasselas

I

I

(ignoring marking for Tense). Both nodes above John and both above Rasselas are saturated: functors take one argument, names take none. But the upper node with read is not: given that all predicators must be accompanied by an abs, even if they are not subcategorised there for, {P} has an empty slot, the complement slot of the abs which is required to be present as one of its dependents by the universality-of-abs principle. Subject formation fills this empty slot with John, as the hierarchically highest argument, and also linearises this phrase to the left of ( ' < ' ) read. Rasselas, on the other hand, is linearised to the right by the default redundancy for modifiers: Modifier serialisation (English)

WORD;

WORD,

WORD,

WORD,

(linearity follows subordination,'—»'), which is the basic condition assuring that English is head-left (centrifugal). (On linearity as primarily a property of words/ formatives, see also Higginbotham 1983.) This gives (3.132). I am assuming that (as in general) initially, in (3.134), the read-, John-, and Rasselas-phmsts are syntactically distinct but not mutually serialised, since the serialisation is in

The basic syntax ofpredications

227

itself non-contrastive. The serialisation appropriate to the upper (subject) arc in (3.132) is preferred to that determined by the the lower (modifier of {P;N}) one. This is general; sequencing gives priority to the upper node: Superiority An item realising a pair of associated syntactic nodes is sequenced in accordance with the requirements of the upper node. However, notice also that, in conformity with inalterability, the lower dependency associated with John is not relinquished on establishment of the upper one. Nevertheless, subject-formation can also be said to establish a constituent 'VP' (initially absent, as again non-contrastive), i.e. a constituent consisting of {P;N} and those elements subordinate to it but not (also) associated with another dependant of its governing {P}. In the 'existential' (3.119) the default (expletive) selection for syntactic subject there is attached and serialised in accordance with syntactic-subject-formation, while the morphosyntactic (but not syntactic) subject fairies is serialised like any other complement according to modifier serialisation, i.e. to the right of the predicator. This requires, of course, that the BE of such sentences has, exceptionally for an auxiliary, access to redundancy (3.133). As observed above in relation to morphosyntactic-subject-formation, the relative order of functor and predicator is not germane to the rule: in English, the morphosyntactic subject precedes if it is syntactic subject and follows if it is not - the latter, as observed, in accordance with the variant of the rule for modifier serialisation selected by English. In (3.135), with independent lexical realisation of {P} - as the auxiliary may: (3-135) J°hn may read Rasselas John is attached by subject-formation to the syntactic node associated with may, since here read is non-finite, and it projects no {P}-node; and read thus satisfies the valency of may. (3.136) where '{P;N}' is the representation for an infinitive, the unmarked non-finite, provided as the lexical representation for non-modals. A finite read - i.e. a form having undergone redundancy (3.135) - would violate the subcategorisational demands of may. Read thus projects only one syntactic node, and it is thus the {P} node projected by may that provides the unsaturated metagovernor that John must satisfy as abs-filler - and, finally, subject, as represented in (3.137):

228

The syntax of categories

(3-137)

{abs} (erg)

I {N} John

{P}

{P N}

{abs}

I

{N}

may

read

Rasselas

Here governor and metagovernor of John are syntactically distinct, serialised (by the modifier rule) with respect to one another. Attachment of John in (3.137) is in effect a 'raising'; and I now want to show that raising of non-auxiliaries can also be subsumed under syntactic subject formation - or, rather, vice versa. The may predication, indeed, is but one instance of what Anderson (1972) calls a 'quasipredication', a predication with a functor empty of an argument and with a dependent predicator; that paper offers an extensive and somewhat speculative discussion of the role in the syntax of empty functors, one which I shall draw on and try to sharpen. But let us note firstly, before proceeding to a more extended consideration of raising, that the syntactic representation in (3.137) involves a violation of projectivity: again in conformity with inalterability, the dependency of John on read is maintained once it is also attached to may; but in this instance, the lower dependency arc intersects an association line. We shall be concerned below to elaborate a little on constraints on such violations of projectivity, and to establish that they are principled. Let us for the moment merely observe, as a first step in that direction, that the offending arc terminates in a (derived) specifier position. This observation, I suggest, is the basis for invocation of the relevant constraint, which I give, informally, in the very general form that we shall find to be appropriate as the discussion proceeds: Non-projectivity condition One terminal of a non-projective line must be in a basic unsubcategorised-for modifier position. It is trivially true of the subject arc that it terminates in an element that is unsubcategorised-for; its formation, as described above, depends on just that. But

The basic syntax ofpredications 229 the non-projectivity condition requires in addition that a terminal of an offending arc must occupy a position - placement in sequence and in configuration that is characteristic of basic unsubcategorised-for elements, i.e. a position that is inherently unsubcategorised-for, but introduced rather by the requirements of 'retro-valency'. And this requirement too is satisfied by the configuration which is created derivatively, outside the subcategorisation domain of the argument concerned (which is headed by {P;N}), by (syntactic-) subject formation. I'm suggesting that in the instances we've looked at subject-formation creates a specifier, an unsubcategorised-for modifier serialised to the left of its head. Specifiers are subject to: Specifier serialisation (English) WORDSPEC

\

WORDk

=>

WORD,

WORDSPEC

(a specifier precedes its governor), which overrides the default serialisation of modifiers given above, and 'preposes' the specifier very of (2.227a), repeated here: (2.227)

a

- Janice is very articulate

Circumstantials such as that in (2.268), repeated here: (2.238) They make the toys upstairs which are only derivatively circumstantials - they also occur as complements conform to either the general modifier rule, as in (2.238) or the specifier, as in (2.241), again repeated here: (2.241) Upstairs they make the toys but for the most part circumstantials obey the default option. Specifier serialisation is also responsible for the position of so in both of (3.138), involving respectively verbal and adjectival specification, in these instances by a complemented specifier: (3.138) a.

so

enraged

so

heavy

Mary

that she hit him

b.

that he sank

230

The syntax of categories

These specifiers again occupy a position we are associating derivatively with syntactic subjects: below we shall indeed subsume subject positioning under specifier serialisation. But notice now that the effect of specifier and modifier serialisation with respect to the structures in (3.138) has been to 'extract' so: the subordinates of so are also subordinate to the governor of so (enraged and heavy respectively), and they are thus serialised to the right of both so and its governor, giving discontinuity, non-projectivity. These non-projectivities of (3.138) are again in conformity with the non-projectivity condition formulated just above. Indeed, as a characteristic locus for unsubcategorised-for elements, the position occupied by so can be interpreted as providing a 'template' for subject-formation whereby the non-projectivity condition can be satisfied. This illustrates the basic scenario whereby the creation of secondary non-projectivity may be licensed. By secondary non-projectivity I mean that introduced by the assignment of more than two mothers to a single item, as with syntactic subjects. Specifier structures like those in (3.138) instantiate primary non-projectivity. Notice specifically that the node initiating the offending dependency arc in (3-!37) - part of the configuration realised as John - is associated with a node which is itself governed by a node to which the node terminating the arc is independently subordinate. This latter relation involves an analogue to the familiar 'c-command' relation defined over constituency-based structures; let us call it d-command, formulated as: D-command Node a d-commands b iff there is a c such that a depends on c and b is subordinate to c. In the case of subject-formation, d-command is achieved only via the metagovernor: thus John in (3.137) comes to d-command read only via projection of the node associated with the unsubcategorised abs introduced with respect to may. Such derived d-command is characteristic of secondary non-projectivities, as will begin to emerge when we now turn to other means of satisfying the requirement for a metagovernor imposed by syntactic-subject-formation. Consider now a raising structure such as we can associate with (3.139a), initially projected, schematically, as in (b): (3139)

a. Kate expected John to read Rasselas

The basic syntax ofpredications

231

b.

{P}

{erg,loc}

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

{N}

expected

I

Kate

{P N}

to-read

{erg}

{abs}

I

I

{N}

{N}

John

Rasselas

- with details like the subcategorisation of (the simple transitive) read omitted. I am also ignoring the status of 'infinitival to\ for the moment; but since I shall argue in §3.4 (developing upon e.g. Pullum 1982; Anderson 1992&: §5.6) that it is relatively 'transparent' to the phenomena with which we are concerned at the moment, such neglect does not affect the present discussion. I have also again omitted from (3.139b), as not projected from the subcategorisations, any instances of unsubcategorised-for abs. Here there are two such, introduced as elsewhere in conformity with the predicatorial universality of a dependent abs: one, as in (3.132), assigned to the {P} category, the other supplied to the {P;N} associated lexically with expect, which, as indicated in (3.139b), also lacks an abs in its subcategorisation frame. To-read is again non-finite, to satisfy the valency of expect; and so it projects only one syntactic node. But in this case the unsaturated metagovernor is provided by the {P;N} category realised as expect, which is subcategorised for only {erg,loc} and {P;N}) and thus offers the requisite empty abs. This gives (3.140):

232

The syntax of categories

(3.140)

{P}

{erg,loc}

{abs}

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

{N}

{erg}

I

{P

{N} expected

Kate

John

{abs}

I

{N} to-read

Rasselas

The effect of 'subject-formation' with John is to 'raise' it into the expect clause: 'raising' occurs as an alternative fulfilment of 'subject-formation'. Perhaps, though, it is more respectful of traditional understandings of the terms to see syntactic-subject-formation as a special case of raising; and, indeed, to accommodate traditional 'raising' in the above formulation of syntactic-subjectformation we must generalise the upper node to '{P >}' rather than simply '{IPI}'. I shall henceforth refer to the revised formulation as raising, distinguished from the narrower traditional conception of 'raising' by the absence of quotation marks. 'Subject-formation' can thus be identified with 'raising' (and 'passive raising'). In all instances, raising associates the argument highest on the hierarchy of semantic relations with the empty abs node of its metagovernor, and the satisfaction of the valency of this node is the motivation for the building of the extra structure. The same valency requirement, as well as the same structure building, characterises both 'subject-formation' and traditional 'raising'. An apparent consequence of raising, in the present - as illustrated in (3.140) - instance, however, is the serialisation of the raisee to the right of its metagovernor, unlike with the raising in (3.132), whose placement to the left we incorporated as part of 'syntactic-subject-formation'. We must then apparently differentiate these cases as in (b) and (c) of raisee serialisation, where (a) is simply an instance of superiority: Raisee serialisation (English) a. Raisees are serialised with respect to their metagovernor b. Raisees to {IPI} serialise as specifiers thereof c. Raisees to {P;N} serialise as modifiers thereof

The basic syntax ofpredications

233

and eliminate the order stipulation from raising/'syntactic-subject-formation', as updated at this point, to accommodate the revision proposed above - generalising '{IPI}' to '{P >}' - and to incorporate a further generalisation involving elimination of the dependent {P >}, which allows the rule to involve dependent non-verbals:

where { } {is the secondary specification of that functor which is highest on the hierarchy of semantic relations with the nature of the hierarchy, and its existence, being dependent on the system's type of principal relation. As an abs, John in (3.139/140) is also serialised closer to expect than is the verbal argument. In general, we can say that the unmarked position for abs is adjacent to its verbal, in accord with the hierarchy of semantic relations, which regulates aspects of predicational serialisation not determined configurationally, i.e. by the rules determining direction of specification/modification. John is right-adjacent to expected as a combination of modifier serialisation and hierarchical placement. John in (3.139/140) is outranked as potential subject of expect by ({erg,loc}) Kate, which is attached by raising/subject-formation with respect to expect to the node projected by its {P}. With (3.141), on the other hand: (3.141) John seemed to like Rasselas the empty abs of the upper predicator, filled by John, as with (3.139/140), undergoes further raising/subject-formation, giving (3.142):

234

The syntax of categories

(3-142)

{abs} {abs} {P N}

{erg} {N}

{P: N}

John

seemed

{abs} {N}

to-like

Rasselas

with two applications of raising (one of 'raising', one of 'subject-formation'). As in (3.137), we have non-projectivity involving an arc initiating in specifier position; and John, realising the element in specifier position, d-commands to-like by virtue of the node projected by the upper abs. Horn (1985) observes, on the basis of a sample of divergent languages, that 'raising-to-object' seems to be markedly restricted in its distribution through the languages of the world. The nature of this provides us with some potential evidence for the proposed characterisation of the circumstances under which non-projectivity may obtain. Horn formulates the restrictions on 'subject-toobject-raising' (what he refers to as the occurrence of 'NP R terms') as: Languages in which NPR terms occur are those whose basic word order patterns are such that the subjects of other complement sentence types can occupy string positions of object NPs (direct objects, objects of prepositions, etc.) in higher clauses. (1985:815) This condition is met in English, for instance, given the possible absence of complementiser illustrated by sentences like (3.143): (3.143)

Kate believes John has read Rasselas

whereas (according to Horn) in, for example, Dutch, with obligatory presence of a complementiser in complement sentences, the condition cannot be met, and there is, allegedly, no 'raising-to-object' (cf., however, Evers 1975). In 'VSO' Samoan, the word order precludes fulfilling of the condition, as illustrated by

The basic syntax ofpredications

235

(3.144): (3.144)

Sa mafaufau Susana e manaia Japani TNS imagine Susanna TNS lovely Japan ('Susanna imagined Japan was lovely')

and again, as Horn (1985) observes, 'raising-to-object' is absent from the language. What is of interest in the present context, however, is that, given some such condition, 'raising-to-object' seems to be possible only when the raisee can serve as both object of the matrix and subject of the complement clause, without - and this is the crux - creating a violation of projectivity. Thus, Stephens (1990), for instance, argues that while finite clauses in Breton are VSO, infinitives take their subjects to the left; and this means that the subject, Yann, of the infinitive in (3.145a) appears in the position otherwise occupied by the 'object' of the preposition/complementiser evit (Stephens 1990: §3.1): (3.145)

a. Krenv awal'h eo Lomm evit Yann da spontan dirazan strong enough is Lomm for Yann to fear before+IH,SG,MASC ('Lomm is sufficiently strong to frighten Yann') b. Lakaat a reas Lenaig Yann da dewezhaat ar re vihan make PART did Lenaig Yann to look-after the one little ('Lenaig made Yann look after the little one')

And we do indeed find in Breton 'raising-to-object' structures such as (3.145b) (Stephens 1990: §3.3). Yann in (3.145b) is in a position to serve as both object of lakaat and subject of dewezhaat without there being a violation of projectivity. (Cf. Sproat 1985, on Welsh; and the discussion of Irish in Horn 1985, which draws on McCloskey 1984.) The 'discrepant' word orders allow this; the 'consistent' Samoan does not. I'm suggesting that the restricted distribution of 'raising-to-object', vs. 'raising-to-subject', reflects an avoidance of unsanctioned non-projectivity, given that neither object position nor the non-finite predicator position are unsubcategorised-for. In contrast, the position of the (syntactic) subject - i.e., as prescribed by raisee serialisation (b), that of a specifier, is unsubcategorised-for, and tolerates non-projectivities. The hypothesis concerning the syntactic origin of (syntactic) subjects suggested above is also supported by purported evidence for the so-called 'subject within VP' hypothesis (e.g. Fukui 1986; Sportiche 1988; Rosen 1990: §2.2.2). Sportiche, for example, argues that the French forms of (3.1461) illustrate not rightward 'floating' of the quantifier but rather 'stranding' of the quantifier by the leftward movement of the subject NP away from its initial position (marked by tous in (ic)):

236

The syntax of categories

(3.146O a. Tous les enfants ont vu ce film ('All the children have seen that film') b. Les enfants ont tous vu ce film c. Les enfants ont vu cefilmtous (ii) /pCtous) les enfants /pWont (tous) [P.N vu ce film (tous)777 subject-formation raising no raising (3.146H) is intended to indicate diagrammatically, in terms of the present proposals, which do not, of course, countenance mutation of structure or sequence, that whereas in (3.i46ia) the whole tous les enfants phrase has undergone raising into the {P;N} phrase headed by ont and raising (subject formation) into the {P} phrase also headed by ont (on the assumption that French does not show an auxiliary/non-auxiliary distinction), in (b) tous has failed to undergo subjectformation, and in (c) even the initial raising; and, in these latter two cases, it comes to occupy the appropriate positions as argument of the ont {P;N} and vu {P;N} respectively. I suspect (3.i46ic) may rather show apposition, but at least (b) can be seen as support for some sort of 'extraction' analysis for subjects. 3.4

The formation of ditransitives

In §3.3.3 I associated with sentences like (3.98), repeated here: (3.98)

a. She gave the book to Bill b. She gave Bill the book

the arrays of semantic relations shown in (3.99), again repeated, involving a violation of the one-instance-per-clause constraint on the occurrence of semantic relations: (3-99)

a. /{erg} {abs} {loc} b. / {erg} {erg,loc} {abs}

Here we have two instances of erg - one of them, admittedly, in combination with another relation, so that the overall roles are distinct. But the motivations for the violation are substantial, such as to suggest that we should reconsider the nature of the constraint itself. However, I shall indeed take the nature of the violation as a clue to the establishment of a more adequate analysis. As we have seen in §3.2, Anderson (1978; 1987J) provides evidence for attributing such a characterisation as we find in (3.99b), including 'erg', to experiencers/datives in general, notably the sharing of properties with Agentives, associated in such an account with the occurrence of erg in the representation of both agentives and experiencers/datives. And the erg shared by subjects and

The formation of ditransitives 237 {ergjoc} arguments (even in non-subject position) underlies a number of syntactic regularities. Thus, as pointed out by e.g. Postal (1974: §5.1), the kind of 'extraction' possible with respect to the object in (3.147): (3.147) the girl who(m) you bought pictures of is ruled out for many speakers of English if the argument from which the w>/*-NP is 'extracted' is either a subject, as in (3.148a), or an {erg,loc}, as in (b): (3.148) a. *the girl who pictures of lay on the table b. *the scholar who(m) I gave a student of a lot of money Cf. too e.g. Anderson (1977: §2.8.11), on eac/i-floating. The {erg,loc} here is in 'object position', but it behaves like a subject. Anderson (1978) attributes such shared (in)capacities to the sharing of erg. But this means that, even before subject-formation, a sentence like (3.98b) contains two erg arguments, as noted in §3.3.3, and re-represented in (3.99b). I shall suggest here, however, that accommodation of this does not necessitate wholesale abandonment of the 'one-instance' constraint; merely, I suggest, a relocation, as a one-instance-per-predicator constraint. And this is compatible with an account of ditransitive constructions which is desirable in other respects, as I shall now try to show. Crucial here is the proposal that give, teach etc. are complex predicators, perhaps of the character of (3.149): (3.149)

{P;N/{erg}{P;N}} I {P;N/{ <erg,>loc} {abs} }

(cf. e.g. Anderson 1971a: ch. 11; 1977: §2.8; 1987^; 1992b: §4.3). Here the one-instance-per-predicator constraint is satisfied by the individual simplex predicators into which the complex is decomposed, even when the optional erg (associated with the 'double-object' (3-98b/99b) etc.) is included. This complexity is reflected in the derivational morphology of a number of languages: some such verbs, at least, are marked as derived, specifically as causatives, as in Germanic or Arabic (cf. e.g. 'allama 'make to know, teach', 'alima 'know'). But the complexity also has syntactic consequences, as well as satisfying the observations concerning {erg,loc} and ditransitive constructions made in this and the immediately preceding section. The upper {P;N} in (3.192) will be associated, by redundancy, with an unsubcategorised-for abs; and this provides the argument whereby the upper {P;N} acts as metagovernor for the hierarchically highest argument of the lower, what would be its (syntactic) subject. This argument is either (in the absence of

238

The syntax of categories

an erg combined with the loc) abs, underlying (3.98a), or {ergjoc}, underlying (3.98b). This gives us (3.150): (3150)

{abs}

{P}

{abs}

{erg}

{P;NJ

{erg,loc)

1

{abs

1

1

{N}

{P;NJ

{N}

{N}

she

gave

Bill

the book

as a development of the initial structure for (3.98b), in which the original erg she outranks the {erg,loc,abs} that results from this raising, with respect to the subsequent raising creating the subject of {P} (and which ignores details like subcategorisation and the internal structure of NPs). She is linearised ahead of gave by specifier serialisation; Bill follows in accordance with modifier serialisation, but precedes the hierarchically inferior book. In this way, too, the {erg,loc} gains the abs feature that enables it to meet the object rule, which otherwise seems to be appropriate (to English, and generally as the unmarked situation, at least), in requiring objects ('diffuse' in membership or not) to be an abs. (3.150) also involves non-projectivity, with the arc linking gave and the book being intersected by the line associating the two nodes projected from Bill. Here too the non-projectivity condition: Non-projectivity condition One terminal of a non-projective line must be in a basic unsubcategorised-for modifier position is satisfied. Certainly, the former, dependency line linking gave and the book does not involve at either terminus an unsubcategorised-for modifier position. But the position occupied by the upper node associated with Bill is indeed arguably such; that is, the offending line in (3.150) is not a dependency arc, as in (3.137/138), but this particular association line. The non-subcategorised-for position involved is that filled by particle circumstantials, as in (3.104a), or (3.151a):

The formation of ditransitives 239 (3.151) a. Bert gave back the money (to the building society) b. Bert gave the money back (to the building society) (The to-phrases are optionally lexicalised participant goals, Iocs.) The particles are a set of locational/directional circumstantials which exceptionally have access to the position exemplified in (3.1047151a) and thus to nonprojectivity: (3.152)

Bert

gave

back

the money

(which omits e.g. the internal structures of gave and of the money). On the syntax of such circumstantials, see e.g. Emonds 1972: §§I-VI; Anderson 1977: §2.8.8. What is important here is that, as with specifiers and subjects, such structures provide a 'template' for the 'double-object' structure of (3.150) in so far as the licensing of non-projectivity is concerned: Bill in (3.150) occupies a position that is inherently not subcategorised-for. As observed above (in §3.3.3), there are apparently languages or subsystems, such as reflected in the predominant pattern in Old English, in which the raising attributed to {erg,loc} in 'double-object' constructions in English does not occur: these {erg,loc}s are not marked as objects, but characteristically by a distinctive, Dative inflexion; and they do not passivize as such. In such systems, too, {erg,loc} arguments in non-agentive predications, though hierarchically eligible, tend not to be marked as morphosyntactic subjects either, and may fail to 'behave' in various ways like syntactic subjects. Thus, Ziv (1976) observes that the {erg,loc} in the 'possessive' construction in Hebrew is marked as oblique, and, for instance, is not eligible for raising, though it occupies unmarked subject position, as in (3.153) (representing 'Normative Literary Hebrew'):

240

The syntax of categories

(3.153) Hay a ledan hameil miyisrael od baxoref was+m,sG to-Dan the-coat from-Israel still in-the-winter ('Dan had the coat from Israel already last winter') Likewise, the {ergjoc} of (3.103), cited above - assuming it to be such (rather than a simple loc): (3.103) Hu natan et ha-sefer la-isha he gave ACC the-book to+the-woman ('He gave the book to the woman') shows no possibility of raising and thus of passivisation. Such correlations, if pervasive, support the identification of subject-formation with raising and the role of such in the derivation of (3.150): we have in both circumstances (with respect to potential subjecthood of an {erg/loc} in non-agentive predications, and with respect to potential objecthood of an {erg,loc} in agentives), failure to apply the same rule for erecting structure, raising/subject-formation. Cole et al. (1978) suggest, on the basis of comparative evidence, that 'dative' {erg,loc} potential subjects in the parent Germanic language lacked any of the properties associated with subjecthood. As discussed in the preceding section, Old English preserves a set of 'impersonal' verbs, which can occur in constructions without morphosyntactic subject; recall (3.59a): (3-59)

a

- Him

ofhreow

daes

mannes

he/they+DAT pitied+III,SG the+GEN man+GEN

('He pitied the man') I associated the loss of such constructions with increasing congruence in syntactic and morphosyntactic subjecthood in the history of English, given the evidence in Old English already for syntactic subjecthood of the Dative in such sentences. As a consequence, the realisation rule (3.129): (3.129)

{erg,loc} => Dative

is disfavoured for subject {erg,loc}s, and thus in general. Over the same period, non-subject {loc,erg}s with verbs like give lose Dative marking (Jones 1988: §4.6.c; Fischer 1992: §4.8.4) and become eligible for passive (Fischer 1992: §4.9.1), as in Present-day (3.107b): (3.107) b. The bank was given the money Old English lacks such passives, and the {erg,loc} is typically marked with Dative in both actives and (impersonal) passives, as in (active) (3.128): (3.128)

ac he forgeaf eordlice ding mannum ('but he gave earthly things to-men (DAT)')

The formation of ditransitives 241 (also repeated here). I take the development of such passives to be a consequence of the loss of (3.129). Given the experiencer subject condition, now reinterpreted in terms of raising: Experiencer raising condition An experiencer fails to be raised only if it is morphosyntactically oblique the loss of (3.129), and distinctive oblique marking for {erg,loc}, means that {erg,loc}s will have to raise, acquire 'objecthood', as in Present-day (3.98b) and the like: (3.98)

b. She gave Bill the book

(as abs denied subjecthood), and be preferred for passivisation (as a complex abs) to the simple abs. Again, such a scenario depends on the equation of (syntactic-) subject-formation and raising (as embodied, for instance, in the Experiencer raising condition). Give and teach are 'inherently dative' verbs, which we can associate with the partial lexical entry in (3.149) above. Benefactives are also locative, specifically goal, arguments; but they are optional circumstantials in examples like those of (3.1541): (3.i54i) a. b. c. d. (ii) a. b. c. d.

Janey made a necklace for Sheila Janey bought a necklace for Sheila Janey sang (a song) for Sheila Janey intrigued for Sheila Janey made Sheila a necklace Janey bought Sheila a necklace Janey sang Sheila *(a song) *Janey intrigued Sheila (OK in different sense)

and, as such, are apparently generally available with agentive predicators, just as I have suggested to be the case with instrumentals. However, (3.154^) apparently show such arguments - i.e. sharing interpretation and selection with those in (i) - in 'internal' double-object position, the position we have associated with an inherent {erg,loc}. The two alternations (dative and benefactive) are thus often treated together. But the benefactives differ not merely in terms of the circumstantial character of (3.154O. In the 'internal' object position they require a following abs ('object') - cf. (3.i54iic/d) - not merely, say, non-final position (Vane sang Sheila for five hours), although the prepositional phrases of (3.1540 are all optional. As we have observed, this requirement is not universally true of inherent ditransitives (He taught Beryl). Both the positioning of the 'internal' benefactive and the requirement of a following abs are allowed for if (3.154H) involve a predicator of the character

242

The syntax of categories

of (3.155a), which results from application of the redundancy in (3.155b); (3.155c) gives the resultant structure, which does not (in this instance) show the erg that is eventually combined with the abs associated with Janey as a consequence of morphosyntactic-subject-formation: (3.155)

b. {P;N/{erg}} I

a. {P;N/{erg}} I {P;N/{erg,loc}} I {P;N/{abs}...}

{P;N}/{erg,loc}] I P;N/{abs}...}

c.

•

{P}

{abs}

{P;NJ

{abs}

{abs}

{P;N}

{erg loc}

{abs}

{N}

{P;NJ

{N}

{N}

Bert

made

Sheila

a necklace

1

{erg} I

The redundancy depends on the assumption that all of the eligible verbs are notionally 'causative', and thus internally complex in the way required by the input to the rule, which, as indicated in (3.155b), takes a predicator with a single specified agt argument over an absolutive predicator of some sort. The rule in (3.155b) introduces with respect to any such configuration an intermediate benefactive predicator category, with a subcategorised-for {erg,loc} and an unspecified abs; like the dative, a benefactive is an 'involvable' goal, but it is lexically derived in 'internal' position. Syntactically, the abs of the lowest predicator fills the empty abs of the intermediate, benefactive predicator; and the {erg,loc} argument of the latter fills, in turn, the empty abs of the upper, 'causative' predicator. It is the requirement to fill the empty abs of the benefactive predicator that underlies the pattern of acceptability in (3.155H), rendering the lexical benefactive necessarily 'internal'. The proposal made here also

The formation of ditransitives 243 allows us to characterise similarities between dative and benefactive, while not obscuring differences in distribution. The benefactives of (3.155O are simply circumstantials. Like subjects, the raised argument in (3.98b) and the like can also be the source of an 'agreement' prosody, realised as reflexivisation. Compare with (3.124), repeated here as (3.156a), the 'double-object' sentence of (b): (3.156)

a. b. c. d.

Fifi loved herself Maurice showed Fifi herself (in the mirror) *Herself loved Fifi *Maurice showed herself Fifi (in the mirror)

and contrast (c) and (d). We interpreted herself in (3.156a) as satisfying the prosody initiated by its controlling subject which attaches to the {P} syntactic node, and is also manifested by concord. Conversely, the prosody may be said to license the occurrence of the reflexive. In the case of (3.156b) the prosody, initiated by the 'dative', is associated with the second-highest syntactic node projected by the verb (and is thus not manifested as concord) cf. the structure in (3.150). The acceptability of (3.156b) (and (3.159a) below) and the like is very susceptible to choice of verb and informant; all of Postal (1971: 126), Jackendoff (1972: §4.10.6) and Anderson (1977: §3.2.4), for instance, describe / sold the slave himself (and / sold the slave to himself) as deviant. But at least in some cases 'double-object' reflexives seem to be viable. The relationship between the reflexive and its 'controller', the source of the prosody, shows the same asymmetry in both (3.156a) and (b): the reflexive is subordinate to but not dependent on a governor of the 'controller', viz. the highest node projected by the verb in the case of (3.156a) and the second highest in the representation of (3.156b). Again the structural relation involved, in this case necessarily asymmetric, is that I have dubbed d-command: the reflexives are asymmetrically d-commanded by their 'controllers'. Further, they are 'controlled' by the most immediately d-commanding potential 'controller'; so that e.g. (3.157b) is not viable: (3.157)

a. Maurice showed/assigned himself Fifi b. *Maurice showed/assigned Fifi himself

where the licensing prosody is blocked by the intervening Fifi. Likewise, given a representation for (3.98a) like (3.158):

244

The syntax of categories

(3-158)

{abs}

(P) 1

{N}

1 {P;N} 1 1 {P;NJ

she

gave

{erg}

{abs) {abs}

{loc}

1

1 {N} the book

{N}

to

Bill

in which the abs selected by the lowest predicator is raised, rather than the loc 'corresponding to' the {erg,loc} of (3.98b), then reflexive and 'controller' in (3.159a) - but not (b) - conform to the same asymmetry: (3.159) a. b. c. d.

Maurice showed Fin* to herself (in the mirror) *Maurice showed herself to Fifi (in the mirror) Maurice showed/assigned himself to Fifi *Maurice showed/assigned Fifi to himself

and in (d), unlike (c), the 'controller' fails to be the most immediately d-commanding. That the well-formedness of (3.i56a-b), (3.157) and (3.159a) - and the badness of (3.i56c-d) and (3.159b) - is not simply a matter of sequence is illustrated by (3.160): (3.160) Maurice showed to herself (in the mirror) the girl in the blonde wig For related discussion and further illustration see also e.g. Bach 1979; Dowty 1979; Barss and Lasnik 1986; Aoun and Li 1989; den Dikken 1991; Lefebvre in press. What I have tried to indicate here is that the (asymmetric) d-command relation associated with 'control' of reflexives emerges from the 'decompositional' analysis of double-object verbs. 3.5

Variation in argument structure

As a transition from concern primarily with predicational structure to the consideration of the character of arguments that concludes this chapter, I want here

Variation in argument structure 245 look briefly at some other 'extensions' to the basic predicational pattern elaborated in the preceding, particularly in §3.3. These involve lexical 'expansions' or 'contractions' in subcategorisation, and are mostly derivational, but the passive constructions also considered (as argument reducing) involve an inflexional relationship, and one which in many languages is periphrastically expressed. I begin here, however, with a derivational relationship involving reduction in overt complementation. In some cases, the simple abs valency with verbs of the notional class discussed in the preceding section in relation to the 'double-object' construction is satisfied internally. And, as pointed out by e.g. Anderson 1971a: §9.5; 1977: §2.8.10, some languages reflect this in their morphology. Thus, in Old English, for instance, pancian 'thank' is overtly based on the noun pane, and its 'object' is inflected for Dative. Schematically, we can associate such verbs with the lexical specification in (3.161): (3.161)

{P;N/{erg}} I {P;N}/{erg,loc} } I abs I N

wherein the abs argument can be said to be incorporated. Compare with this the representation for Present-day English give suggested in (3.149), where the abs argument is not incorporated. Such an interpretation of 'thank'-type verbs is supported further by other syntactic parallels with unincorporated 'doubleobject' sentences. With many incorporated, as well as unincorporated structures in Old English (as discussed in §3.4), such as those in (3.162), there is no raising (and thus no passivisation) of {erg,loc}: (3.162) a. Hie him sealdon attor drinccan (They gave him/them (DAT) poison to drink') b. He Gode J^ancode ('He thanked God (DAT)')

(though, as we have noted, some such verbs allow raising - and thus marking of the {erg,loc} with accusative, and passivisation). In Present-day English, on the other hand, {erg,loc}s with both incorporated and unincorporated abs show raising. These THANK-type verbs are typical in a crucial respect of incorporation of arguments into verbs, as of other derivational relationships: the incorporated argument is an abs. In Present-day English, the typical noun-verb incorporation

246

The syntax of categories

involves 'zero-conversion', as in (3.163), showing the central 'ergative', absbased pattern: (3.1631) (ii) (iii)

a. b. a. b. a. b.

Rain/snow/hail fell It rained/snowed/hailed They have produced buds/calves/rust They have budded/calved/rusted Fred gave his friends help/thanks/support Fred helped/thanked/supported his friends

(Anderson 1984&: §4.1)

But abs-based incorporation is also central, presupposed by other patterns, when the derivation is overtly signalled by affix, as in Old English, or involves the presence of a 'full' verb form, as in the compounds of (3.164): (3.164) a. sunrise, landslide, rainfall b. lionhunt, bloodshed, leg-pull

(Anderson 1984&: §5.1)

which are noun compounds based on the incorporation of a verb and its abs argument, whether transitive, as in (3.164b) or intransitive (a). We find a similar pattern with 'syntactic' incorporations, such as are illustrated by examples from Southern Tiwa in (3.165) and (3.166): (3.165) a. Seuan-ide ti-mu-ban man

i,SG-see-PAST

('I saw the man') b. Ti-seuan-mu-ban i,SG-man-see-PAST

('I saw the man') (3.166)

We-fan-lur-mi CLASS + NEG-SnOW-fall-PRES + NEG

('Snow isn't falling')

(Baker 1988: 82, 88)

Both incorporees are abs. Even though (3.163) and (3.164) involve morphological relationships between lexical entries and (3.165/166) a morphological relationship fed by the syntax - an argument fails to be serialised (in the syntax) relative to its governor, and is serialised by the morphology - in both instances we have the familiar 'ergative' pattern pivoted on the abs relation. Again, I take this to illustrate the irrelevance of grammatical relations both to the lexicon and to initial syntax. Once more, of course, such a situation is susceptible to an unaccusative interpretation. And this is, indeed, how Baker (1988: §3.2) allows for the incorporations in both of (3.165b) and (3.166); both incorporees are initial objects (transitive or unaccusative), while the subjects in transitives and agentive ('unergative') intransitives (Baker 1988: 82, 89) are not, in these terms, and

Variation in argument structure 247 cannot be incorporated. But again appeal to unaccusativity is unnecessary: only the incorporees are simple abs participants. And there are again particular problems in such an appeal. Van Valin (1992: 208-9), f° r instance, points to languages in which 'initial subjects' are incorporated: 'unergative' subjects in (Australian) Mayali (for which he refers to unpublished work by N. Evans), and apparently both 'unergative' and transitive subjects in (Eastern Cushitic) Boni (Sasse 1984: §5). Southern Tiwa itself shows incorporation of animate non-human 'initial transitive subjects' (Allen, Gardiner and Frantz 1984; Frantz 1985) - though admittedly only in the -c/ze-construction (often interpreted as 'passive' - Rosen 1990). On Baker's account, incorporation of such 'external arguments', if such they are, would violate the 'empty category principle', in that the 'trace' left by the incorporated argument would not be 'properly governed'. The bifurcation into 'external'/ 'internal' imposed by this account thus seems to be inappropriate. Rather, we have a hierarchy of 'incorporability': Lexical incorporation hierarchy {abs} < {erg,abs} < {erg} Simple abs arguments are most readily incorporate not because they are 'internal arguments' - the 'internal'/'external' distinction is irrelevant if unaccusativity is rejected, and is anyway derivative (of VP-formation) - but because the abs argument is centrally most closely tied semantically to the predicator: as the unspecified functor, it imposes a minimal barrier between its governor and its dependent. As is familiar, this closeness is manifested in the detailed restrictions which predicators typically impose on their abs arguments, whether subject or object (Moravcsik 1978). It is possible that the incorporability hierarchy simply inverts the subject selection hierarchy - i.e. is of the character of: Lexical incorporation hierarchy'

abs< {,abs} <erg But I have not been able to verify this. We can formulate lexical incorporation in its most general form as a lexicalderivational redundancy along the following lines: Incorporation

I C I N

248

The syntax of categories

where cross-linguistic selection of C (a variable case/functor specification) is determined in accordance with the incorporability hierarchy, with abs being the default choice - and where, of course, there is cross-linguistic variation in the classes of item affected and in the morphological implementation. I do not pursue this here, but an incorporation analysis along such lines is arguably appropriate to a wide range of phenomena, including the 'holistics' discussed in §3.1, antipassives and passives, and, for that matter, nominalisations. Let me at least indicate the shape such analyses might take, taking passive as an illustration. Let us firstly distinguish from it the argument-reduction we find in some languages in the form of a lexical derivational relationship often termed anticausative; these derive intransitive from transitive verbs, in accordance with the familiar 'ergative' pattern, as in the Hungarian of (3.167): (3.167) a. Zoltan cukrot old a vizben ('Zoltan dissolves sugar in the water') b. A cukor a vizben old-odik ('The sugar dissolves in water') (cf. again Comrie 1985&: 325), where -odik in (b) is (one variant of) the anticausative marker. We have here a derivational redundancy involving elimination of an erg argument in the case of the marked form. Much more generally, we can associate with languages a general syntactic valency-reducing redundancy, the passive, which, in terms of subject formation, 'substitutes' for the hierarchically highest argument, centrally an erg, the next highest, centrally {abs<,>}. As is familiar, in some languages (e.g. Amharic, Latvian, Songhray/Sonrai - Keenan 1985; Siewierska 1984: 35 - or several of the Brazilian Arawakan languages - Derbyshire 1986: 509), passive clauses contain overtly nothing corresponding to the active subject; in others (e.g. English), there is an optional obliquely-marked element; and, in a few languages, such an oblique element is obligatory (Siewierska 1984: 35-7). However: 'passive and anticausative differ in that, even where the former has no agentive phrase, the existence of some person or thing bringing about the situation is implied, whereas the anticausative is consistent with the situation coming about spontaneously' (Comrie 1985b: 326). Such observations suggest that we can characterise passivisation as a functorincorporating morphosyntactic redundancy, along the following lines:

Variation in argument structure 249 Passive {P;N/{C}} => {P;N} I C I N where {C} is a functor selected in accordance with the hierarchy of semantic relations (and cf. e.g. Baker, Johnson and Roberts 1989). Such a formulation constitutes a very general argument-reducing redundancy. Subjects of the predications which are induced by the output to passive are selected in accordance with the hierarchy, minus the hierarchically highest argument, with the latter valency being satisfied internally, with the result that it is possible for Siewierska (1984: 75) to claim, after a wide-ranging survey, that 'the only feature which unites all the passive constructions discussed in this chapter is the non-agentive character of the subject'. Central instances will involve specification of {C} as erg; and such will be appropriate for many languages. No language incorporates only non-ergs. Likewise, in many languages, an eligible verb will have to be subcategorised for another argument, centrally an abs, as well as for the incorporee: thus, English allows only passives based on verbs with more than one argument, with the second argument undergoing 'passive' raising. In other languages, an 'impersonal' construction is the result of passive incorporation with one-argument verbs or verbs whose second argument is not abs (as illustrated by the Dutch of (3.26b)). As observed, in many languages, accompanying the erg-incorporating passive verb there may be - and in a few, apparently, there must be - an appositive (co-indexed) circumstantial erg. But such is frequently absent. Notionally, passives are thus less centrally verbal: reduction in argument potentiality, and specifically loss of overt {erg} participant arguments, renders them more peripheral. In some languages this is made transparent by the verb morphology, apart from merely in a loss of one of the agreement possibilities - where a language shows both subject and object concord in the active. Thus, as a rather striking illustration of agreement loss and more, in Apalai (a Carib language of Brazil), while the active transitive verb agrees with both subject and object, as in (3.168a), in the passive 'the bound person marking prefixes ... are replaced by the prefix f-"NONFINITE"' (Koehn and Koehn 1986: 47), as is shown in (b):

250

The syntax of categories

(3.168)

a. Ku-any-no III,SG,SBJ + I,INC,OBJ-lift-IP

('He lifted us') b. T-any-se kymoro ey-a NF-Hft-CMPL I,INC

Ill-by

('We were lifted up by him')

which also illustrates that in the passive 'the tense and aspect marking suffixes of active verbs are replaced by -se "COMPLETIVE"' (ibid.). The prefix toccurs elsewhere as a 'possessor reflexive': (3.169) T-6xi-ry

z-uru-Vko

kyn-ako

m,REFL-daughter-POSS m-tell-coNT m-be+ip ('He was talking to his own daughter') (Koehn and Koehn 1986: 44-47)

Its occurrence in (3.168b), as well as the absence of concord, can thus be taken to reflect the reduced verbality of the predicator, as well as, perhaps, the presence of the incorporated erg - due to passivisation - with which eya is in apposition. As indicated, I do not pursue here a survey of incorporation types. But I think it can be argued, for instance, that the observation that 'the relation between predicate-argument structure and syntactic structure is systematically more transparent in the noun phrase than in the sentence' (Zubizarreta 1987: 46) hence the expository recurrence here of the the destruction of the city by the Goths genus of example - in part reflects the fact that nominalisation involves incorporation and that (at least postnominal) arguments corresponding to the participants associated with the base verb are consequently circumstantial, and thus overtly marked as to their semantic relation. (See further Grimshaw 1990.) But I shall not enter on this large territory at this point. Incorporations involve argument reduction. The most widespread 'process' of argument extension involves causativisation, which is rather associated with the lexical-derivational creation of complex predicates. As we observed in discussing the suggested lexical characterisation for 'double object' verbs proposed in (3.149) above, the complex character of some such verbs is sometimes reflected in their morphology: they are overtly marked morphologically as causative. Indeed, this characterisation, repeated here: (3.149)

{P;N/{erg}{P;N}} I {P;N/{<erg,>loc} {abs} }

conforms to the output to the derivational redundancy that I suggest regulates the construction of causatives. I give this as follows:

Variation in argument structure 251 Causativisation => {P;N/<erg>}

{P;N/{erg}} I {P;N/<erg,loc>}

(cf. Bohm 1982: §3.3.4). The lexical-derivational redundancy of causativisation creates a complex causative predicator - subcategorised at the superjoined level for {erg} - out of any other predicator type, but converts any incoming {erg} to {erg,loc}, a form of dissimilation. Thus, the Tamil causative predication (3.170b) differs from the predication in (a) involving the base verb in showing an extra, {erg} argument which (as is usual) takes precedence over the other arguments of the derived verb with respect to subject-formation: (3.170) a. Tanjyr vayalil paaynttatu water field-in flowed (The waterflowedin the field') b. Kamakkaran vayalil tanjtiray paayssinaan farmer field-in water-Ace caused-flow ('The farmer watered the field')

(Kandiah 19681219)

and, morphologically, in terms of presence of a derivational suffix and a different realisation for tense. Unremarkably, the abs subject of (3.170a) corresponds to the object of (b): we have the expected 'ergative' relation. The argument corresponding to the agt of (3.171a), the 'secondary agent' of (b), however, is marked by a Dative in the (b) sentence: (3.171)

a. PiUay SOORU unj;aan child rice ate (The child ate rice) b. Ammaa piUaykku SOORU uuttunaal mother child-DAT rice caused-eat (The mother fedriceto the child')

as one would expect of the {erg,loc} specified as output to the formulation of causativisation given above. In §3.4 I suggested reinterpreting the one-instance-per-clause constraint on the distribution of semantic relations (apart from abs) as a one-instance-per(simplex-)predicator requirement, satisfied by (3.149), as repeated immediately above. However, to the extent that the causativisation rule is appropriate, we can impose the stricter requirement that the overall subcategorisation of any, including a complex, predicator must not show more than one instance of the same role, where role is the combination of semantic relations associated with a particular functor, so that {lergl} and {erg,loc}, for instance, constitute distinct roles:

252

The syntax of categories Role criterion A predicator is permitted to subcategorise for only one instance of each distinct role (except {labsl})

Depending on how the distinctiveness of roles is formulated, this criterion can be more or less restrictive. For instance, if only combinations of a PLACE relation with a non-PLACE are counted as distinctive, then predicators will not subcategorise for both {lergl} and {erg,abs}, or {loc} and {loc,abl} (Path). I shall adopt this interpretation of distinctiveness, which allows a predicator to co-select arguments with the roles {lergl} and {erg,loc}, and {labsl} and {loc,abs}, while - appropriately, I suggest - ruling out, as non-distinctive, co-selection of arguments showing combinations such as those just mentioned. This imposes significant constraints on the notion of possible subcategorisation frame, including those associated with complex predicates, and thus on the notion of complex predicate, which otherwise might allow for excessive expressibility. S. T. Rosen (1990: §6.1) shows with respect to a range of languages that the case marking of the non-subject arguments of causatives patterns 'exactly as case marking does in VPs in general in the language' (p. 220). Given the role criterion, this is precisely what is predicted by the rule for causative formation given above, which, amongst other things, confers on causatives based on transitives the structure I have attributed lexically to inherently 'double-object' verbs, with non-subject {erg,loc}, provided the causative {erg,loc} is limited within a language to the same range of possibilities as the inherent (recall the range shown in table 3.2); i.e. provided the behaviour of {erg,loc} is consistent through the language. The observed pattern of case marking - and availability for passive, for example - follows from just this. Again a lexical redundancy involves reference to semantic rather than grammatical relations; again notional elements form the basis for lexical and syntactic generalisations. 3.6

Verbals as arguments

At this point we begin to change the focus of our attention from predicators (and particularly verbals) and the role of their valencies in generating syntax to the character of different arguments and the constraints their categorisations impose on the erection of syntactic structure. Initially, attention will continue to be given to categories which are more centrally predicative, in that we are concerned with the role of verbals as (secondary) arguments, principally to other verbals. This will involve us in an investigation of what varieties of argumenthood we can attribute to verbals - e.g. what semantic relations are involved, and how and to what extent signalled - as well as further specification of the role of subcategorisation and of non-projective dependencies in the building of complex

Verbals as arguments 253 syntactic structures. As part of a concern with the expression of argument status, we also return briefly to the character of finiteness, before proceeding in the final section to a consideration of more central argument types. 3.6.1

Introduction: direct and mediated argumenthood

Some of the constructions we have been concerned with in chapter 2 and (particularly) chapter 3 involve verbal arguments. Thus, the finite verb in (3.172a) takes an infinitive as an argument as an alternative to the non-verbal predicators of(b): (3.172)

a. Jerome seems to be foolish/a fool b. Jerome seems foolish/a fool

And in (3.173) we apparently find a finite argument: (3-173) It seems that Jerome is foolish As hitherto with the to of the English infinitive, I ignore for the moment the status and character of the that of (3.173). With this proviso, all of these subordinate constructions have been represented in the preceding as direct - or unmediated - arguments of the superordinate verb, their relationship to which is not mediated by a semantic relation. This is illustrated by the proposed representation in (3.174), in which the adjective depends directly on the finite verb (and where the subcategorisation of foolish is not at issue in the present context; that suggested should be taken as illustrative merely): (3-174)

{abs}

{P}

{P: N/erg,loc,abs}}

{abs) {erg,loc,abs}

I (N) Jerome

seems

foolish

254

The syntax of categories

The single argument of the adjective fills, via raising, the 'empty' (unsubcategorisedfor) abs associated with seem (whose subcategorisation is satisfied, in this manifestation, by {P:N}), as well as the 'empty' abs introduced by the finiteness element. (Recall the proposal concerning raising and (syntactic-) subjectformation made in §3.3 above, and the role therein of metagovernors and the 'empty' abs supplied to meet the universality-of-abs requirement.) The proposed absence of mediating semantic relation appears to be appropriate here and in the other examples of (3.172). In each instance, none of the positively specified relations - erg, loc, abl - is appropriate in characterising the relationship between the two predicators, and it is precisely the very absence of abs in the subcategorisation of seem that triggers the introduction of the 'empty' abs filled by raising. Likewise, the presence of the expletive in (3.173) is an indication that the subordinatefinitepredication is not an abs: the it again realises an 'empty' abs argument. And the verbal argument does not undergo subjectformation: (3-175)

*That Jerome is foolish seems

not even optionally, like the sentential abs of (3.176): (3.176) a. It is obvious that Jerome is foolish b. That Jerome is foolish is obvious But (3.176) also, of course, thereby illustrates that some verbal arguments bear a semantic relation, as made overt in (3.177): (3.177)

{abs}

{P}

{abs}

{P}

that

Jerome is foolish

{P N}

obvious

which leaves unexpressed the internal structure of the embedded finite, and in this instance provisionally associates that with abs. That Jerome is foolish is the abs argument of obvious, which raises tofillthe 'empty' abs of the upper is, and thus constitutes its (syntactic) subject. The same derivation is appropriate to

Verbals as arguments 255 (3.178a), except for aspects following from the fact that seem is non-auxiliary, as shown in (b), and, crucially, is associated with two 'empty' abs; but, again, the initial abshood of the embedded finite represents its status with respect to obvious: (3.178)

a. That Jerome is foolish seems obvious b.

{abs}

{P}

{abs}

{P N}

{P N}

seems

obvious

{abs}

{P}

that

Jerome is foolish

Contrast this with (3.175), where the embedded finite does not bear a semantic relation and so does not subject-form. The analysis of (3.176b) and (3.178a) as showing (optional) subject-formation might be seen as called into question by the low acceptability of the 'subjectinversion' forms of (3.179): (3.179) a. ?*Is that Jerome is foolish obvious? b. ?*Does that Jerome is foolish seem obvious? compared with (3.180): (3.180) a. Is it obvious that Jerome is foolish? b. Does it seem obvious that Jerome is foolish? I shall suggest below, however, that the anomalous character of (3.179) reflects the resistance of verbal arguments to morphosyntactic subject-formation, and does not affect our interpretation of (3.176b) and (3.178a) as involving verbal syntactic subjects. In English, immediate-postverbal position is not occupied by syntactic subjects in general; it in (3.180), for instance, is not such, though it is morphosyntactic subject, nor is the a fly of (3.53), repeated here:

256 (3-53)

The syntax of categories a

- There is aflyin my soup b. There seems to be aflyin my soup

There is no motivation for regarding the initial arguments in (3.176b) and (3.i78a)as 'topics' (Koster 1978), or anything other than subjects. Ross (1973a: §2.4) argues that the degree of deviance of sentences containing what he calls 'island-internal sentential NPs' correlates inversely with the nouniness of the 'sentential NP\ I do not regard such constituents as 'NPs'; however, it is unsurprising that degree of nouniness should correlate with the capacity to constitute a morphosyntactic subject. (Curiously, Bennett (1991-3) regards such sentences as (3.179) as acceptable.) Transitive predicators with finite verbal abs are given in (3.181): (3.181) a. The police revealed that Phil had escaped b. His family has not forgotten that she took the money with the 'corresponding' passives being (3.182): (3.182) a. That Phil had escaped was revealed by the police b. That she took the money has not been forgotten by his family and with (3.183) illustrating the possibility of absence of subject-formation of the embedded verbal in the passive: (3.183) a. It was revealed by the police that Phil had escaped b. It has not been forgotten by his family that she took the money Whereas the sentences in (3.184) show a verbal argument with unspecified semantic relation: (3.184) a. Bilbo expected that she would leave Donald b. *That she would leave Donald was expected by Bilbo c. It was expected by Bilbo that she would leave Donald where the 'personal' (i.e. with subject-formation of the embedded verbal) passive (b) is anomalous; contrast the adjectival That she should have left Donald was not unexpected. There is no distinct manifestation of an 'empty' abs with (3.184a), whose presence is required by universality-of-abs. I assume that, as with the derived intransitive in (3.185b), the abs requirement is satisfied internally (cf. here §3.3.6): (3.185) a. Bill reads a variety of books b. Bill reads eclectically so that Bill and read in (3.185b) are specified as in (3.186):

Verbals as arguments 257 (3.186)

{erg,abs} I {N}

{P;N/{erg}} I {abs}

And expect similarly incorporates an abs. However, with many of the verbs that (like those in (3.181-183)) otherwise take a verbal as non-subjective abs there is a distinct 'empty' abs, filled expletively: (3.187)

a. Everyone bore (it) in mind that she had started the business b. Geraldine hates/doesn't much like ?*(it) that Bill drinks Coke

Here the verbal overtly fails to constitute an object. With many such verbs the expletive version is preferred, and with some - such as those in (3.187b) - it is for many speakers obligatory. When the expletive is obligatory, as with other such 'empty' abs, such as those in (3.188): (3.188)

a. The bandits hot-footed/high-tailed it out of town b. *It was hot-footed/high-tailed out of town (by the bandits)

passivisation is precluded, as in (3.189b): (3.189)

a. It was borne in mind by everyone that she had started the business b. *It is hated/not much liked (by Geraldine) that Bill drinks Coke

The expletive in (3.184c), on the other hand, fills the 'empty' abs introduced by the passive be itself; and the same interpretative possibility presumably accounts for the viability of (3.189a). We also find verbal arguments in Present-day English which are apparently erg, as in (3.190): (3.190)

a. That Shirley left so early didn't please Bertrand {erg} {erg,loc,abs} b. That Shirley left so early surprised Bertrand

with semantic relations distributed as indicated. (3.190) exemplifies what Stockwell, Schachter and Partee (1973: §III.A.3) call the 'abstract instrumental', though they in fact discuss sentences where the non-{erg} argument is also sentential. I take such sentences as (3.190) to instantiate causatives in which the {erg,loc} of the lower predicator satisfies the 'empty' abs of the causative and its own abs is satisfied internally (see §3.5). Corresponding to such there are instances with no subject formation of the verbal argument, as in (3.191): (3.191)

a. It didn't please Bertrand (that) Shirley left so early b. It surprised Bertrand (that) Shirley left so early

as well as 'passives':

258

The syntax of categories

(3.192) a. Bertrand wasn't pleased (that) Shirley left so early b. Bertrand was surprised (that) Shirley left so early Compare the non-verbal arguments in (3.193): (3-193) a. Bertrand wasn't pleased by/at/with this turn of events b. Bertrand was surprised by/at this turn of events with partially distinctive erg marking (as compared with non-psychological verbs). The introduction of specific semantic relations for verbal arguments - and thus of subject-formation with such, as exemplified by (3.176b) and (3.188) - is one of the major innovations in the history of English syntax. Old English shows nothing corresponding to such structures, and, indeed, no evidence that verbal arguments are not all direct. Traugott might appear to be being merely more cautious than this when she says that 'complements that could, on the basis of their equivalents in P D E, be regarded as subjects actually either function as oblique NPs in impersonal constructions, as complements of NPs or predicates, or are undecidable' (1992: 234). But the reverse of 'undecidability' is the case, I suggest: there is no motivation for regarding any verbal arguments as subjects in Old English, 'undecidably' or otherwise; the purported 'undecidability' is an artefact of the unwarranted decision to introduce subjecthood as a possible option for certain verbal arguments ('on the basis of their equivalents in PDE'). Thus, Traugott comments with respect to (3.194): (3.194) Fordy me dyncd betre ... daet we eac sumae bee ... on daet therefore me seems better... that we also certain books ...into that gediode wenden de we ealle gecnawan maegen language translate that we all know can (Therefore it seems better to me... that we also translate certain books... into that language which we all can understand') that 'the j!*ef-clause may be taken to serve the stimulus function without also being subject or object, i.e. it could be an oblique NP. On the other hand it could be the subject' (1992: 235). But there is no reason why the cte-clause should be the subject, and to suggest so obscures an important difference from Present-day English: verbal arguments in Old English do not occupy subject position. Subjecthood is not an option for verbal arguments in Old English. On the other hand, it should be clear too that I am also not subscribing to the alternative analysis offered here by Traugott: it seems to me to make no sense whatsoever to say that the ctef-clause is 'an oblique NP' (or any kind of NP); nor is it apparent even why it is to be labelled as a 'stimulus'. Consistent with the pervasiveness in Old English of direct-argumenthood

Verbals as arguments

259

with verbals is the more extensive evidence of expletive (though, no doubt, originally deictic) realisation of the 'empty' abs, as illustrated by the first pcet in (3-195): (3.195)

Da on morgenne gehierdun t>aet £>aes cyninges J)egnas J)e him when in the-morning heard it that of-the-king thanes that him beaeftan waerun J)aet se cyning ofslaegen waes, J)a ridon hie Jsider behind were that the king killed was, then rode they thither ('When in the morning the king's thanes who were behind him heard that the king had been killed, then they rode there') (Traugott 1992: 259)

Similarly, in Old English there are no uncontroversial instances of subject infinitives (cf. Mitchell 1985: §§1537-9), whereas in Present-day English infinitive constructions function as subjects both in (3.196b): (3.196)

a. It would be nice to visit the Black Forest b. To visit the Black Forest would be nice

parallel to (3.176b), and in (3.197b), parallel to (3.190): (3«!97)

a

- It didn't please Bertrand to have left so early b. To have left so early didn't please Bertrand c. Bertrand wasn't pleased to have left so early

Traugott (1992: 244) again unhelpfully introduces subjecthood as an 'undecidable' option for Old English infinitive arguments in impersonal constructions, as well as making the rather baffling claim that the sentence in (3.198): (3.198)

to J)am Pentecosten waes gesewen ...blod weallan of and at that Pentecost was seen ... blood to-well-up from eor]?an. swa maenige saedan J)e hit geseon sceoldan earth. as many said that it see should ('and at Pentecost... blood was seen to well up from the ground, as many said who were supposed to have seen it')

7

contains 'a bare infinitive functioning as the subject of a passive sentence'. Subjecthood is attributable to neither of the infinitives {weallan, geseon) in (3.198). This is so even apart from the fact that no infinitive in Old English could possibly meet Traugott's own definition of 'subject': 'it is associated with nominative case, and it agrees with the finite verb' (1992: 213). This defines what I am calling here the morphosyntactic subject, which Old English infinitives and Jb^f-clauses - are (if anything) even further from approximating than they are syntactic subjects. Also surprising, and also relevant to the general area we are concerned with, is Traugott's declaration that 'one type of non-finite complement construction

260

The syntax of categories

that occurs in PDE but apparently not in OE is the "subject-to-subject" raising construction' (1992: 249), given the currency in Old English of (3.199) and the like: (3.199) Hit ongan rinan... it began to-rain... Indeed, the evidence she adduces in favour of an 'auxiliary' interpretation of the 'pre-modals' - viz. 'the fact that if they occur with a verb that demonstrates "impersonal" syntax ..., the pre-modals share all the properties of that verb, rather than being "personal"' (1992: 195) - as in (3.200): (3.200) Donne maeg hine scamigan ^aere braedinge his hlisan then may he+ACC to-shame of-the-spreading of-his-fame ('Then he may be ashamed of the extent of his fame') is rather to be interpreted as consequent of the status of magan as, like its descendant, a 'raising-to-subject' verbal. Traugott also claims that 'infinitive complements in OE are for the most part objects of transitive verbs' (ibid.). But neither in Old English nor in Present-day English are there motivations for attributing objecthood to infinitives. Rather, Old English infinitives do not bear a grammatical relation - or a specific semantic relation - to their governing element - except that, as in Present-day English, they are presumably Goals when they constitute 'purpose' circumstantials (Mitchell 1985: §§1554, 2942). It should be pointed out, in fairness to Traugott, that such unwarranted attribution of grammatical relations to verbals, and particularly infinitives, is widespread, and reflects something of the confusion concerning grammatical relations confronted in §3.3 above. Further recentish examples are provided by Joseph (1983: §3.2.1), on the 'functions' of the infinitive in Ancient Greek, and by Molencki (1991), whose discussion of Old English does not even concede that the subject/objecthood of verbal arguments might be (as for Traugott) 'undecidable', but unquestioningly assigns subjecthood to, for instance, the infinitive construction bracketed off from the rest of the sentence in (3.201), which is said to exemplify 'non-finite clauses in the subject position' (p. 38): (3.201) t>e gedafenad Q)ine J)eode to laeranne] you behoves your people to teach ('It behoves you to teach your people') Attribution of grammatical relations to verbals is frequently made not on syntactic grounds but on the basis of semantic relations perceived as shared with nominals, where even this perception is itself not necessarily well founded.

Verbals as arguments

261

I'm suggesting, then, that we should rather distinguish between direct and mediated argument status for verbals; and that in a language like Old English mediated (via a semantic relation) status - and thus assignment of a grammatical relation - is absent (except with circumstantials such as 'purpose' infinitives). With mediated secondary arguments, subject-formation is optional. It is perhaps worth confirming at this point that this does not mean that sentences like (3.196b) and (3.197b) are to be interpreted as exhibiting the result of an optional movement, into subject position; rather, the positional differences between the (a) and (b) sentences in (3.196/197) reflect the absence vs. presence with the embedded clauses of subject-formation, which is of the structurebuilding character discussed in §3.3.4. Let us now turn to the nature, in particular the categorial identity, of the markers of argument status, starting from what we can observe from the preceding concerning Present-day English: namely, that these are not centrally, if at all, discriminators of semantic relation. 3.6.2

Subordinators

The English infinitival to construction is perhaps the periphrasis par excellence. The to merely provides an overt signal of the infinitive status of the dependent verb form, and as such is to be regarded as categorially transparent, as made explicit by the categorisation of (3.202a), which develops the proposal concerning the verbal status of to formulated by Pullum (1982): (3.202)

a. {P;N/{P;N}}

b. {P;N} I {P;N}

That is, infinitival to is an item that can occupy the position of an infinitive provided it has an infinitive dependent on it. In other languages, such as Latin or German or (partly) Old English, the 'equivalent' of Modern English to is morphological: i.e. there is a marked verb form specified as in (3.202b). We look at the interaction of such a specification with other properties of German in §3.6.4 below. Normally in English, the specification for an item subcategorised for {P;N} is subject to (3.203): (3.203)

{/{P;N}} => {/{P;N/{P;N}}}

which redundancy allows for the intervening periphrastic to. But modals, 'periphrastic' do, (non-passive) 'perception' verbs, (non-passive) make and let

262

The syntax of categories

(whose passive is anyway marginal), and infinitival to are exceptions to (3.203), and take a 'bare' infinitive, as illustrated by the sequences of a familiar type in (3.204): (3.204)

a. b. c. d. e.

Bert should leave Bert didn't leave Philomena saw Bert leave Philomena made Bert leave Bert happened to leave

with ought etc. being exceptions to the modal exceptionality. Infinitival to is thus a 'raising' verb which is only non-finite. The (subcategorisedfor) initial structure for (3.139), repeated here: (3.139) Kate expected John to read Rasselas should therefore be expanded as in (3.205), as compared with that proposed in §3.3.4, which ignored the role of the to: (3-205)

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

,N}

{erg}

I {N} expected

Kate

to

read

{abs}

I {N}

John Rasselas

so that John is raised to fill the 'empty' abs of to as well as that associated with expect (its eventual object), giving, with subjectivisation of Kate, (3.206):

Verbals as arguments 263 (3.206)

{abs} {erg,loc}

I

IP)

{abs}

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

{erg}

{N}

{N} Kate

expected

John

{abs} {N}

to

read

Rasselas

with John dependent on all of expected, to and read. However, (3.196) and (3.197) reveal that infinitival constructions can function as subjects in Present-day English, and that their argument status is thus in such instances mediated by a semantic relation. The infinitival arguments in both (3.196) and (3.197) are arguably both {abs} - the abs of the latter being 'in compensation' for the internal abs argument of please - and with the latter being •n addition erg. To allow for these we can associate infinitival to with the redundancy of (3.207): {abs<erg>}

(3.207)

{P;N/{P;N}},*(3.203)

which optionally associates with that verb which is subcategorised for an infinitive alone and is an exception to (3.203) - i.e. infinitival to - the possibility of being an abs argument (with or without erg). And such a (mediated) configuration optionally shows subjectivisation, as in (3.196) and (3.197). The subject of the infinitives in (3.196) and (3.197) has apparently not undergone raising but is simply unexpressed. However, notice now that the mediated infinitivals in (3.208): (3.208) a. It is absurd for Mary to be worrying b. For Mary to be worrying is absurd and (3.209):

264

The syntax of categories

(3.209) a. It would please Jonathan for Mary to be leaving Bill b. For Mary to be leaving Bill would please Jonathan c. Jonathan would be pleased for Mary to be leaving Bill have overt subjects which are also, apparently, dependent on a for, with this dependency relation being reflected in the rectional pattern shown in (3.210): (3.210) a. It is absurd for her to write that b. For her to write that is absurd Whatever their historical connexion, this for is to be distinguished from the preinfinitival/<9r for which some items are subcategorised and which does not form an abs argument together with the infinitive: (3.211) a. Doug asked for Bob to be given a reward b. *For Bob to be given a reward was asked by Doug which thus - as shown by (3.211b) - does not passivise/subject-form (cf. (3.181/182)). The for of (3.211) is (as elsewhere) a functor, heading a (directional locative) complement to the main verb. The for of (3.209/210) is clearly not such a head: the main predicator is not subcategorised for it (but rather for an abs (predicational) argument). The syntax of this latter for is allowed for if it realises a complex category which is primarily a specifier of the infinitival to and secondarily an unsubcategorised verb, whose 'empty' abs is satisfied by the subject of the ultimate dependent verb; this also serves to satisfy the abs argument of the infinitival to, as indicated in the representation given in (3.212):

Verbals as arguments 265 (3.212)

{\{P;

;N)},*(3.203)}} {abs} N}

{abs}

{abs} {P;

{abs}

{erg}

I

{N}

in which her, the subject of write complements, as abs, both for and to. Again the non-projectivity associated with the arc linking her and write is licensed by the specifier position of the former. Such a source for this for also avoids the problems associated with assigning it a 'complementiser' status: see e.g. Bennett I99I-3. Mediated argument status is associated with the (for) to infinitive and not with 'bare' infinitival constructions, while both types may be direct. Likewise, apparently, the 'bare' finite does not appear in subject position, occurrence in which is the most obvious manifestation of mediated status. Thus, all of (3.213) corresponding respectively to (3.176b) and (3.i78a-b) - are unacceptable: (3.213) a. * Jerome is foolish is obvious b. *Phil had escaped was revealed by the police c. *Phil had escaped was not realised by the police

266

The syntax of categories

But the acceptability of (3.214) - corresponding to (3.176a) and (3.i77a-b) suggests that it is subjective rather than simply mediated status that is associated with this unacceptability: (3.214) a. It is obvious Jerome is foolish b. The police revealed Phil had escaped c. The police didn't realise Phil had escaped Moreover, it seems clear that (3.213) are avoided in so far as they violate a desideratum of parsing principles, what in this instance e.g. Atkinson, Kilby and Roca (1982: 263) formulate as 'the main clause first stategy': Main clause first strategy The first clause is the main clause unless it is explicitly marked as subordinate

(cf. Bever and Langendoen 1972). And the same appears to be true of other restrictions on the distribution of 'bare' flnites. Thus, the absence of a subordinator - and the consequent mid-sentence invitation to closure - in the also unacceptable (3.215) (equivalent to (3.187)) is once more, for this reason, clearly undesirable parsing wise: (3.215)

*Geraldine hates/doesn't much like it Bill drinks Coke

And 'bare' flnites that do not immediately follow their governing predicator are in general rather awkward: (3.216) a. b. c. d. e.

?*It was revealed by the police Phil had escaped ?*It was not realised by the police Phil had escaped ?*It was expected by Bilbo she would leave Donald ?*It didn't please Bertrand Shirley left so early ?*It surprised Bertrand Shirley left so early

(cf. (3.i83a-b/i84c/i9ia-b)), perhaps for similar reasons. All this confirms that 'bare' embedded flnites are not lexically restricted compared with f/iaf-clauses, and perhaps that limitations in their occurrence syntactically are ultimately motivated by conformity to principles of parsing rather than other aspects of (derived) syntax (such as direct vs. mediated status for the finite argument or absence vs. presence of subject-formation). We can express this in terms of subcategorising verbal-complement-taking predicators like those in (3.183/184/191) not as taking that- or o-complements but as conforming to one or more of the subcategorising possibilities allowed in (3.217): (3.217) /<{abs<erg>};>{IPI} i.e. as taking a finite argument, in some instances mediated {realise, please etc.),

Verbals as arguments 267 in some not (seem, expect etc.). Given such an interpretation, that is then a specifier - and as such optional - of subordinate finites, i.e. (3.218): (3.218)

Circumstances illustrated by (3.213/215/216) showing obligatory presence of that are to be accounted for in terms of parsing strategies (cf. again Bever and Langendoen 1972). Conversely, the obligatory absence of that in main/root clauses - *That Shirley left so early etc. - follows from the {P}-specification principle: {P}-specification principle (i) {IPI} is specified only by a subject (ii) Ungoverned {IPI} is metaspecified only by a circumstantial where a 'metaspecifier' is simply a second-order specifier, such as the initial element in Yesterday John went to the bank. I am going to suggest that this principle also relates directly to the 'subject-auxiliary-inversion' phenomena alluded to in §3.6.1, in relation to the deviance of (3.179): (3.179) a. *Is that Jerome is foolish obvious? b. *Does that Jerome is foolish seem obvious? and the like. Let us now look at why this should be so. I shall be arguing that interrogative elements occupy (meta-)specifier-to-(P} position in subordinate clauses, where the subject occupies an 'inner', derived specifier position, and that this is illustrated by such subordinates as those in (3.219): (3.219)

a. Mac asked whom they had selected b. Mac asked whether Jo smoked

But, in terms of the {P}-specification principle, a root-clause {P} cannot be specified by an inherent specifier. Instead, in main-clause interrogatives, subject position is preempted for interrogative placement - in a manner we shall look at in a moment - and the morphosyntactic subject occupies the postverbal position we found it in in (3.53) (repeated above), or (3.119) - recall the discussion of §3.3.4: (3.119) There are fairies at the bottom the garden as in (3.220), even if, as in (3.220b), or (3.179) (repeated above), the (syntactic) subject position is unoccupied: (3.220)

a. Whom have they selected? b. Does Jo smoke?

268

The syntax of categories

This is why I discounted the non-viability of (3.179) as something throwing into question the (syntactic) subjecthood of the subordinate finites in such as (3.176b) and (3.178a): (3.176) b. That Jerome is foolish is obvious (3.178) a. That Jerome is foolish seems obvious The position occupied by the morphosyntactic subjects in (3.119) and (3.220) indicates, rather obviously, that they are not syntactic subjects. The non-viability of (3.179) merely shows that verbal arguments cannot be morphosyntactic subjects. Let us now fill in one aspect of the analysis of subordinate interrogatives such as (3.219) that is very relevant to our concerns in this subsection. This follows from the observation that subordinate interrogativeness is subcategorised-for. The presence of the interrogative elements in (3.219) satisfies the subcategorisational requirements of (one sense of) the predicator ask; as such, they are obligatory, and the unsaturated (3.221) thus deviant: (3.221) a. *Mac asked they had selected her b. *Mac asked Jo smoked This suggests that they are not merely specifiers like that but (also) participant arguments, perhaps involving the kind of representations indicated in (3.222): (3.222)

a. I

... asked

whom

they

had

selected

Verbals as arguments 269 b)

... asked

whether

smoked

where the four syntactic nodes associated with whom are categorially as in (3.223a) and the two associated with whether are induced by (b): (3.223)

a. {wh/{P}}

b. {wh/{P}}

{abs} {N}

(3.223a), for instance, expresses the three functions of whom: complement to ask, where a wh functor is a marked kind of abs; specifier to {IPI}, argument to selected. As elsewhere, the non-projectivity of (3.222a) is licensed by the occupation of specifier position by one of the terminals of the offending arc. Whether, then, is categorially both a {P}-specifier and a special functor (bearing the notional feature wh) satisfying the subcategorisational requirements of a predicator (asked in (3.219/222)). This latter property is associated with the obligatory presence of a wh-form in the sentential argument. The that subordinate", on the other hand, as a specifier merely, is optional, as we have seen. However, there are languages where the 'equivalent' of English that is obligatory (cf. e.g. Noonan 1985: 45). If we are to maintain the generalisation that specifiers, when they can occur, are optional, then such subordinators are presumably also specified along the lines of (3.223b), minus the wh. That is, in the Irish of (3.224):

270

The syntax of categories

(3.224)

Ta a fhios agam go leifidh si an leabhar is its knowledge at-me CMP read-FUT she the book ('I know that she'll read the book')

the predicator fhios is subcategorised for the obligatory complementiser go, which in turn is subcategorised for a finite. (A 'its' is an expletive abs.) I shall reserve the term complementiser for such items as go, which are functors subcategorised for a verbal. As we have seen, not all markers of verbal subordination are complementisers in this sense. And, in particular, the subordinators marking embedded finite clauses in English are not all complementisers; they vary in their categorisation. Wh-forms also appear to have, like complementisers/{IPI}-specifiers, dual categorisation. But in their case the distinction is associated with whether they occur in a main clause or not, rather than its being cross-linguistic. In a sentence like (3.225): (3.225) Whom have they selected? the wh-form is apparently not subcategorised-for, as such, unlike the whom of (3.219a), which satisfies, among other things ask; and this would suggest that the whom of (3.225) is categorised simply as in (3.226), a functor phrase with a secondary wh specification: (3.226)

{wh}

{abs} I {N}

In this case, such a wh-form would presumably come to occupy initial position (ultimately) by virtue of (syntactic) subject - or, more accurately (given the overriding of the subject-selection hierarchy), principal formation - with they in (3.225) being morphosyntactic subject only (as anticipated in our discussion above of (3.179) and the like). This would depend on our requiring that wh outrank other functor categories with respect to principal formation when a (non-principal) specifier position is not available to it (as in root clauses); it constitutes an 'override' principal, and occupies the position otherwise taken by (syntactic) subjects. Hence the 'inversion' in (3.225) etc. But things are not so simple, of course. Let us pursue some of these complexities in the analysis of interrogatives at this point, in so far as we shall find that this contributes to our developing typology of subordinators. There are, firstly, as a complication, also sentences which have 'inversion' and a question interpretation but which lack a wh-form - simple 'yes/no'-

Verbals as arguments 271 questions, illustrated by (3.220b). Secondly, there is the fact that these allegedly unsubcategorised-for wh-forms, whatever their primary dependency, are limited to root clauses: how is is this to be expressed? We can allow for this latter restriction if, after all, in a sense, root wh-forms satisfy a valency, that imposed by a {P} category introduced optionally by general syntactic redundancy above {P}s, after the fashion of (3.227): {P/{wh}} I ;N

(3.227)

which builds a complex category whose ultimate governor is 'subcategorised' for wh: we can then limit a {P} (as opposed to a {P;N} like ask) which is subcategorised for wh to root position. The {/wh} 'subcategorisation' indicates that the empty abs introduced by redundancy must befilledby a wh-form; it imposes a constraint on the development of superior structure. (3.227) also shows that the original, now subjoined, {IPI} is recategorised as {P;N}, non-finite. This means that (3.215) can be associated with the structure abbreviated in (3.228): (3.228)

{wh}

{P/{wh}}

{abs}

{abs}

{P;N/{P;N}}

{erg}

I

{N}

{N}

whom

{ P N}

have

they

selected

Whom in (3.228) satisfies both the {/wh} valency of the finite predicator and the abs subcategorisation of selected (which specification is not included as such in (3.228)), and it is syntactic subject of the former, serialised to the left, such that its position licenses the non-projectivity. They has been raised to become an argument of have, and as a modifier thereof it is serialised to the right, again in accord with raisee serialisation (recall §3.3.4). But the {wh} categorisation of

272

The syntax of categories

whom overrides that of they as far as selection of syntactic subject is concerned, though the latter functions as morphosyntactic subject: wh-forms are excluded as morphosyntactic subjects unless, of course, the wh-form involved is also dependent on the lower node associated with have, i.e. unless it is raised by virtue of being subject of selected, as in (3.229): (3.229) a. Who has selected them? b. Who selected them? The nature of this restriction makes it clear that this exclusion from morphosyntactic subjecthood (and the exception) are not simply arbitrary stipulations. Indeed, the exclusion follows from the character of morphosyntactic-subjectformation, as formulated in §3.3.4. A {P/wh} - or any {IPI} by itself - cannot license a morphosyntactic subject; it is only by virtue of depending on the original Ziave-node that the wh-forms in (3.229) - or, for that matter the they in (3.228) - can constitute a morphosyntactic subject, by virtue of morphosyntactic-subject-formation, repeated here: Morphosyntactic-subject-formation

{IPI}

I

{P;N} where { } {is the secondary specification of that functor which is highest on the hierarchy of semantic relations

Wh-forms always fail to satisfy the requirements for morphosyntactic subjecthood, unless they are also subjects of thefirstlexical {P;N} - selected in (3.228). Formation of the syntactic principal of (3.228) differs from the phenomena of raising/subject-formation in English we have examined so far in a number of ways, crucially in ignoring the subject-selection hierarchy and depending on 'subcategorisation' rather than satisfaction of an 'empty' abs, as well as involving a potentially 'long-distance' secondary arc. I want to focus here, however, on another circumstance in English in which the subject-selection hierarchy is ignored, one which provides some evidence in support of the idea that rootinitial wh-forms such as (3.225) are principals preferred over syntactic subjects. Normally, only an inherent-{P} item in English - i.e. an auxiliary - can take a

Verbals as arguments 273 morphosyntactic subject to its right, as in interrogatives, or with 'Negativeinversion' (Seldom did/has a day pass(ed) without...). But such is allowed to locative verbs that take only one other participant argument; and can be regarded as a consequence of their also allowing non-hierarchical selection of the (directional or not) locative as subject, as illustrated by (3.23oi): (3.2301) a. b. (ii) a. b. c.

On that spot stands a crumbling monument Into the room dashed an excited puppy *Into the room did an excited puppy dash? *What into the room dashed? *Into the room what dashed?

The subjects of the 'Locative-inversion' sentences in (3.2301) are mutually exclusive with the alleged wh-form subjects, as the deviance of (3.230H) illustrates, and as one would predict, even when the wh is not overt, as in (iia). The wh-forms and locatives make incompatible demands on syntactic subjecthood. (For further illustration see e.g. Coopmans 1989.) We are now in a position at this point to relate these phenomena to the marking of subordination, which is the main concern of the present subsection. We have associated with interrogative wh-forms the alternative categorisations in (3.231 i), for embedded instances, and (ii), for main clauses, where C is a variable over the set of roles: (3.231O a. {wh/{P}}

[C] I {N} who(m) (ii)

{wh}

{C} I {N} who(m)

b. {wh/{P}}

whether

274

The syntax of categories

These wh-forms share their primary categorisation, but in addition in (3.23 ii) the wh-form acts as a subordinator and specifier, while in (3.23 iii) it is simply the value which satisfies a certain subcategorisation requirement. 'Inversion' is one of the consequences of the categorisation in (3.23iii) - except when the wh-form is also morphosyntactic subject, as in (3.229b). We can thus regard the word-order variation between main clause and embedded interrogatives as one of the markers of subordination: as well as subordination being marked by independent items and by the morphology, it may be signalled by word order though in this case neutralised in (3.232) and the like, of course: (3.232)

(Fred will ask) who has selected them (?)

(cf. again, more generally, Noonan 1985: §1.3.1). The word-order correlation renders the difference in categorisation between (3.23ii) and (ii) visible in most circumstances. In this sense, word order realises categories, and it is another subordinator. (We take this up below.) As is familiar, there is no Present-day-English main-clause wh-form corresponding to (3.23iib); recall (3.219) and (3.220): (3.219)

a. Mac asked whom they had selected b. Mac asked whether Jo smoked

(3.220)

a. Whom have they selected? b. Does Jo smoke?

Such a form is excluded by the main-clause requirements: no specifiers to {P} are possible in root clauses ({P}-specification principle), and as a non-argument whether cannot undergo syntactic-subject-formation. Its occurrence in main clauses cannot be licensed. Given this, whether is another marker of subordination. I assume that, almost uniquely in English, such sentences as (3.220b) lack a syntactic subject, and that this absence is licensed by an incorporated wh-element. The 'inversion' makes visible the extra categorisation attributed to (3.220b), which is perhaps of the form of (3.233): (3.233)

{P/(wh}} I wh I {P;N/{P;N}}

The representation (3.233) is introduced by a redundancy extending (3.227) and is available as a default just in case the valency of {P/{ wh}} cannot be satisfied. Of course, in Old English, for example, the 'equivalent' of whether can occur in main as well as subordinate clauses (though not obligatorily). This reflects the

Verbals as arguments 275 fact that main-clause wh-forms in Old English are not (syntactic) subjects. We return to this type of wh-form in §3.6.4 as part of a general discussion of socalled 'V2' languages. At this point we pursue the notional character of verbal subordinators, as well as introducing other, more specialised varieties thereof. As well as word order, morphological and periphrastic infinitives, and subordinators of finites - complementisers, specifiers, 'dependent' morphology (see again Noonan 1985: §1.3.1) - there are also forms whose historical relationship to derived nouns, adjectives and adverbs is more transparent than is the case with what tend to be labelled 'infinitives', even though, as is well known (cf. e.g. Disterheft 1980, on Indo-European), many such are ultimately (functor +) nominal in origin. 3.6.3

Factivity and mediation

The distinction drawn in §3.6.1 between mediated and direct verbal complementation - in particular, mediation by abs versus absence of a mediating semantic relation - approximates in its scope to the the factive/non-factive opposition familiar since its discussion by Kiparsky and Kiparsky (1970). According to them, in the case of factives, 'the speaker presupposes that the embedded clause expresses a true proposition, and makes some assertion about that proposition' (1970: 147). The main predicator in (3.234) is factive, in invoking such 'presupposition': (3.234)

a. It really matters that he has left already b. That he has left already really matters

That in (3.235) is non-factive: (3-235)

a. It appears that he has left already b. *That he has left already appears

If only the former exhibits mediated argument status, then the fact that the argument of the factive of (3.234) occupies subject position much more happily than that of the non-factive of (3.235) follows precisely from this: only bearers of semantic relations, functor phrases, can be (syntactic) subjects; direct arguments are not such. Likewise, factives do not appear in a simple infinitive construction: (3.236)

*He matters to have left already

precisely because they take an abs as a mediated argument, and therefore can be assigned no 'empty' abs to 'host' the raised subject, as in the non-factive (3.237): (3-237)

He appears to have left already

276

The syntax of categories

Such aspects of syntax follow from the mediated/direct distinction. It is, moreover, unsurprising that presence vs. absence of mediation by a semantic relation such as abs should correlate with notional factivity vs. nonfactivity. When an argument is assigned a semantic relation, it is accepted by the speaker as an entity, as having existence in the world represented. Presupposition of truth, factivity, is the equivalent for propositions of presupposition of existence for first-order entities. This is a consequence of the localistic analysis of truth outlined by Lyons: 'Truth is the third-order correlate of what for firstorder entities is existence in space; and a statement like That is so (where "that" refers to a proposition) is structurally comparable with a statement like X exists (where X refers to afirst-orderentity)' (1977:723; cf. too Kiparsky and Kiparsky 1970: 'Further notes'). Factivity follows from the assignment of a semantic relation to the proposition expressed by the embedded sentence. We can associate the same semantic and syntactic properties with 'transitive' factives like those in (3.181-183). However, what of those instances of factive sentences, such as those in (3.187): (3.187) a. Everyone bore (it) in mind that she had started the business b. Geraldine hates/doesn't much like ?*(it) that Bill drinks Coke which appear to show an expletive abs? As noted by e.g. Stockwell, Schachter and Partee, this possibility 'is optional with factives, but disallowed with non-factives; it is obligatory with a small sub-set of factives' (1973: 538); cf. Kiparsky and Kiparsky 1970: §6. We can allow for such variants if there is a lexical redundancy such as (3.238) available to 'transitive' factive verbals: (3.238)

{P;N/{erg,loc}{abs{P}}} => {P;N/{erg,loc}}/—{abs{P}}

which strips the verb of its sentential abs argument but allows instead that the verb be accompanied by such a circumstantial. A fake circumstantial is created by lexical redundancy; and, given that the derived verb is subcategorised for an 'experiencer', {erg,loc}, argument alone, an empty abs is supplied which is filled, by default, with an expletive. The effect is to provide an overt marker for factivity. With this addition, a simple categorisation into finite and infinitive, with attendant possibilities (raising or not etc.) and the distinction between mediated and direct secondary arguments provide in principle a basis for these various phenomena associated with factivity. (3.196/197) and (3.208-210) illustrate mediated, optionally subjective infinitives, with:

Verbals as arguments 277 (3.209) a. It would please Jonathan for Mary to be leaving Bill b. For Mary to be leaving Bill would please Jonathan c. Jonathan would be pleased for Mary to be leaving Bill and without a/<9r-phrase: (3-I97)

a

- It didn't please Bertrand to have left so early b. To have left so early didn't please Bertrand c. Bertrand wasn't pleased to have left so early

Kiparsky and Kiparsky (1970: §7) associate this construction with 'emotive' predicators, and they claim that 'across the distinction of factivity there cuts orthogonally another semantic distinction, which we term emotivity'. However, once one removes from both the factive and the non-factive set the instances of so-called 'object clauses', as doubtful (regret, resent, deplore - all of the alleged factive emotive transitives listed by Kiparsky and Kiparsky) or as involving a functor for, as in (3.211 a) (prefer etc.), then there appear to be only 'subjective' factives, as in (3.196/197), and the evidence for there being any non-factive emotives at all is very thin indeed, in depending on the acceptability of such as (3.239): (3-239)

a

- ?*For John to believe that is improbable b. ?*It is improbable for John to believe that

It looks as if we can associate the emotive/non-emotive distinction with factive predicators, predicators that assign semantic relations to their verbal arguments, and thus allow (syntactic-) subject-formation. Emotive predicators are subcategorised for an infinitival abs, as an alternative to a finite abs. Again, we need complicate the categorisations no further. Interestingly, the finite with an emotive predicator is often marked as non-optimally finite too, in so far as the clause concerned may be marked by a subjunctive, periphrastic or morphological: (3.240) a. It's crazy that he (should) go to London b. It's crazy for him to go to London (Kiparsky and Kiparsky 1970: §7) Both embedded predications in (3.240) may have future as an alternative to present time reference, whereas the non-subjunctive (3.241), unless it contains some contrary indication such as, in particular, a future-referring circumstantial (like next Tuesday), refers only to the present: (3.241) It's crazy that he goes to London (next Tuesday) This does not mean that we should attribute to such infinitival constructions non-

278

The syntax of categories

expressed temporal or modal elements. In (3.240a) the subjunctive cancels the expectation that the event referred to by the embedded predicator is tied to a definite point in time - by default, the present. With respect to (3.240b), such an expectation is simply absent from infinitives, in that not being {IPI} they also lack marking of tense (or modality). As a consequence of these lacks, infinitive constructions are typically construed as having their tense/modality determined by their governing predicator, as a consequence of its lexical semantics, as illustrated by (3.242): (3.242) a. George intends to become an architect b. George likes to listen to Dire Straits with respectively future and present reference, or by the content of the immediately superordinate {P}: (3.243) a. It may distress John for Mary to see his parents b. It may distress John that Mary sees his parents Wik (1973: 45) is rightly critical of Bresnan (1970) for attributing the semantic difference between (3.243a) and (b) simply to selection of 'complementizer'. She is, however, mistaken, I think, in attributing the distinction to difference in factivity: she takes (3.243a) to be non-factive. I suggest that both examples in (3.243) are factive; the difference is that the embedded predication in (a) refers to a hypothetical future situation whose existence is presupposed by (the proposition made by) the main predication, whereas the embedded finite of (b) refers to the present (and, again, its truth is presupposed by the assertion made in the main predication). The infinitive construction of (3.243a) is construed with the tense and modality of the superordinate {P}, the default reading for may being future rather than simply predicative (the latter being illustrated by the most obvious interpretation of He may be in the next room). Note the dramatic change in interpretation when may is omitted: (3.244) It distresses John for Mary to see his parents In (3.243b), on the other hand, the embedded predication has its own tense and modality - though again this can be 'cancelled' by use of the subjunctive: (3.245) It may distress John that Mary (should) see his parents What I am suggesting (once more) is that, as far as such phenomena are concerned, we need not attach to the infinitive any more distinctive semantic content than that it is {P;N}, given the consequences of this that it is typically subordinate and lacking in tense or modality marking. These lacks and how the 'gaps' are construed are what underlie feelings that the infinitive is 'less

Verbals as arguments 279 actual', 'more potential'; these impressions are given as a result of lack of content. The vast majority of gerunds are mediated arguments; indeed, they display the distribution of primary arguments, with overt marking of semantic relations in the same circumstances. Consider in this regard the selection of examples in (3.246): (3.246) a. b. c. d. e.

John's driving a Ferrari bothers Madeleine Madeleine resented Bill's having hired a motor-scooter Harry is unaware of Madeleine's having left by bus Madeleine is bothered by John's driving a Ferrari Bill's having hired a motor-scooter was resented by Madeleine

including (e) as evidence of undergoing passive (raising). Mediated gerunds undergo obligatory subject formation in the same circumstances as primary arguments; compare (3.246a) and (3.247a): (3.247)

a. *It bothers Madeleine John's driving a Ferrari b. It bothers Madeleine, John's driving a Ferrari

(3.247b) shows 'dislocation' rather than simply absence of subject-formation. The mediated status of such gerunds correlates, once more, with their factive character; these are Lees' (i960) 'factive nominals'. And their more nouny distribution accords with the representation proposed for gerunds in §2.6.5, given here as (3.248): (3.248) with bicategoriality made overt by the '} {' notation. We do find, however, direct, non-factive gerunds such as those in (3.249): (3.249)

a. Brett usually avoided getting wet b. Getting wet was usually resented/*avoided by Brett

(cf. Kiparsky and Kiparsky 1970: §1) and (3.250): (3.250) a. The snow stopped falling at 5 b. It stopped snowing at 5 Examples involving the latter, 'Aktionsart'-type verbs like (3.250b) are particularly interesting in suggesting that unmediated gerunds, like direct infinitives, permit raising. This, together with the absence of Genitives: (3.251)

*Brett usually avoided Mary's getting wet

confirms that direct gerunds lack not just a semantic function but also the {N} (the unmarked functor dependent) which is otherwise superordinate to the whole

280

The syntax of categories

gerund construction and is (otherwise) responsible for conferring determinerhood on the subject of the gerund, signalled by the Genitive inflexion. 3.6.4

Finiteness and non-finiteness

Our consideration of various properties of constructions involving verbal arguments, auxiliate or not, provides a background against which we can now look in a little more detail at notions of finiteness and non-finiteness. Syntactic auxiliaries are not necessarily universal; in §2.3.2 I suggested they may be absent from languages like Finnish. However, if we adopt the view put forward in §2.3.3, a category {P} is universally present, as part of the minimal system offered in (2.72), repeated here: (2.72)

{P}

{P;N}

{N;P}

{N}

{}

finite

verb

noun

name

functor

even though, in particular circumstances or in a language system as a whole, {P} may not be realised as an independent syntactic element but manifested inflexionally or in terms of syntactic consequences (crudely, the capacity to form an independent sentence). Thus, in Basque, {P} may be realised either as an auxiliary in the 'analytic' constructions of (2.59) or constitute part of the complex category manifested as the 'synthetic' forms of (2.65). Similarly, in English {P} is realised by the modal auxiliary in (3.2520 or the non-modal auxiliaries in (3.252ii): (3.2521) (ii) a. b. (iii)

Flo may have left Flo has left Flo didn't leave Flo left

or, as in (iii), it may constitute part of a complex category realised by a single (non-auxiliary) form. The non-auxiliary in (3.252O and (ii) is non-finite, {P;N}, as is the non-modal auxiliary in (i). All verbals in English, with one or two idiosyncratic exceptions (such as BEWARE, manifested only as infinitive or imperative), occur as finites; but, as is familiar, the modals are restricted to such. (3-253)

a

- *Dan is canning cope, *Dan has could cope, *Dan should can cope, *Dan's canning cope is a miracle, *For Dan to can cope would be a miracle b. Dan has been able to cope, Dan should be able to cope, For Dan to be able to cope would be a miracle

Verbals as arguments 281 The sample of expressions in (3.253b) is intended to illustrate that the restriction is morphosyntactic rather than (only) semantic/pragmatic in character. It has been observed, too, that, particularly in American English, COME and GO are in one use confined to uninflected positions, finite or not: (3.254)

a. They come/go visit his mother b. She'll come/go see Mary

The latter verbals are classified as auxiliary by Emonds' (1985: 174) proposed characterisation, whereby auxiliaries emerge as 'surface verbs', only: 'A verb is an auxiliary if and only if it occurs in some syntactic position where main verbs do not occur, or if it cannot appear in some position where main verbs do occur (deep structure subcategorization for phrasal complements permitting).' as well as HAVE, BE and DO, but not the modals, which for Emonds are not verbs (but realisations of the specifier of the verb - cf. Emonds 1976: ch. 6; so, too, on Manandise's (1987) analysis, Basque DA/DU/ZAIO are not verbal). Say, however, we reject the denial of verbalhood to the English modals (and to the Basque forms - see again §2.3). For one thing, this denial obscures the basis for the parallelism in behaviour with respect to the so-called NICE phenomena between the modals and BE/HAVE: one group or the other must, in effect, be derivatively recategorised to allow for the unitary expression of these regularities (cf. e.g. the 'hopping' analyses of Emonds 1976: ch. 6; Akmajian, Steele and Wasow 1979; and their descendants). The invocation of such a powerful device is unwarranted. (For further discussion see e.g. Anderson 1976: ch. 2; 1991a.) Suppose, too, as an additional consideration, we envisage a more restrictive, and (I think) more interesting, characterisation of auxiliaries, one which does not, however, necessarily confine finiteness to auxiliaries - roughly along the following lines: A criterion for syntactic auxiliaries Auxiliaries are verbals which occur more widely in finite positions than other verbals. This will include Basque DA/DU/ZAIO/DIO (other verbals being only non-finite) and the English modals (which, unlike other verbals, are only finite), as well as BE, HAVE and DO.

In these terms, we can characterise the various English word classes involved as in (3.255a):

282

The syntax of categories

(3.255)

a.

{P}&{P;N} non-modal

{p}

modal

{P;N}&{P};{P;N} verb

verbal b.

{P} {P;NJ

^

The specification for verbs allows for their occurrence as non-finites and for their realising a complex governed by thefinitenesselement. The English, as the Basque, (syntactic) auxiliaries satisfy the criterion for auxiliarihood proposed; indeed, in terms of the measure introduced in §2.6, they show a higher proportion of P than non-auxiliaries. This difference is in a sense greater still given that the second, complex categorial specification for verbs is derivative; they are inherently {P;N} merely, with the categorisation given in (3.255a) being derived by virtue of syntactic redundancy (3.255b). I want to consider what further evidence there might be for generalising throughout languages such observations concerning the distribution of {P}/{P;N}, as well as their correlation with auxiliarihood - involving the intrinsic character of this last and, indeed, its presence or not within a language. In Finnish, Old English and German, for instance, there is no overt word-class division of this character between verbals: all verbs may be finite or non-finite, and there are no NICE-like restrictions. Clearly, the syntax needs to refer to both finite and non-finite; the categories have a distinct distribution. But this can be provided for, as a derivative distinction, in at least two ways, which we must overtly choose between. Either verbs are categorised as {P} and supplied with a non-finite paradigm by a redundancy such as (2.64b), repeated here: (2.64b)

{P} => ;N

or they are categorised as {P;N}, with {P} being lexically empty and 'associated' with verbs derivatively in their finite use, as with the non-auxiliaries of English (the position adopted in §2.3.3, outlined initially in this subsection): (empty) {P} and a complement {P;N} are linearised simultaneously, non-distinctively; {P;N} is subjoined to {P}, and the configuration is realised as a single word. Roughly, in relation to our present concerns, the idea is that {P} must be present in any finite clause, and that in English it may be realised either as an auxiliary or as part of a complex category including the specification for a (non-auxiliary)

Verbals as arguments 283 verb: {P}; {P;N}. In languages without (syntactic) auxiliaries it would always be manifested in the latter fashion. The two possibilities for the characterisation of auxiliary-less languages thus offer either the situation represented in (3.256a) or that given in (b): (3.256)

a. lexical

derivative

{P;N} b. lexical

(by redundancy (2.64b))

derivative (by redundancy (3.255b))

where the crucial differences are the possibility of an 'empty' {P} in (b), which is realised only in conjunction with {P;N}, and of the derived configuration itself. On the face of it, (3.256a) is the simpler solution; and it limits the violation of the requirement that a primary category should be realised as an independent word to languages, like English, where it is sometimes so realised. In Finnish, in terms of (3.256b), simple {P} is never realised as an independent word; in English, {P} may be realised as an auxiliary, as well as in conjunction with {P;N}, i.e. non-independently, in the case of finite non-auxiliaries. If we were to adopt for auxiliariless languages the scenario of (3.256a), then the categorial distinctions of (2.38), instead of (2.72), would be assigned to (noncomplex) lexical items in e.g. Finnish. However, the effect of redundancy (2.64b), allowing non-finiteness to verbs in such languages would be to shift the representation of adjectives further away from those for the verb, to {P:N}. This is in accord with category continuity (§2.4), and follows from the category adjustment convention of §2.6, repeated here: Category adjustment convention A derivative category displaces an identical lexical category minimally (in terms of category continuity) away (in terms of the predicational hierarchy) from the category of its base. In such languages the finite/non-finite division is thus still available to the syntax though not lexicalised.

284

The syntax of categories

However, (3.256b) is motivatable to the extent that some independent syntactic role can be attributed to 'empty' {P}, even in auxiliariless languages. And this is in part what I argued for in the preceding, particularly in relation to the formulation of such generalisations as morphosyntactic subject formation, where presence of {IPI} is central. Another major source of motivation that might be, and has been, invoked is the role of {P} in movements, in the guise of the Infl of Chomsky (1981) and others, the ultimate head of S, particularly its status as a mover and as a legitimate landing site in ' head-to-head' movements (cf. e.g. Pollock 1989). I am assuming here, however, that there are no movements; that the erection of syntactic structure does not involve mutations of linear order. In particular, {P} is linearised either independently, as (say) an English auxiliary, or together with a (subjoined) {P;N} element, such as an English verb; it is not re-linearised with respect to any other elements, or vice versa. If such a position can be maintained, then these potential motivations are unavailable as such; and it becomes more doubtful that we can maintain on any such grounds an independent role for a non-lexicalised {P}/Infl - or, indeed, that Infl is distinct from {P}, i.e. is nonverbal. Let us consider this a little more carefully. The absence of movement means that {P}/Infl cannot constitute a landingsite: there are no such. There can, for instance, be no 'Verb-to-InfT movement in languages or clauses where e.g. finite verbs occur in post-subject position but non-finite are clause-final (Koopman 1984); finite verbs are appropriately linearised to start with. (Cf. Bohm 1982; and see further below.) On the other hand, in the absence of movement, it is clearly still necessary to provide for alternations in serialisation, such as those in (3.257): (3.2571) a. Fred will leave ii) a. Fred left

b. Will Fred leave? b. Did Fred leave?

with different placements for {P}. Alternative serialisations are straightforwardly provided for without recourse to movement (cf. e.g. §3.6.2 above), and are not in themselves an issue at this point; but it is relevant to register that what is serialised is presumably a syntactic element. However, observe, trivially, that such alternations exist only when at least one of the alternative positions involves a {P} that is necessarily distinctly lexicalised as a finite verbal, as in (3.257b). This is the alternant in which {P} is not juxtaposed with its (non-finite) verbal complement; it is only if there is nothing that would prevent them from being juxtaposed that an empty {P} is serialised simultaneously with its complement, as in (3.257iia). If in a language {P}/Infl would always be juxtaposed, indeed syntactically coincident, with its alleged complement, there is no moti-

Verbals as arguments 285 vation for positing a distinction between them. This would seem to be the case in Finnish etc. From this one might conclude not only that there is no Infl distinct from {P}, but also, contrary to the assumption of §2.3.3 maintained in the preceding, that there is no {P}/Infl in any language that is not sometimes realised as an independent verbal, and that (main) verbs are not universally no simpler than {P;N} - they may be {P}. This latter conclusion would frustrate the formulation of a number of generalisations argued for here, however - as we observed above. And I shall be offering in what follows specific evidence of a syntactic role for 'empty' {P} in auxiliariless languages. Let us now look at the signalling of the categorial difference between {P} and {P;N} - consideration of which will eventually return us to this issue. Non-finiteness is one way of indicating subordination. Thus far we have encountered forms marked as subordinate, non-finite, by inflexions based on the grammaticalisation of noun- or adjective-forming mechanisms (gerunds and participles) and/or by reduction (compared with finites) in morphological expression of secondary categories, as is typical of infinitives. The character of the reduction varies. Thus, whereas English infinitives lack both person/number variation and (non-periphrastic) tense, Latin infinitives distinguish tense and voice but not person/number. Likewise, Turkish infinitives retain tense but lack person/number marking - as shown in (3.258a): (3.258) a. Ahmet biz-i

viski-yi

ic-ti

san-iyor

A. we-ACC whisky-ACC drink-PAST believe-PRES,m ('Ahmet believes us to have drunk the whisky') b. Ahmet biz viski-yi icu-ti-k san-iyor A. we whisky-Ace drink-PAST-i,PL believe-PRES,m ('Ahmet believes we drank the whisky') (George and Kornfilt 1981: 118)

Compare the finite subordinate in (b), with person/number marking. In Maasai the infinitive distinguishes number but not person (Tucker and Mpaayei 1955:54). George and Kornfilt also show that Turkish gerunds may show person/number variation - as in (3.259a) - except when they lack an overt subject - as in (b): (3-259)

a

- (Ben) kiz-im-in

viski-yi

ic-me-sin-e

razi ol-du-m

daughter-i,SG,GEN whisky-ACC drink-GER-m,SG-DAT consent-PAST-i,SG

('I consented to my daughter's drinking the whisky') b. (Ben) viski-yi ic-meg-e razi- ol-du-m whisky-ACC drink-GER-DAT consent-PAST-i,SG ('I consented to drink the whisky')

(1981: 118)

286

The syntax of categories

They base on this distribution an argument that Turkish has both finite and nonfinite gerunds (as well as the finite and non-finite non-gerunds illustrated by (3.258), associated with presence vs. absence of person/number marking (1981: §§2-3). They attempt specifically to show that both gerundial and non-gerundial 'finites' are 'opaque' to passive, reciprocal-formation and the like. But since these 'tests' are simply irrelevant to mediated arguments such as they show the Turkish gerunds to be (1981: § 1), and none of them can be applied to 'non-finite' gerunds (except, as elsewhere, accessibility to control, which cannot be applied to non-gerundial non-finites - 1981: 123), this conclusion is quite unwarranted. All of (3.258a), (3.259a) and (3.259b) are non-finite: they are not of a form acceptable in an unmarked simple sentence. On the other hand, the observation that non-finiteness may involve different kinds of reduction in the expression of secondary categories seems to be well supported. These comments on the proposal made by George and Kornfilt can be seen as an espousal of a rather traditional notion of non-finiteness. What I am now going to suggest, however, is that to the extent that we identify non-finiteness with typical absence from unmarked simple sentences, associated with the notional categorisation {P;N}, non-finiteness is associated with a number of forms that have traditionally been regarded as finite. These are forms with very little (if any) morphological reduction but a non-finite distribution. Such is the (Modern) Greek subjunctive. Greek is not obviously rich in 'traditional' non-finite possibilities: (with a few sporadic and dialectal exceptions) historical infinitives have disappeared (Joseph 1983: ch. 3), though a descendant of the aorist infinitive survives as the form required with the periphrastic perfect (Joseph 1983: 2-3; §§3.4-5); there is no gerund (as opposed to nominalisation), except in 'adverbial' ('while ...') use (Joseph 1983: 23); and the existence of participles (as opposed to deverbal adjectives - or what I called above the 'adverbial' gerund) is at best controversial (Laskaratou and Warburton 1984; Kakouriotis 1989). Greek does, however, have a set of verbal forms marked for person/number that, though they may occur in simple sentences, are typically subordinate, selected (as an aspectual alternative to the present indicative) by particular predicators/subordinators. These constitute the 'subjunctive' (ipotaktiki 'subordinate'), illustrated in (3.260a): (3.260) a. ProspaBume na fi7ume we-try CMP we-leave:suBj ('We are trying to leave') b. fev7ume we-are-leaving

Verbals as arguments 287 Cf. the indicative (b). Some of the verbs governing this construction allow raising, like the 'impersonal' in (3.261), which as such lacks (variation in) personnumber agreement: (3.261) Ta pe8ja bon na fryun avrio the children may CMP they-leave:suBJ tomorrow ('It is possible that the children will leave tomorrow')

(Palmer 1986: 19)

I suggest that these traditionally 'finite' subjunctive forms are {P;N}, and that 'raising-to-subject', for instance, operates very much as in English. {P;N} in Greek is not associated with loss of person-number marking, but rather with presence of a 'positive' marker of 'non-finiteness' (the subjunctive stem, which may depart from the indicative in a number of ways, including internal modifications such as that in (3.260a) and suffixations), as well as with a distribution reduced not merely largely to subordinate position but also in its capacity to bear tense: the past tense equivalent of the subjunctive in (3.261) is also paradigmatically indicative (though formed on the subjunctive stem) - and occurrence in a simple sentence is freely available to it. As a yet more drastic departure from the major tradition concerning 'nonfiniteness', I'm now going to argue that the category {P;N} need not be morphologically marked at all but be signalled by position. This is characteristic of some Germanic languages. Thus, in clauses introduced by a subordinator a traditionally 'finite' verb is final, as in (3.262a) and (b), just like the infinitive of (c): (3.262) a. Er erzahlte mir, da8 er einen besonderen Preis gewonnen hatte he told me that he a special prize won had ('He told me that he had won a special prize') b. Sie hat mir erzahlt, da6 sie funf Jahre lang studierte she has me told that she five years long studied ('She has told me that she studied forfiveyears') c. Er wollte mit ihr sprechen he wanted with her to-speak ('He wanted to speak with her') or the participle gewonnen in (a) relative to its clause. In a main clause, as in (3.263a) and (b), or where there is no subordinator, as in (c), the 'finite' verb(al) is in second place (or, in some circumstances - see below - first): (3.263) a. Er hat einen besonderen Preis gewonnen he has a special prize won ('He has won a special prize')

288

The syntax of categories b. Sie studierte ftinf Jahre lang she studied five years long ('She studied forfiveyears') c. Er erzahlte mir, er hatte einen besonderen Preis gewonnen he told me he had a special prize won ('He told me he had won a special prize')

Verb-final marks non-finiteness. Say we assume, in accordance with scenario (3.256a) above, that German verb(al)s are all simply {P} lexically, in the absence of syntactic auxiliaries; modals, for instance, show only minor word order discrepancies with respect to other verbals. We can then differentiate categorially, via syntactic redundancies, the final 'finite' forms in (3.262a) and (b) and the infinitive in (c) as in (3.264): (3.264)

{P;N}

|(P;N);(P;N)}

subordinate 'finite'

infinitive

where the first categorisation is associated with overtly subordinated 'finites', and the second reflects the complexity of the morphologically marked infinitive. All {P;N} elements follow their modifiers; {P} elements precede all their arguments but one. These serialisations are imposed 'directly' by the categorisations; finites (including (3.263c)) - {P} - serialise differently from non-finites {P;N}. I formulate this basic pattern, provisionally, as German serialisation: German serialisation Modifiers of {IPI} follow it; modifiers of {P;N} precede it. One order or the other is not 'underlying' (Bohm 1982): as is desirable, no 'movement' need be invoked. I take these phenomena to manifest, rather, what I am calling positional non-finiteness. This account of German serialisation, however, makes no provision for the verb-second phenomenon. I therefore conclude this subsection with the formulation of a proposal concerning this which is compatible with the general approach adopted here - and, indeed, throws further light on the nature of finiteness, I suggest - but the evidence for which also provides support for the positing of a syntactic role for 'empty' {P}, as part of a {{P};P;N} complex, even in languages which lack syntactic auxiliaries. The initial elements in all of (3.262/263) are morphosyntactic subjects; but, as is familiar, though in the unmarked case a single element must precede the verb(al) of the main clause - or, rather, 'unsubordinated' clause - in German, this element need not be a subject:

Verbals as arguments 289 (3.265) a. Seinen Urlaub hat er in Griechenland verbracht his holiday has he in Greece spent ('He spent his holiday in Greece') b. Wahrend des Urlaubs pflegt sie unsere Blumen during the holiday cares-for she our flowers ('She looks after our plants during the holidays') We might take this to simply reflect in part the lack of a syntactic subject in German. Given that German is governed by the above rules of serialisation and exhibits verb-second in 'unsubordinated' clauses, no distinct position for (syntactic) subjects is created in the syntax. This is particularly apparent from the distribution of the raised expletive in (3.266): (3.266) a. Es wird regnen morgen ('It will rain tomorrow') b. Morgen wird es regnen c. Er sagt, da6 es morgen regnen wird ('He says that it will rain tomorrow') All we can stipulate is that the unmarked position for the morphosyntactic subject is as first of the verb(al)s arguments but for a possible alternative preposee. However, generally selection of raising victim does obey the subject-selection hierarchy. And we still have to determine what accounts for (the licensing of) the positioning of the initial elements in 'unsubordinated' clauses. These elements are apparently specifiers of the {IPI}, and serialised appropriately to the left of the verb(al). That is, instead of the {P}-specification principle of §3.6.1 which is characteristic of English and other languages: {P}-specification principle (a) (i) {IPI} is specified only by a subject (ii) Ungoverned {IPI} is metaspecified only by a circumstantial German seemingly requires: {P}-specification principle (b)

{IPI} is specified only secondarily - which regulates root-specifier position in a rather different - but learnably different - way. The preverbals in (3.262/263/265/266) are not primarily specifiers: they are participants or circumstantials or raisees with respect to the {IPI}, but secondarily they fill specifier function. However, the 'specifier' is in fact a 'fake specifier', in that the natural way to provide for these initial elements is to assume they are subcategorised for by an extra {P} node allowed to root verb(al)s and those lacking an overt complementiser. But in that case we can associate with German the same redundancy as in English, viz. (3.255b), repeated here:

290

The syntax of categories

(3-255)

b.

{P}

{P;N}

if we assume, after all, that German verb(al)s are lexically {P;N} rather than {P}, and 'subordinated' verb(al)s simply fail to undergo the redundancy. So that we can associate with (3.265a), for instance, the syntactic structure in (3.267), where the initial element satisfies the 'empty' abs of {P}: (3.267)

{abs}

{P}

{abs}

{abs}

{P/P'9N etc.]

{erg}

{N}

{loc}

{N}

{P;N etc.]

{N}

seinen Urlaub

hat

Italien

verbracht

(3.267) ignores many details, of course, such as the internal structure of the initial noun phrase and the final participial clause - not to mention the categorisation of the 'have' verb. German differs from English in that: (a) the syntactic redundancy (3.255b) (above) is limited to 'unsubordinated' verb(al)s; and (b) whereas raising to {P;N} observes the subject-selection hierarchy, the victim raised to fill the 'empty' abs of {P} is not selected in accordance with the subject-selection hierarchy but may be in principle any argument of the root {P;N}. What we have to do with in German main clauses is a principal relation which, as a grammaticalisation of topic, is akin to the prime found in Tagalog (as briefly discussed in §3.3.2): we have a syntactic prime. Selection of the victim for raising in such a (sub)system is not constrained by the subject-selection hierarchy; German main clauses are 'prime-prominent'. This means that both English and German share {P}-specification principle (i), provided we generalise 'subject' to 'principal': {P}-specification principle i) {IPI} is specified only by a principal

Verbals as arguments

291

Unsurprisingly, a wh-element, as in subject-forming systems, takes precedence over other arguments, giving (3.268a): (3.268)

a. Wohin fahrt sie? where goes she b. Wartete er lange auf den Zug? waited he long for the train

Where, as in 'yes/no' interrogative sentences like (3.268b), there is no overt prime, I assume again (cf. §3.6.2) that wh licences the absence of a principal. What has been proposed - in particular, satisfaction of the {P}-speciflcation principle - requires that German serialisation be revised slightly, given also the introduction of the complex {P};{P;N} categorisation for finite occurrences: German serialisation Modifiers of {P;N} subjoined to {IPI} follow it; modifiers of {P;N} precede it. But the preverbal elements of main clauses are allowed for by the first part of the same rule as applies in English (cf. §3.3.4): Raisee serialisation Raisees to {IPI} serialise as specifiers; raisees to {P;N} as modifiers. Given these regularities, and the fact that {IPI} and the {P;N} with respect to which it is introduced (by (3.255b)) are themselves serialised identically, it follows that all of the serialisation rules can be satisfied only if the finite verb(al) occupies second position with respect to its various modifiers. If, diachronically, the prime grammaticalises topicality, then verb-second can be seen as the consequence of a strategy for enabling the finite verb to be adjacent to both types of arguments that it takes, grammaticalised topic (initial) and the others, particularly participants. Such phenomena provide independent evidence that at least some languages lacking syntactic auxiliaries have a {P} that is never realised as an independent word. How widespread is the kind of evidence utilised here with respect to German? Its very existence suggests that we can maintain the position advocated in §2.3.3, whereby verbs in no-less-than-minimal systems are consistently {P;N}, as in (2.72a): (2.72)

a. {P} finite

{P;N} verb

{N;P} noun

{N} name

{} functor

(repeated again from §2.3.3), while {P} may be lexically empty.

292 3.7

The syntax of categories The structure of primary arguments

In introducing this chapter I was concerned to argue for the asymmetry between verbs and nouns with respect to argument structure: the modifiers of nouns are only very rarely noun-complements. Thus, the postnominals in (3.269), for example: (3.269) a. a marble on the floor b. a painting by Picasso are circumstantial. Very few simple nouns are subcategorised for an overt (external) complement; and this reflects their minimal possession of the relational feature P. The elaboration of the structure of (primary) arguments derives from other factors. Exceptional in this regard - viz. in being subcategorised - are what I have been referring to, rather vaguely, as 'relational' nouns. Let us, before invoking the 'other factors', look at the character of these exceptions, specifically at what they are subcategorised in terms of. 3.7.1

Relational nouns

Among 'relational' nouns we can distinguish partitives and inalienables. The former are illustrated by the leftmost noun in each of (3.270): (3.270) a. a party of sailors b. a kilo of sugar c. a member of the group which are subcategorised for an argument introducing a designation of the entity from which the referent of the head is 'extracted'. Party and group are (partitive) collectives, singular in form (here) and complemented by plurals, but ambivalent notionally, as reflected in the variable concord: (3.271) A party/group of sailors was/were approaching and (non-collective) member normally requires complementation by a collective, kilo by a mass or plural noun. The other class of 'relational' nouns is constituted, in the first place, by items whose denotata are perceived as intrinsically part of some other. The relation corresponds to what is traditionally termed 'inalienable possession' (Lyons 1977: §9.8), centrally involving the labels for body parts - though, of course, this notional core may be expanded in different ways in different languages (cf. e.g. the survey in Ultan 1978). The initial currency of the term (as discussed by Uhlenbeck 1916 - see too Sapir 1917; Levy-Bruhl 1916) depends on the fact

The structure ofprimary arguments 293 that in some languages an inalienable relation is distinguished morphologically from instances of alienable possession: see e.g., on Saker, Ultan (1978: §3.3) who draws on Z'graggen (1965). But there are also syntactic reflexes of inalienability in constructions like the French of (3.272): (3.272) Marcel s'est lave les mains M. himself + has washed the hands ('Marcel (has) washed his hands') where the possessor is also a clausal argument (see further, on this and other pertinent constructions, de la Grasserie 1896: 91-3; Frei 1939; Fillmore 1968a: §5). Examples like (3.273a) in English: (3.273)

a. Fred broke his leg b. Fred broke my leg c. Fred broke his shovel

also provide evidence for the distinctiveness of an inalienable possessor. (3.273a) shares with (b) and (c) a reading in which the subject is agentive (volitional or not), but it also (unlike them) can be attributed one in which - provided Fred and his are coreferential - the referents of Fred and his leg merely suffer the breaking. Notice finally here that, parallel to what happens in some voice systems, inalienable nouns in Saker bear a special 'alienising' suffix when no possessor is indicated (see again Ultan 1978: 26). In Saker and some other languages, the (morphosyntactically-defined) class of inalienables includes kinship terms, while in others (such as Mundari - see Langendoen 1967: §vm) the class of the inalienably possessed is limited to kinship items - along with, in e.g. Konkow, according to Ultan (1978: §3.1), some personal names. (This is not to be confused with special marking of kinship and/or personal name possessors, as in Piro and Tagalog (Ultan 1978: §3.2).) The notional basis for associating, as inalienable, (particularly human) partwhole links and relationships of kin is reasonably transparent; but the relations cannot be identified. Whereas the former involve an inherent one-way (quasi-) spatial attachment, the latter are rather vectoral, with possible alternative contrastive orientations (mother/son) for the 'same' link - though this contrastivity is not necessarily present with non-central instances, such as stranger, perhaps. We should perhaps also recognise, among relationship terms, items whose complement bears a source-type rather than a goal-type relation to them, as, say, descendant in English. As the 'source/goal' terminology I have just employed implies, I am going to suggest we can allow for these relations, as well as for the partitives distinguished earlier, in terms of a reduced localist system of case relations for nouns, deploying the same vocabulary of content elements as with verbs.

294

The syntax of categories

The relation attributed to (3.270/271) that I have labelled Partitive is realised as of therein. In this respect partitivity is not distinguished from the part-whole and kin relations associated with (3.274a) and (b) respectively: (3.274) a. the son of the mayor b. the left leg of the mayor c. the group of the sailors ... that left yesterday but, unlike with them, the head lacks any denotational information to satisfy the demands of the preceding definite article (see §3.7.3) - hence the continuation in (c) - and it is not normally genitivisable: (3-275)

a

- the mayor's son b. the mayor's left leg c. *the sailors' group (... that left yesterday)

In some languages the partitive relation associated with such 'relational' nouns, and with numeral and other quantifiers (equivalent to two/some of (the) - see §3.7.2), is accorded a distinctive marker, as in the Finnish (3.276): (3.2761) a. joukko ihmisia crowd men+PRT ('a crowd of men') b. paijo rahaa much money+PRT ('much money') (ii) a. Jussi tuli kotoa J. came home+PRT (4Jussi came from home') b. Jussi otti kirjan Marjalta (J. took book+ACC M.+ABL ('Jussi took the book from Marja') But, as noted in §3.2.3, the Finnish Partitive can also mark, like the Ablative of (3.276iib), concrete spatial separation, as in (iia) (Rigler 1992: 94,95). And the concrete spatial use seems to be the earlier (Wickman 1955: 12), with the adnominal use representing a (further) grammaticalisation. Notionally, too, interpretation of the Partitive as a source is not implausible: a partitive noun labels a referential (but denotatively non-distinctive) subset extracted from the set denoted by the complement noun. Most inalienables, on the other hand, seem to involve attachment rather than extraction, with body parts being simply placed in a region identified with some whole (centrally a person) and with relationship terms typically incorporating positive (goal-type) orientation (centrally with respect to a person). The type of

The structure of primary arguments 295 English descendant is exceptional here in showing orientation with respect to a source. This means that, if the foregoing exhaust the necessary distinctions, in characterising the subcategorisation of nouns, we need to appeal not to the full localist set of roles attributable to verbs - abs, erg, loc, abl and their combinations but rather only to the non-empty distinctions between the components out of which these relations are constructed, as represented in table 3.1, repeated here: Table 3.1: Localist case components case relations:

abs

erg

CASE COMPONENTS:

loc

abl

PLACE

PLACE

SOURCE

SOURCE

abs = absolutive; erg = ergative; loc = locative; abl = ablative viz. PLACE and SOURCE. Partitive nouns subcategorise for a SOURCE argument, inalienables for a PLACE; kinship terms are directional, and mostly they are subcategorised for a PLACE and incorporate a (PLACE,)SOURCE argument, while descendant and the like require a complement in a {PLACE, SOURCE} role. The interpretation of a simple SOURCE participant thus varies with the notional character of the head of the construction: with verbs nonPLACE SOURCES are erg, centrally the source of the action; with nouns SOURCES are prt(itive), the (denotative) source of the referent. As with erg, which has a special predicational status in (the pervasive) subject-forming systems, so prt has a pervasive role in the structure of arguments - as will become apparent in the subsection which follows. Let us conclude this one with the observation that subcategorisation in the nominal system appears to lack reference to the equivalent of abs (the empty combination of PLACE and SOURCE). Predicative nouns do take an abs, whatever else; such an abs is the subject of the sentences in (3.277), for instance: (3.277) a. Bert is a poet b. Bert is father to dozens But this abs is introduced for nouns by the general redundancy - in this instance applying in the lexicon - requiring that every predicator be accompanied by an abs argument. Nouns which are functioning as arguments, however, incorporate such an abs. We must now turn to the notion 'functioning as an argument' and other aspects of the structure of arguments.

296

The syntax of

3.7.2

Indefinites

categories

In §2.11 suggested that nouns enter into the structure of (primary) arguments by virtue of fulfilling the valency of 'transitive' pronouns, i.e. determiners. W e might thus provisionally represent the categorisation and syntactic projection of the potential argument a poet as in (3.278): (3.278)

}} {sg}

{N;P}

{cnt} abs

N which includes the incorporated abs, and a requirement that the dependent noun be interpreted as countable ({cnt}). The plural and non-count (mass) determiners, however, are incorporated ('from above') in English; and we might suggest for them the respective representations in (3.279), which omit, as in illustrations henceforth, the incorporated abs shown in (3.278): (3.279) a. j b. j

I {N;P}

{N;P}

{cnt}

:

poets

poetry

{cnt} in (3.279a) is spelled out as morphological 'plural', and is transmitted to an accessible superordinate finite, unless blocked by a {sg} (as in (3.278)). Collectives are nouns the transmission of whose {cnt} specification is not blocked by {sg}, as in (3.271) above. In some languages it is regularly made overt whether a plural or mass noun is intended to refer to merely a subset of the set denoted by the noun, as in the case of the French partitive determiners of (3.28oi) vs. the non-partitives of (ii):

The structure ofprimary arguments 297 (3.28oi) a. Elle a achete des cigarettes ('She bought cigarettes') b. Elle a achete du fromage ('She bought cheese') ii) a. Elle aime les cigarettes ('She likes (the) cigarettes') b. Elle aime le fromage ('She likes (the) cheese') the latter being ambivalent, as indicated by the glosses, between definite and not. In English, it is rather the indefinite (poets, poetry, etc.) that is ambivalent between partitive and not. Such (ungoverned) partitivity as is embodied in (3.28oi) may also be expressed inflexionally on the noun, as in the Polish partitive genitive of (3.281a) or the Finnish Partitive of (b): (3.281)

a. Mam mleka i kawy I-have milk+GEN and coffee+GEN ('I have some milk and coffee') b. Leipaa on poydalla bread+PRT is on-table ('There is some bread on the table')

Even if we substitute a plural Partitive in (3.281b) the verb remains singular, which underlines that the Partitive's role is to express internal argument structure rather than the relation of the argument to its containing clause. We can suggest the representations in (3.282) for the respective object arguments in (3.280): (3.282)

a.

b.

{N/{prt})

1

{N;PJ

lent)

I

{N P)

{pit)

{prt}

des

{N/{prt)]

cigarettes

du

fromage

with the determiners showing number - or rather count/mass - (and gender) concord with the noun. (In Polish and Finnish, all of this is incorporated into the noun.) The English poets and poetry, on the other hand, are ambivalent between (3.277) above and (3.283):

298

The syntax of categories

(3.283)

a.

.

b.

{N/{prt}}

{N/{prt}}

I

I

{prt}

{pit}

{N;PJ {cnt}

{N;PJ :

poets

poetry

I

I

French thus illustrates more comprehensively a system with unincorporated determiners. However, in showing a count/mass distinction among nouns, both English and French are Type A' languages in Gil's (1987) typology. 'Type B' languages do not classify nouns into count/mass, and thus they either lack number marking or deploy it only under certain circumstances (Gil 1987: 257-8). Gil illustrates lack of number marking with Japanese (3.284): (3.284)

Susumu-ga hon-o yonda S.-NOM book-Ace read ('S. read (the/a) book(s)')

(1987: 257)

Use of enumeration with a noun in such a language entails the presence of a 'classifier': (3.285)

Susumu-ga sansatu no hon-o yonda S.-NOM three+CLASS COP book-Ace read ('S. read three books')

(Gil 1987: 258)

(3.285) also illustrates another alleged property of 'Type B' languages, viz. the lack of definiteness/indefiniteness discrimination. Gil (1987) argues that this and a number of other properties of 'Type B' languages follow from the suggestion that they lack a class of determiners and the configurationality associated with them, such that - in the terms used here - nouns are able to participate directly as arguments rather than only via a transitive pronoun. If this is so, then in such languages argumenthood is made available to nouns via a syntactic redundancy such as (3.286): (3.286)

{N} I {N;P} =>

The structure ofprimary arguments 299 while in French there is no such redundancy, so that nouns enter into argument positions only by virtue of satisfying the valency of a determiner. In English, such a redundancy allows argumenthood to plural - i.e. count non-singular and mass nouns; singularity requires a determiner. In Japanese and the like, the requirement that numerals take a {cnt} argument is satisfied, given that nouns are not so classified, by items taking a noun as an argument that are themselves {N}{cnt}, i.e. numeral classifiers, as represented schematically in (3.287), which indicates only the relevant aspects of structure of a typical Tzeltal number phrase: (3.287)

{N/{cnt}}

{N/{N;P}}

{N P}

{cnt} os

tehk

three

CLASs:plant

te? tree ('three trees') (Lyons 1977: 461-2, drawing on Berlin 1968)

We take up the status of numerals from a more general perspective in a moment. We should note here that Gil claims that 'the count-mass parameter covaries with the configurationality parameter - a language distinguishes between count and mass nouns if and only if it possesses configurational NPs' (1987: 267). This might be allowed for if {sg} were to be universally a non-lexical property of determiners/pronouns. Thus, in English it requires, as in (3.278) above, presence of an independent determiner; whereas in Japanese, which lacks determiners, the singular/plural distinction - and so differentiation of count/mass - is not available. However, the alleged covariation appears to be illusory: there are indeed many languages, such as Latin or Czech, which have well-developed number marking but no obligatory differentiation of definite/indefinite - thus, languages to whose characterisation the unrestricted redundancy of (3.286) is necessary but which nevertheless show a classification of nouns into count vs. mass. Gil's claim seems, indeed, to be partly contradicted by (the exclusion clause of) his own proposed 'Universal 1' (1987: 263):

300

The syntax of categories If a language has obligatory marking of (in)definiteness, then it has obligatory marking of nominal plurality (but not vice versa)

given that 'obligatory marking of (in)definiteness' is (in his terms) associated with configurationality. The representation in (3.287) is based on the assumption that cardinal numerals belong to the class of determiners, transitive {N}s that enable nouns to occur as arguments. Numeral + noun constructions are commonly differentiated into two types, in terms of whether the numeral is 'adjectival' or 'nominal' (Greenberg 1978b). We can illustrate these with English (3.288): (3.288) a. one man, four men b. one of the men, four of the men Here, use of the 'nominal' construction is associated with deflniteness of the noun - though, as we shall see, other factors are also involved. In some languages, the 'adjectival' construction is used with smaller numbers, the 'nominal' with larger: in Lithuanian, for instance, numerals 1-9 are 'adjectival', whereas with higher numerals the noun is inflected in the genitive plural (Greenberg 1978b: 285). The 'nominal' construction is often referred to as 'partitive'; and this seems to be just, in the light of our discussion of partitive collectives in §3.7.1. So, the numeral therein takes the noun as a {pit} argument. But what of the 'adjectival' construction? If by 'adjectival' is meant 'optionally modifying' and/or 'non-nominal', this scarcely seems to be appropriate to this use. In the first place, it is unclear what motivations there are for proposing that numerals should enter into two such different structures, with choice of structure varying from language to language, and from numeral to numeral in the same language. Secondly, a modifying status for numerals that are not overtly partitive would be in conflict with the relationships of subcategorisation displayed in (3.288) and the like, and with the exercising of rection of number by numerals: in Turkish, 'the noun itself is in the singular with numerals designating numbers larger than 1' (Greenberg 1978b: 282). In English, associating absence of of with modifying status would recruit the prenominals in (3.289) as 'adjectives': (3.289) a. a dozen/hundred/thousand men b. two dozen/hundred/thousand men despite their overt nominal structure. Observe, too, that the conditions for absence of o/are different here. The noun following the of in (3.290a) is not definite; rather it is the plurality of the preceding 'numeral' that seems to be decisive:

The structure ofprimary arguments 301 (3.290)

a. dozens/hundreds/thousands of men b. a score of men

while its presence in (3.290b) is apparently idiosyncratic (in this class and environment) to score (cf. three score binders, scores of binders). This would suggest that all such putative 'adjectival' constructions involve a 'numeral' head and incorporation of the partitive into the noun. Given that the indefinite article may also be partitive, it and one will share these aspects of their categorisation. I assume they differ in that one is overtly contrastive (and this correlates with the facts of stress noted by Perlmutter 1970); a(n) is 'extense' in Hjelmslev's (1935/37) sense, or 'unmarked' in the sense described by Thorne (1982), basing himself on Lyons' (1975) use of this term in relation to the vs. this/that. A partitive analysis is also appropriate to non-numerical quantifiers, such as that in (3.291): (3.291)

a. some men b. some of the men

As Jackendoff (1968: §111) notes, the partitive can surface under 'stranding': (3.292)

a. Guess what we don't have any of: insect repellent b. *Guess what we don't have any: insect repellent

(See further Anderson 1976: ch. 6.) The non-numerical quantifiers introduce another distributional variant for absorbed {pit}: (3.293)

a. all men b. all (of) the men

one where an 'adjectival' interpretation is implausible. The quotes around the term 'numeral' when applied in the preceding to the items in (3.289/290) involve a recognition that these are 'relational' nouns ({N;P/{prt}}) rather than determiners ({N/{prt}}), as shown by the structural possibilities exhibited there. Their relationship to numerals proper is thus analogous to that holding between partitive collectives, such as group, and nonnumerical quantifiers. All of these, however, are nominal. But numerals and some non-numerical quantifiers also appear in the postdeterminer position characteristic of 'modifiers of the noun', if not necessarily adjectives, and the non-numericals take the specifically adjectival specifier very: (3.294O the three sailors, the (very) many/few idlers (ii) a. His opponents werefivein number b. His opponents were many/few

302

The syntax of categories

(3.294H) illustrate that these items are also marginally/archaically predicative. We can allow for this if these quantifiers are a blend of determiner and adjective. If they are categorised as in (3.295): (3.295)

{{N/{prt}},{P:N}}

then the attributive/predicative distribution of (3.294) is associated with the {P:N} specification, with the pit complement being incorporated into the adjective/determiner; that in (3.288b) and (3.296b) is associated with {N}: (3.296) a. many houses b. many of the houses and that in (3.288a) and (3.296a) with either - or, indeed, both. However, before we can explore such a possibility, it is clearly time to look more carefully at the notion 'modifier of the noun'. Consider the 'modifiers' of children in (3.297), where each example is intended to represent a full noun phrase: (3.297) a. b. c. d. e.

hungry/smiling/slum children children with lollipops children full of lollipops children to be avoided children who like lollipops

These are not complements of children, they are not required to satisfy its subcategorisation; nor does children obviously complement them. Rather, like the circumstantials of §2.8, they involve 'retro-complementation'; they are elements which, like instrumentals etc., are looking for a head of a particular character in this instance, a {N/}. In this way they can be seen to identify subsets of the set of entities denoted by the noun dependent on {pit}. It would seem that a very general redundancy such as (3.298) is responsible in English for the syntax of such attributives: (3.298)

{A} = {\{N/}}

where perhaps only elements that are exclusively N are excluded from the lefthand side, i.e. as A, though prenominal attributive position is limited to items which are uncomplemented {P:N} and {N;P}. Given such an equation, we can associate with attributives like those in (3.297) schematic structures such as are offered in the small sample in (3.299):

The structure ofprimary arguments 303 (3.299)

a.

{P N)

{N/{prt}} {pit} {N;P)

hungry

children

b.

(N)

{N/{prt}) {prt} {N;PJ

children

with

lollipops

where both hungry and with lollipops are {\{N/{prt}}} by virtue of (3.298). Prehead position for an attributive is restricted, as with verbal circumstantials, to items without overt complementation, though they may, of course, be specified - very (overwhelmingly) hungry etc. - or reiterated. And, as, once again, with verbal circumstantials, the categorial association of such an attributive may violate projectivity, as exemplified in (3.300), with separate determiner and noun:

304

The syntax of categories

(3.300)

{N/{prt}}

(P:

{pit}

I

{N;P}

hungry

child

with the highest node again being due to the 'retro-complentation' of hungry. Thus, the absence of a pattern of valency means that, contrary to the views put forward by Anderson (1976: ch. 7) and Abney (1987), attributive adjectives are not heads complemented by the accompanying noun. Here I have adopted a position not unlike that recently argued for by e.g. Svenonius (1993): attributive adjectives are not required by subcategorisation, but are adjoined to partitive determiners. Probably exceptional here are those 'adjectives' that can be attributive only, as with those in (2.43a), repeated here: (2.43)

a. the late/present/honorary/former/initial/mere president b. The president is ?honorary/*former/*initial/*rnere c. The president is present/late

with (b) and (c) illustrating that they are either anomalous in predicative position or semantically distinct. Now, these can be predicative if they are accompanied by a noun: (3.301) He is/was (a(n)) late/present/honorary/former/initial/mere president That is, we should describe them as transitive rather than necessarily non-predicative. And we can allow for their distribution, including possible iteration (late former honorary president etc.) if they are categorially: (3.302)

{N;P/{N;P}}

i.e. nouns (!) which take another noun as complement. This is not unlike the proposal made in Anderson (1976: ch. 7), but restricted here to a limited subset of 'adjectives'. A consequence of assigning such a categorisation to 'attributiveonly adjectives' is that those languages, such as Ngamambo (§2.3.1), that lack

The structure of primary arguments 305 predicative adjectives should now be regarded as swelling the ranks of the nonadjectival: their 'adjectives' are transitive nouns. The non-head status of 'ordinary' attributive adjectives is strikingly confirmed by evidence from code-switching. Mahootian (1993) proposes and motivates the following principle: The language of a head determines its phrase structure position in codeswitching as in monolingual contexts. In terms of the present framework we should perhaps rephrase this as: The language of a head determines its phrase structure position with respect to its complements in code-switching as in monolingual contexts. given my more inclusive usage with respect to 'headhood'. Thus, in codeswitching involving Farsi, which is centrally OV but also allows postverbal objects, and English, with postverbal objects only, we predict the following word-order possibilities for mixed-language combinations of verb and object: (3-3°3)

a

b. c. d.

English Object + Farsi Verb Farsi Verb + English Object English Verb + Farsi Object *Farsi Object + English Verb

Only (3.303d) would violate Mahootian's principle: the head is in an unlicensed position with respect to the syntax of the language to which it belongs. She verifies that this prediction is correct, both in relation to evidence from this particular pair and to that from a range of similar pairings. If the relationship between attributive adjective and noun is not that of headcomplement, then switching in such constructions is not governed by the principle. This 'has the striking consequence that code-switching between languages with pre- and postnominal adjectives should give rise to adjectives and nouns from one language appearing in an order unique to the other' (Santorini and Mahootian to appear: §3.1). Santorini and Mahootian go on to show that in a range of relevant instances 'this expectation is indeed borne out', as illustrated by the Swahili-English example (3.304): (3-304)

Nikaona i-na taste lousy sana 1+thought it-with very ('I thought it had a very lousy taste')

(Myers-Scotton 1993: 29)

They also offer some evidence that 'attributive-only adjectives' do conform to the predictions of the principle - if they are interpreted as 'heads'. The main body of attributives we have considered - i.e. those that are not

306

The syntax of categories

'attributive-only' - are circumstantial modifiers of {N/{prt}}. We can also distinguish 'retro-complementary' modifiers of {N;P}, allowed for by (3.305): (3.305)

{A} =

{\{N;P}}

I suggest that this is an appropriate characterisation of Siegel's (1980) non-intersective attributives (Bolinger's (1967) reference-modification). Recall (from §2.3.1) the discussion of the ambiguity of (2.48), again repeated: (2.48)

Marya is a beautiful dancer

as to whether Marya is beautiful 'in general' (intersective) or specifically 'qua dancer' (non-intersective). We can represent the two interpretations of the final noun phrase in We saw some beautiful dancers as in (3.306): (3.306)

a.

{N/{prt}}

{P

(pit) |N;P}

some

beautiful

dancers

b.

{N/{prt}]

some

{prt} {P N}

(N;P)

beautiful

dancers

The structure ofprimary arguments 307 Of course, as observed in §2.3.1, so-called 'attributive-only adjectives' do not allow a non-intersective reading; indeed, on the basis of what was argued above, they are excluded as attributives, given that noun attributives must precede the noun they modify {brick wall), but only non-subcategorising attributives may precede: as transitive nouns, former etc. cannot be attributive. Among 'ordinary' adjectives, some will participate in only one or the other of the attributive possibilities represented by (3.298) and (3.305). We can draw a similar distinction between the postnominal attributives in (3.299b) and (3.307): (3.307)

i

{N/{prt}}

{N}

{prt} {N;P}

paintings

by

Picasso

with, in the latter case, the functor phrase constituting a noun 'circumstantial' (recall the introduction to this chapter). We can now return to the numerals and non-numerical quantifiers characterised as in (3.295), whose distribution is partly that of a determiner, partly adjectival, as illustrated in (3.288b) and (3.296b), on the one hand, and by (3.294), on the other. The quantifier of (3.292a) could be either determiner or adjective; and I suggest it satisfies both aspects of its categorisation, as shown in (3.308):

308

The syntax of categories

(3.308)

{N/{prt}},{P:N}}

{prt}

I

{N;PJ houses many

The topmost node is required by the 'retro-complementation' of the attributive adjective component of the categorisation. All of the English determiners we have considered in this subsection are indefinite; we take up the characterisation of definiteness in the following, final subsection. The overt indefinite determiners apart from the indefinite article that is, (numerical and non-numerical) quantifiers - are partitive; the others, count (plural), mass and singular (the indefinite article) may or may not be partitive. The partitive generally allows, among other things, alternative paraphrases with There is/are/tic.... or It was .... (Cf. here, on the significance of the former, Keenan 1987.) Thus, (one (set) of interpretation(s) of) the sentence with the partitive in (3.309a): (3-3°9) a- Some goats butted him b. There were some goats (that) butted him c. It was some goats (that) butted him is paraphrasable by (b) or (c). So too with the partitives of (3.310):

The structure ofprimary arguments 309 (3.31 oi) a. A goat butted him b. There was a goat (that) butted him c. It was a goat (that) butted him (ii) a. Goats butted him b. There were goats (that) butted him c. It was goats (that) butted him But the non-partitive of (3.311 a) allows of these only the (c)-type paraphrase: (3.311)

a. Goats don't appeal to Hanna b. * There are goats (that) don't appeal to Hanna c. It's goats (that) don't appeal to Hanna

The interpretation of non-partitive indefinites correlates with one sense of 'generic'. The universal quantifiers, on the other hand, allow a doubly-negated 'existential' paraphrase (see further Anderson 1973^): (3.312)

a. All of the goats butted him b. There were none of the goats (that) didn't butt him c. It was all the goats (that) butted him

The possibility of these paraphrases correlates with a final aspect of the categorisation of determiners that I want to merely allude to before moving on to look at definites specifically. I take the paraphrasability of (3.313a) by (b), for instance: (3-313)

a. Bert likes some operas b. There are some operas (that) Bert likes

to reflect the status of some operas as satisfying, as well as the requirements of likes, the valency of an 'existential' predicator category that is available by redundancy as an extension of any verb: (3.314) {P;N} =>

So that some operas in (3.313) has the dual categorisation made explicit in (3.315):

310

The syntax of categories

(3-315)

f{P){3))

I

IP}

{abs}

{prt}

I

{N/{prt)}

{N;P)

likes

some

{P;N} Bert

{abs}

operas (with irrelevant categorisation, such as that associated with Bert, omitted). Some operas satisfies the unsubcategorised-for abs of the existence predicate, its metagovernor, in accordance with the application of Quantifier-raising: Quantifier-raising

{N/{prt}}

{N/{prt}} here seeks the closest empty existential abs; no more than one {IPI} may intervene between the existential {P} and the predicator of the argument { };{N/{prt}} - participating in quantifier-raising. Further, a {P;N} may develop an indefinite number of existential extensions, provided these can be satisfied by indefinites; this is required by familiar examples such as Every girl kissed some boy, where the predicator is complemented by two quantified arguments.

The structure ofprimary arguments 311 It is not my concern to attempt to formulate the relationship between scope of the quantifier, as defined by the relative height of its associated existential, and relations of constituency, government or precedence - as investigated by Ioup (1976) and many subsequent studies. (Once again (cf. Anderson 1977: Preface), I have failed to write a book about quantifiers; once again, despite some differences in basic assumptions, not to mention the large body of work on quantification that has accrued in the meantime, an idea of how what I suggest here might be developed can perhaps be gleaned from the preliminary versions of (particularly) Anderson 1973^; 1974a, b.) The quantified phrase in (3.3 i6i) may be associated with an existential developed either by the higher or by the lower verbal, with corresponding interpretations as roughly indicated in (ii): (3.3161) Frieda wants to seduce a Latvian (ii) a. There's a Latvian Frieda wants to seduce b. Frieda wants there to be a Latvian (for her) to seduce (iii) a. It's a Latvian Frieda wants to seduce b. Frieda wants it to be a Latvian she seduces with (b) representing the so-called 'opaque' reading. (3.316m) are further interpretations, also found with 'generics' and definites, to do with 'focus'. Again, I associate these with a categorial extension like that in (3.314), but in this instance equative. However, again, I do not pursue this here. One aspect of (3.315) and the like that we must confront is the apparent violation of superiority instantiated therein. I formulated superiority as: Superiority An item realising a pair of associated syntactic nodes is sequenced in accordance with the requirements of the upper node such that, in the determination of word order, the requirements of the upper node of a pair projected from a single item take precedence over those related to the lower, as illustrated by the behaviour of wh-forms: (3.317)

a. Who do you think saw you? b. Who(m) do you think (that)I saw?

where the wh-forms fail to occur in the positions expected of arguments of saw, but rather in accordance with the specifier status of the w/z-form in the uppermost predication. However, the existential phrases of (3.309a), (3.310a), (3-3i3aX (3-316i) and the like all occur in the positions that we would expect of arguments of the lower, non-existential verbal, even though they are also attached, via quantifier-raising, to the existential verbal. This appears to infringe

312

The syntax of categories

superiority, whatever the word-order requirements of the existential predication might be. However, the sequencing requirements of the existential predication - or, rather, the absence of certain such - are very relevant to a resolution of this anomaly; but only once we have reconsidered the character of superiority. Given the data considered, the above formulation of superiority is indeed much too general: superiority is operative only if the upper node is non-basic, specifically a derived specifier, as in the instances repeated just above. Let us, accordingly, reformulate superiority, more restrictively: Superiority' An item realising a pair of associated syntactic nodes is sequenced in accordance with the requirements of the upper node /j(f that node is a specifier. Otherwise, the sequencing requirements of co-associated nodes must not be in conflict; superiority permits a limited exceptionality with respect to this requirement (to which we return shortly). This correlates with the restriction of 'raising-to-object' to certain word-order types of languages; recall Horn's formulation concerning the distribution of 'NPR terms': Languages in which NPR terms occur are those whose basic word order patterns are such that the subjects of other complement sentence types can occupy string positions of object NPs (direct objects, objects of prepositions, etc.) in higher clauses. (1985: 815) If this condition is not met, the two predicators involved impose incompatible word-order demands, a conflict which cannot be resolved by appeal to superiority (given that objects are not specifiers). Superiority' is operative in the examples such as (3.317) because the upper of the two co-associated nodes occupies, as subject, a specifier position (recall §3.6.2). I suggest that superiority effects are not observable in structures involving existential extensions precisely because existentials lack (syntactic-) subject-formation. Some operas occupies the position it does in (3.315) as a (non-specifier) modifier of both verbal categories. As we have observed, the subcategorised-for argument of an overt existential of the character of (3.318): (3.318) There are hundreds of objections also fails to undergo subject-formation - hence the expletive, unnecessary in (3.315). Such a lack seems to be widespread. Recall, for instance, the absence of a principal relation in the Tagalog existential of (3.75):

The structure ofprimary arguments 313 (3.75)

May aksidente (Kagabi) 3 accident last-night (There was an accident (last night)')

Lack of superiority effects follows from the non-subject-forming character of existentials. However, what now of (3.309a) and the like, with quantifier-phrase in subject position? Here, the requirements of the lower node apparently override that of the latter, in that the non-specifier modifier of the existential predicator is attached to the left. This suggests the relevance of an inferiority condition parallel to superiority' - or, rather, that a more general formulation is appropriate, one which incorporates the default requirement: Ectopidty The sequencing of an item realising a pair of associated syntactic nodes must satisfy the requirements of both nodes, unless one is a specifier and one not, in which case the position of the specifier is prescribed. This requirement interacts with absence of subject formation to determine the word order of structures incorporating existential extensions, as well as providing for the distribution of wh-forms whose character was a motivation for the formulation of superiority and of the subject existential of (3.309a), which differ in whether the superior or inferior node is a specifier. 3.7.3

Definites

It is often assumed that there is a structural parallelism between the definite and the indefinite article in English (for example); and such underlies the analysis proposed in Anderson 1989c, which attributes status as an alternative manifestation of {N/{prt}} to both demonstratives and the definite article. However, it has been clear for some time that the syntax of the articles is divergent (cf., for some relevant earlier discussion, Moravcsik 1969: 85-90; Perlmutter 1970; Anderson 1976: ch. 7) - even apart from the obvious observation that the indefinite article but not the definite is limited to singular (count) constructions. And this divergence relates to their respective notional characters. Presence of the indefinite article in (3.319a) and the like signals individuation, as indicated in (3.278) above, whether or not also partitive; but the definite phrase in (3.319b): (3-319) a. a large house b. the large house

314

The syntax of categories

also involves individuation, though the article is indifferent to the singular/ plural/mass distinctions. However, the article itself, as definite, also signals that in the relevant context a referent is identifiable and, unlike a pronoun, it may introduce an item whose role in identification is intended to be crucial - in (3.319b), large if it bears the tonic, but house if this latter does. Let us introduce the (secondary) feature 8 to represent definiteness in this sense* and characterise a definiteness element as a {N} that takes an individuating {N} as an argument. As a transitive {N} that takes a transitive {N} argument - so that in its case {8} is associated with {N/{N/}} - the definite article does not change the argument ({N}) status of the phrase, but it allows for a distinct level of attributive. That is, I take (3.319b) to show, on a partitive interpretation, a structure such as (3.320): (3.320)

{N/{prt}} {sg} {prt} {N;P} {cnt}

the

large

house

The definite article takes an argument as its complement (but not one which is itself {8}); in this case its subcategorisation is satisfied by the configuration for the indefinite article of (3.278), but here incorporated. Again, prenominal position is limited to non-complemented attributives; cf.:

The structure ofprimary arguments 315 (3-321)

|N/{prt}} (sg)

{A}={loc)

I

(prt) (N;P) lent)

the

house

at the end of the street

As before, {A} is circumstantial to a determiner, as indicated in (3.298), and is a slot for a large range of categories. In (3.322): (3.322)

the large red house

the first adjective retro-complements the, it is restrictive; whereas the second is circumstantial with respect to the lower {N}: as with the adjective in (3.299a), it is non-restrictive. In many instances, the definite article may lack retro-complementation: the referent is sufficiently identified by the context, as, typically, with phrases including a noun like president. But {A} includes nouns; so that (3.323) is also a possible configuration:

316

The syntax of categories

(3.323)

{N/{prt}] {sg} {prt} {N;P} {cnt}

the

house

with the noun presented as identificatorily contrastive - as in, say, Bill is in the house (as opposed to the garden). On one interpretation of (3.319b) there is no retro-complementation; the definite article is simply complemented by the noun. On another, the noun both complements and retro-complements the definite article. Compare (3.324), with, in this case, the noun attributive to the definite article, and the adjective nonrestrictive:

The structure of primary arguments 317 (3-324)

{N/{prt}} (sg) {A)={P:NJ

{N;P)

lent) the

large

house with the restrictive adjectival construction of (3.320) above. The status of attributives as subordinates to the (definite) determiner is confirmed by the distribution of 'weak' adjectives in the Germanic languages that retain this distinction. Thus, as discussed in §2.7.4, the Old English adjective in (3.325a) is 'weak', those in (b-c) 'strong': (3-325) a. se goda mann 'the/that good man' b. god man 'a good man' c. Se mann bid god 'The man is good' The 'strong' form is unmarked; an adjective is declined 'weak' only if it is governed by a definite determiner, in accordance with the principle of rection. (For discussion, see again Anderson 1986c; to appear a.) In Present-day English, as we have observed, non-partitive plurals and noncounts may be (overtly) determiner-less. In French, by virtue of the absence of redundancy (3.286), repeated here, once again:

318

The syntax of categories

(3-286) {N;P} =*

{N} I

a noun requires a determiner in order to function as an argument; recall (3.280): (3.280.0 a. Elle a achete des cigarettes ('She bought cigarettes') b. Elle a achete du fromage ('She bought cheese') (ii) a. Elle aime les cigarettes ('She likes (the) cigarettes') b. Elle aime le fromage ('She likes (the) cheese') (3.280O are partitive (recall (3.282); (3.28oii) are on one interpretation 'generic'. This means that the French definite article is used with a noun even when a referent is to be identified out of context (since the referent is the entire set of instances denoted by the noun). In English this possibility is mostly restricted to the singular (the lion, etc.), where, again, (3.286) does not apply (singular nouns require an independent determiner). (Nominalised nationality adjectives are exceptional here: the Picts.) Demonstrative 'determiners' like this and that are transitive definites - so {{N/{N/}}{5}} - where the {A} which satisfies the subcategorisation is an incorporated deictic; elsewhere, the deictic element may be distinctly expressed - as in French cet homme-ci/la - or its expression diversified - as in colloquial this here accountant. (Personal) pronouns, on the other hand, are definite forms that are not subcategorised for a transitive N, but rather for a simple {N} that is satisfied internally; and they usually lack modification by {A} (though consider she who must be obeyed etc.): (3.326)

{N/{N}}{8} I {N}

Cf. Lyons (1977: §15.2) on the common element of definiteness here, and the diachronic links between demonstratives, personal pronouns and definite articles; also Kramsky 1972.1 do not pursue the categorial decomposability of 8. It is at any rate a redundant property of {N}s that take {N}, whether the latter are transitive or not. Despite the relative context-independence of names, we can associate the same specification with them (cf. e.g. Langobardi 1994). In some languages, indeed, as we have seen, the definiteness element is independently expressed, as

The structure ofprimary arguments 319 in the Greek o Nikos '(the) Nick', ta Trikala (a town in Thessaly). This leaves, as simple, uncomplemented and unincorporating {N}s (arguments), pronominal indefinites such as German man, French on. It is then striking that these are associated with the anthropocentricity also characteristic of erg in the system of semantic relations, and with 'empathy' hierarchies and the like. We are confronted once again with the notional basics underlying linguistic categories.

References

7mean, it's nice to keep some memento, even of the duds.'

Abaev, V. I. 1964. A grammatical sketch of Ossetic. (Publication 35 of the Indiana University Research Center in Anthropology, Folklore, and Linguistics = International Journal of American Linguistics 30, 4, part 11.) Abney, Steven. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect'. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Abraham, Werner (ed.). 1978. Valence, semantic case, and grammatical relations. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Adams, Karen. 1986. 'Numeral classifiers in Austroasiatic'. In Craig (ed.), 241-62. Ahlqvist, Anders (ed.). 1982. Papers from the Fifth International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Akmajian, Adrian, Susan Steele and Thomas Wasow. 1979. The category AUX in universal grammar'. Linguistic Inquiry 10. 1-64. Allan, Keith. 1977. 'Classifiers'. Language 53. 285-311. Allen, Barbara J., Donna B. Gardiner and Donald G. Frantz. 1984. 'Noun incorporation in Southern Tiwa'. International Journal of American Linguistics 50. 292-311. Allerton, D. J. 1982. Valency and the English verb. London and New York: Academic Press. Amritavalli, R. 1980. 'Expressing cross-categorial selectional correspondences: An alternative to the X' syntax approach'. Linguistic Analysis 4. 1-32. Anderson, John M. 1968a. 'Ergative and nominative in English'. Journal of Linguistics 4- 1-32. 1968b. 'On the status of "lexical formatives'". Foundations of Language 4. 308-18. 1971a. The grammar of case: Towards a localistic theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1971b. 'A proposal concerning the lexicalisation of complex structures'. Studia Linguistica 25. 1-8. 1972. 'Remarks on the hierarchy of quasi-predications'. Revue roumaine de linguistique 17. 23-44, 121-41, 193-202, 319-351973a. An essay concerning aspect. The Hague/Paris: Mouton. 1973b. 'Maximi Planudis in memoriam'. In Kiefer and Ruwet (eds.), 20-47. 1973c. The ghost of times past'. Foundations of Language 9. 481-91. 19730*. 'On existence and the perfect'. Foundations of Language 10. 333-7. 320

References 321 19732. 'Universal quantifiers'. Lingua 31. 125-76. 1974a. 'Existential quantifiers'. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 15. 1-27. 1974b. 'Concerning quantifiers and coordination'. Linguistic Agency, University of Trier. 1975. 'A non-argument for deep structure'. York Papers in Linguistics 5. 87-96. 1976. Serialisation in English syntax. Ludwigsburg: Ludwigsburg Studies in Language and Linguistics 1. 1977. On case grammar: Prolegomena to a theory of grammatical relations. London: Croom Helm. 1978. 'On the derivative status of grammatical relations'. In Abraham (ed.), 661-94. 1979a. 'On being without a subject'. Indiana University Linguistics Club. 1979b. 'Serialisation, dependency and the syntax of possessives in Moru'. Studia Linguistica 33. 1-25. 1979c. 'Subjecthood'. Hungarian Studies in English 12. 121-38. 1980a. 'On the internal structure of phonological segments: Evidence from English and its history'. Folia Linguistica Historica 1. 165-91. 1980b. 'Anti-unaccusative, or: Relational grammar is case grammar'. Revue roumaine de linguistique 25. 193-225. 1982a. 'Analysis and levels of linguistic description'. In Sicillani, Barone and Aston (eds.), 3-26. 1982b. 'Case grammar: The motion picture'. Linguistic Agency, University of Trier. 1984a. 'En tout cas'. LALIES 3. 7-24. 1984b. 'Case grammar and the lexicon'. Coleraine: New University of Ulster. (Occasional Papers in Linguistics and Language Learning 10.) 1984c. 'Objecthood'. In Plank (ed.), 29-54. 1984a1. 'The natural history of dative sentences'. In Blake and Jones (eds.), 241-78. 1985a. 'Structural analogy and dependency phonology'. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 19. 5-44. [Revised version in Anderson and Durand (eds.) 1987, 15-48.] 1985b. 'The case system of Old English: A case for non-modularity'. Studia Linguistica 39. 1-22. 1986a. 'Suprasegmental dependencies'. In Durand (ed.), 55-133. 1986b. 'Structural analogy and case grammar'. Lingua 70. 79-129. 1986c. 'Old English morphology and the structure of noun phrases'. Folia Linguistica Historica 7. 219-24. 1986a1. 'A note on Old English impersonals'. Journal of Linguistics 22. 167-77. 1987a. 'The limits of linearity'. In Anderson and Durand (eds.), 169-90. 1987b. 'Invariance and linguistic variation: A case grammar characterisation'. In Melenk et al. (eds.), 604-10. 1987c. 'The tradition of structural analogy'. In Steele and Threadgold (eds.), 33-43. 1987a1. 'Case grammar and the localist hypothesis'. In Dirven and Radden (eds.), 103-21.

1988a. 'The great kEntish collapse'. In Kastovsky and Bauer (eds.), 97-107. 1988b. 'The type of Old English impersonals'. In Anderson and Macleod (eds.), 1-32. 1989a. 'Periphrases and paradigms'. In Odenstedt and Persson (eds.), 1-10. 1989b. 'The localist basis for syntactic categories'. In Kakouriotis (ed.), 7-32. 1989c. 'Reflexions on notional grammar'. In Arnold et al. (eds.), 13-36.

322 References 1990. 'On the status of auxiliaries in notional grammar'. Journal of Linguistics 26. 241-62. 1991a. 'Should'. In Kastovsky (ed.), 11-30. 1991b. 'Notional grammar and the redundancy of syntax'. Studies in Language 15. 301-33. 1991c. 'Grammaticalisation and the English modals'. In Kakietek (ed.), 9-27. 1992a. 'English phonology: Theoretical, clinical and medieval'. Presented at SELIM V, Leon, September; to appear in the Proceedings. 1992b. Linguistic representation: Structural analogy and stratification. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. J 993- 'Parameters of syntactic change: A notional view'. In Jones (ed.), 1-42. 1994. 'Contrastivity and non-specification in a dependency phonology of English'. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 28. 3-35. in press a. 'Case'. In Asher (ed.), 447-53. in press b. 'Case grammar'. In Asher (ed.), 453-64. in press c. 'Localism'. In Asher (ed.), 2276-82. to appear a. 'The possessed'. In Palmer (ed.), 162-74. to appear b. 'Subjecthood and the English impersonal'. In Hickey and Poppel (eds.). in preparation a. 'Markedness and the acquisition of syntactic categories', in preparation b. 'Morphological causativisation'. Anderson, John M. (ed.). 1982. Language form and linguistic variation. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Anderson, John M. and Jacques Durand. 1986. 'Dependency phonology'. In Durand (ed.), 1-54. 1988. 'Underspecification and dependency phonology'. In Bertinetto and Loporcaro (eds.), 3-39. Anderson, John M. and Jacques Durand (eds.). 1987. Explorations in dependency phonology. Dordrecht: Foris. Anderson, John M. and Colin J. Ewen. 1987. Principles of dependency phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Anderson, John M., Colin J. Ewen and J0rgen Staun. 1985. 'Phonological structure: Segmental, suprasegmental and extrasegmental'. Phonology Yearbook 2. 203-24. Anderson, John M. and Charles Jones. 1974. 'Three theses concerning phonological representations \ Journal of Linguistics 10. 1-26. 1977. Phonological structure and the history of English. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Anderson, John M. and Norman Macleod (eds.). 1988. Edinburgh studies in the English language. Edinburgh: John Donald. Anderson, Stephen R. 1971. 'On the role of deep structure in semantic interpretation'. Foundations of Language 7. 387-96. 1976. 'On the notion of subject in ergative languages'. In Li (ed.), 1-23. 1977. Comments on Wasow 1977. In Culicover, Wasow and Akmajian (eds.), 361-71. 1985. 'Inflectional morphology'. In Shopen (ed.) 1985c, 150-201. 1988a. 'Morphological change'. In Newmeyer (ed.) 1988a, 324-62. 1988b. 'Objects (direct and not-so-direct) in English and elsewhere'. In Duncan-Rose and Vennemann (eds.), 287-314.

References 323 Aoun, Youssef. 1981. Tarts of speech: A case of redistribution'. In Belletti, Brandi and Rizzi (eds.), 3-23. Aoun, Youssef and Audrey Li. 1989. 'Scope and constituency'. Linguistic Inquiry 20. 141-72. Appleyard, D. L. 1984 'The morphology of the negative verb in Agaw'. Transactions of the Philological Society. 202-19. Arnold, Douglas G., Martin Atkinson, Jacques Durand, Claire Glover and Louisa Sadler (eds.). 1989. Essays on grammatical theory and universal grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Asher, R. E. (ed.). in press. Encyclopedia of language and linguistics. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Atkinson, Martin, David Kilby and Iggy Roca. 1982. Foundations of general linguistics. London: Allen & Unwin. Austin, Peter. 1981. A grammar of Diyari, South Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Austin, Peter (ed.). 1988. Complex sentence constructions in Australian languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Bach, Emmon. 1979. 'Control in Montague grammar'. Linguistic Inquiry 10. 515-31. Bach, Emmon and Robert T. Harms (eds.). 1968. Universals in linguistic theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Bailey, Charles-James N. and Roger Shuy (eds.). 1973. New ways of analyzing variation in English. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press. Baker, Mark C. 1988. Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. Baker, Mark C , K. Johnson and I. G. Roberts. 1989. 'Passive arguments raised'. Linguistic Inquiry 20. 219-52. Ball, Martin J., James Fife, Erich Poppe and Jenny Rowland (eds.). 1990. Celtic linguistics: Readings in the Brythonic languages. Festschrift for T. Arwyn Watkins. Amsterdam: Benjamins. (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science, 68.) Baltin, Mark R. and Anthony S. Kroch (eds.). 1989. Alternative conceptions of phrase structure. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. Barss, A. and H. Lasnik. 1986. 'A note on anaphora and double objects'. Linguistic Inquiry 17. 347 and 54. Bauer, Laurie. 1983. English word-formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics.) Belletti, Adriana. 1988. 'The case of unaccusatives'. Linguistic Inquiry 19. 1-34. Belletti, Adriana, Luciana Brandi and Luigi Rizzi (eds.). 1981. Theory ofmarkedness in generative grammar. Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa. Belletti, Adriana and Luigi Rizzi. 1988. 'Psych-verbs and theta-theory'. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6. 291-352. Bennett, William. 1991-3. 'What is infinitival toT Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 25-7. 155-68. Berlin, B. 1968. Tzeltal numeral classifiers: A study in ethnographic semantics. The Hague: Mouton.

324 References Bertinetto, P. M. and M. Loporcaro (eds.). 1988. Certamen phonologicum. Turin: Rosenberg & Sellier. Bever, Thomas G. and D. Terence Langendoen. 1972. 'The interaction of speech perception and grammatical structure in the evolution of language'. In Stockwell and Macaulay (eds.), 32-95. Bhaskararao, Peri. 1972. 'On the syntax of Telugu existential and copulative predications'. In Verhaar (ed.), 153-206. Bierwisch, Manfred and Karl E. Heidolph (eds.). 1970. Progress in linguistics. The Hague: Mouton. Blake, Barry J. 1987. Australian Aboriginal grammar. London: Croom Helm. 1990. Relational grammar. London: Croom Helm. Blake, Norman F. (ed.). 1992. The Cambridge history of the English language, Vol. 11: (1066-1476). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Blake, Norman F. and Charles Jones (eds.). 1984. English historical linguistics: Studies in development. (CECTAL Conference Papers Series, 3.) Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 1942. 'Outline of Ilocano syntax'. Language 18. 193-200. 1946. 'Algonquian'. In Osgood (ed.), 85-129. Boas, Franz. 1911. 'Kwakiutl'. In Boas (ed.), 423-557. Boas, Franz (ed.). 1911. Handbook of American Indian languages. Washington DC: Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institute. Bohm, Roger. 1982. 'Topics in localist case grammar (with especial reference to English and German)'. D.Phil, thesis, New University of Ulster. 1983. 'Semi-subjects: Evidence for split principals'. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 18. II7-531986. 'Indirect object advancement: From relational grammar to case grammar (via Kalkatungu)'. Australian Journal of Linguistics 6. 73-105. 1993. 'Predicate-argument structure, relational typology and (anti-)passive: Towards an integrated localist case grammar account'. Duisburg: L.A.U.D. (Series A: General and Theoretical Papers, no. 336.) Bolinger, Dwight L. 1952. 'Linear modification'. Publications of the Modern Languages Association of America 67, 1117-44. 1961. Generality, gradience, and the all-or-none. The Hague: Mouton. 1967. 'Adjectives in English: Attribution and predication'. Lingua 18. 1-34. 1968. 'Entailment and the meaning of structure'. Glossa 2. 119-27. 1971. 'The nominal in the progressive'. Linguistic Inquiry 2. 246-50. 1972. Degree words. The Hague: Mouton. Borg, Albert J. and Bernard Comrie. 1984. 'Object diffuseness in Maltese'. In Plank (ed.), 109-26. Borsley, Robert D. 1991. Syntactic theory: A unified approach. London: Edward Arnold. Borst, Eugen. 1902. Die Gradadverbien im Englischen. (= Anglistische Forschungen 10.) Heidelberg. Bosworth, Joseph and T. Northcote Toller. 1898. An Anglo-Saxon dictionary. London: Oxford University Press. Bresnan, Joan W. 1970. 'On complementizers: Toward a syntactic theory of complement types'. Foundations of Language 6. 297-321.

References 325 1982. 'The passive in lexical theory'. In Bresnan (ed.), 3-86. Bresnan, Joan W. (ed.). 1982. The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Bresnan, Joan W. and J. Kanerva. 1989. 'Locative inversion in Chichewa: A case study of factorization in grammar'. Linguistic Inquiry 20. 1-50. Bromberger, Sylvain and Morris Halle. 1989. 'Why phonology is different'. Linguistic Inquiry 20. 51-70. Browning, Robert. 1969. Medieval and Modern Greek. London: Hutchinson. Br0ndal, Viggo. 1928. Ordklasserne: Partes orationis. Studier over de sproglige Kategorier. Copenhagen: G.E.C. Gad. Burzio, Luigi. 1981. 'Intransitive verbs and Italian auxiliaries'. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. 1986. Italian syntax: A government-binding approach. Dordrecht: Reidel. (Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory.) Bybee, Joan L. 1985. Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Campbell, Lyle and Marianne Mithun (eds.). 1979. The languages of native America: Historical and comparative assessment. Austin/London: University of Texas Press. Cattell, Ray. 1976. 'Constraints on movement rules'. Language 52. 18-50. Chafe, Wallace L. 1970. A semantically based sketch ofOnondaga. (UAL memoir 25.) Indiana University Publications in Anthropology and Linguistics. Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague/Paris: Mouton. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. 1970. 'Remarks on nominalization'. In Jacobs and Rosenbaum (eds.), 184-221. 1972a. 'Some empirical issues in the theory of transformational grammar'. In Peters (ed.), 63-130. [Also in Chomsky 1972/?.] 1972/7. Studies on semantics in generative grammar. The Hague: Mouton. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris. 1982. Some concepts and consequences of the theory of government and binding. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. 1986a. Barriers. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. 1986/7. Knowledge of Language: Its nature, origin, and use. New York: Praeger. 1991. 'Some notes on economy of derivation and representation'. In Freidin (ed.), 417-54. 1992. 'A minimalist program for linguistic theory'. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics, 1. Chomsky, Noam and Morris Halle. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row. Chomsky, Noam and Howard Lasnik. 1977. 'Filters and control'. Linguistic Inquiry 8. 425-504. Chung, Sandra and Alan Timberlake. 1985. 'Tense, aspect, and mood'. In Shopen (ed.) 1985c, 202-58. Claudi, Ulrike and Berad Heine. 1986. 'On the metaphorical base of grammar'. Studies in Language 10. 297-335. Cole, Peter W. (ed.). 1977. Current issues in linguistic theory. Blooomington IN: Indiana University Press.

326 References Cole, Peter W., W. Harbert, G. Hermon and S. N. Sridhar. 1978. 'On the acquisition of subjecthood'. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 8. 42-71. Cole, Peter W. and Jerrold M. Sadock (eds.). 1977- Syntax and semantics 8: Grammatical relations. New York: Academic Press. Collinge, N. E. 1984. 'How to discover direct objects'. In Plank (ed.), 9-27. Colman, Fran. 1990. 'Numismatics, names and neutralisations'. Transactions of the Philological Society 88. 59-86. 1991. Money talks: Reconstructing Old English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. to appear. 'On the morphology of Old English word stress'. Lingua 93. 141-81. Comrie, Bernard. 1973. 'The ergative: Variations on a theme'. Lingua 32. 239-53. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics.) 1980. 'Morphology and word order reconstruction: Problems and prospects'. In Fisiak (ed.), 83-96. 1982. 'Grammatical relations in Huichol'. In Hopper and Thompson (eds.), 95-115. 1985. 'Causative verb formation and other verb-deriving morphology'. In Shopen (ed.) 1985c, 309-48. Comrie, Bernard and Sandra A. Thompson. 1985. 'Lexical nominalization'. In Shopen (ed.) 1985c, 349-98. Cook, Walter A. 1989. Case grammar theory. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press. Coopmans, Peter. 1989. 'Where stylistic and syntactic processes meet: Locative inversion in English'. Language 65. 728-56. Coorman, A., B. Fox and T. Givon. 1984. 'The discourse definition of ergativity'. Studies in Language 8. 1-34. Corbett, Greville G. 1989. 'An approach to the description of gender systems'. In Arnold et al. (eds.), 53-89. Corbett, Greville G., Norman Fraser and Scott McGlashan (eds.). 1993. Heads in grammatical theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Craig, Colette G. 1986a. Introduction to Craig (ed.), 1-10. 1986b. 'Jacaltec noun classifiers: A study in language and culture'. In Craig (ed.), 263-93. Craig, Colette G. (ed.). 1986. Nouns classes and categorization. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Creider, C. A. 1975. 'The semantic basis of noun classes in Bantu'. Anthropological Linguistics 17. 127-38. Cress well, Max J. 1973. Logics and languages. London: Methuen. Croft, William. 1990. Typology anduniversals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics.) 1991. Syntactic categories and grammatical relations: The cognitive organization of information. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. Croft, William, Keith Denning and Suzanne Kemmer (eds.). 1990. Studies in typology and diachrony: For Joseph H. Greenberg. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Culicover, Peter W., Thomas Wasow and Adrian Akmajian (eds.). 1977. Formal syntax. New York: Academic Press. Cygan, Jan. 1975. 'Synthetical comparatives in English'. Bulletin de la societepolonaise de linguistique 33. 53-7.

References 327 Dahl, Osten. 1980. 'Some arguments for higher nodes in syntax: A reply to Hudson's "Constituency and dependency'". Linguistics 18. 485-8. 1985. Tense and aspect systems. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. 1987. 'Case grammar and prototypes'. In Dirven and Raddan (eds.), 147-61. Davidson, Donald A. and Gilbert H. Harman (eds.). 1972. Semantics of natural language. Dordrecht: Reidel. Davis, S. and M. Mithun (eds.). 1979. Linguistics, philosophy and Montague grammar. Austin: University of Texas Press. DeLancey, Scott. 1986. 'Toward a history of Tai classifier systems'. In Craig (ed.), 437-52. Demuth, Katherine, Nicholas Faraclas and Lynell Marchese. 1986. 'Niger-Congo noun class and agreement systems in language acquisition and historical change'. In Craig (ed.), 453-71. Denny, J. Peter. 1976. 'What are noun classifiers good for?' Papers from the Annual Regional Meetings of the Chicago Linguistic Society 12. 122-32. Denny, J. Peter and Chet A. Creider. 1976. 'The semantics of noun classes in ProtoBantu'. Studies in African Linguistics 7. 1-30. 1986. 'The semantics of noun classes in Proto Bantu'. In Craig (ed.), 217-39. Derbyshire, Desmond C. 1986. 'Comparative survey of morphology and syntax in Brazilian Arawakan'. In Derbyshire and Pullum (eds.), 469-566. Derbyshire, Desmond C. and Geoffrey K. Pullum (eds.). 1986. Handbook of Amazonian languages, Vol. 1. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Dik, Simon C. 1989. The theory of functional grammar, Vol. 1: The structure of the clause. Dordrecht: Foris. Den Dikken, Marcel. 1991. 'Serial verbs, "object sharing", and the analysis of dative shift'. In Drijkonongen and van Kemenade (eds.), 31-40. Dirven, Rene and Gtinter Radden (eds.). 1987. Concepts of case. Tubingen: Gtinter Narr. Disterheft, Dorothy. 1980. The syntactic development of the infinitive in Indo-European. Columbus OH: Slavica. Dixon, Robert M. W. 1972. The Dyirbal language of North Queensland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1977. 'Where have all the adjectives gone?' Studies in Language 1. 19-80. [Revised version: pp. 1-62 of Dixon 1982.] 1979. 'Ergativity'. Language 55. 55-138. 1980. The languages of Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Cambridge Language Surveys.) 1982. Where have all the adjectives gone? Berlin: de Gruyter. Dixon, Robert M. W. (ed.). 1976. Grammatical categories in Australian languages. Canberra: Australian Institute for Aboriginal Studies/Atlantic Highlands NJ: Humanities Press. Donaldson, Tamsin. 1980. Ngiyambaa: The language of the Wangaaybuwan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dowty, David. 1979. 'Dative "movement" and Thomason's extensions of Montague grammar'. In Davis and Mithun (eds.). Drijkonongen, Frank and Ans van Kemenade (eds.). 1991. Linguistics in the Netherlands. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

328 References Dryer, M. 1987. 'On primary objects, secondary objects, and Antidative'. Language 62. 808-45. Duncan-Rose, Caroline and Theo Vennemann (eds.). 1988. On language: Rhetorica Phonologica Syntactica. A festschrift for Robert P. Stockwell from his friends and colleagues. London and New York: Routledge. Durand, Jacques (ed.). 1986. Dependency and non-linear phonology. London: Croom Helm. Dvorakova, Eva. 1964. 'On the English and Czech situational adverbs in functional sentence perspective'. Brno Studies in English 4. 129-40. Efrat, Barbara S. (ed.). 1979. The Victoria Conference on Northwestern Languages. Victoria BC: British Columbia Provincial Museum. Eijk, Jan P. van and Thorn Hess. 1986. 'Noun and verb in Salish'. Lingua 69. 319-31. Elliott, Alison J. 1981. Child language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics.) Elmer, W. 1981. Diachronic grammar: The history of Old and Middle English subjectless constructions. Tubingen: Niemeyer. (Linguistische Arbeiten 97.) Emonds, Joseph E. 1972. 'Evidence that indirect object movement is a structure-preserving rule'. Foundations of Language 8. 546-61. 1976. A transformational approach to English syntax. New York: Academic Press. 1985. A unified theory of syntactic categories. Dordrecht: Foris. England, Nora C. 1988. 'Mam voice'. In Shibatani (ed.), 525-45. Evans, Nicholas. 1988. 'Odd topic marking in Kayardild'. In Austin (ed.), 219-66. Evers, Arnoldus. 1975. 'The transformational cycle in Dutch and German'. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Utrecht. Falk, Y. N. 1991. 'Case: Abstract and morphological'. Linguistics 29. 197-230. Faltz, Leonard M. 1978. 'On indirect objects in universal grammar'. Papers from the Annual Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 14. 76-87. Ferguson, Charles A. 1972. 'Verbs of "being" in Bengali, with a note on Amharic'. In Verhaar (ed.), 74-114. Fillmore, Charles J. 1968a. 'The case for case'. In Bach and Harms (eds.), 1-88. 1968b. 'Lexical entries for verbs'. Foundations of Language 4. 373-93. 1971a. 'Types of lexical information'. In Kiefer (ed.), 109-37; also in Steinberg and Jacobovitz (eds.), 1971, 370-92. 1971b. 'Verbs of judging'. In Fillmore and Langendoen (eds.), 273-89. 1972. 'Subjects, Speakers and roles'. In Davidson and Harman (eds.), 1-24. 1977a. 'The case for case reopened'. In Cole and Sadock (eds.), 59-82. 1977b. 'Topics in lexical semantics'. In Cole (ed.), 76-138. Fillmore, Charles J. and D. Terence Langendoen (eds.). 1971. Studies in linguistic semantics. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Fischer, Olga C. M. 1992. 'Syntax'. In Blake (ed.), 207-408. Fischer, Olga C. M. and Frederike C. van der Leek. 1983. 'The demise of the Old English impersonal construction'. Journal of Linguistics 19. 337-6 o. Fisiak, Jacek (ed.). 1980. Historical morphology. The Hague: Mouton. Foley, William A. and Robert D. van Valin. 1984. Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

References 329 Frantz, Donald G. 1985. 'Syntactic constraints on noun incorporation in Southern Tiwa'. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 11. 107-16. Fraser, Bruce. 1970. 'Some remarks on the action nominalization in English'. In Jacobs and Rosenbaum (eds.), 83-98. 1971. 'A note on the spray paint cases'. Linguistic Inquiry 2. 604-7. Fraser, Norman. 1990. 'Prolegomena to a formal theory of dependency grammar'. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 2. 298-319. Frei, H. 1939. 'Sylvie estjolie des yeux\ In Melanges de linguistique ojferts a Charles Bally, 83-92. Geneva: Georg. Freidin, Robert (ed.). 1991. Principles and parameters in comparative grammar. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Fujimura, Osamu (ed.). 1973. Three dimensions of linguistic theory. Tokyo: TEC. Fukui, N. 1986. 'A theory of category projection and its applications'. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Gaaf, W. Van der. 1904. The transition from the impersonal to the personal construction in Middle English. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. (Anglistische Forschungen 14.) Gaifman, Haim. 1965. 'Dependency-systems and phrase-structure systems'. Information and Control 8. 304-37. Gair, James W. 1970. Colloquial Sinhalese clause structures. The Hague/Paris: Mouton. George, Leland and Jaklin Kornfilt. 1981. 'Finiteness and boundedness in Turkish'. In Heny (ed.), 105-27. Gibson, J. 1980. 'Clause union in Chamorro and in universal grammar'. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, San Diego. Gil, David. 1984. 'On the notion of "direct object" in patient prominent languages'. In Plank (ed.), 87-108. 1987. 'Definiteness, noun phrase configurationality, and the count-mass distinction'. In Reuland and ter Meulen (eds.), 254-69. Gildersleeve, B. L. and Gonzales Lodge. 1895. Latin grammar, 3rd edn. London: Macmillan. Givon, Talmy. 1979. On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press. 1984a. Syntax: A functional-typological approach, Vol. 1. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 1984&. 'Direct object and dative shifting: Semantic and pragmatic case'. In Plank (ed.),

151-82. 1990. Syntax: A functional-typological approach, Vol. 11. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Goyvaerts, Didier and Geoffrey K. Pullum (eds.). 1975. Essays on the Sound Pattern of English. Ghent: E. Story-Scientia. Graham, A. C. 1967. '"Being" in Classical Chinese'. In Verhaar (ed.), 1-39. Granger, Sylviane. 1983. The be + past participle construction in spoken English. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Grasserie, R. de la. 1896. Essai de syntaxe generale. Louvain: J. B. Istas. Green, A. 1914. 'The analytic agent in Germanic'. Journal of English and Germanic Philology 13. 514-52. Green, Georgia M. 1974. Semantics and syntactic regularity. Bloomington IN: Indiana University Press. Greenbaum, Sidney, Geoffrey Leech and Jan Svartvik (eds.). 1979. Studies in English linguistics. For Randolph Quirk. London: Longman.

330 References Greenberg, Joseph H. 1963. 'Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements'. In Greenberg (ed.) 1963, 73-113. 1978*2. 'How does a language acquire gender markers?' In Greenberg, Ferguson and Moravcsik (eds.), 1978a, 47-82. 1978Z?. 'Generalizations about numeral systems'. In Greenberg, Ferguson and Moravcsik (eds.), 1978a, 249-95. Greenberg, Joseph H. (ed.). 1963. Universals of language. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Greenberg, Joseph H., Charles A. Ferguson and Edith A. Moravcsik (eds.). 1978a. Universals of human language, Vol. 3: Word structure. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press. 1978Z7. Universals of human language, Vol. 4: Syntax. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press. Grewendorf, G. 1989. Ergativity in German. Dordrecht: Foris. Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument structure. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Gruber, Jeffrey S. 1965. 'Studies in lexical relations'. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Gunji, Takao. 1987. Japanese phrase structure grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel. Hale, Kenneth L. 1975. 'Gaps in grammar and culture'. In M. D. Kinkade et al. (eds.), Linguistics and anthropology, in honor of C. F. Voegelin. Lisse: Peter de Ridder, 295-315. Halpern, A. M. 1946. 'Yuma'. In Osgood (ed.), 249-88. Harman, John and Sandra A. Thompson. 1984. '"Subordination" in universal grammar'. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 10. 510-23. Harris, Martin B. and Paolo Ramat (eds.). 1987. Historical development of auxiliaries. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Harris, Zellig S. 1946. 'From morpheme to utterance'. Language 22.161-83. [Reprinted in Joos (ed.) 1963, 142-53.] Hawkins, John A. (ed.). 1988. Explaining language universals. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Hays, David G. 1964. 'Dependency theory: A formalism and some observations'. Language 40. 511-25. Heny, Frank (ed.). 1981. Binding and filtering. London: Croom Helm. Heny, Frank and Barry Richards (eds.). 1983a. Linguistic categories: Auxiliaries and related puzzles, Vol. 1: Categories. Dordrecht: Reidel. (Synthese Language Library 19.) 1983Z7. Linguistic categories: Auxiliaries and related puzzles, Vol. 11: The scope, order, and distribution of English auxiliary verbs. Dordrecht: Reidel. (Synthese Language Library 20.) Hewitt, B. G. 1979. Abkhaz. Amsterdam: North-Holland. (Lingua Descriptive Studies, 2.) Hickey, Raymond and Stanistaw Poppel. To appear. Festschrift for Jacek Fisiak. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Higginbotham, James. 1983. 'A note on phrase-markers'. Revue quebecoise de linguistique 13. 147-65Hinds, John and Irwin Howard (eds.). 1978. Problems in Japanese syntax and semantics. Tokyo: Kaitakusha. Hirtle, W. H. 1969. '-Ed adjectives like "verandahed" and "blue-eyed"'. Journal of Linguistics 6. 19-36. Hjelmslev, Louis. 1935/37. 'La categorie des cas'. Acta Jutlandica 7. i-xii, 1-184; 9. i-vii, 1-78. [Reprinted 1972, Munich: Fink.]

References

331

1961. Prolegomena to a theory of language. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. [Translated by Francis J. Whitfield from Omkring sprogteoriens grundlceggelse, Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard, 1943.] Hoekstra, Eric. 1986. 'On the structural subject position in Tagalog'. Lingua 70.41-56. Hoekstra, Teun. 1984. Transitivity: Grammatical relations in government-binding theory. Dordrecht: Foris. Hogg, Richard M. (ed.). 1992. The Cambridge history of the English language, Vol. 1: The beginnings to 1066. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hoijer, Harry. 1945. 'Classificatory verb stems in the Apachean languages'. International Journal of American Linguistics 11. 13-23.

Holisky, D. A. 1987. The case of the intransitive subject in Tsova-Tush (Batsbi)'. Lingua 71. 103-32. Hopper, Paul J. and Sandra A. Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse'. Language 56. 251-99. 1984. The discourse basis for lexical categories in universal grammar'. Language 60. 703-52. Hopper, Paul J. and Sandra A. Thompson (eds.). 1982. Syntax and semantics 15: Studies in transitivity. New York: Academic Press. Hopper, Paul J. and Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics.) Horn, George M. 1985. 'Raising and complementation'. Linguistics 23. 813-50. Horn, Lawrence R. 1980. 'Affixation and the unaccusative hypothesis'. Chicago Linguistic Society 16. 134-46. Hornskein, R. and A. Weinberg. 1981. 'Case Theory and preposition standing'. Linguistic Inquiry 12. 55-91. Huddleston, Rodney D. 1970. 'Some remarks on case grammar'. Linguistic Inquiry 1. 501-11. 1976. 'Some theoretical issues in the description of the English verb'. Lingua 40. 331-83. 1979. 'Criteria for auxiliaries and modals'. In Greenbaum, Leech and Svartvik (eds.), 65-78. 1984. Introduction to the grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics). Hudson, Richard A. 1980a. 'Constituency and dependency'. Linguistics 18. 179-98. 1980&. 'A second attack on constituency: A reply to Dam". Linguistics 18. 489-504. 1984. Word grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. 1987. 'Zwicky on heads'. Journal of Linguistics 23. 109-32. 1990a. A word grammar of English. Oxford: Blackwell. 1990b. 'Raising in syntax, semantics and cognition'. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 2. 320-37. Hyman, Larry M. and Alessandro Duranti. 1982. 'On the object relation in Bantu'. In Hopper and Thompson (eds.), 217-39. Ioup, Georgette. 1976. The treatment of quantifier scope in a transformational grammar'. Ph.D. dissertation, City University of New York. Jackendoff, Ray S. 1968. 'Quantifiers in English'. Foundations of Language 4. 422-42. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

332 References 1976. Toward an explanatory semantic representation'. Linguistic Inquiry 7. 89-150. 1977.Z syntax: A study of phrase structure. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. (Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 2). 1983. Semantics and cognition. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. 1987. The status of thematic relations in linguistic theory'. Linguistic Inquiry 18. 369-411. 1990a. 'On Larson's analysis of the double object construction'. Linguistic Inquiry 21.427-56. 1990b. Semantic structures. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Jacobs, Roderick A. and Peter S. Rosenbaum (eds.). 1970. Readings in English transformational grammar. Waltham MA: Ginn. Jacobsen, W. H. 1979. 'Noun and verb in Nootkan'. In Efrat (ed.), 83-153. Jaeggli, Osvaldo and Kenneth Safir. 1989. 'The null subject parameter and parametric theory'. In Jaeggli and Safir (eds.), 1-44. Jaeggli, Osvaldo and Kenneth Safir (eds.). 1989. The null subject parameter. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Jelinek, Eloise. 1984. 'Empty categories, case, and configurationality'. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2. 39-76. Jespersen, Otto. 1922. Language: Its nature, development and origin. London: Allen & Unwin. 1924. The philosophy of grammar. London: Allen & Unwin. 1931. A Modern English grammar, Vol. iv. London: Allen & Unwin/ Copenhagen: Munksgaard. 1942. A Modern English grammar, Vol. vi. London: Allen & Unwin/ Copenhagen: Munksgaard. Jessen, Marilyn E. 1975. 'A semantic study of spatial and temporal expressions in English'. Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh. Johnson, David E. 1977. 'On Keenan's definition of "subject-of". Linguistic Inquiry 8. 673-92. 1979. Toward a theory of relationally based grammar. New York: Garland. Johnson, Kyle. 1991. 'Object positions'. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9. 577-636. Jones, Charles. 1988. Grammatical gender in English: 950-1250. London: Croom Helm. Jones, Charles (ed.). 1993. Historical linguistics: Problems and perspectives. London and New York: Longman. (Longman Linguistics Library.) Joos, Martin (ed.). 1963. Readings in linguistics: The development of descriptive linguistics in America since 1925. New York: American Council of Learned Societies. Joseph, Brian D. 1983. The synchrony and diachrony of the Balkan infinitive: A study in areal, general, and historical linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, Supplementary Series.) Joseph, Brian D. and Arnold M. Zwicky (eds.). 1990. When verbs collide: Papers from the 1990 Ohio State Mini-Conference on Serial Verbs. Columbus OH: Department of Linguistics, Ohio State University. (The Ohio State University: Occasional Papers in Linguistics 39.) Kachru, Y., B. B. Kachru and T. K. Bhatia. 1976. The notion "subject", a note on HindiUrdu, Kashmiri and Panjabi'. In Verma (ed.), 79-108.

References 333 Kageyama, T. 1982. 'Word formation in Japanese'. Lingua 57. 215-58. Kakietek, Piotr (ed.). 1991. Problems in the modality of natural language. Opole: The Pedagogical University of Opole. Kakouriotis, Athanasios. 1980. 'Raising in Modern Greek'. Lingua 52. 157-77. 1989. 'On the -menos passive participles in Modern Greek'. In Kakouriotis (ed.), 181-214. Kakouriotis, Athanasios (ed.). 1989.2nd Symposium on English and Greek: Description and/or comparison of the two languages. Thessaloniki: Aristotle University. Kamp, J. A. W. 1975. 'Two theories about adjectives'. In Keenan (ed.), 123-55. Kandiah, T. 1968. Transformational grammar and the layering of structure in Tamil'. Journal of Linguistics 4. 217-45. Kastovsky, Dieter (ed.). 1991. Historical English syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Kastovsky, Dieter and Gero Bauer (eds.). 1988. Luick revisited. Tubingen: Narr. Kastovsky, Dieter and Aleksander Szwedek (eds.). 1986. Linguistics across geographical and historical boundaries, Vols. 1-11. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Kayne, Richard. 1984. Connectedness and binary branching. Dordrecht: Foris. Kean, Mary Louise. 1981. 'On a theory of markedness: Some general considerations and a case in point'. In Belletti, Brandi and Rizzi (eds.), 559-604. Keenan, Edward L. 1976. 'Towards a universal definition of "subject". In Li (ed.), 305-33. 1984. 'Semantic correlates of the ergative/absolutive distinction'. Linguistics 22. 197-223. 1985: 'Relative clauses'. In Shopen (ed.) (1985Z?), 141-70. 1987. 'A semantic definition of "indefinite NP'". In Reuland and ter Meulen (eds.), 286-317. Keenan, Edward L. (ed.). 1975. Formal semantics of natural language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Keenan, Edward L. and Bernard Comrie. 1977. 'Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar'. Linguistic Inquiry 8. 63-99. Keyster, Samuel Jay (ed.). 1978. Recent transformational studies in European languages. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Kiefer, Ferenc (ed.). 1969. Studies in syntax and semantics. Dordrecht: Reidel. Kiefer, Ferenc and Nicolas Ruwet (eds.). 1973. Generative grammar in Europe. Dordrecht: Reidel. Kimenyi, A. 1980. A relational grammar of Kinyarwanda. Berkeley CA: University of California Press. Kinkade, M. Dale. 1976. 'The copula and negatives in Inland Olympic Salish'. International Journal of American Linguistics 42. 17-23. 1983. 'Salish evidence against the universality of noun and verb'. Lingua 60. 25-40. Kiparsky, Paul. 1982. 'Lexical morphology and phonology'. In Yang (ed.), 3-91. Kiparsky, Paul and Carol Kiparsky. 1970. 'Fact'. In Bierwisch and Heidolph (eds.), 143-73- [Also in Steinberg and Jakobovits (eds.), 1971, 345-69.] Kirchner, Gustav. 1955. Gradadverbien: Restrictiva und Verwandtes im heutigen Englisch. Halle: Max Niemeyer Verlag. Klaiman, M. H. 1991. Grammatical voice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Klimov, G. A. 1977. Tipologija jazykov aktivnogo stroja. Moscow: Nauka.

334 References 1984. 'On the expression of object relations in the ergative system'. In Plank (ed.), 211-19.

Koehn, Edward and Sally Koehn. 1986. 'Apalai'. In Derbyshire and Pullum (eds.), 33-127. Koopman, Hilda. 1984. The syntax of verbs. Dordrecht: Foris. Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 1993. Nominalizations. London: Routledge. Koster, Jan. 1978. 'Why subject sentences don't exist'. In Keyser (ed.), 53-64. Kramsky, J. 1972. The article and the concept of definiteness in language. The Hague: Mouton. Krupa, Viktor. 1982. The Polynesian languages: A guide. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. (Languages of Asia and Africa, Vol. 4.) Kuipers, Aert H. 1967. The Squamish language. The Hague/Paris: Mouton. 1968. 'The categories verb-noun and transitive-intransitive in English and Squamish'. Lingua 21. 610-26. Kuno, Susumu. 1981. 'The syntax of comparative clauses'. Papers from the Annual Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 17. 136-55. 1987. Functional syntax: Anaphora, discourse and empathy. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. Kuroda, Sige-Yuki. 1988. 'Whether we agree or not'. Linguisticae lnvestigationes 12. 1-47. Kurylowicz, Jerzy. 1964. The inflexional categories of Indo-European. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Ladusaw, William A. 1985. 'The category structure of Kusaal'. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 11. 196-206. Lakoff, George. 1970. Irregularity in syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Landar, Herbert. 1967. 'Two Athapaskan verbs of "being"'. In Verhaar (ed.), 40-74. Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. 'Nouns and verbs'. Language 63. 53-94. Langendoen, D. Terence. 1967. 'The copula in Mundari'. In Verhaar (ed.), 75-100. Langobardi, Giuseppe. 1994. 'Reference and proper names'. Linguistic Inquiry 25. 609-65. Larson, Richard. 1988. 'On the double object construction'. Linguistic Inquiry 19. 335-911990. 'Double objects revisited: A reply to Jackendoff. Linguistic Inquiry 21. 289-332. Laskaratou, C. and I. Warburton. 1984. 'Lexical and transformational passives in Modern Greek'. Glossologia 2-3. 99-109. Lasnik, Howard and Mamoru Saito. 1992. Move a: Conditions on its application and output. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Lass, Roger. 1975. 'How intrinsic is content? Markedness, sound change and "family universals'". In Goyvaerts and Pullum (eds.), 475-504. 1976. English phonology and phonological theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

References 335 1984. Phonology: An introduction to basic concepts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics.) Lass, Roger and John M. Anderson. 1975. Old English phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Latham, R. G. 1862. The English language, 5th edn. London: Walton and Maberly. Lees, Robert B. i960. The grammar of English nominalizations. The Hague: Mouton. (Indiana University Research Center in Anthropology, Folklore, and Linguistics, Publication 12.) Lefebvre, Claire. In press. 'New facts from Fongbe on the double object construction'. Lingua. Lefebvre, Claire and Pieter Muysken. 1988. Mixed categories: Nominalizations in Quechua. Dordrecht: Kluwer. (Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory.) Lehmann, Christian. 1983. 'Rektion und syntaktische Relationen'. Folia Linguistica 11- 339-78. Lenneberg, Eric H. (ed.). 1964. New directions in the study of language. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Levi, Judith N. 1978. The syntax and semantics of complex nominals. New York: Academic Press. Levin, Beth and Milka Rappaport. 1986. "The formation of adjectival passives'. Linguistic Inquiry 17. 623-61. Levin, Lori. 1988. Operations on lexical forms: Unaccusative rules in Germanic languages. New York: Garland. Levin, Lori, Milka Rappaport and Annie Zaenen (eds.). 1983. Papers in lexicalfunctional grammar. Bloomington IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club. Levy-Bruhl, L. 1916. 'L'expression de la possession dans les langues melanesiennes'. Bulletin de la societe de linguistique de Paris 19. 96-104. Lewis, G. L. 1967. Turkish grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Li, Charles N. (ed.) 1976. Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press. Li, Charles N. and Sandra A. Thompson. 1976. 'Subject and topic: A new typology of language'. In Li (ed.), 457-89. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Los Angeles: California University Press. Lightfoot, David W. 1979. Principles of diachronic syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1988. 'Syntactic change'. In Newmeyer (ed.), 303-23. 1991. How to set parameters. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Lindsey, Geoffrey and Janine Scancarelli. 1985. 'Where have all the adjectives come from? The case of Cherokee'. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 11. 207-15. Llamzon, Teodoro A. 1979. 'Languages of the Philippines: Characteristic structures'. In Llamzon (ed.), 99-128. Llamzon, Teodoro A. (ed.). 1979. Papers on Southeast Asian languages. Singapore: Singapore University Press. Lukas, J. 1967. Study of the Kanuri language. International African Institute.

336 References Lyons, John. 1966. Towards a "notional" theory of the "parts of speech" \ Journal of Linguistics 2. 209-35. 1967. 'A note on possessive, existential and locative sentences'. Foundations of Language 3. 390-6. 1968. Introduction to theoretical linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1975. 'Deixis as the source of reference'. In Keenan (ed.), 61-83. 1977. Semantics, Vols. 1 and 11. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1989. 'Semantic ascent'. In Arnold et al. (eds.), 153-86. Lyons, John and Roger Wales (eds.). 1966. Psycholinguistics papers. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. McCawley, James D. 1988. The syntactic phenomena of English, Vols. 1-11. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. McCloskey, James. 1984. 'Raising, subcategorization, and selection in Modern Irish'. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1. 448-85. 1991. 'There, it and agreement'. Linguistic Inquiry 22. 563-7. Mackridge, Peter. 1985. The Modern Greek language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McLendon, Sally. 1978. 'Ergativity, case, and transitivity in Eastern Porno'. International Journal of American Linguistics 44. 1-9. Mahootian, Shahrzad. 1993. 'A null theory of codes witching'. Ph.D. dissertation, Northwestern University. Maling, Joan. 1983. Transitive adjectives: A case of categorial reanalysis'. In Heny and Richards (eds.) 1983a, 253-89. Manandise, Esmeralda. 1987. 'AUX in Basque'. In Harris and Ramat (eds.), 317-44. Manessy, G. (ed.). 1967. La classification nominale dans les langues negro-africaines. Paris: CNRS. Maracz, Laszlo and Peter Muysken (eds.). 1989. Configurationality: The typology of asymmetries. Dordrecht: Foris. (Studies in Generative Grammar 34.) Marantz, Alec. 1984. On the nature of grammatical relations. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Martin, Samuel E. 1975. A reference grammar of Japanese. New Haven CT: Yale University Press. Martinet, Andre. 1962. 'Le sujet comme function linguistique et 1'analyse sytaxique du basque'. Bulletin de la societe linguistique de Paris 57. 73-82. Matthews, G. H. 1965. Hidatsa syntax. The Hague and Paris: Mouton. Matthews, Peter H. 1974. Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics.) 1981. Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics.) Melenk, Hartmut, Jean Firges, Giinter Nold, Reinhard Strauch and Dieter Zeh (eds.). 1987.11. Fremdsprachendidaktiker-Kongrefi. Tubingen: Giinter Narr. Merlan, Francesca. 1985. 'Split intransitivity: Functional oppositions in intransitive inflexion'. In Nichols and Woodbury (eds.), 324-61. Miller, James E. 1985. Semantics and syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mitchell, Bruce. 1985. Old English syntax, 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

References 337 Mitchell, Bruce and Fred C. Robinson. 1982. A guide to Old English, 3rd edn. Oxford: Blackwell. Mithun, Marianne. 1991a. 'Active/agentive case marking and its motivations'. Language 67.510-46. 199 ib. 'The role of motivation in the emergence of grammatical categories: The grammaticalization of subjects'. In Traugott and Heine (eds.) 19916, 159-84. Miyagawa, S. 1987. 'Lexical categories in Japanese'. Lingua 73. 29-51. Molencki, Rafat. 1991. Complementation in Old English. Katowice: Uniwersytet Sla^ski. Montague, Richard. 1974. 'English as a formal language'. In Thomason (ed.), 188-221. Moravcsik, Edith A. 1969. 'Determination'. Stanford University Working Papers on Language Universals 1. 64-130. 1971. 'Agreement'. Stanford University Working Papers on Language Universals 5.

A1-A69. 1974. 'Object-verb agreement'. Stanford University Working Papers on Language Universals 15. 25-40. 1978. 'On the distribution of ergative and accusative patterns'. Lingua 45. 233-79. Morris Jones, J. 1913. A Welsh grammar, historical and comparative: Phonology and accidence. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Munro, P. and L. Gordon. 1982. 'Syntactic relations in Western Muskogean: A typological perspective'. Language 58. 81-115. Myers-Scotton, Carol. 1993. Dueling languages: Grammatical structures in code-switching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nakau, Minoru. 1973. Sentential complementation in Japanese. Tokyo: Kaitakusha. Nesfield, J. C. 1912. Modern English grammar. London: Macmillan. Newmeyer, Frederick J. (ed.). 1988a. Linguistics: The Cambridge survey, Vol. 1: Linguistic theory: Foundations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 19886. Linguistics: The Cambridge survey, Vol. in: Language: Psychological and biological aspects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nichols, Joanna. 1992. Linguistic diversity in space and time. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. Nichols, Joanna and Anthony Woodbury (eds.). 1985. Grammar inside and outside the clause. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nickel, Gerhard, i960. Die Expanded Form in Altenglischen. Neumiinster: Wacholz. Noonan, Michael. 1985. 'Complementation'. In Shopen (ed.) 19856,42-140. Odenstedt, Bengt and Gunnar Persson (eds.). 1989. Instead offlowers:Papers in honour ofMats Ryden on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday, August 27,1989. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. Oehrle, Richard. 1975. 'The grammatical status of the English dative alternation'. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Ogura, M. 1986. 'Old English "impersonal" verbs and expressions'. Copenhagen: Rosenkilde & Bagger. (Anglistika 24.) Ohkado, M. 1991. 'On the status of adjectival nouns in Japanese'. Lingua 83. 67-82. Onions, C. T. 1904. An advanced English syntax. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Osgood, Cornelius (ed.). 1946. Linguistic structures of native America. New York: The Viking Fund.

338 References Ostler, N. 1980. 'A theory of case linking and agreement'. Indiana University Linguistics Club. Ouhalla, Jamal. 1991. Functional categories and parametric variation. London: Routledge. Palmer, Frank R. (ed.). To appear. Grammar and meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Paprotte, Wolf and Rene Dirven (eds.). 1985. The ubiquity of metaphor. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Payne, Doris L. 1986. 'Noun classification in Yagua'. In Craig (ed.), 113-31. Payne, T. 1982. 'Role and reference related properties and ergativity in Yupik Eskimo and Tagalog'. Studies in Language 6. 75-106. Perlmutter, David M. 1970. 'On the article in English'. In Bierwisch and Heidolph (eds.), 233-48. 1978. 'Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis'. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society 4. 157-89. 1983. 'Personal vs. impersonal constructions'. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1. 141-200. Perlmutter, David M. (ed.). 1983. Studies in relational grammar,Wol. 1. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. Perlmutter, David M. and Paul M. Postal. 1983. 'The relational succession law'. In Perlmutter (ed.), 30-80. 1984a. 'The 1-advancement exclusiveness law'. In Perlmutter and Rosen (eds.), 81-125. 1984Z?. 'Impersonal passives and some relational laws'. In Perlmutter and Rosen (eds.). 126-70. Perlmutter, David M. and Carol G. Rosen (eds.). 1984. Studies in relational grammar, Vol. 11. Chicago IL: Chicago University Press. Peters, Stanley (ed.). 1972. Goals of linguistic theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Pinker, Steven. 1989. Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Plank, Frans. 1984. 'The modals story retold'. Studies in Language 8. 305-64. Plank, Frans (ed.). 1977. Ergativity. London/New York: Academic Press. 1984. Objects: Towards a theory of grammatical relations. New York: Academic Press. Pollock, J.-Y. 1989. 'Verb movement, UG and the structure ofIP'. Linguistic Inquiry 20. 365-424. Postal, Paul M. 1969. 'Anaphoric islands'. Papers from the Annual Regional Conference of the Chicago Linguistic Society 5. 205-39. 1970. 'On so-called pronouns in English'. In Jacobs and Rosenbaum (eds.), 56-82. 1971. Crossover phenomena. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 1974. On raising: One rule of English grammar and its theoretical implications. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. 1986. Studies of passive clauses. Albany NY: State University of New York Press. Postal, Paul M. and Geoffrey K. Pullum. 1988. 'Expletive noun phrases in subcategorized positions'. Linguistic Inquiry 19. 635-70.

References 339 Poutsma, H. 1928. A grammar of late Modern English, I: The sentence, I. 2nd edn. Groningen: Noordhoff. Primus, B. 1991. 'The role of grammatical relations in word order universals'. (Working Papers of the European Science Foundation EUROTYP Project, 11,4.) Pullum, Geoffrey K. 1982. 'Syncategorematicity and English infinitival to\ Glossa 16. 181-215. Quirk, Randolph. 1965. 'Descriptive statement and serial relationship'. Language 41. 205-17. [Reprinted in Randolph Quirk (1968) Essays on the English language: Medieval and modern, 167-85. London: Longmans.] Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech and Jan Svartvik. 1972. A grammar of Contemporary English. London: Longman. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of English. London: Longman. Radford, Andrew. 1988. Transformational grammar: A first course. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics). 1990. Syntactic theory and the acquisition of English syntax. Oxford: Blackwell. Ramat, Paolo. 1987. Introductory paper to Harris and Ramat (eds.), 3-19. Rappaport, Milka. 1983. 'On the nature of derived nominate'. In Levin, Rappaport and Zaenen (eds.), 113-42. 1989. 'Unaccusativity and verbs of motion'. In Kakouriotis (ed.), 113-40. Reuland, Eric J. and Alice G. B. ter Meulen (eds.). 1987. The representation of(in)definiteness. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Reyle, U. and Cristian Rohrer (eds.). 1988. Natural language parsing and linguistic theory. Dordrecht: Reidel. Riddle, Elizabeth, Gloria Sheintuch and Yael Ziv. 1977. 'Pseudo-passivization: On the role of pragmatics in determining rule unity'. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 7. 147-56. Riemsdijk, Henk van. 1978a. 'On the diagnosis of w/j-movement'. In Keyser (ed.). 1978&. A case study in syntactic markedness: The binding nature of prepositional phrases. Dordrecht: Foris. Rigler, Elina. 1992. 'The spatio-temporal structure of narrative texts: A study of aspect'. Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh. Rizzi, Luigi. 1978. 'Violations of the w/*-island constraint in Italian and the subjacency condition'. Montreal Working Papers in Linguistics 11. 1982. Issues in Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. (Studies in Generative Grammar.) Roberts, Ian G. 1985. 'Agreement parameters and the development of English modal auxiliaries'. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3. 21-58. 1987. The representation of implicit and dethematized subjects. Dordrecht: Foris. (Linguistic Models 10.) Robins, Robert H. 1951. Ancient and medieval grammatical theory. London: Bell. 1968. 'Basic structures in Sundanese'. Lingua 21. 351-8. Robinson, Jane J. 1970. 'Dependency structures and transformational rules'. Language 46. 259-85. Rosch, Eleanor and B. B. Lloyd (eds.). 1978. Cognition and categorization. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Rosen, Carol G. 1984. 'The interface between semantic roles and initial grammatical relations'. In Perlmutter and Rosen (eds.), 38-77.

340 References 1990. 'Rethinking Southern Tiwa: The geometry of a triple-agreement language'. Language 66. 669-713. Rosen, Sara Thomas. 1990. Argument structure and complex predicates. New York: Garland. (Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics.) Ross, John R. 1972. The category squish: Endstation Hauptwort'. Papers from the Annual Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 8. 316-28. 19730. 'Nouniness'. In Fujimura (ed.), 137-257. 1973/7. 'A fake NP squish'. In Bailey and Shuy (eds.), 96-140. Rouveret, A. and Jean-Roger Vergnaud. 1980. 'Specifying reference to the subject: French causatives and conditions on representations'. Linguistic Inquiry 11.97-202. Rumpel, T. 1845. Casuslehre in besonderer Beziehung auf die griechische Sprache. Halle. 1866. Zur Casustheorie. (Programme de Gtitersloh.) Rusiecki, Jan. 1985. Adjectives and comparison in English: A semantic study. London: Longman. (Longman Linguistics Library, 61.) Safir, Kenneth J. 1985. Syntactic chains. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Saltarelli, Mario. 1988. Basque. London: Croom Helm. Sanches, M. and L. Slobin. 1973. 'Numeral classifiers and plural marking: An implicational universal'. Working Papers on Language Universals 11. 1-22. (Stanford University.) Sanders, Gerald. 1974. 'The simplex feature hypothesis'. Glossa 8. 141-92. Santorini, Beatrice and Shahrzad Mahootian. To appear. 'Code-switching and the syntactic status of adnominal adjectives'. Sapir, Edward. 1917. Review of Uhlenbeck 1916. International Journal of American Linguistics 1. 86-90. 1921. Language. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World. Sapir, Edward and Morris Swadesh. 1939. Nootka texts. Philadelphia PA: Linguistic Society of America. Sasse, Hans-Jiirgen. 1984. 'The pragmatics of noun incorporation in Eastern Cushitic Languages'. In Plank (ed.), 243-68. Schachter, Paul. 1973. 'On syntactic categories: A critique of Lakoff s "Adjectives and verbs", Ross's "Adjectives as noun phrases" and Bach's "Nouns and noun phrases'". In Schachter and Bedell (eds.), 138-92. 1974. 'A non-transformational account of serial verbs'. Studies in African Linguistics, Supplement 5. 253-70. 1976. 'The subject in Philippine languages: Topic, actor, actor-topic, or none of the above'. In Li (ed.), 492-518. 1985. 'Parts-of-speech systems'. In Shopen (ed.) 1985a, 3-61. Schachter, Paul and George Bedell (eds.). 1973. Critiques of syntactic studies, II. (UCLA Papers in Syntax 4.) Schopf, Alfred (ed.). 1987. Essays on tensing in English, Vol. I: Reference time, tense and adverbs. Tubingen: Niemeyer. (Linguistische Arbeiten 185.) Schuchardt, Hugo. 1922. Hugo Schuchardt Brevier. Halle: Niemeyer. [Edited Leo Spitzer.] Schwartz, Arthur. 1976. 'On the universality of subject: The Ilocano case'. In Li (ed.), 519-43.

References 341 Seiter, W. J. 1978. 'Subject/direct object raising in Niuean'. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society 4. 211-22. Seuren, Pieter A. M. 1990. 'Serial verb constructions'. In Joseph and Zwicky (eds.), 14-33. Seuren, Pieter A. M. (ed). 1974. Semantic syntax. London: Oxford University Press. Shannon, T. 1987. 'On some recent claims of relational grammar'. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society 13. 247-62. Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1978. 'Mikami Akira and the notion of "subject" in Japanese grammar'. In Hinds and Howard (eds.), 52-67. 1988. 'Voice in Philippine languages'. In Shibatani (ed.), 85-142. 1991. 'Grammaticization of topic into subject'. In Traugott and Heine (eds.) 1991b, 93-133. Shibatani, Masayoshi (ed.). 1976. Syntax and semantics 6: The grammar of causative constructions. New York: Academic Press. 1988. Passive and voice. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Shopen, Timothy (ed.). 1985a. Language typology and syntactic description, Vol. 1: Clause structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1985b. Language typology and syntactic description, Vol. 11: Complex constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1985c. Language typology and syntactic description, Vol in: Grammatical categories and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Siciliani, Erina, Rosangela Barone and Guy Aston (eds.). 1982. La lingua inglese nelV universita. Bari: Adriatica. Siegel, Muffy E. A. 1980. Capturing the adjective. New York/London: Garland. Siewierska, Anna. 1984. The passive: A comparative linguistic analysis. London: Croom Helm. Sigurdsson, Halldor A. 1993. 'Agreement-drop in Old Icelandic'. Lingua 89. 247-80. Silverstein, Michael. 1976. 'Hierarchy of features and ergativity'. In Dixon (ed.), 112-71. Simpson, J. 1983. 'Resultatives'. In Levin, Rappaport and Zaenen (eds.), 143-57. Smith, Carlota S. 1961. 'A class of complex modifiers in English'. Language 37. 342-65. Somers, Harold L. 1987. Valency and case in computational linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Speas, M. 1990. Phrase structure in natural language. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Sportiche, Dominique. 1988. 'A theory of floating quantifiers and its corollaries for constituent structure'. Linguistic Inquiry 19. 425-49. Sproat, R. 1985. 'Welsh syntax and VSO structure'. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3. 289-348. Sridhar, S. N. 1976a. 'Dative subjects'. Papers from the Annual Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 12. 582-93. 1976b. 'The notion of "subject" in Kannada'. In Verma (ed.), 212-39. 1976c. 'Dative subjects, rule government and relational grammar'. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 6. 130-51. Staal, J. F. 1967. Word order in Sanskrit and universal grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel. Starosta, Stanley. 1978. 'The one per Sent solution'. In Abraham (ed.), 459-576.

342 References 1988. The case for lexicase: An outline oflexicase grammatical theory. London/New York: Pinter. Stassen, Leon. 1985. Comparison and universal grammar. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Steele, Ross and Terry Threadgold (eds.). 1987. Language topics: Essays in honour of Michael Halliday. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Steele, Susan (ed.). 1981. An encyclopedia ofAUX: A study of cross-linguistic equivalence. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Steinberg, Danny D. and Leon A. Jacobovitz (eds.). 1971. Semantics: An interdisciplinary reader. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Stephens, Janig. 1990. 'Non-finite clauses in Breton'. In Ball et al. (eds.), 151-65. Stockwell, Robert P. and Ronald K. S. Macaulay (eds.). 1972. Linguistic change and generative theory. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Stockwell, Robert P., Paul Schachter and Barbara Hall Partee. 1973. The major syntactic structures of English. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Stowell, Timothy. 1981. 'Origins of phrase structure'. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. 1989. 'Subjects, specifiers, and X-bar theory'. In Baltin and Kroch (eds.), 232-62. Strang, Barbara M. H. 1970. A history of English. London: Methuen. Sugamoto, Nobuko. 1982. 'Transitivity and objecthood in Japanese'. In Hopper and Thompson (eds.), 423-47. Svenonius, Peter. 1993. 'Selection, adjunctions, and concord in DP'. Studia Linguistica 47. 198-220. Swadesh, Morris. 1936-8. 'Nootka internal syntax'. International Journal of American Linguistics 9. 77-102. Swift, Lloyd B. 1963. A reference grammar of Modern Turkish. Bloomington IN: Indiana University. (Indiana University Publications Uralic and Altaic Series, Vol. 19.) Thomason, Richmond (ed.). 1974. Formal philosophy. New Haven: Yale University Press. Thompson, Laurence C. 1979. 'Salishan and the Northwest'. In Campbell and Mithun (eds.), 692-765. Thompson, Sandra A. 1988. 'A discourse approach to the cross-linguistic category "adjective"'. In Hawkins (ed.), 167-85. Thorne, James P. 1982. 'A note on the indefinite article'. In Anderson (ed.), 475-84. Thrane, Torben. 1983. 'On the universality of AUX'. Ada Linguistica Hafniensia 18. 154-200. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1978. 'On the expression of spatio-temporal relations'. In Greenberg, Ferguson and Moravcsik (eds.) 1978a), 369-400. 1992. 'Syntax'. In Hogg (ed.), 168-289. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Bernd Heine (eds.). 1991a. Approaches to grammaticalization, Vol. 1. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 1991Z7. Approaches to grammaticalization, Vol. 11. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Tsunoda, Tasaku. 1988. 'Antipassives in Warrungu and other Australian languages'. In Shibatani (ed.), 595-649. Tucker, A. N. and J. T. O. Mpaayei. 1955. A Maasai grammar. London: Longman. Uhlenbeck, C. C. 1916. 'Het identificeerend Karakter der possessieve Flexie in Taalen van Noord-Amerika'. Verslagen en Mededeelingen der Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen, Afd. Letterkunde 5 (2). 345-71.

References 343 Ultan, Russell. 1978. Toward a typology of substantival possession'. In Greenberg, Ferguson and Moravcsik (eds.), 1978&, 11-49. Valin, Robert D. van. 1987. The unaccusative hypothesis vs. semantic approaches to verb classification'. Northeastern Linguistic Society 17. 641-61. 1990. 'Semantic parameters of split intransitivity'. Language 66. 221-60. 1992. Incorporation in universal grammar: A study in theoretical reductionism' (review article on Baker 1988). Journal of Linguistics 28. 199-220. Vaszoli, E. 1976. 'Wunambal'. In Dixon (ed.), 629-46. Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Linguistics and philosophy. Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press. Verhaar, John W. M. 1985. 'On iconicity and hierarchy'. Studies in Language 9. 21-76. Verhaar, John W. M. (ed.). 1967. The verb 'be' and its synonyms, Part 1: Classical Chinese/Athapaskan/ Mundari. Dordrecht: Reidel. 1972. The verb (be' and its synonyms, Part 5: Urdu/Turkish/Bengali/Amharic/ Indonesian/Telugu/Estonian. Dordrecht: Reidel. Verma, M. (ed.). 1976. The notion of subject in South Asian languages. Madison. Visser, F. Th. 1963. An historical syntax of the English language, I. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Walton, C. 1986. Sama verbal semantics: Classification, derivation and inflection. Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines. Warner, Anthony R. 1983. Review article: Lightfoot (1979). Journal of Linguistics 19. 187-209. Wasow, Thomas. 1977. 'Transformations and the lexicon'. In Culicover, Wasow and Akmajian (eds.), 327-60. Wasow, Thomas and Adrian Akmajian. 1981. The AUX in German and the history of English'. In Steele (ed.), 260-302. Welmers, W. E. 1973. African language structures. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Whitney, Rosemary. 1982. The syntactic unity of w/i-movement and complex NP shift'. Linguistic Analysis 10. 299-319. 1983. The place of dative movement in a generative theory'. Linguistic Analysis 12. 315-22. Wickman, Bo. 1995. The form of the object in the Uralic languages. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell. Wik, Bent. 1973. English nominalizations in -ing: Synchronic and diachronic aspects. Uppsala: Studia Anglistica Upsaliensis 12. Wilkins, Wendy (ed.). 1988. Syntax and semantics 21: Thematic relations. New York: Academic Press. Williams, Edwin. 1987. 'English as ergative language: The theta structure of derived nouns'. Papers from the Annual Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 23. 366-75. Wolfart, H. Cristoph and Janet F. Carroll. 1981. Meet Cree: A guide to the Cree language, 2nd edn. Edmonton: University of Alberta Press. Wolff, Hans. 1951. 'Comparative Siouan'. International Journal ofAmerican Linguistics

17. 197-204.

344 References Woolford, Ellen. 1991. 'VP-internal subjects and nonconfigurational languages'. Linguistic Inquiry 22. 503-40. Yang, I. S. (ed.). 1982. Linguistics in the morning calm. Seoul: Hanshin. Young, Philip D. and Talmy Givon. 1990. The puzzle of Ngabere auxiliaries: Grammatical reconstruction in Chibchan and Misumalpan'. In Croft, Denning and Kemmer (eds.), 209-43. Zaenen, Annie. 1984. 'Double objects in Kikuyu?' Cornell University Working Papers in Linguistics 5. Zeevat, H. 1988. 'Combining categorial grammar and unification'. In Reyle and Rohrer (eds.), 202-29. Z'graggen, J. A. 1965. 'Possessor-possessed relationship in the Saker language, northeastern New Guinea'. Oceanic Linguistic Monographs 4. 119-26. Ziv, Yael 1976. 'On the diachronic relevance of the promotion to subject hierarchy'. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 6. 195-215. Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa. 1987. Levels of representation in the lexicon and in the syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. (Studies in Generative Grammar 31.) Zwicky, Arnold M. 1985. 'Heads'. Journal of Linguistics 21. 1-29.

Index

Abkhaz, 116, 117-18 Ablative, 294 abl(ative) (semantic relation), 170, 222-3, 252, 295 Absolutive, 122, 183, 185-7, 188-9, T 9° abs(olutive) (semantic relation), 159-61, 162-8, 169-74, 174-9, l8o > 186-7, 188-92, 194-7, 197-8, 201-3, 206, 207-16, 217, 236-8, 241, 249, 251, 252, 254-7, 263-5, 269, 270, 275-7, 295, 296 as a principal relation, 188-91, 193-4 as 'unmarked', 172-3 in derivational morphology, 162-3, 245-7 multiple presence of, 161, 166-7 universality of, 11, 166-7, 175-6, 225, 226, 256 unsubcategorised-for, 166-7, I75~9» 225, 226, 227, 228, 230, 231-2, 233-4, 237-8, 242, 254-5, 256-7, 259, 264, 271, 272, 275,290,310 absrule(s), 159, 180 abs selection hierarchy, 186-7 ACC, 206, 208 acceptability gradience, 87, 91-5 Ace Ing (vs. Poss Ing), 95 Accusative, 197, 198, 199, 200, 204-5, 216, 223 active languages, 191-3 'split-S' vs. 'fluid-S, 193 adjectivalisation defunctorial, 76-7 deverbal, 95-100, 102-3 adjectival noun see adjective-noun adjective, 2, 15, 43-9, 61-2, 65, 68, 100-2 attributive, 44,45-9, 77, 165, 302-8; nonpredicative, 46,48,49, 304-5, 307 deverbal, 165-6, 204 intersective vs. non-intersective, 47-9, 306-7 lack or paucity of, 44,49, 62 predicative, non-attributive, 47 restrictive vs. non-restrictive, 47, 315, 316-17

strong vs, weak, 125, 317 transitive, 74-82 verbal, 99-100, 102-3 adjective noun, 100-2 adjunct, 3-4, 75 adposition, 20, 21,40, 59, 62, 75-82, 106, 217 see also functor adverb, 35, 137-8 'manner', 140 Agaw, 116 ag(en)t(ive), 16, 29-30, 133, 139, 156, 157, 159, 160, 162, 164, 166, 169, 185, 236, 251 agent rule, 155, 156 agglutination, n o 'AGR', 191 agreement see corcord Algonquian, 107 Amharic, 248 analogism, 5, 6-8, 66-7, 69-70, 82, 91, 130, 132,170-2, 251 anticausative, 248 antipassive, 186-7, 248 Apachean languages, 122 Apalai, 249-50 applicative, 208 apposition, 131, 141, 148, 201, 236, 249, 250 Arabic, 237 Arawakan languages, 248 argument, 15, 18, 26,44 direct, 253-4, 256, 258-61, 265-6, 275-80 extension/reduction in see valency, increase/decrease in mediated, 23, 254-8, 261, 263-6, 275-80 primary, 18, 106, 292-319 secondary, 18-19, 253-91 sentential, 218, 253-91 see also subcategorisation, valency, value argument structure, 52, 146-9, 292 article, 17-18, 21, 24, 114, 301, 308, 313-18 Aspect, 108, 116, 117, 163, 164, 179, 186, 193,279 association, 32

345

346 Index Athapascan languages, 116,122 attribute, resultative, 164 attributive, 148-9, 165, 302-9, 314-15 attributive redundancy, 302 attributivisation, 87, 88, 204 Australian languages, 25, 37, 114 Austronesian languages, 196 AUX, 60-1 auxiliary, 28, 50-6, 116-18, 177-8, 179, 183, 211, 227-8, 260, 280-3, 291 criterion for, 281 modal, 260, 261, 280-1, 282 Bantu, 106, 205 'bare finite', 265-7 Basque, 51-5, 56, 58, 60, 106, 109, 182-3, 191, 214, 220, 280, 281, 282 Batsbi, 193 benefactive (semantic relation), 241-3 Bengali, 23 bi-planar structure, 6-8 Boni, 247 Breton, 235 Burmese, 113-14 'Burzio's generalisation', 199, 200 Case, 36-8, 105-6, 109, 110-13, JI5> I 2 3 , 173-4 'inherent', 223-4 loss of, 223-4 case component, 169-74 case filter, 38 case grammar, 1, 149, 152-68, 174-9 case relation see semantic relation 'case theory', 177 casus adverbialis, 36 category adjustment convention, 283 category continuity condition, 63-4, 71 causative, 123, 237, 242, 250-2 causativisation, 251-2, 257 c-command, 230 Chamorro, 117 Cherokee, 62 Chichewa, 208 Chickasaw, 116,192 Chinese, Classical, 18 circumstantial, 133-4, 137-43, 148-9, 155, 173-4, 201, 229, 238, 260-1, 289, 292, 302,303,306,315 stacking of, 140-1 class (word), 11-12 central vs. peripheral member of, 2 closed see functional category conjugational and declensional, 125 leaking of properties of, 73, 74, 76, 80, 99-10, 102, 105

minimal system of, 23-8, 35, 59, 283, 291 minimal incrementation of systems of, 49, 63-4 negatively specified, 71 non-universality of systems of, 17 ontogeny of, 60, 62, 64 sub-minimal system of, 12, 24-8,43, 59 see also cross-classification class convention, 70 classifier, 109, 113—15, 116-17, I46~7> 299 code switching, 305 cognitive grammar, 172 comparator, 76, 127-8, 134-5 Comparison, 125-8 complementary distribution, 171-2 complement(ee), 21-2, 29-32, 39-40, 225 see also participant zero, 29, 319 complementiser, 20, 69, 72, 270, 278, 287, 289 complex abs rule, 159 complexity measure, 62-4, 87-8, 94-5, 104 componentiality, 65-6,68-73 compound, 246 concord, 8, 40,45, 107, 114, 117, 118-20, 122, 123, 125, 128-32, 182, 183, 191, 209, 217-18, 219-222, 243-4, 249-50, 285-7 with possessor, 107 configurationality, 151-2, 298-300 constituency, 34,40 contrastivity, 34, 169 control, 131, 180, 185-6, 189-90, 191-2, 224 copula, 18, 21, 22-3, 27-8, 60, 100-1, 161 countable, 296-9, 308, 314 Cree, 61 cross-classification, 64-73 cumulation, n o cyclicity, strict, 154, 157, 165, 175-9, 206, 215 Czech, 58, 299 Dakota, 191-2, 196 DAT/BEN, 206-9, 216 Dative, 172, 184-5, 186, 190, 197, 205, 213, 214, 216, 222-4, 239-41, 245, 251 'dative movement/shifting', 153-4, 206, 208, 214,215 d-command, 230, 234, 243-4 'decomposition' (lexical), 244 Definiteness, 58, 106, 109, 114, 118, 194-5, 196, 298-300, 311 definites, 313-19 see also Definiteness 'degree words', 136-7 deictic, 318 demonstrative, 109, 125, 318 dependency, 7-8, 16, 31-42, 54-5, 108 graphic representation of, 31-4

Index internal, 35, 40; intercategorial, 35-6,41, 79-82, 85, 113,115, 137; intracategorial, 41-2,43-56, 70-3, 81-2, 113 'long-distance', 154, 272 mutual, 41,49-50 preservation condition, 41, 82 derivation see morphology determiner, 17-18, 31, 296, 298-300 definite, 19-20, 58, 296-7, 317-18 indefinite, 20, 297, 308-13 see also article, numeral, quantifier determinerisation, 84-5, 86-7, 88, 95, 107, 148-9 discontinuity, 141 see also non-projectivity discourse structure see information structure 'dislocation', 279 dissimilation, 251 distributional salience, 55-6 ditransitive, 205-16, 236-44, 252 double-motherhood, 34, 225 double-object construction see ditransitive 'D-structure', 9 Duala, 127 Dutch, 164, 234, 249 Dyirbal, 109, 185-7, 189-91, 195, 200 Early Modern English, 97 ectopicity condition, 313 ectopic placement, 3, 149-50, 193, 281, 309-13 ^-adjectives, 98-100 'empathy', 16, 319 empty abs see abs, unsubcategorised-for empty category, 10, 38, 131, 153 'empty category principle', 247 enough-shift, 78-9 equative, 17-18, 24, 25, 161, 200, 311 Ergative, 183, 185-7, 192 erg(ative) (semantic relation), 169-74, 180, 186-92, 195-7, J 97-8, 202, 207-9, 210, 213-16, 217, 219-22, 233, 236-44, 248-50, 252, 257-8, 263, 295, 319 ergativity, 182-4, 185-91, 197, 198, 199-200 'split', 190-1 erg rule, 176, 180, 188 'exceptional case marking', 175, 178 existential, 195, 309-11, 312-13 see also expletive there existential state, change of, 212-13 exp(eriencer) (semantic relation), 16, 98-9, 170-2, 184-5, J 98-9, 202, 206, 207, 222-4, 233, 236-7 experiencer raising condition, 241 experiencer subjecthood condition, 184-5 expletive, 57, 166-7, 175-6, 182, 200, 218, 254, 257, 259, 270, 276

347

expletive there, 119, 121, 181, 197, 216-17, 224,227,256,312 'external argument', 166, 247 extraction from subject/indirect-object, 237 factivity, 86, 88-9, 275-80 'fake reflexive', 187 Farsi, 305 feature, 13-17 binary, 66-8, 100-1 preponderance of see dependency, internal, intracategorial prosodic, 8, 9, 128-31, 219-20, 243-4 simplex, 7-8, 16 see also partition of features finiteness vs. non-finiteness, 50-61, 69, 102-4, 225, 227, 231, 253-8, 262, 267-8, 277-9, 280-91 positionally marked 287-91 Finnish, 36, 37,45, 51, 56, 58, 59, 62,110, 111, 115, 116, 280, 282, 283, 285, 294, 297 focus, 311 see also prime for(...) to, 263-5 French, 17, 235-6, 293, 296-8, 299, 317-18, 319 functional category, 4, 28, 58-9, 109-32, 127-8 development of, 60 functor, 20, 21, 24-5, 29-31, 36-8, 57-8, 68, 71, 106, 109, 110-13, 137-8, 143, 149, 156, 168-74, 219, 264, 269, 270 Gaelic, Scottish, 97 Gender, 55, 59, 106-7, 109, 110, 113-15, 116-17, I J 8 , 122, 146-7 generative semantics, 5 generic, 309, 311, 318 Genitive, 37, 148-9, 184, 205, 222, 279-80, 297 Georgian, 184 German, 22,42, 60, 164, 173, 179, 237, 261, 287-91, 310 serialisation, 288, 291 Germanic languages, 125, 240, 317 gerund, 53, 85-91, 94-5, 96-7, 102-4, 104-5, 279-80, 285-6 see also Ace Ing gesture see partition of features goal (semantic relation) 112-13, 260 governor see head gradability, 46-7, 133 Grade see Comparison gradience, 65, 73-104, 105 grammaticalisation, 1, 2-3, 193, 196, 206, 219, 285, 291, 294 grammatical relation, 151-3, 174-9, 246, 260

348

Index

'deep', 152-68 see also object, (non-) principal grammatical relations, subject Greek, 15, 17, 24, 286-7, 319 Classical 36, 205, 260 head, 10 as characteristic of its construction, 39 head convention, 33, 39 'head-to-head movement', 284 Hebrew, 206, 208, 209, 211, 214-15, 216, 239-40 Hibena, 204 Hidatsa, 5 Hindi-Urdu, 185 holistic vs. partitive, 157-60, 187, 200-1, 207, 208, 248 Huichol, 205-6, 208, 209, 211, 215, 216, 217 human, 16, 170-1,319 Hungarian, 109-10, 114, 248 Icelandic, 121, 185, 199 idioms, 167-8 Igbo, 44, 62 Ilocano, 25-6, 195, 196-7 immediate precedence, 34 see also linearisation, word order impersonal, 184-5, 222~5> 2 4°, 258, 259, 260, 287 inalterability, 9-10, 33, 145, 153, 157, 165, 176, 182, 219, 227, 261, 284-5, 2 88 inalterability condition, 10 incorporation, 113-32, 137, 201, 245-50, 256-7, 263, 295, 296, 297, 319 rule of, 247-8 indefinites, 296-313, 319 see also Definiteness, Specificity Indo-European languages, 37, 113, 172, 275 Indonesian, 114 inessive (Case), n o inferiority condition, 313 infinitive, 94-5, 108, 227, 231, 259, 261-5, 285,286, 287, 288 'bare', 262 INFL, 101, 284 inflexion see morphology information structure, 3, 9, 15-16, 17, 34, 174, 188 -mg-adjectives, 97-100 instrumental (semantic relation), 139 intensifies 17-18 int(ernal) (semantic relation), 36 interpolation, 204 'interpolation ban', 78, 209-11, 215 interrogatives, 267-75

'inversion', 120, 121, 131, 181-2, 191, 255, 267-8, 270, 274 see also 'locative inversion', 'negative inversion' Irish, 235, 269-70 Italian, 85, 118-21, 130-1, 164, 177-8, 179, 181-2, 191,217-18,222 Jacaltec, 109, n o , 114 Japanese, 100-2, 198-9, 298, 299 Kalkatungu, 54-5 Kanuri, 105-6 Kayardild, 130 K'ekchi, 216 Kikuyu, 206 KinyaRwanda, 205-6, 208, 209, 217 Konkow, 293 Kusaal, 48-9 Kwakiutl, 26 Kwakw'ala, 105 Latin, 57, 95, 105, 109, 111-13, 121, 125, 151, 173, 198, 261, 285, 299 Latvian, 248 lexical functional grammar, 151, 152 lexical incorporation hierarchy('), 247 lexicalisation, 5 lexicalism, 8-9, 93, 147-9 lexical projection condition, 10 linearisation, 33, 118-19, 2 2 I ~ 2 , 22 4~5, 226-7, 2&4 see also German, modifier serialisation, raisee serialisation, specifier serialisation Lithuanian, 300 localism, 139-40, 169-74, 276, 293-5 loc(ative) (semantic relation), 36, 112-13, 157-61, 162, 170-2, 202, 203, 207-10, 213-16, 217, 222-3, 233> 236-40, 242-4, 251,252,257,295 'locative inversion', 273 'long w/z-movement', 120 Maasai, 285 'main clause first strategy', 266 Makah, 24 Maltese, 205, 209 Mandarin, 44, 46, 62 Margi, 127 markedness, 61-4, 68, 184 Mashi, 204 mass, 292, 296-9, 308, 314, 317-18 Mayali, 247 measure expressions, 77-8 metagovernor, 225, 227-8, 231, 232, 237, 310 'metaspecifier', 267 Middle English, 91

Index minimalism, 8-12, 119 minimal system of word classes see class, minimal system of Modality, 108 modal verb, 2, 102-3 modifier, 10 non-complement, 127-8, 132-45, 147-8, 150-1 modifier serialisation, 226, 288, 291 in English, 226-7, 230 Mongolian, 132 morphologisation, 115, 132 partial (vs. full) 113 morphology, 4, 82, 131-2 as interplanar, 6 derivational, 79, 83-91, 123, 125-6, 153, 158, 162-3, 206, 208, 247, 248 see also adjectivalisation; nominalisation; verbalisation inflexional, 36, 76, 79, 104-32, 160, 198, 205,217-24,249-50,252 morphosyntactic locus, 40 morphosyntactic-principal-formation, 220 morphosyntactic-subject-formation', 219, 242, 255, 272 morphosyntactic-subject-formation, 221 move-a, 9, 178 'movement' see ectopic placement Mundari, 293 name, 17-20, 21-8, 59-60, 64, 293, 318-19 natural class 65-73, 87-8 negation, 131 see also Polarity 'negative inversion', 273 n(eu)tr(al) (semantic relation), 29-30, 156, 157-9 neutralisation, 68, 100-1, 218-19 Ngabere, 28, 50-1 Ngamambo, 49, 304-5 NICE properties, 57, 225-6, 281, 282 Niuean, 190-1 nominal, 61, 64, 292-319 nominal adjective see adjective noun nominalisation, 14, 27, 83-91, 94-5, 102-4, 132-3, 147, 202, 248, 250 Nominative, 197, 222, 223 non-asymmetrical combination, 41 non-principal grammatical relations, 197-216 non-projectivity 10, 34, 228, 229, 230, 235, 265,269,271,303-4 primary vs. secondary, 230, 239 non-projectivity condition, 228, 238-9 Nootka, 25-7 North Kimberley languages, 116 Norwegian, 114

349

notionalism, 1-6, 80, 88, 94, 98, 100-2, 106, 107-8, 116,122, 128, 139, 147, 148-9, 149-60, 242, 249, 252, 276, 277-9, 292, 294,313-14,319 noun, 13-20, 21-8, 100-2, 105-7, 115 deauxiliary, 103 mass 292, 296-9, 308, 314, 317-18 predicative, 17-19, 295 proper see name relational, 18, 21, 147, 292-5; inalienable, 292-3, 294-5; kinship, 293, 294-5; partitive, 292, 294-5; collective, 292, 301; 'numeral', 301 transitive, 304-5, 307 verbal, 86-91, 94-5, 102-3, IO4~5 nouniness, 91-5, 101, 256, 279 ntr see n(eu)tr(al) 'null' element see empty category 'null'-subject languages, 118-21, 123, 131, 181-2, 191,217-18,221-2 Number 58, 106, 109, n o , 114, 116,117,118, 129-31, 132,298-301 numeral, 109, 299-301, 308 as adjective/determiner, 301-2, 307-8 object, 164, 167-8, 197-216, 260 direct, 153, 197, 205-6; 'deep', 157-61, 163-5 indirect, 153, 197, 205-6, 207-8, 213-16 see also ditransitive object-formation, 85, 98 object rule, 156-7, 159, 176, 197, 198, 205, 211, 213, 238 object rule', 200-1, 208-9, 213, 238 obligatory subject condition, 191 Old English, 45, 60, 125, 184-5, 198, 204-5, 216, 217, 222-4, 239-41, 245, 246, 258-61,274-5,317 Olutsootso, 204 one-category = one-node principle, 35, 39,41, 81 opacity, 311 paradigmatic (vs. syntagmatic), 106—8 see also secondary categories parsing principles, 266, 267 participant, 138, 140 see also argument, subcategorisation, valency, value participle, 50, 53, 94, 95-100, 102-3, I04> 105, 108 particle, 23, 25, 35, 54, 203, 238-9 'placement of, 209-11,215 partition of features, 42, 108-9 Partitive, 165, 294, 297 p(a)rt(itive) (semantic relation), 295, 296-8, 300-1, 302-4, 308-10, 313-17

350 Index part of speech see class passive, 95-6, 121, 154, 155, 202-6, 209-10, 215, 240, 248-50, 252, 256, 257-8, 279 impersonal, 96, 164, 205, 240, 249 prepositional, 202-4 'patient centrality', 166 see also universality of abs perfect, 96 periphrasis, 108-32 Person, 118, 129-31, 132 Philippine languages, 24 phonology, 6-8,42, 66-7, 69, 70, 91, 130, 132,314 Piro, 293 PLACE (case component), 169-74, 184, 252, 295 plural, 296-8, 317-8 Polarity, 51, 108, 116 Polish, 297 Polynesian languages, 24, 109, 116 Porno, Cental, 192 Porno, Eastern, 122, 160, 192 Portuguese, 121 possession, 125, 140 inalienable (vs. alienable), 107, 292-3, 294-5 postposition see adposition pragmatic structure see information structure predicability, 14-16, 17-18, 20, 41-2, 44, 49, 54 predicator, 9, 15, 17-18, 56, 60 complex, 237, 250-1, 252 'emotive', 277 'existential', 309-13 preposition see adposition prime (principal grammatical relation), 193-7, 200, 290-1 principal (grammatical relation), 188-91, 233 see also absolutive, morphosyntacticprincipal-formation, prime, subject principal formation, 270, 272-3 'pro-drop' see 'null'-subject languages progressive, 96-7, 99, 132 projection principle, 153, 157, 174, 177, 178, 180-93 pronoun indefinite, 319 personal, 19, 22, 23-8, 40, 118, 192, 198, 3i4,3i8 prosody see feature, prosodic {P}-specification principle, 267, 290-1 (a) vs. (b), 289 quantifier, 109, 301, 308 as adjective/determiner, 301-2, 307-8

stranding of, 235-6, 301 universal, 301, 309 quantifier-raising, 310 quantifier scope, 311 'quasipredication', 228 Quechua, 45, 62 raisee serialisation in English, 232-3 in German, 291 raising, 175-9, 180, 181, 183-4, 202, 209, 224, 228, 230-6, 238, 242-4, 260, 262-3, 271, 287, 290 rule of, 233 'to-object', restrictions on, 234-5, 312 'reanalysis' 203-4, 211 rection, 40, 50, 106-7, I Q 8, 123, 130, 193, 314 redundancy, 10-11,42 lexical (derivational), 11, 30, 36,47, 242, 247, 250-2, 276 morphosyntactic, 11, 36, 115, 221, 225, 226, 248-9, 263, 282, 290 syntactic, 11, 26-7, 37, 271, 298, 299, 309 referent vs. reference modification see adjective, intersective vs. non-intersective referentiability, 13-16, 17-20 reflexivisation, 123, 126, 220, 243-4 'fake', 187 relational grammar, 151, 153-4, 157, 177-9, 214-15 relational succession law/principle, 177, 178 relativisation, 108, 188-9 'restructuring' see 'reanalysis' retro-complementation/-valency, 135-45, 201, 229-30, 302, 308, 315, 316 role, 251-2 role criterion, 252 Runyonese, 137 Russian, 22-3, 48, 126 Saker, 293 Salish, 24, 26, 27-8, 60, 64 Salishan languages, 35 Sama, 188-9, r 95 Samoan, 110, 234-5 satisfaction see subcategorisation secondary (vs. primary) category 4, 11-12, 13, 29-30, 50, 54, 55, 59, 104-32, 124 inherent, 106, 108, 113-15, 116-18, 122, 126: paradigmatic, 106, 116 relational, 106-7, 123: concordial, 107, 123; cross-referential, 123; rectional, 106-7, 108, 123, 124, 125 second-order categorisation, 79-82 see also dependency, internal selectional restrictions, 4

Index semantic relation, 9, 168-74 one-instance-per-predicator constraint on, 237,251-2 non-unary assignment of, to an argument, 160 see also abl, abs, agt, erg, exp, loc, ntr, pit sequence see linearisation, word order serialisation see linearisation, word order serial relationship, 93 Sesotho, 109 Sherpa, 214 singular, 296, 297, 299-300, 313, 318 Sinhalese, 45 Son(gh)ray, 248 SOURCE (case component), 169-74, 295 source (semantic relation), 222-3 Specificity, 18, 106 specifier, 134-43, 228-30, 265, 267, 269, 289, 312-13 complemented, 229-30 deadjectival, 135-6 derived, 229-34, 312-13 specifier serialisation, 229-30, 234, 238 'spray paint cases', the, 157-60, 165-6, 187, 200-1 Squamish, 28 squish, 41, 74, 91-5, 100, 115 'S-structure', 152-3 stative, 117 structural analogy, 7-8,42 see also analogism structural syntax, 5 structure-building (rather than -mutating) see inalterability subcategorisation, 15, 29-32, 34, 65, 68-9, 71-2, 113-14, 117-8, 151-3, 155-68, 171-2,252 satisfaction of, 32, 112, 115, 132-3, 146-7, 227, 268-9, 296, 299, 302-5 strong vs. weak, 21-2, 29, 30-1, 147 subject, 16, 38, 178, 188-91, 197, 199-200, 206, 237, 243,256 compositional assignment of semantic relation to, 167-8 configurational definition of, 151-2 morphological, 222 morphosyntactic, 119-20, 122, 131, 181-5, 216-24, 227, 240, 255, 259, 268, 270, 272, 274, 288-9 syntactic, 119-21, 131,181-5,216-8, 224-36, 240, 254, 267-8, 271-2, 273, 274,276-7,289,313 VP-internal, 152, 235-6 subject concord, 220 see also concord subject concord', 221 see also concord subject formation, 85, 88 absence thereof, 121, 174-5, 193-7, 258-61

351

as raising, 232 'cyclic' vs. 'post-cyclic', 119 see also morphosyntactic-subject-formation, syntactic-subject-formation subjecthood criterion, 193 subject-selection hierarchy, 121,154-68,180, 186-7,188, 217, 218, 219, 226, 233, 238, 248-9, 251, 270, 289, 290 subjunction (vs. adjunction), 38-9 see also dependency, internal subjunctive, 108, 124, 277-8, 286-7 subordination, 32, 261--91 subordinator, 20, 261-75 Sundanese, 23 superiority, 227, 311-13 superiority', 312 suppletion, 122, 160 Swahili, 109, 122, 305 Swedish, 114 syntactic ergativity condition 191 syntacticisation, 90,98 syntactic projection, 32, 34, 82, 129-31, 132-45, ch. 3 see also one-category = one-node principle syntactic projection principle, 32, 144 syntactic-subject-formation, 224-5, 255, 256, 257 Tabassarian, 172 Tagalog, 26, 194-7, 200, 290, 293, 312-13 Tai, 115 Tamazight, 216, 217 Tamil, 251 tangling see non-projectivity telicity, 179 Telugu, 23 Tense, 54, 105-6, 116, 117, 130, 131, 132, 285 ^[that-i]filter',120, 182 thematic relation see semantic relation theta criterion 160-1, 171-2, 236 6-grid, 59, 152 theta role, 165 see also semantic relation Tibetan, Lhasa, 192 Tiwa, Southern, 246, 247 Tongan, n o , 183-4 tonic (phonological), 314, 316 topicalisability, 16, 193, 194-6, 219 tree, 33-4 proper, 34 Turkish, 104, 107, 285-6, 300 Tzeltal, 299 Ubykh, 117 Udak, 122 unaccusativity, 163-8, 177-9, J 9 2 , 206, 246-7 Ungarinyin, 116-7,147

352 Index uniformity of theta assignment hypothesis (UTAH), 157, 163 universal alignment hypothesis, 157, 163 unsaturated see abs, unsubcategorised-for

verb-second, 275, 288-91 Vietnamese, 115 visibility of categorisation, 274 'V2' = verb-second

valency, 3, 8-9, 32, 38, 112,115, 119, 135, 138, 139, 144, 146, 149-68, 170, 271, 296 decrease in 126, 245-50 increase in 126 retro- see retro-complementation see also subcategorisation valency grammar, 152 value, 8-9, 38, 135, 144, 146 see also subcategorisation verb 13-18, 21-8, 50-61 deadjectival, 102-3, 162-3 denominal, 102-4 'ergative', 162-8, 176 'surface', 281 see also secondary argument, auxiliary, finiteness, vs. non-finiteness, gerund, infinitive, participle verbal, 61 verbalisation, 14, 25 verb phrase, 38-9, 227

Warrungu, 186, 189 'weather' predicators, 166, 175-6, 178, 182 Welsh, 127,235 wh (semantic relation), 269-75, 291, 311, 313 wild trees, 33 word class see class word order, 33, 34, 142-3, 150, 201, 205, 305, 311-13 as marking subordination, 274, 287 see also linearisation Wunambal, 28, 50, 51, 54, 56, 116 X' theory, 147 Yagua, n o Yalarnnga, 123 Yidiny, 109, 114 Yuma, 109 'zero-conversion' 246