The Derivation of VO and OV

Linguistik AktuelljLinguistics Today (LA) provides a platform for original monograph studies into synchronic and diachr...

Author: Peter Svenonius

54 downloads 1577 Views 5MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!

Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Linguistik AktuelljLinguistics Today (LA) provides a platform for original monograph studies into synchronic and diachronic linguistics. Studies in LA confront empirical and theoretical problems as these are currently discussed in syntax, semantics, morphology, phonology, and systematic pragmatics with the aim to establish robust empirical generalizations within a universalistic perspective.

Series Editor VVernerAlbraham University of California at Berkeley University of Vienna

Rijksuniversiteit Groningen

Advisory Editorial Board Guglielmo Cinque (University of Venice) Gunther Grewendorf (T.W. Goethe-University, Frankfurt) Liliane Haegeman (University of Lille, France) Hubert Haider (University of Salzburg) Christer Platzack (University of Lund) Ian Roberts (University of Stuttgart) Ken Safir (Rutgers University, New Brunswick NJ) Hoskuldur Thrainsson (University of Iceland, Reykjavik) Lisa deMena Travis (McGill University) Sten Vikner (University of Stuttgart) C. Jan-Wouter Zwart (University of Groningen)

Volume 3I Peter Svenonius (ed.)

The Derivation of va and av

E

E

o

VOANDOV

Edited by PETER SVENONIUS

University ofTroms�

JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANY AMSTERDAM

/

PHILADELPHIA

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences - Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI

Z39.48-1984-

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data The derivation of VO and OV / edited by Peter Svenonius. p.

cm. -- (Linguistik aktuell / Linguistics today, ISSN 0166-0829; v. 31)

Based on a workshop held May 1998, University ofTroms0. Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Grammar, Comparative and general--Word order 2. Grammar, Comparative and general- Sentences. 3. Typology (Linguistics). 4. Generative grammar I. Svenonius, Peter. II. Linguistik aktuell ; Bd. 31. P295.D46

2000

415--dc21 ISBN

©

90 272 2752 7

(EUR)

/ 1 55619 915 5

(US) (alk. paper)

99-088392

2000 - John Benjamins B.V.

No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfIlm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. John Benjamins Publishing Co. . P.O.Box 75577 . 1070 AN AMSTERDAM · The Netherlands John Benjamins North America· P.O.Box 27519 . Philadelphia PA 19118-0519 . U SA

Table of Contents

Introduction

1

Peter Svenonius Word Order, Restructuring and Mirror Theory

27

Michael Brody OV is More Basic than VO

45

Hubert Haider Remnant Movement and OV Order

69

Liliane Haegeman V-movement and VP-movement in Derivations Leading to VO-order

97

Knut Tarald Taraldsen Deriving OV Order in Finnish

1 23

Anders Holmberg Parameter Change in Icelandic

153

Porbjorg Hr6arsd6ttir The Righ,t Periphery in SOV Languages : English and Dutch

181

Sjef Barbiers Nominal Structure: An Extension of the Symmetry Principle

219

Quantifier Movement in Icelandic

255

Naoki Fukui & Yuji Takano

Peter Svenonius Licensing Movement and Stranding in the West Germanic OV Languages

Roland Hinterholzl

293

TABLE OF CONTENTS

vi

Two Types of VO Languages

327

Matthew Pearson Index

365

Peter Svenonius University of Troms¢

This volume grew out of a workshop held at the University of Tromsjj in May of 1 998 (a detailed report on that workshop appears as Svenonius 1 998). The volume contains eleven papers dealing with various aspects of the differences between VO and OV languages, especially with the derivation of one or the other or both from the same or different base structures. Of the eleven, the papers by Fukui & Takano and Haegeman were not presented at the conference; papers by Alison Henry and Susan Pintzuk, which were presented there, could unfortunately not be included in the volume. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of the participants both in the workshop and the creation of the volume, especially my colleagues Anders Holmberg and Tarald Taraldsen, and also the anonymous reviewers who assisted us in the process of critiquing the various papers for revision. 1 In this introduction I quickly and subjectively tour the history of the work on VO and OV word order which gave rise to the papers at hand. At appropriate points I discuss the current papers, placing them in their respective contexts. A majority of the papers, it will be noted, deal mainly or exclusively with Germanic languages. This bias was inherent in the composition of the workshop, and reflects in part the research programs of the faculty here in Tromsjj, in part a tendency in the recent wave of research that has occurred in the wake of Kayne's influential work, codified in his 1 994 book.

1.

Typology

The broad division of languages of the world into the subclasses VO and OV comes from typological studies. Greenberg ( 1 963), dividing a 30-language sample into classes in which the 'basic' or unmarked main clause order of

2

PETER SVENONIUS

S [ubject] , V [erb] , and O [bject] is VSO, SVO, or SOY, catalogued a litany of word order patterns that corresponded with the basic word orders: he noted, for example, that in languages in which SOY order is basic, an inflected auxiliary follows the main verb; complementarily, VSO correlates with Aux-V order (Universal number 1 6). Exceptions are now known to many of the universals Greenberg proposed, but most of them still survive as significant tendencies. Subsequent work, at least since Lehmann 1 973, has usually collapsed SVO and VSO (along with VOS) into one type, YO, contrasting with the OV type (though see e.g. Hawkins 1983 for arguments against a unified VO type). Many of Greenberg' s universals still hold up even for these more general categories VO and OV when examined against larger samples. For example, Dryer 1 992 shows that the correlation of VO with Aux-V, and of OV and V-Aux holds for about 90% of the languages for which Dryer had the relevant data (64 of 7 1 languages with inflected auxiliaries expressing tense or aspect). Vennemann 1 974 labeled the two types VX and XV, based on the fact that other elements tend to pattern with the object. For example, there is a systematic cross-linguistic tendency for PPs and DP complements to appear on the same side of the verb. The same is true for manner adverbs: they appear on the same side of a verb, in the usual case, as the direct object: the opposite side from the auxiliary verb (cf. Dryer 1 992). Furthermore, the tendencies extend into other categories. VO languages tend to have prepositions, not postpositions, and the opposite is true of OV languages (cf. Greenberg's Universals 3 and 4). Genitive possessors in the noun phrase have a clear predisposition to follow N in VO languages, and to precede N in OV languages (cf. Greenberg's Universal 2; cf. also Hawkins 1 983). The tendencies are unmistakeable, though in almost every case, exceptions can also be found. Subtler distinctions than the unmarked order of major elements may also distinguish VO from OV languages. For example, Greenberg noted some morphological tendencies : there is a correspondence between morphological case and OV order (Universal 4 1 ) . Others have proposed that syntactic mechanisms are sensitive to the VO/OV distinction. For example, Ross 1 967a argued that Gapping, a deletion transformation, operated to the right in VO languages, giving rise to the order SVO and SO, and to the left in OV languages, giving SO and SOV. He also argued that OV languages cannot have rightward movement rules. Similarly, Fukui 1 993 suggests that orderings which do not preserve head-finality in an OV language are more costly, in terms of derivational economy (Chomsky 1 992), than orderings which do. He also suggests that VO languages favor reorderings that preserve head-initiality (cf. also Steele 1 978, who notes that VSO and VOS are frequently alternatives for a single language, as are SOY and OSV).

INTRODUCTION

3

My contribution to this volume explores a particular instantiation of this general tendency; specifically, I take up the contrast in Icelandic between Object Shift, a leftward movement which preserves VO order, and Quantifier Move ment, which gives rise to OV structures. As Icelandic Quantifier Movement has been little studied, I document its characteristics. I argue that Norwegian has a form of Quantifier Movement which does preserve VO order, which bears on the question of whether languages like Dutch and Yiddish might have a version of Object Shift which perturbs VO structure.

2.

Analysis

Various accounts have been offered of the Greenbergian ordering correlations (see for example the various papers in Hawkins 1 988), ranging from strictly formal, grammar-internal accounts to historical accounts to accounts based on processing and other potentially extragrammatical factors (cf. e.g. Frazier 1 979 for an early processing-based account, Hawkins 1 994 for a recent one). Historical and functional accounts necessarily interact with formal syntactic accounts, though linguists differ according to which they take to be of primary concern. In early generative grammar, phrase structure rules were assumed to stipulate word order. Cross-categorial tendencies are potentially captured in an abstract X' theory like that of Chomsky 1 970, and with the advent of the notion of parameters it became common to assume a headedness parameter for deep structures: languages are parametrized according to whether dependents precede or follow the head (Chomsky 1 980: 179, 1 98 1 : 128ff., Stowell 1 9 8 1 : 74f.). On the other hand, it seems that in actual practice it has not been uncommon to assume that, for example, noun phrases in a given language are head-final while other categories are head-initial (e.g. Huang 1 982 for Chinese). On such a view, the headedness parameter describes why no single category varies (e.g. no 2 language has some head-initial verbs and some head-final ones), but does not account for cross-categorial tendencies (but see Jackendoff 1 977: 8 1-85, who suggests that a simplicity metric will favor grammars in which X' rules are cross-categorially general). Even given category-specific headedness parameters, there are many exceptions to the universals. One approach to these exceptions has been to take them to be historical residue, the result of a shift from consistent OV, say, to verb-before-object but retaining other OV characteristics. Another approach has been to eliminate the exceptions through fine-grained analysis. For example, if auxiliaries are taken as dependents of the verb, as in traditional grammar, then

4

PETER SVENONIUS

the fact that they appear on the opposite side of the verb from the object is confusing. Independent evidence, however, suggests that auxiliaries head their own projections (Pullum & Wilson 1 977; Gazdar, Pullum, & Sag 1 982), and that the main verb is in fact the dependent of its auxiliary. Given the analogy Aux:V::V:O, the word order facts fit neatly into place. As another, somewhat more speculative example, take the order of nouns and possessor noun phrases: N[oun]-G[enitive] order correlates with VO and GN with OV (cf. Greenberg's Universal 2). In Hawkins' ( 1 983) survey of 336 languages, about 96% of VI languages (those with basic order VSO or VOS) are NG, and about 88% of SOY languages are GN, showing a strong correlation. However, when SVO languages are examined, about 67% are NG and 33% are GN. This sort of result led Hawkins and others to doubt that VO order is a significant predictor of other features. But careful analysis gives some hope of bringing the SVO languages back into the fold. Generativists have analyzed parallels between sentences and noun phrases in a number of ways (Lees 1959; Chomsky 1970; Abney 1987). Looking at these analyses, it is clear that a possessor NP sometimes corresponds to the subject and sometimes to the object of the corresponding clause (cf. Koptjevskaja-Tamm 1993). In VI and SOY languages, whether a genitive element is objectlike or subjectlike would not make any difference with respect to NG/GN word order. But in an SVO language, it might be expected that subjectlike genitives precede the noun while objectlike ones follow. Thus, in English, the s-genitive is subjectlike (note that it is the natural choice for the subject of action nominal izations) and precedes N, while the of-genitive is objectlike, being a prepositional phrase, and follows N. 3 Such fine-grained analyses raise the prospect of stating exceptionless syntactic principles governing word order. An important subcase of the general strategy of eliminating exceptions through analysis is to argue that observed tendencies are regular at Deep Structure. German, for example, has objects both before and after verbs, depending on whether one looks at finite or non-finite verb forms and at main or embedded clauses. Bach 1 962 proposed that in German, surface VO order is derived from an OV Deep Structure. This kind of approach opened up the possibility of analyzing apparent exceptions to universals in terms of movement: the idea is that languages are consistent at Deep Structure in having head-initial or head-final characteristics, but transformations may give rise to surface inconsistencies. Ross 1 967 a noted that German was a counterexample to some generalizations about OV languages; he proposed that German is in fact a VO language, with OV order being derived. Japanese and Siouan, according to Ross, are 'Deep' OV languages, while German, Hindi, and Turkish are not.

INTRODUCTION

5

This type of analysis is very common in generative work. However, moving the 'true' nature of a language back to Deep Structure runs the risk of losing Greenbergian correlations, which are stated over surface word order. A headed ness parameter affecting Deep Structures can describe the Greenbergian correla tions only if things don't move around very much, or on the assumption that something like Structure Preservation (Emonds 1 976) prevents non-canonical orders from arising, in the usual case. Several specific proposals have been made that ensure that head-initial or head-final structures will in the usual case be preserved (e.g. those of Ross 1 967a; Steele 1 978; Fukui 1993 mentioned above). Another tack has been to parametrize Surface Structure conditions. Kayne 1983 proposed that government (relevant at various levels, including Surface Structure) is directional, and that the direction is parametrized by language. Koopman 1 984: 1 06ff. and Travis 1 984: 32ff. propose the same for Case assign ment (cf. also Li 1 990). They also argue that theta assignment is directional, and that the parameter for theta role directionality is independent of that of Case assignment. Since theta roles are assumed to be assigned at D-Structure, this subsumes some of the Deep Structure directionality parameter (cf. Koopman op. cit. p. 1 20). Though Travis explicitly argues that a language can have differ ent settings for headedness and theta-assignment, the natural conclusion of this line of thinking is nevertheless to do away with the headedness parameter for phrase structure altogether, letting other, independently motivated mechanisms take over. In this vein, Haider 1 992 proposes a general licensing principle, where licensing occurs to the right in VO languages and to the left in OV languages. If all sentence elements are subject to licensing, including for example manner adverbs, then the tendency for all subordinate elements (rather than just those which are Case-marked or theta-marked) to precede or follow their superordinate heads is expected. On the other hand, it is less clear exactly what is subject to the licensing principle. For example, the subject precedes the verb in many VO languages. Possibly, this could be due to some exceptional property of nomina tive case. If nominative case is not subject to more general licensing conditions covering other types of sentence elements, this might provide an explanation for why no ergative languages are SVO (Anderson 1 976; Trask 1 979; Dixon 1 994; Nash 1 996, 1998), since then ergative languages would have to license both arguments in the same direction, unlike accusative languages. 4 At yet another remove from Deep Structure, it is sometimes argued that ordering is strictly a P[honetic] F[orm] phenomenon (e.g. Chomsky 1 994; Uriagereka 1 999). Takano 1 996 and Fukui & Takano 1 998 propose a specific process of linearization of syntactic terminals occurring at PF. They identify two mechanisms operating on syntactic trees to derive pronounceable phonetic

6

PETER SVENONIUS

structures, Demerge and Concatenate. Demerge breaks down syntactic trees, operating top-down and removing maximal projections, defined as non-projecting nodes, and passing them to Concatenate, which linearizes them. A specifier is always a maximal projection, while its sister is not; this leads to specifiers consistently being linearized before their sisters. A complement XP will also be linearized before a head Y, since the head projects Y' and is therefore not maximal. Fukui & Takano assimilate head movement to phrasal movement in taking head movement to attach to phrasal projections; from the derived position, a moved head does not project, while its sister does. Therefore, a moved head will be linearized before other material in the phrase it has attached to. The difference between VO and OV structures, on this view, is due to the fact that in VO structures, the verb has moved to a higher position. Fukui & Takano provide morpho syntactic evidence that this is correct, drawing for example on the connection between OV languages and case noted by Greenberg, as well as various other features. In this volume, Fukui and Takano extend their analysis to noun phrases, arguing that English has N to D raising, resulting in N-initial structures, while Japanese does not. They connect the lack of N to D raising in Japanese to the presence of a classifier system there. They also present a novel analysis of relative clauses and connect the placement of the relative clause (prenominal in Japanese) to the presence or absence of a relative complementizer (absent in Japanese).

3.

Asymmetry

Though most of the typological traits mentioned so far in association with the VO/OV distinction have involved symmetry, neither Haider's theory nor Fukui & Takano's leads to symmetrical structures for VO and OV languages. This is no accident; asymmetrical properties of languages have been apparent from the start. For example, in all of Greenberg's original basic categories, SVO, SOY, and VSO, the subject precedes the object (Universal 1). B ach 1 97 1 noted that wh-movement, when it occurs, is invariably to the left, and that SOY languages don't usually have wh-movement at all (cf. Greenberg's Universal 1 2). It has also been noted that clausal dependents have a tendency to appear to the right of the elements they are dependent on. For example, many OV languages have clausal complements to the right of V (Dryer 1980; Givon 1 984). Such observations often invite explanations in terms of processing (cf. Hawkins 1 994 and references there, e.g. on pp. 5-9). Frequently, processing accounts can fruitfully be seen as interacting with formal syntactic accounts. For

INTRODUCTION

7

example, NRel (relative clause after noun) is vastly more likely than ReIN in va languages, but OV languages are mixed (cf. Hawkins 1983). Two tendencies can thus be seen as interacting: the tendency for clausal elements to be to the right, plausibly due to processing factors, and the headedness parameter, placing depen dents on the same side of their heads, arguably not a function of processing. In this light, consider the fact that the subject almost always precedes the verb in OV languages, but va languages are more mixed; the two tendencies, then, might be for the subject to appear on the same side of the verb as the other dependent elements versus the tendency for the subject to be to the left. In this case as well, the force counteracting the headedness parameter may be amenable to a functional interpretation: subjects may appear to the left because they tend to be topics, and the tendency of topics to be initial may stem from information packaging strategies (Halliday 1 967; Li & Thompson 1 976; Vallduvf 1990). On the other hand, grammar has a tendency to steer the individual language; for example, in many languages, subjects appear in a fixed position, whether they are topics or not, and in others, there is a distinct position for subjects which are not topics (cf. Svenonius in press for some examples from Germanic languages). Thus, the functional explanation for the relative order of the subject and the object interacts with a formalist explanation for the properties of positions of case assignment and other types of formal licensing. In the papers in this volume, the formal constraints are of central interest. Thus, given that Dutch and English are identical in the relative order of indirect object and direct object, or of direct object and PP, as seen in (1) (from Haider 1992), it can be assumed that the licensing positions for the various elements are identical (presumably universally), as in the analyses of Haider 1 992 and Zwart 1 993, without investi gating why exactly the order of the licensing positions is the way it is. Attention focuses then on the position of the verb, which precedes the VP-internal elements in English and follows them in Dutch, in an embedded clause. (1)

a.

b.

. .. omdat ze iedereen een pakje naar hem thuis zullen because they everybody a package to his home should opsturen (Dutch) send . . . because they would send everybody a package to his home address

Haider's proposal, referred to above, is designed to account for the parallel word order. On Haider's account, OV order is basic: VP-internal elements are base generated in the projection of V. The verb starts low and stays there in a strict OV language, but in a va language, it climbs by head movement to a higher

8

PETER SVENONIUS

position. Thus, a clause like the English one in ( 1b) is derived by head move ment, and the VP-intemal arguments are in situ, much as in Larson 1 988. (2)

[AuxP would [yp send1 [yp everybody t1 [yp a package [v' t1 to his house]]]]]

But the structure for the corresponding German clause is not identical; the B asic Branching Conjecture that Haider proposes coupled with the licensing parameter gives the same hierarchical ranking for the sentence elements, but with the verbal heads in substantially different locations, as sketched in (3) (see Haider's paper for details). (3)

[yp ein Paket [v' an seine Privatadresse [ AuxP [yp jedem everyone a package to his private. addres s

schenken]]] werden] send

would

In his contribution to this volume, Haider extends and refines his proposal, showing how it makes better predictions in several arenas than competing analyses (for which see below).

4.

The Universal Base Hypothesis

Bach 1 968 proposed the Universal Base Hypothesis (UBH) , that all languages have identical Deep Structures, which are permuted by language-specific transformations. This completely shifts the weight of cross-linguistic correlations from the Deep Structure to other parts of the grammar. In fact, Peters & Ritchie 1 969 demonstrated that the UBH is vacuous in the absence of meaningful constraints on transformations. However, once transformations are better understood, the UBH invites a different kind of explanation for asymmetries of the type noted in the previous section. For example, consider the fact that in languages in which the auxiliary precedes the main verb, or Aux-V languages (generally VO languages), material can generally appear between the auxiliary and the main verb, whereas in V-Aux languages, this is not the case. Furthermore, in languages in which both orders are possible, Aux-V order tends to allow elements to intervene, while V-Aux order does not. This can be straightforwardly illustrated using German. 5 (4)

a.

Ich habe (schwer) gearbeitet. I have hard worked 'I have worked (hard). '

(German)

9

INTRODUCTION

b.

. . . daj3 ich gearbeitet (*schwer) habe that I worked hard have ' . . . that I have worked'

The obligatory adjacency of V-Aux order, as opposed to Aux-V order, can be seen as a function of the one being derived from the other (various specific implementations of this are discussed below). If the two orders were simply a matter of the auxiliary taking its complement to the left or the right, this systematic difference would be unexpected. The UBH has been revived in a new form by Kayne 1 994, who proposes, among other things, that all branching is binary, all complements are to the right, all adjuncts or specifiers are to the left, and all movement is to the left. On this view, whatever differences there are between Japanese and English must be a function of the derivation of their respective surface structures. Zwart 1 993, 1 997, and Koster 1 994 demonstrated how OV order in Dutch could be derived from a basic VO order by movement of VP-intemal material to the left, into functional specifier positions (making good the promise of Ross 1 967a, which took languages like Dutch not to be 'Deep' OV languages). A Dutch embedded clause is analyzed much as in (5) (cf. Zwart 1993, Ch. IV). (5)

. . . dat [AgrSP Jan 1 [AgrOP het boek2 [PredP op de tajel3 [yp wi! tl that

John

leggen t2 t3 ]]]]

the book

on the table

will

put

In English, on this view, the movements to licensing positions such as SpecAgrOP

occur covertly. However, such accounts raise various questions. For example, if such movements as those in (5) are triggered by strong features, why are the features generally strong (in consistent OV languages) or generally weak (in consistent VO languages)? In mixed cases, what determines what stays behind (e.g. CP) and what moves (e.g. DP)? (For one mixed case, Icelandic, see my contribution to this volume.) If the word order in OV languages is the result of movement, what ensures that the derived order of constituents is identical to the order of those same constituents in a VO language, in cases like those discussed in §3? The same-order cases are handled straightforwardly by Haider's account, as they are actually in essentially the same positions. In addition, the fact that everything shows up on the same side of the verb is handled by Haider's account, based on a general licensing principle. Two different types of solution have been proposed for same-order effects in VO and OV languages. One solution is to assume that the individual elements

10

PETER SVENONIUS

do not move separately, but together. For example, if the Dutch clause begins somewhat as in (6a) (after subject movement to a high functional projection), then if the main verb moves to a low functional head as in (6b), followed by movement of the VP remnant to a specifier position above the auxiliary as in (6c), the correct surface order is established. (6)

a.

dat Jan [AuxP wil hp [vp leggen het boek op de tafel]]]

b.

dat Jan [AuxP wi[ [IF leggen [vp tv het boek op de tafel]]]

c.

that Jan

will

that Jan

will

put

put

the book on the table

the book on the table

dat Jan [AuxP [vp tv het boek op de tafel] wi[ [IF leggen tvp]]

the book on the table will that Jan ' . . . that John will put the book on the table'

put

This type of movement is proposed by Hinterholzl (cf. his 1 997a: 1 98/1 997b: 1 4), though only in conjunction with various other movements. It is also advocated in the contributions to this volume by Pearson and Haegeman. As Haegeman points out, since such an analysis requires the verb to move to a higher functional head, it is consistent with the assumption that verbs in languages with agreement inflection (including German and Dutch) move overtly to a relatively high functional position, bringing the OV languages more into line with facts about VO languages. Haegeman also shows that this type of analysis can preserve the generalizations of Holmberg 1 986 and Diesing 1 992 which are otherwise compromised by the Zwartian analysis. Haegeman furthermore demonstrates in her contribution to this volume that well-motivated assumptions about negation support the claim that the verb in West Flemish occupies a relatively high position overtly (even though West Flemish exhibits OV structures like Dutch). For example, she argues that the two negative markers in West Flemish, en and nie, correspond to the two negative markers in Piedmontese, pa and nen respectively (discussed in Zanuttini 1 997). Piedmontese pa precedes the adverbs pi 'no longer' and sempre 'always' , as shown in (7a) (from Zanuttini 1 997: 70). However, controlling for V2, West Flemish en follows the corresponding adverbs nie meer and atent, as shown in (7b) (cf. Haegeman's (17), from this volume). (7)

a.

Da

'ntlura, a l'ha

since then

invito

pa pi

sempre acetla

i

nost

he he-has not more always accepted the our (Piedmontese)

invitations 'Since then, he hasn't any longer always accepted our invitations.'

INTRODUCTION

b.

11

. .. da Valere nie meer atent no Gent en-goat (West Flemish) that Valere no more always to Gent EN-goes , . . . that Valere doesn't any longer always go to Gent'

In contrast, adverbial negation (West Flemish nie, Piedmontese nen) follows both

adverbs in both languages (and precedes West Flemish en). Haegeman shows that the clause structures for the two languages can be made harmonious if an extended projection of the VP fronts across the negative head en in West Flemish. The moved constituent carries with it the various adverbial elements, preserving their relative order. The second type of UBH approach to identical sequences in VO and OV structures is to assume that the individual elements in a given clause do occupy the same positions but that the verb moves, roughly as in Haider's approach but with a universal base. B arbiers, in this volume, argues for identical base positions in English and Dutch for a number of different sentence elements, arguing that differences in word order are due primarily to the obligatoriness of 'verb intraposition' (see below) in English coupled with the existence of a short verb movement in English. Verb intraposition, on Barbiers' analysis, is optional in Dutch, and Dutch has no short verb movement. An important variation on this type of approach is to assume that the surface positions of sentence elements are derived: the individual elements in a given clause move to distinct specifier positions in OV languages, as on the Kayne and Zwart proposals, but the same also occurs in VO languages, followed by movement of the verb across those elements roughly as in the Haider and B arbiers proposals. In other words, languages like English would have (5) or (6c) above as an intermediate structure, followed by raising of a constituent contain ing the auxiliary and the main verb to a position below the subject. Such proposals have an ancestor in Larson's 1 988 analysis of Heavy NP Shift phenomena as VP-movement to the left of a heavy object (cf. also Kayne 1994). A more direct influence is Hinterh61zl's 1 997a analysis of Verb Raising in German as remnant VP movement, as sketched in (8): first, arguments move out of VP into higher positions, then the functional projection (FP in (8)) containing the verb moves to a specifier to the left of the higher verb (the specifier of PredP in (8), cf. Hinterh6lzl 1 997a). (8)

a. b.

er sie1 nicht [PredP wagte [FP zu kiissen t1]]

he her not

dared

to kiss

er sie1 nicht [PredP [FP ZU kiissen trJ wagte tFPJ

to kiss dared he her not ' . . . (because) he didn't dare to kiss her'

12

PETER SVENONIUS

c. d.

er sie 1 [PredP wagte [pp nicht zu kUssen td]

he her

dared

not to kiss

er sie 1 [PredP [pp nicht zu kUssen td wagte tpp]

he her not to kiss dared , . . . (because) he dared to not kiss her'

On a VP-fronting analysis of VO languages, the remnant moving to the left is larger (it contains the auxiliaries) and moves further (it moves to the left of the licensing position for the object). Thus, Kayne 1 998 argues that in English, there are in fact overt movements in some cases of VP-internal material to the left of the VP, followed by VP-remnant fronting past that material again, resulting in what superficially looks like the original word order. This brings VO languages much closer to Hinterh61zl's vision for the OV ones. For instance, to account for wide scope of negation in a sentence like I will force you to marry noone, Kayne postulates the derivation in (9), where 'W' and 'Neg' are heads in the extended projection of every verb, but shown only for the superordinate clause. For the narrow scope reading, the derivation in (10) is used, and here the functional heads are only shown for the embedded clause. (9)

a. b. c.

(10)

a. b. c.

I will [wp W [NegP Neg [yp force you to marry noone]]] I will [wp W [NegP noone 1 Neg [yp force you to marry td]] I will [wp [yp force you to marry td W [NegP noone 1 Neg typ]]]

I will force you to [wp W [NegP Neg [yp marry noone]]] I will force you to [wp W [NegP noone 1 Neg [yp marry td]] I will force you to [wp [yp marry td W [NegP noone 1 Neg typ]]]

Note that the surface position of noone in each case matches the scope of negation. Kayne notes that Icelandic and archaic Norwegian manifest the order in the (b) examples; this is discussed more fully in my article in this volume. By taking the English VO order to be derived in this way, Kayne proposes to eliminate covert movement from the system of grammar. Note that the claim that objects in VO languages like English leave their base positions overtly has been around for a while; for example, Johnson 1 99 1 , B orer 1 994, and Runner 1995 all take this position. In each of those proposals, however, the verb moves to the left by head movement, as on Haider's account, rather than by VP-remnant movement, as in (9)-(1 0). In this volume, Taraldsen and Hr6arsd6ttir argue for a much expanded role for VP movement in VO languages. Taraldsen reasons that if VO order is derived by VP movement, then in some cases, it should be possible to observe material other than the verb being pied-piped along with the VP. Drawing on

INTRODUCTION

13

evidence from a range of Germanic languages, he argues that prepositional particles provide exactly this kind of evidence for VP movement. For example, Taraldsen proposes that the particle-noun phrase order illustrated in ( l l a) is derived in stages, one stage being similar to theav structure in ( l lb). (11)

a. b.

at han slapp inn katten.

that he let in the. cat . .. dat hij de kat binnenliet. that he the cat in.let , . . .that he let in the cat'

(Norwegian) (Dutch)

Taraldsen argues that the particle originates to the left of the verb, with the object first moving across both verb and particle, leading to the Dutch order. In valanguages, a series of VP movements results in the Norwegian order. Thus, all languages are alike in requiring various VP-internal elements to move overtly to licensing positions, and va languages in addition have the property that there is successive leftward movement of verbal projections to specifier positions. Taraldsen suggests that object shift, too, may profitably be seen as a result of leftward VP movement. Hr6arsd6ttir, drawing on her previous work (see references in her paper), examines historical data from Icelandic, demonstrating that various types ofav structures disappeared simultaneously from Icelandic. In particular, before the nineteenth century, objects frequently appeared to the left of non-finite verbs (finite verbs appeared in second position, as in modern Icelandic). With non finite auxiliaries preceding the main verb, various options are observed: the object might precede both verbs, follow both verbs, or appear between the two verbs. In addition, the auxiliary could precede or follow the main verb. The following word orders are then attested. ( 1 2)

a. Aux Va b. Auxa v c. aAux V d. V Auxa e. a v Aux

(The final logical possibility, VaAux, is unattested; cf. the discussion of V-Aux adjacency above.) Hr6arsd6ttir shows that av orders (including VAux orders) disappeared simultaneously from Icelandic in the nineteenth century, with the result that only the order in ( 12a) is grammatical (with the exception of the examples with quantified objects discussed in my contribution to this volume). Pintzuk 1 997 has also documented the same observation for the history of

14

PETER SVENONIUS

English, showing that various classes of elements ceased to appear to the left of their selecting verbs at the same time. This is puzzling on an approach to OV structures like that in (5) above, because if distinct features move the object to the different positions above and below the auxiliary and cause the reversal, then there is no reason to expect them all to have become weak simultaneously. Hr6arsd6ttir demonstrates how an analysis of VO order based on VP movement yields the right results: if what happened in the history of Icelandic is that VP movement of the type illustrated in the derivations in (9)-(10) went from being optional to being obligatory, then only one change need be postulated, instead of a series of independent but simultaneous ones. Deriving VO order through phrasal movement rather than head movement is one of the main themes running through this volume. Holmberg's and Pearson's papers (discussed below) also take up this issue, as does Brody's, in a way, and HinterhOlzl's, briefly. Aside from this difference, the main distinction between the type of account presented by Taraldsen and Hr6arsd6ttir and Haider's is whether the licensing positions are derived positions or not. Haider argues in this volume that they are not, noting in particular that there are no island effects as might be expected from moved elements; in his paper, Hinter hOlzl argues that they are. HinterhOlzl examines several pieces of evidence from West Germanic languages, including the position of the infinitival marker, word order in complex verbal clusters, and facts about postverbal CPs and PPs. He concludes that there is substantial evidence for an account in which licensing positions are reached through overt movement in OV languages. He provides an analysis of so-called extraposition, such as that exhibited in ( 1 3). ( 1 3)

Hans hat Peters Buch gelesen fiber Chomsky.

Hans has Peters book read about Chomsky 'Hans has read Peter's book about Chomsky'

(German)

Hinterh6lz1 notes that a rightward movement analysis is incompatible with Antisymmetric principles. What is more, the construction does not bear the usual characteristics of extraction structures: note that the noun phrase is specified, a situation which ordinarily prevents extraction (Ross 1 967b). Hinterh6lz1 presents an analysis in terms of copying with partial deletion which is fully consistent with the Kaynean treatment of OV languages.

15

INTRODUCTION

5.

Mirrors

Several asymmetries were pointed out in the previous section. A particular type of asymmetry not discussed yet is mirror effects, or what is sometimes called 'centripetal' organization (cf. Dik 1 989: 342). For example, Greenberg's Universal 20 states that if any or all of the demonstrative, numeral, and descriptive adjective precede N, then they do so in that order; whereas if they follow N, they appear in the same or the opposite order. As Hawkins 1 983 observes, the mirror-image order is by far the most common, for elements following N. 6 The example in ( 14b) is from Koromfe (Niger-Congo, Burkina Faso; after Rennison 1997: 85-86). (14)

a. b.

those three black cats

lug<mi bfniA tiiii

cats

(Koromfe)

hElJ

black three those

Hetzron 1 978 notes that adjective orders also show a mirror effect; in AN languages like English (those in which the attribute adjective precedes the noun it modifies), adjectives expressing evaluation precede those expressing size, which in turn precede color adjectives, while in NA languages the order is exactly the reverse. (15)

a. b.

a beautiful big red ball

(Indonesian)

bola merah besar jang tjantik

ball red

big

REL beautiful

Koster 1 974 noted a mirror effect for prepositional phrases in Dutch. PPs following the verb have the opposite relative order compared with their sequence preceding the verb (these examples are taken from Barbiers 1 995: 103). ( 1 6)

a.

Hij is door

'n stuuifout

met een knal op het hek

he is through a steering. error with a

gestrand. b.

stranded

Hij is gestrand op het hek

met een knal door

he is stranded on the fence with a

stuuifout.

bang on the fence (Dutch)

een

bang through a

steering.error 'He got stranded on the fence with a bang because of a steering error'

The order in ( 1 6b) is basically the same as in English, while the preverbal order in ( 16a) is the reverse.

16

PETER SVENONIUS

Mirror-image structures are familiar from morphology; Baker's 1985 Mirror Principle observed that the relative closeness of morphemes to a stem reflects the order in which the corresponding syntactic transformations take place; for example, if a benefactive argument is realized as a direct object when an applicative morpheme is attached to the verb, and if passive promotes a direct object to subject position, then in order for a benefactive argument to appear as a subject under passive, the applicative morpheme must be closer to the stem than the passive morpheme. This can be seen in the Chichewa example in (17) (from Baker 1988: 307; SP is subject agreement, ASP is aspect). (17)

Mbewa zi-na-sem-er-edw-a

mitondo.

mice SP-PAST-carve-APPL-PASS-ASP mortars 'The mice were carved mortars' (i.e. somebody carved mortars for the mice)

(Chichewa)

Baker derives the order of morphemes through strictly local head movement (following Travis 1984). In the case of the applicative passive, the applicative suffix is argued to originate as a preposition in a PP complement to the verb, and the passive morpheme is taken to occupy a higher head. The derivation of the applicative passive in (17) proceeds as sketched in ( 1 8), ignoring the prefixes and the aspect suffix. ( 1 8)

a. b. c. d.

PASS [vp carve [pp APPL mice] mortars] PASS [vp carve-APPL 1 [pp tl mice] mortars] [carve-APPLlh-PASS [vp t2 [pp tl mice] mortars] mice3 [carve-APPLlh-PASS [v p t2 [pp tl t3] mortars] In (1 8a), the verb takes two complements, a PP and an NP. In (1 8b), the preposition has incorporated into the verb, appearing as a suffix (cf. Baker op. cit. p. 23 1). In (1 8c), the verb has moved to a higher head, attaching to the left of the passive suffix (op. cit. p. 309). (1 8d) simply shows the NP movement of the derived subject. In subsequent work, however, it has often been assumed that head-movement necessarily leads to adjunction to the left, with the result that suffixes on a stem must reflect successively higher functional heads above that stem (cf. Kayne 1994); predictions about prefixes are less clear; see Julien 2000 for some discussion. Furthermore, it has been common to take these mirroring effects to cover non-grammatical function changing affixes as well; thus, Belletti 1990 could argue that AgrP dominates TenseP, contra Pollock 1989, on the grounds that agreement morphemes occur further from the stem than tense morphemes, cross-linguistical ly. The order of functional elements appears to support this view. For example,

INTRODUCTION

17

the order of suffixes in the Northern Sfuni verb form in (19a), where the potential mood suffix is closer to the stem than the subject agreement suffix, is taken to mirror the order of those heads in the syntactic tree. This view is strongly supported by structures like that in (19b), where the negative and perfective auxiliary verbs take the same suffixes, but where the first auxiliary takes the agreement suffix and the second the mood suffix (cf. Mitchell 1 99 1 ; Holmberg et al. 1993 on Finnish). (19)

a. b.

Veahkeh-earra-n.

help-POT-1 SG 'I could help' J-n

NEG-lsG

(Northern Sami)

l-earra veahkeh-an.

be-pOT help-PERFECT 'I couldn't have helped'

Cinque 1999 develops a strong argument for this extended mirror principle, identifying a number of categories of adverbial meaning and connecting different morphemes with those categories. He demonstrates that cross-linguistically, the ordering of the adverbs mirrors the ordering of the morphemes. The adverbs are taken to occupy specifier positions in phrases projected by functional heads, and the morphemes are taken to be associated with those selfsame heads; morphology then mirrors the syntactic tree in a striking way. Brody 1997 takes these observations as fundamental and proposes the Mirror Theory, by which morphological structure and complement structure are isomorphic: a syntactic complement is realized with its selecting head as a suffix; this yields a result similar to that of a theory in which the head of a complement always raises to its selecting head (cf. Svenonius 1 994), but only if head to head movement happens at the surface: Brody points out, in his contribu tion to this volume, that in his theory there is no room for covert incorporation. He examines the case of Romance restructuring, and demonstrates the advantages of his analysis over one involving covert head movement. He also examines the case of Hungarian verbal clusters, which exhibit an interesting property: certain sequences of Hungarian verbs can appear in either order, e.g. 'begin-swim' or 'swim-begin' , with the same meaning ('begin to swim'). He argues that this reflects an option, either the dependent (main) verb is identified as the specifier or the complement of the superordinate (auxiliary) verb. If the dependent verb is a complement, then by Mirror Theory, the superordinate verb must immediately follow it, as a suffix; if the dependent verb is a specifier, then it is a distinct phrase, and whether it precedes or follows the superordinate verb depends on where that verb is realized (in situ, following the

18

PETER SVENONIUS

subordinate verb, or in a higher functional posltIon preceding it). This is strikingly like the cross-linguistic observation noted above that while Aux-V order does not necessarily require adjacency, V-Aux order does. If V-Aux order is generally derived by head movement or a closely related mechanism, as in Brody's theory, then this cross-linguistic fact may be captured. However, there are other ways in which mirror images may be derived, and head-movement is often reserved for cases in which the elements so combined are clearly wordlike. Kayne (1994: 52ff.; cf, also Julian 2000, Ch. 5) has suggested a derivation for mirror-image ordering based on a phrasal analogue of head movement: if an element Z moves from the right to the left of an element Y, then the order of Z and Y is reversed. If a node dominating both Y and Z then moves leftward across a node X, the order Z-Y-X results, the opposite of the original order. This is illustrated in (20) for the (gloss of the) Indonesian noun phrase in (I5b) above. Brody (1997) refers to structures produced by movement of a node dominating the target of previous movement as 'roll-up' structures. (20)

a. b. c. d.

[xp beautiful [yp big [zp red [NP ball]]]] [xp beautiful [yp big [AP [NP ball] red tNP]]] [xp beautiful [yp [zp [NP ball] red tNPJ big tzp]] [xp [yp [zp [NP ball] red tNP] big tzp] beautiful typ]

If beautiful is the head of XP, big the head of YP, and red the head of ZP, then no functional projections need be assumed. This is consistent with the view of Abney 1987 that adjectives are heads in the extended projection of N. However, if the elements in the reverse order are phrasal, some more complicated structure is necessary. This is how Barbiers 1995 analyzes postverbal PPs in Dutch. According to Barbiers, the various PPs are adjoined to VP, as shown in (21 a) (compare (16», where the different segments of VP are marked with different lower-case letters. The lowest segment of VP moves into the specifier position of the lowest PP, in order to enter into a subject-predicate relation with it, as shown in (21b) (this is the 'intraposition' alluded to above). The next two segments (marked 'b' and 'c' ) move into the next two PP specifiers in (21c-d), resulting in reverse order (cf. Barbiers 1995: 1 15).

(21)

a. b.

[VPd [pp by mistake] [VPc [pp with a bang] [VPb [pp on the fence] [VPa stuck]]]] [VPd [pp by mistake] [VPc [pp with a bang] [VPb [pp [VPa stuck] on the fence] tv pa]]]

INTRODUCTION

c. d.

19

[YPd [pp by mistake] [YPe [pp [YPb [pp [YPa stuck] on the fence] typaJ with a bang] typb]] [YPd [pp [VPe [pp [YPb [pp [YPa stuck] on the fence] tYPaJ with a bang] tYPbJ by mistake] type]

These movements, according to Barbiers, are necessary in order to establish the Spec-Head relation necessary for a PP to predicate over the relevant VP, and must occur covertly in languages in which they do not occur overtly. Holmberg proposes a kind of roll-up structure for Finnish verbal clusters in his contribution to this volume. He notes that in Finnish, V-Aux order requires strict adjacency. He proposes that V-Aux order is derived by movement of VP into the specifier of a functional head which selects the auxiliary. This leads to derivations like that in (22). (22)

a. b. c. d. e.

hp Tense [AuxP have [AspP Aspect [yp write novel]]]] [TP Tense [AuxP have [AspP Aspect [yp novell write t I ]]]] [TP Tense [AuxP have [AspP [yp novel 1 write ttl Aspect typ]]] [TP Tense [AuxP [AspP [yp novel 1 write ttl Aspect typJ have tAspP]] [TP [AuxP [AspP [yp novel 1 write ttl Aspect typ] have tAspP] Tense tAuxP]

In (22a), the base order of heads is shown. In (22b), the object has moved to the left of the verb (here, to SpecVP). In (22c), the VP has moved into the specifier of AspectP, in order for the verb to check its aspectual features against the functional head of that phrase. The same occurs in the next two steps. It can be seen that as long as adjunctions to X' are not allowed, and adjunctions to the right of XP are not allowed, no material will intervene between the verb and its auxiliary in the resulting head-final structure. In the final string, novel write Aspect have Tense, the functional elements Aspect and Tense are suffixal, and are pronounced as a word with the immediately preceding stems, hence some thing like novel writ-ten ha-s in pseudo-English, 'has written a novel' . This affixation is subject to adjacency, according to Holmberg, so that for example the object could not have remained in situ in the first step, leading to an AspP of the form *write novel -Aspect. Pearson, in his paper in this volume, applies the roll-up technology to several additional kinds of mirror-image effects. He notes that although same order patterns of the type discussed above are common, they are not universal. There are languages, such as Malagasy, Palauan, and Zapotec, in which the unmarked order for indirect object and direct object is the reverse of that in

20

PETER SVENONIUS

English. Similarly, some of these languages have the reverse relative order for certain series of adverbs, and show scrambling effects to the right, rather than to the left. But Pearson notes that the mirror effects do not warrant a fully symmetric analysis; each of these languages also shows some same-order effects, for example they are consistently VO, and never OV. Pearson develops an analysis that is consistent with Kayne's LeA, and proposes a novel kind of rationale for why roll-up structures occur; in short, they occur in languages in which verb movement is systematically unavailable. In this way, the proposal bears a relation to Holmberg's, in which V movement and VP movement are alternatives for checking V features; but unlike Holmberg's proposal, in which the two possibili ties are manifested within a single language, Pearson casts the option as a point of cross-linguistic variation.

6.

Conclusion

The analyses in the different contributions to this volume are not completely compatible with each other, though there are several harmonious strands running through most of them. Papers like those of Hinterh61zl, Haegeman, Hr6arsd6ttir, and Taraldsen largely share the same theoretical assumptions and come to highly compatible conclusions. Others of the papers are parts of broader programs initiated by the author or authors; those of Fukui & Takano and Brody stand out in particular in this respect, distinguishing themselves more sharply in their basic theoretical assumptions. Another example is the paper by Haider, which defies what is to some extent the majority view here, deriving from Kayne and earlier work by Hinterh61zl, which envisions leftward movement on a large scale to derive OV order. Hinterh61zl's paper is in part a response to some of the challenges posed by Haider. Another interesting tension is that between the two papers focusing on Icelandic: Hr6arsd6ttir's paper holds that there is general VP movement in modern Icelandic, of the sort proposed by Kayne 1998; but part of Kayne's argument is based on the OV patterns discussed in my paper, which are an intermediate stage in the derivation of a VO language like English, for Kayne. In order for my and Hr6arsd6ttir's analyses to be reconciled, either the landing site of quantified noun phrases in Icelandic must be higher than their landing site in English (i.e. higher than the landing site of the VP), or else the landing site of VP must be lower. Yet another point of tension, noted above, is that between Pearson, who would have head movement versus phrasal movement be a major parameter

INTRODUCTION

21

distinguishing language types, and Holmberg, who makes use of a very similar distinction within Finnish, arguing that both head and phrase movement are options. For these two to be reconciled, either something would have to be said about what makes Finnish unusual in this respect, or else, if Finnish turns out not to be unusual, about what is special about this parameter that allows both settings to be manifested as options in a single language. A third perspective on this issue is held by B arbiers, who uses a combination of head and phrasal movements to derive surface word order in Dutch. The harmonies among the various papers represent a certain kind of forward momentum, while the tensions hint at different possible directions for that movement.

Notes 1.

Thanks to Anders Holmberg, Hubert Haider, and Matthew Pearson for feedback on this introduction.

2.

On the other hand, it seems that some languages have both prepositions and postpositions; e.g. English has the postposition ago, and Finnish has a variety of postpositions and prepositions cf. Holmberg this volume.

3.

Preliminary investigations provide some cross-linguistic support. For example, possessive suffixes in Finnish bear some resemblance to subject agreement suffixes, suggesting that genitives are subjectlike; and Finnish is SVO and GN; possessive pronouns in Moroccan Arabic are identical to object pronouns, meaning that genitives are objectlike, and Moroccan Arabic is SVO and NG. Dryer 1 999 discusses the different motivations for GN versus NG in SVO languages.

4.

Of course, this explanation presupposes that absolutive case is different from nominative.

5.

The generalization, as stated here, holds for very many languages, though perhaps not always for the same reasons. For example, it holds of languages with second-position auxiliaries such as various Slavic, Australian, and Uto-Aztecan languages, but there the obligatory adjacency of V-Aux order may be of a different nature from the obligatory adjacency of V-Aux in for example Japanese or Persian. (i) Aux-V order may be interrupted (ii) V-Aux order may not be interrupted The generalization can be read on two levels: as a claim about unmarked orders and as a claim about any order. As a claim about unmarked orders, counterexamples to (i) are Spanish and Rumanian, and Dutch in embedded clauses. Counterexamples to (ii) include two Bongo-Bagirmi languages, Ngambay and Mbaye. These two languages were the only ones listed in Dryer 1 998 as having base order SVOAux (with verbal auxiliary), while very many languages turned up with base order SAuxOV. As a claim about derived orders, various VP-topicalization structures violate (ii), e.g. in Scandinavian languages.

6.

There are many mixed cases, in particular numbers very frequently precede the noun (cf. Greenberg 1978: 29). In mixed cases, the relative orders of the individual elements remain true

22

PETER SVENONIUS

to the generalization; thus we frequently find for example Num-N-A-Dem (Basque, Indonesian, Vietnamese, Jacaltec, Welsh, and many others) but not Num-N-Dem-A. Greenberg mentions Kikuyu as having N-Dem-Num-A, i.e. the N-final order but with N initial; Hawkins 1983 points out that all such non-mirror image examples seem to come from the Bantu family (though Old Norse allows N-Dem-A, Nygaard 1906, it is not the usual order). See Rijkhoff 1992: 223ff. for discussion.

References Abney, Steven. 1 987. The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential Aspect. Ph.D. disserta tion,

MIT.

Anderson, Stephen. 1976. "On the notion of subject in ergative languages."

In Charles N.

Li (ed.), Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press. 1-24. B ach, Emmon. 1962. "The order of elements in a transformational grammar of German."

Language 38: 263-269. B ach, Emmon. 1968. "Nouns and noun phrases."

In Emmon Bach and Robert T. Harms

(eds), Universals in Linguistic Theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

9 1-124. B ach, Emmon. 197 1 . "Questions." Linguistic Inquiry 2: 153-166. B aker, Mark. 1985. "The Mirror Principle and morphosyntactic explanation." Linguistic

Inquiry 16: 373-416. B aker, Mark C. 1988. Incorporation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. B arbiers, Sjef. 1995. The Syntax of Interpretation. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics [HIL dissertations 14] . Belletti, Adriana. 1990. Generalized Verb Movement: Aspects of verb syntax. Turin: Rosenberg and Sellier. Borer, Hagit. 1994. "On the projection of arguments."

In Elena B enedicto and Jeff

Runner (eds), Functional Projections. Amherst: GLSA, University of Massachusetts.

19-47. Brody, MichaeL 1 997. "Mirror theory." London: University College London [DCL Working Papers in Linguistics 9]. Chomsky, Noam. 1970. "Remarks on nominalization."

In Roderick Jacobs and Peter

Rosenbaum (eds), Readings in English Transformational Grammar. Waltham: Ginn and Co. 1 84-221 . Chomsky, Noam. 1980. Rules and Representations. New York: Columbia University Press. Chomsky, Noam. 1 98 1 . Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris. Chomsky, Noam. 1994. "Bare phrase structure." MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 5. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1994. "On the evidence for partial N-movement i n the Romance DP."

In Guglielmo Cinque, Jan Koster, Jean-Yves Pollock, Luigi Rizzi, and Raffaella Zanuttini (eds), Paths Towards Universal Grammar: Studies in honor of Richard S.

Kayne. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. 85-1 10.

23

INTRODUCTION

Cinque, Guglielmo. 1 999. Adverbs and Functional Heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford: OUP. Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge,

MA: MIT Press.

Dik, Simon C. 1 989. The Theory of Functional Grammar: Part I: The structure of the

clause. Dordrecht: Foris. Dixon, R.M.W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: CUP. Dryer, Matthew S . 1980. "The positional tendencies of sentential noun phrases in universal grammar." Canadian Journal of Linguistics 25: 123-195. Dryer, Matthew S . 199 1 . "SVO languages and the OV: VO typology." Journal of

Linguistics 27: 443-482. Dryer, Matthew S . 1992. "The Greenbergian word order correlations." Language 68:

8 1-138.

Dryer, Matthew S . 1998. Typological Database. SUNY, Buffalo NY. Dryer, Matthew S . 1 999. Explaining the Order of Genitive and Noun

in SVO Languages.

Ms. SUNY Buffalo. Emonds, Joseph. 1976. A transformational approach to English syntax: Root, structure

preserving, and local transformations. New York: Academic Press. Frazier, Lyn. 1979. "On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies." Bloom ington: Indiana University Linguistics Club. Fukui, Naoki, and Takano, Yuji. 1998. "Symmetry in syntax: Merge and demerge."

Journal of East Asian Linguistics 7: 27-86. Fukui, Naoki. 1 993. "Parameters and optionality." Linguistic Inquiry 24.3 : 399-420. Gazdar, Gerald, Pullum, Geoffrey, and Sag, Ivan. 1982. "Auxiliaries and related phenom ena in a restrictive theory of grammar." Language 58: 59 1-638. Givan, Talmy. 1984. Syntax: A functional-typological introduction, Volume 1 . Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Greenberg, Joseph H. 1963. "Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements." In Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of Lan guage. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 73-1 1 3 . Greenberg, Joseph H. 1978. "Numerals." I n Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of Human Language, vol. 3 . Stanford: Stanford University Press. 249-295. Haider, Hubert. 1992. "Branching & discharge." Arbeitspapiere des SFB 340 23, 1-23. Universities of Stuttgart and Tlibingen; revised version to appear in Lexical Specifi cation and Insertion, Peter Coopmans and Jane Grimshaw (eds.), 135-164. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics. Halliday, M.A.K. 1967. "Notes on transitivity and theme in English, part II." Journal of

Linguistics 3 : 199-244. Hawkins, John A. 1 983. Word Order Universals. New York: Academic Press. Hawkins, John A. 1 988 (ed.). Explaining Language Universals. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Hawkins, John A. 1994. A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency. Cambridge: CUP.

24

PETER SVENONIUS

Hetzron, Robert. 1978. "On the relative order of adjectives." In Hansjakob Seiler (ed.), Language Universals. Tiibingen: Gunter Narr. 165-1 84. Hinterh61zl, Roland. 1997a. "A VO-based approach to verb raising." In Kiyomi Kusumoto (ed.), Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 27. Amherst: GLSA. 1 87-202. Hinterh61zl, Roland. 1 997b. An XP-movement account of restructuring. Ms. University of Southern California. Holmberg, Anders. 1986. Word Order and Syntactic Features in the Scandinavian Languages and English. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Stockholm. Holmberg, Anders, Urpo Nikanne, Irmeli Oraviita, Hannu Reime, and Trond Trosterud. 1993 . "The structure of !NFL and the finite clause in Finnish." In Anders Holmberg and Urpo Nikanne (eds), Case and Other Functional Categories in Finnish Syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 177-206. Huang, C.-T. James. 1982. Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Jackendoff, Ray. 1977. X-bar Syntax: A study of phrase structure. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press. Johnson, Kyle. 199 1 . "Object positions." Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 9: 577-636. Julien, Marit. 2000. Syntactic Heads and Word Formation: A study of verbal inflection. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Tromssz>. Kayne, Richard S. 1 983. "Connectedness." Linguistic Inquiry 14: 223-249. Reprinted in 1984 in Connectedness and Binary Branching, Dordrecht: Foris. Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Kayne, Richard S . 1 998. "Overt vs. covert movement." Syntax 1: 128-19 1 . Koopman, Hilda. 1984. Th e Syntax of Verbs: From verb movement rules in the Kru languages to universal grammar. Dordrecht: Foris. Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 1993. Nominalizations. London: Routledge. Koster, Jan. 1974. "Het werkwoord als spiegelcentrum." Spektator 3 : 601-6 1 8 . Koster, Jan. 1 994. "Predication incorporation an d the word order o f Dutch." In Guglielmo Cinque, Jan Koster, Jean-Yves Pollock, Luigi Rizzi, and Raffaella Zanuttini (eds) , Paths Toward Universal Grammar: Studies in honor of Richard S. Kayne. Washing ton, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. 255-276. Larson, Richard. 1988. "On the double object construction." Linguistic Inquiry 19: 335-39 1 . Lees, Robert B . 1959. The Grammar o f English Nominalizations. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT Published 1963 in revised form by Indiana University Press, Bloomington, with Mouton, The Hague. Lehmann, W. P. 1 973. "A structural principle of language and its implications." Lan guage 49: 47-66. Li, Charles N., and Thompson, Sandra A. 1976. "Subject and topic: A new typology of language." In Charles N. Li (ed.), Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press. 457-490. .

INTRODUCTION

25

Li, Yen-Hui Audrey. 1 990. Order and Constituency in Mandarin Chinese. Dordrecht: Reidel. Mitchell, Erika. 199 1 . "Evidence from Finnish for Pollock's theory of IP." Linguistic Inquiry 22: 373-379. Nash, Lea. 1996. "The internal ergative subject hypothesis." Proceedings ofNELS 26. Nash, Lea. 1998. On the absence of SVO ergative languages: The case of Georgian. Ms. University of Paris 8. Nygaard, Marius. 1 906. Norr¢n Syntax. Oslo: H. Aschehoug & Co. Peters, P. Stanley Jr. and Ritchie, RW. 1969. "Context-sensitive immediate constituent analysis: Context-free languages revisited." ACM Symposium on Computing, 1-8, ACM. Reprinted 1 973 in Mathematical Systems Theory 6: 324-333. Pintzuk, Susan. 1997. From OV to VO in the history of English. Ms. University of York. Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. "Verb-movement, universal grammar, and the structure of IP." Linguistic Inquiry 20: 365-424. Pullum, Geoffrey and Wilson, Deirdre. 1 977. "Autonomous syntax and the analysis of auxiliaries." Language 53.4: 741-788. Rennison, John R 1 997. Koromfe. London: Routledge. Rijkhoff, Jan. 1992. The Noun Phrase: A typological study of its form and structure. Ph.D. dissertation, Universiteit van Amsterdam. Ross, John Robert. 1967a. "Gapping and the order of constituents" Paper presented at the 10th International Congress of Linguistics. Published 1970 in Progress in Linguis tics, ed. by Manfred Bierwisch and Karl Erich Heidolph. The Hague: Mouton. 249-259. Ross, John Robert. 1967b. Constraints on Variables in Syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Published 1986 as Infinite Syntax! Norwood: Ablex. Runner, Jeffrey. 1995. Noun Phrase Licensing and Interpretation. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Steele, Susan. 1978. "Word order variation: A typological study." In Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.), Universals ofHuman Language, vol. 4: Syntax. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 585-624. Stowell, Tim 198 1 . Origins of Phrase Structure. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Svenonius, Peter. 1994. "C-selection as feature-checking." Studia Linguistica 48: 133-155. Svenonius, Peter. 1 998. "Conference report: Workshop on VO and Ov." Glot International 3.9/10: 25-28. Svenonius, Peter. In press. "Subject positions and the placement of adverbials." To appear in Peter Svenonius (ed.), Subjects, Expletives, and the EPP. Oxford: OUP. Takano, Yuji. 1996. Movement and Parametric Variation in Syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Irvine. Trask, R L. 1979. "On the origins of ergativity." In Franz Plank (ed.), Ergativity: Towards a theory of grammatical relations. New York: Academic Press. 3 85-404. Travis, Lisa. 1984. Parameters and Effects of Word Order Variation. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.

26

PETER SVENONIUS

Uriagereka, Juan. 1999. "Multiple spell-out." In Samuel David Epstein and Norbert Hornstein (eds.), Working Minimalism. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. 251-282. Vallduvf, Enric. 1990. The Informational Component. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Vennemann, Theo. 1974. "Topics, subjects, and word order: From S:XV to SVX via TVX." In J.M. Anderson and C. Jones (eds), Historical linguistics 1 . Amsterdam: North Holland. 339-376. Zanuttini, Raffaella. 1 997. Negation and Clausal Structure: A comparative study of Romance languages. Oxford: OUP. Zwart, Jan Wouter. 1993 . Dutch Syntax: A minimalist approach. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Groningen. Groningen: Grodil. Zwart, Jan Wouter. 1997. Morphosyntax of Verb Movement. A minimalist approach to the syntax of Dutch. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Restructuring

Mirror

Michael Brody University College London and Linguistic Institute, HAS

Abstract Sections 1 and 2 briefly outline some central features of mirror theory (Brody 1997) and discuss consequences with respect to 'basic' word order. In Sections 3 and 4 I note that mirror theory is incompatible with covert roll-up head chain type relations and argue that contrary to recent claims the analysis of Romance restructuring need not involve such structures. In Section 5 I note that Kayne's correlation between null subjects and clitic climbing may be better captured under the proposed analysis than it has been in earlier approaches. I argue that both phenomena involve licensing of a Spec by an element of Infl. In Sec tion 6 I discuss some aspects of the behavior of Hungarian restructuring infinitives and their treatment in mirror theory. Section 7 looks at some similarities and differences between the 'climbing' options of Hungarian verbal modifiers and Romance clitics. Finally in Section 8 I argue that to understand Hungarian restructuring constructions it is necessary to distinguish (strictly local) head chain and (successive step) phrasal chain type relations, - a fact that constitutes further evidence for some core assumptions of mirror theory.

1.

Mirror theory, a brief sketch

In mirror theory (Brody 1997), the morphological structure of words is expressed syntactically as complementation structure. The mirror principle of this theory ensures that if x is the complement of y then x is taken to be the morphological specifier of y. For a large set of morphemes (generally suffixes) it is also typically (though probably not always) true that if x is the morphological specifier of y, then x is the complement of y syntactically. As a simplified example, V is (part of the) the morphological Spec of Infl and V is also typically (part of the) the syntactic complement of Infl.

28

MICHAEL BRODY

In mirror theory, complementation structure is taken to be the default expression of the morphological structure - the mirror hypothesis. According to this hypothesis the syntactic head-complement relation expresses the morpho logical specifier-head relation in inverse topological order: complements follow while specifiers (whether syntactic or morphological) precede the head. Thus no separate :xo-internal representation needs to be assumed that matches and duplicates the complement series. Consider for example the simplified structure in (1) of, say, Mary loves John. Here (Mary) is the trace of the subject in Specv, so Mary and (Mary) form a chain; the object John is taken for the sake of presentation, probably counterfactually, not to form a chain with a position higher than Specv; and Infl, v and V represent, again in a simplified fashion, the morphemes (some null) from which the word loves is composed.

(1)

�

�

Mary

v @ (loves)

�

(Mary)

V

/

John

The complement series in (1), Infl+ v+ V serves as the syntactic representation of the morphological word (MW) V+ v+ Infl. Morphology spells out the syntactic representation of an MW (a) in one of the head positions, here in that of v (as indicated by "@"), from which the MW is composed and (b) in inverse order, due to (the appropriate version of) the mirror hypothesis, an axiom of the system. All this gives the correct morpheme order both word-internally (love+ s) and also word-externally if the Spec (and whatever it dominates) precedes the head, and the complement (and whatever it dominates) follows it. The order of head and complement follows from the order of Spec-Head, given the assumption that specifiers uniformly precede the head both in syntax and in morphology and that syntactic complement relations are inverse order morphological Spec-Head relations - the mirror hypothesis again. Thus in (1) Mary precedes Infl, Infl precedes v where loves is spelt out and v precedes V and whatever V dominates, i.e. in particular John. Under mirror theory the syntactic complementation relation entails morpho logical specifierhood: if x is the complement of y then x is the morphological specifier of y. Thus first of all the arguments of the verb that are morphological ly independent of it, - (non-incorporated, non-clitic) subject or object, or clausal

WORD ORDER, RESTRUCTURING AND MIRROR THEORY

29

complement etc. - must be specifiers. Secondly if the subparts of what in standard systems are extended projections do not form an MW then these parts must also be in the specifier-head rather than in the complement-head relation. For example in "John has come" come cannot be (part of) the complement of has. The auxiliary is an element that is part of the extended word but not of the morphological word of the main verb. It must therefore be a specifier as in (2).

Infl @ (has)

(2)

�

John

Infl

/

come

To ensure the correct word order, it must be assumed that come is the specifier of a head that is lower than the head in which has is spelt out in morphology. The representations in (1) and (2) are simplified in several ways for presentational purposes, but there is a particular simplification that is not presentational, but is meant as a substantive restrictive hypothesis. This has to do with the elimination of phrasal nodes. The structure in (3) for example that (1) replaces is obviously redundant.

(3)

InflP

�

Su

Infl'

�

Infl

vP

�v'

(Su)

�

v

VP

�

Obj

V'

/

V

Call the claim that the set of phrasal and XO-intemal projections of a head can be systematically collapsed the telescope hypothesis. XO-intemal projections are unnecessary given the treatment of MWs as (inverse order) complement lines. As for phrasal projections, the telescope hypothesis embodies the expectation that

30

MICHAEL BRODY

given the accumulating evidence for multiple additional heads of various types in the structure, phrasal projections will invariably be unnecessary. For example the major evidence for the V' level, based on the hierarchical subject-object asymmetry, disappears when the subject is taken to be Specv. This ensures without the intermediate bar level that the subject is higher than the object. Any category can be interpreted as either a phrase or a head in mirror theory - a head by itself and a phrase together with all categories it dominates. (Notice also a terminological point: since categorial projection is eliminated, extended projections are better referred to as extended words.)

2.

Mirror theory and word order

As we have seen, under mirror theory all non-clitic arguments must be specifiers. Does mirror theory therefore entail a strict "underlying" (i.e. chain-root) head final "sov" order? While such a statement would be partly true, it would also be in part incorrect and in part misleading. There are three main reasons. First, a morphologically dependent object, like an incorporated noun for example may be the complement of the verb. Given the mirror hypothesis, it will then be spelt out preverbally as required. Secondly, as noted above, a head like a verb for example, may form an MW with one or more higher heads like v and Infl, each of which is the syntactic complement of the next. The MW may be spelt out in any one of the complement positions that its component members (the morphemes) occupy. Now the notion of MW corresponds to the concept of head chain in standard frameworks, but it is different from this notion in that it provides no natural way of talking about "underlying" or chain root position. The set of heads, each a complement of the previous one, is a decomposed representation of the MW So there is no clear sense in which the lowest head in the series would be an "underlying" or chain root position. Thus mirror theory consistently entails head final structures in the sense that arguments must be specifiers, but there is no sense in which it can be said to entail underlying or chain root SOY, because the positions in which the verb may be spelt out, and which may precede or follow the object and also the subject, form an MW and not a chain. The standard ways of creating non chain-root word orders involve not only V-raising but also VP shift. The third reason why mirror theory cannot be taken to entail chain root SOy is that it provides a treatment for the relevant VP shift operations in which the V-phrase's chain root position corresponds to what is taken to be its shifted, non-root position in other approaches. Recall the discussion .

WORD ORDER, RESTRUCTURING AND MIRROR THEORY

31

preceding (2) above: a V-phrase that does not form an MW with the rest of what in standard terms is its extended projection (in mirror-theoretical terms its extended word, EW), must be in a Spec position. So in general EWs do not necessarily form a series of complements, they can also continue via specifiers. Thus we have a potential solution to the triggering problem of VP shift. When the V-phrase is in a Spec position, this need not be because it forms a chain with a root position where the V-phrase is a complement, part of its extended word. The V-phrase may simply continue its EW via the Spec position, a configuration that must be available in general if the mirror hypothesis is on the right track. Thus at least in some of the cases where non V-final order is achieved in standard terms by VP shift, under mirro r theory the "underlying" chain root V(-phrase)-final order may not exist.

3.

Restructuring and (covert) roll-up

Let us refer to a series of chains as a roll-up structure if it meets the following condition: each chain (except the last) takes the top of the previous chain together with the host of this top member (where this host includes the root of the previous chain) to be the root of the next chain. The term "cascade" has sometimes been used but it I shall avoid it here, since it is often employed also in a different sense. Roberts ( 1 997) has recently suggested analysing Romance type restructuring as (in these terms) a roll-up structure that involves covert head chains. He proposed that restructuring between two verbs V I and V2 involves head movement of V2 up to V I . The V I V2 order in Romance is due to a filter that prevents spelling out V2 in the higher position in its chain. This filter would distinguish between morphemes and words: V can be spelt out on the left of its Inff host since both elements are morphemes, but in restructuring V2 cannot be spelt out on the left of its host VI because both verbs are full words. V2 therefore has to surface lower, and so the VI V2 surface order remains. Roberts assumes (a) that head movement of V2 to V I creates an extended projection that includes both verbs and (b) that the locality/relativized minimality requirement of XP chains makes use of a principle of equidistance (in Chomsky's 1 995 sense), for which positions internal to an extended projection count as equidistant. Following Sportiche 1 995, Roberts assumes that clitic climbing involves XP chains. In the clitic climbing structure in (4), for example, Roberts takes the clitic to move as XP via the lower SpecAgrO and the higher SpecAgrO. That the former position is involved is suggested by the well known participle agreement phenomenon. The involvement of the higher AgrO, as he points out, is suggested by the participial agreement in the matrix in (4).

32

MICHAEL BRODY

(4)

Maria li

ha voluti

prendere.

Maria them (MASC.PL) has wanted (MASC.PL) take

(It)

(This evidence for phrasal chains is strong only on the assumption that the notion of 'checking domain' should be eliminated. Otherwise, as has been noted, agreement of the participle with a nonphrasal element adjoined to the head, i.e. still in its checking domain, is an obvious alternative. See Sportiche 1 992 and Cardinaletti & Starke 1 999 for additional evidence for a phrasal clitic chain.) So for Roberts, invisible movement of the verb prendere to a position hosted by voluti creates an extended projection and thus makes the SpecAgrS of the lower head and the SpecAgrO of the higher one equidistant from the lower AgrO - all three positions are in the same extended projection. In mirror theory, roll-up structures involving heads are analyzed in terms of MWs (as opposed to 'phrases' , i.e. categories taken together with their constitu ents). Elements of MWs are morphemes and the whole MW is a word. Given this restrictive notion, it would make no sense to distinguish component elements of MWs as being either word-level or morpheme-level elements. Another consideration that may be taken to indicate that it may be worth while to look for an alternative treatment of restructuring is the following. Roberts points out that his approach accounts for the possibility of (XP-)move ment across restructuring predicates "without any operation deleting structure in the lower clause" (p. 432). It is not clear however if a solution based on the notion of equidistance is a priori more desirable than one based on structure deletion. The hypothesis that in restructuring contexts intervening position B is deemed not to intervene between positions A and C (whether this is due to A and B being deemed equidistant from C or to some other reason) says nothing about how B will behave under conditions or processes other than movement. On the other hand the hypothesis that in the same contexts B does not intervene because B is not present (either not present at all in the structure or present but in fact occupies a non-intervening position) entails that no principle or operation can make use of B (at all or in the intervening position). These empirical consequences are missing in the weaker equidistance approach. (For the same reason, the layered VP analyses in which AgrO is lower than the chain-root position of the subject in Specv (e.g. Koizumi 1 993; Bobaljik 1 995) would appear to be a priori more desirable than Chomsky' s ( 1995) equidistance solution, where the paths of subject and object cross.)

WORD ORDER, RESTRUCTURING AND MIRROR THEORY

4.

33

Restructuring as 'I in C'

As is well known, there is direct empirical evidence that the complementizer level of the lower infinitive is present in restructuring. (5) is a case with si-passive, (6) clitic climbing and (7) an easy to please construction (cf. Rizzi 1 982; Sportiche 1 995; Kayne 1 987). (5)

? Certe riposte non si

(6)

?Mario, non 10

(7)

sanna mai

come dare.

(It)

certain answers not REFL knows never how give 'One never knows how to give certain answers. '

saprei a chi

affidare.

Mario not him know to whom entrust 'Mario, I would not know to whom to entrust him

? Ce genre d'article est difficile

a

savoir au

(It) .'

classer.

(Fr)

this kind of.article is difficult to know where file 'This kind of article is hard to know where to file. ' Roberts combines Sportiche's phrasal chain analysis of cliticization with the Kaynean approach to restructuring as involving movement of the lower Inil to the higher one. Apart from the suggestion already discussed that this operation creates an extended projection spanning the two clauses, he also suggests that Inil movement is coextensive here with verb movement. Following B elletti ( 1990) he assumes that the infinitival verb in Italian raises to Inil. If this is so, then raising of Inil will involve raising of the verb, resulting in the incorrect word order. Hence the necessity of the * V V filter he proposes, discussed above. The evidence that Roberts quotes from B elletti ( 1990) for the infinitival being in Inil comes from the observation that these must precede elements like mai and piu, naturally associated with negation: (8)

Gianni ha deciso di non tornare mai/piu.

(It)

Gianni has decided to not return ever/more 'Gianni has decided not to come back ever/anymore. ' (9)

* Gianni ha decisio di non mai/piu tornare.

(It)

However even if the polarity elements are in SpecNeg, it does not strictly follow that the verb has raised to the highest Infl. position: it may still be in principle the case that Inil raising in restructuring involves a higher head in the Inil domain than the one to which the verb raises. (Cf. e.g. Cinque 1 999 on multiple Neg positions.) So this evidence in fact does not necessarily prevent a return to Kayne's Inil

34

MICHAEL BRODY

raising analysis. Kayne ( 1 989) assumed that in clitic climbing the clitic raised to the lower Inti, Inti+clitic to C and the whole complex then moved to the higher Inti. It is, however, not clear why the infinitival Infl needs to move to the higher Inti of the restructuring V if clitics form XP-chains. For Kayne, movement to the higher Inti is necessary to carry the clitic up into the higher clause, which is now achieved via the XP-chain. Additionally questions arise concerning the fact that Inti movement to the higher clause appears to cross the higher V position. Let us then dispense with the now apparently unnecessary and problematic part of Kayne' s "I to C to I", namely with "c to I". The residue, "I to C", is motivated by Kayne primarily by the contrast between the restructuring construc tions like in (5)-(7) and those with an overt C as in ( 10) and ( 1 1) (his example is ( 1 1 ) : (10)

*Certe riposte non s i

(11)

*Non li

sanna mai s e dare.

certain answers not REFL knows never if give 'One never knows whether to give certain answers. '

so

(It)

s efare.

not them know if do 'I don't know whether to do them. ' As he notes it is natural to assume that "I to C", hence restructuring, is possible only where C is otherwise empty. (Currently standard assumptions about head movement as head adjunction do indeed provide a basis for expecting some correlation, although they provide no grounds for expecting exactly the observed correlation. If heads do not move through other heads, it remains accidental that only those heads to which Inti cannot adjoin happen to have overt phonological realization. ) Notice however, that the evidence pertains only to the claim that (elements of) Inti are present in C, and not to the assumption that a chain has been formed. Thus we could equally assume that restructuring involves a special type of infinitival C that is in some closer than usual relation with its Inti domain. Suppose Inti can merge with the C selected by restructuring verbs in the sense that Inti (and its Spec, if any) becomes part of the C-domain and thus will not qualify as an A-type intervener. It will thus not interfere with A-chains construct ed across it. The Inti in C analysis automatically covers the case of long si passive in restructuring. Lack of an A-type (Spec-)Inti in the lower clause entails that there will be no (relativized) minimality violation in long si-passives like (5) either. (Like others, I assume that auxiliary selection phenomena in restructuring involves long movement and thus in the relevant respect also falls under the same generalization.)

WORD ORDER, RESTRUCTURING AND MIRROR THEORY

5.

35

Null subjects and ditic climbing

The correlation conjectured by Kayne between the existence of null subjects and the option of clitic climbing is only weakly captured in Kayne 1989. His proposal was that an Infl strong enough to licence null subjects has the ability to void the barrierhood of VP, thereby enabling clitics to escape higher. It is not clear however why these two Infl properties should go together - there is no obvious intrinsic connection between licensing a particular type of Spec and voiding the barrierhood of the complement. Under the phrasal chain analysis of cliticization, the correlation can be captured more directly. Consider Cardinaletti & Starke's ( 1 999) hypothesis that strong and weak pronouns systematically differ from clitics in being XPs, while clitics are heads. In mirror theory terms the only natural way to translate this is to say that non-clitic pronouns are specifiers of the verb's extended word, while clitics are heads, members of the verb's extended word. We can leave it open here whether the clitic starts out as a member of this extended word (essentially as in Sportiche 1 995) or as seems more likely (thanks to Michal Starke for helpful discussion) a head in the Infl domain inherits the features of its (weak) pronominal specifier via Spec-Head agreement. On these approaches syntactic cliticization in the core cases would correspond to a special type of Spec-Head agreement, possible only where the head has the ability or expressive power to carry the referential, anaphoric etc. functions of its designated Spec. Presumably the 'designated' Spec is one whose every feature participates in the Spec-Head agreement relation. With the clitic option taken (the default case where possible, cf. Cardinaletti & Starke's "minimize structure"), the Spec will be typically (apart from clitic doubling) empty or null. The corresponding heads on the other hand are typically non-null, phonologically. The similarity of VP-external, or Infl domain, cliticisation to null subjects is now conspicuous. Null subjects are also licensed by a typically non-null head in the Infl domain that is able to carry the semantic functions of the subject. Thus both VP-external high cliticization and null subjects are licensed in the same way. Both will be possible in a language where clitics exist and Infl domain heads can carry the semantic functions normally carried by Specs as in Italian. In French, as Kayne ( 1 989) points out, even though "easy to please" constructions show restructuring effects, neither null subjects nor VP-external clitics (hence no clitic climbing) are licensed. The analysis outlined in the previous two sections assumes that the clitic's 'phrasal' chain (Spec-to-Spec constituent chain in mirror theory terms) extends to a SpecX position higher than the matrix restructuring verb V*. In mirror

36

MICHAEL BRODY

theory terms this entails that x (which expresses the clitic) and V* cannot form an MW If they did, this would result in the enclitic order: V*-x. To achieve the proclitic order, x must have a complement y with the MW of V* in the Spec of y. (The alternative on which xlclitic and V* in fact form an MW also seems worth exploring, although I will not do so here. If x-V* is an MW then x must originate lower than V*. Hence the Spec-to-Spec constituent chain of the clitic must end lower than V*, which often (as in (5) and (6)) but not always (e.g. (4) above) means lower than the restructuring head, i.e. presumably within the Infl domain of the embedded clause. Such an analysis would be more in the spirit of Kayne's I-to-C-to-I rule, but it would not inherit the problem of I(+C) crossing the matrix V.) .

,

6.

Hungarian verbal dusters

Verbal clusters in Hungarian involving typical restructuring infinitives may appear in two orders: what we might call the straight order as in Romance (and elsewhere) and the inverted roll-up order: ( 1 2)

Utalok [kezdeni jami uszni] .

(Hu)

hate.I begin.INF go.INF swim.INF 'I hate to begin to go swimming (regularly)' ( 1 3)

Utalok [uszni

jami kezdeni] .

(Hu)

hate.I swim.INF go.INF begin.INF - same The infinitives in ( 1 3) are behaving as dependent bound morphemes while those in ( 1 2) behave as words. Adverbials (or other material like the matrix subject for example) may intervene between the infinitivals in ( 1 2) but not between those in ( 1 3) cf. Koopman and Szabolcsi 1 999. Thus, Hungarian restructuring verbs must apparently be intrinsically underspecified (or dually specified) for word hood/morphemehood. The infinitives in ( 1 3) in standard terms appear to form an XO roll-up structure and thus in mirror theory they must be analysed as constitut ing a single MW syntactically a series of complements: -

-

WORD ORDER, RESTRUCTURING AND MIRROR THEORY

( 1 4)

37

-ok@

�

utal-

/

-ni@

�

kezde-

�

-ni

�

jar-

�

-ru

�

usz-

The correct word order results in ( 14) if the MW utalok is spelt out higher than the position of the verb utal, i.e. in some head in the Inil domain represented here by Tns+Agr -ok. Utalok will then precede the (specifier of) its complement the MW uszni jarni kezdeni, a complement series spelt "backwards". In ( 1 2) the morphologically independent infinitives cannot be each other' s complements, they must therefore each b e specifiers: ( 15)

-ok@

�

utal-

/

-ni@

�

kezde-

/

-ni@

�

jar-

/

-ni@

�

usz-

MICHAEL BRODY

38

High spellout of each infinitive ensures the correct word order: each verb in (15) spelt out in the relevant inflectional head position IH will precede the (specifier of the) complement of IH. If we did not have evidence for the infinitives in (13)-(14) constituting a single MW the word order there could also correspond to what in standard terms we could only analyze as a phrasal roll-up structure. While that can be repro duced in mirror theory, this framework appears to provide also an additional possibility. The analysis could be the same as that of ( 1 2)/( 1 5), but with the spellout positions of the infinitives being those of the verbs instead of the higher functional heads. Then each infinitive would be preceded by (the complement of) its specifier resulting in the roll-up order. Low spellout is apparently not an option in Hungarian, a fact perhaps connected to the language allowing null subjects (cf. Roberts 1 997). (Note that in ( 14) and ( 1 5) ' @ ' indicates the spellout position and not that of the strong features. These correspond to the spellout positions in ( 15) and may be the same in ( 14) on the assumption that the spellout position of an MW is its highest strong position.) ,

7.

Verbal modifiers and ditics

As discussed in Koopman & Szabo1csi ( 1998) and also in Brody ( 1997), E. Kiss ( 1 998), Hungarian verbal modifiers (VMs: particles, small clause predicates, bare nouns etc. that can form a single MW with the associated verb, e.g. szet-szed, 'apart-take' ) can apparently also form long-distance chains across a set of restruct uring infinitives (the trace of the VM is indicated by the copy in parentheses): (16)

Szet fogom akami

kezdeni

szedni

(szit) a

radi6t.

(Hu)

apart will.I want.INF begin.INF take.INF apart the radio 'I will want to begin to take apart the radio. '

E. Kiss ( 1998) argues that the VMs i n structures like ( 1 6) relate the verb they semantically belong to and their spell out position via a head chain type relation on the basis of the fact that the string following the VM does not appear to form a constituent and thus cannot be co-ordinated. (17)

*Szet [akarom probalni valogatni a apart will.I

szedni

a

try.INF

radi6t].

sort.INF

babot] es [fogom kezdeni

the beans and will.I begin.INF (Hu)

take.INF the radio 'I will try to sort ( ' apart' ) the beans and will begin to take apart the radio. '

WORD ORDER, RESTRUCTURING AND MIRROR THEORY

39

The co-ordination facts however can pertain only to the question of whether the spellout position of the VM is a head or a Spec position, they do not tell us how the relation between the VM in the matrix and the associated embedded verb is mediated by a head-chain or phrasal chain type relation. Typically the same coordination facts obtain with clitics. ( 1 8)

*Je l 'ai 1

vu

et ai

aime.

(Fr)

him. have seen and have liked

But as we have seen above there is reason to think that clitics can be involved in phrasal chain type relations. Thus Hungarian VMs can be analyzed like clitics: they involve a phrasal chain but at the top position of this phrasal chain a Spec-Head relation is established. The head participating in this Spec-Head relation is of the type that is able to express the content of its VM spec. There is however a real difference between Romance clitics and Hungarian VMs in restructuring. While clitics can cross a filled C-Spec as (6) above shows, reproduced here as ( 1 9), VMs cannot. The infinitival with a +wh SpecC is grammatical in Hungarian as a complement of tud ('know') and van ( 'is' / 'exists' ), but no VM can cross this spec. ( 1 9)

?Mario, non 10

saprei a chi

affidare.

(It)

Mario not him know.I to whom entrust 'Mario, 1 would not know to whom to entrust him. ' (20)

Tudok mit szetszedni.

(Hu)

know.I what apart.take 'I know what to take apart.' (2 1 )

*Szet tudok mit szedni. apart know.I what take.INF - same as (20)

Given the assumption adopted here that the clitic in (19) forms a phrasal chain that spans the matrix and the embedded clause across SpecC, the solution that would attribute the contrast between (19) and (2 1 ) to the difference between the type of interveners to which head chain and phrasal chain type relations are sensitive to is not available. But a different account, still in the spirit of relativized minimality, could be adequate even if both the clitic and the VM form phrasal chains. The VM is an adverbial type element, hence it cannot cross a filled SpecC, - the ungrammaticality of (2 1 ) would then be on a par with that of (22) : (22)

a. b.

*How much did Mary wonder why John weighed? *60 kilos, Mary wondered why John weighed.

40

MICHAEL BRODY

The clitic in (19) on the other hand is an argument. If the top of its phrasal chain is in an A'-position then the structure is like other A'-argument extraction, like e.g. (23). (23)

?Who did Mary wonder why John weighed?

If the clitic is in an A-position, then A'-Specs must be taken to be irrelevant as A-chain interveners, just like A-Specs are irrelevant for A'-chains (cf. Rizzi 1990). As Anna Cardinaletti points out (p.c.), the present approach in terms of an argument-adjunct contrast is supported by the complete lack of idiomatic clitic climbing across filled SpecC:

(24)

a.

Ce

la devo fare.

(It)

there it must.I do 'I have to succeed.' b. *Non ce la so come fare. not there it know.! how do 'I do not know how to succeed. '

8.

Straight and roll-up orders again

There is also Hungarian-internal evidence for the claim that the chain of the VM in straight order restructuring constructions is of the phrasal type (cf. Brody 1 997). This is based on Szabolcsi's ( 1996) observation concerning the interpreta tion of the focussed infinitive in restructuring constructions with more than one layer of clausal embedding. (25)

a. b. c. d. e.

AKARNI fogok kezdeni

(Hu) uszni. want.INF will.I begin.INF swim.INF 'I will indeed want t o begin t o swim.' 'I will WANT to begin to swim. ' (and not, say, TRY to begin to swim) 'I will begin to WANT to swim.' (and not, say, TRY to swim) * 'I will indeed begin to want to swim.'

If the focussed infinitive in (25) has scope over the others, i.e. if it is taken to be associated with the highest infinitival position, then the interpretation of the structure is ambiguous between an emphatic and an 'exhaustive list' reading, as indicated in (25b) and (25c). If however the focussed infinitive has lower scope, i.e. a lower chain-root position, then the emphatic reading (2Se) disappears and only the 'exhaustive list' reading (25d) remains.

WORD ORDER, RESTRUCTURING AND MIRROR THEORY

41

If head-chain and phrasal chain type relations are distinguished, then this state of affairs is straightforward to explain. There are independent reasons to assume that focussing in Hungarian involves a dedicated head, F (cf. Brody 1 990, 1 995) and that the emphatic reading is associated directly with this head rather than with its Spec. Only focussed heads but not focussed phrases can receive the emphatic reading. It is natural to complement this with the assump tion that the exhaustive list reading is associated with the Spec position of F. If head-chain type relations are strictly local but phrasal chains can span larger distances (whether this involves the combination of strictly local links is not relevant here), only the exhaustive list reading (the phrasal chain construction) will be compatible with the lower scope reading. The explanation is contingent on interpreting strictly the standard distinction between head chain and phrasal chain type relations: the former but not the latter are strictly local; head-chains cannot (even apparently, by combining several local steps) cross nonlocal distances. Thus, if the explanation of the correlation between scope and focus interpretation is on the right track, then head chains and phrasal chains must have different locality properties. Whatever way syntax expresses the distinction between these two types of relations, the long-distance chain of the VM in ( 1 6) must belong to the phrasal type. Additional evidence for the existence of the need to distinguish within syntax the head chain and the phrasal chain relations is provided by the fact that the scope of the infinitives in the roll-up structure ( 1 3), reproduced here as (26), is fixed. Thus in (26) kezdeni ( 'begin' ) has scope over jami ('go regularly'), the opposite interpretation is impossible:

(26)

Utalok [uszni

jami kezdeni] .

(Hu)

hate.I swim.INF gO.INF begin.INF 'I hate to begin to go (regularly) swimming.' This is as expected if the roll-up structure involves head chain type relations, that is in mirror theory a series of complements expressing an (inverse order) MW, as in (14) above. Suppose, however that the roll-up structure was created by phrasal chains, by the lowest infinitive (here: uszni) moving to a Spec above the next (here: jami) and then a phrase that includes both this Spec with the lower infinitive in it and the next higher infinitive (i.e. uszni jami) moved in front of the highest infinitive (kezdeni). Clearly there is nothing intrinsic in the concept of phrasal chain that would prevent the lowest infinitive phrase (uszni) from moving in front of the highest one (kezdeni), either in one or in several steps. But this would result in scope relations between the crossed infinitives that correspond to

42

MICHAEL BRODY

their surface order. Under such an analysis uszni would have crossed jami kezdeni and (26) would have the interpretation 'I hate to go (regularly) to begin to swim' which it in fact cannot have. (Admittedly the relevant reading is slightly strange, but this is exactly what (26) would mean if the order of the last two infinitives was reversed, as in Utalok uszni kezdeni jami.) The analyses reviewed in this section make it necessary to take the locality requirement on the relevant head chains to be strict and inviolable. This provides additional evidence for a basic assumption of mirror theory according to which the head chain relation corresponds simply to a local syntactic relation, typically the head-complement relation. Since in this framework no head-chains are formed either in syntax or in morphology and head chains correspond to elements in local relations spelt out in inverse order (MWs), there are no means provided to violate HMC type locality.

Acknowledgments I am grateful to Anna Cardinaletti and Peter Svenonius for helpful correspondence relating to this material.

References Belletti, Adriana. 1990. Generalized verb movement: Aspects of verb syntax. Turin: Rosenberg and Sellier. Bobaljik, Jonathan. 1 995. Morpho syntax: The syntax of verbal inflection. Ph.D. disserta tion, MIT. Brody, Michael. 1990. "Some remarks on the focus field in Hungarian." UCL Working Papers in Linguistics Vo1.2, 201-226. University College London. Brody, Michael. 1 995. "Hungarian focus and bare checking theory." In Arbeitspapiere des Sondeiforschungsbereichs 340, University of Tiibingen. Brody, Michael. 1997. Mirror Theory. ms. University College London. Cardinaletti, Anna and Starke, Michal. 1999. "The typology of structural deficiency: A Case Study of three classes of pronouns." In Henk van Riemsdijk (ed.), Clitics in the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 145-29 1 . Chomsky, Noam. 1 995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA : MIT Press. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford: OUP. Kayne, Richard S. 1989. "Null subjects and clitic climbing." In Osvaldo Jaeggli and Ken Safir (eds), The Null Subject Parameter. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 239-261 .

WORD ORDER, RESTRUCTURING AND MIRROR THEORY

43

Kayne, Richard S. 1993. "Toward a modular theory of auxiliary selection." Studia Linguistica 47: 3-3 1 . E. Kiss, Katalin. 1998. The Hungarian verbal complex revisited. ms. Linguistic Institute, HAS. Koizumi, Masatoshi. 1993. "Object agreement phrases and the split VP hypothesis." In Jonathan D. Bobaljik: and Colin Philips (eds.), Papers on Case and Agreement I [MITWPL vol. 18]. Cambridge, MA: ITWPL. 99-149. Koopman, Hilda, and Anna Szabo1csi. 1998. Verbal Complexes. Ms. UCLA. In press, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Koopman, Hilda, and Anna Szabo1csi. 1999. "Hungarian complex verbs and XP-move ment." In Istvan Kenesei (ed.), Crossing Boundaries: Current Issues in Linguistic Theory. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 1 1 5-137. Rizzi, Luigi. 1982. Issues in Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized Minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Roberts, Ian. 1997. "Restructuring, head movement and locality." Linguistic Inquiry 28: 423--460. Sportiche, Dominique. 1995. "Clitic constructions." In Laurie Zaring and Johan Rooryck (eds), Phrase Structure and the Lexicon. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Szabo1csi, Anna. 1996. Verb and particle movement in Hungarian. Ms. UCLA.

OV is More Basic than VO Hubert Haider University Salzburg

Abstract This paper defends the claim that head-final structures are principally less complex than head-initial structures. The additional complexity of head-initial structures is the result of head movement within the lexical projection. Head movement guarantees the convergence of a head-initial phrase structure, given a universal constraint that admits only a right-branching projection structure. On the theoretical level, this position is in competition with the hypothe sis that OV structures are derived from va structures by evacuation of the VP. In a detailed comparison of the empirical implications, this paper attempts to demonstrate that on the empirical level an evacuation theory is less successful than a head movement theory.

1.

Background

Is OV more basic than VO (or vice versa) is just another way of asking a crucial question in the theory of phrase structure: Is one of the two phrase types head-final-phrases and head-inital ones - a derivative of the other one? In terms of the familiar OV-VO distinction, the question reads: Is the head-initial ( 'VO language') or the head-final structure COV language' ) more basic in terms of the basic X'-structure and its derivational continuation? In Kayne's ( 1994) LCA theory and work building on it, head-initial projections are head-initial underlyingly. This is a consequence of the basic axiom of this theory, the linear correspondence axiom (LCA). 1 It postulates that phrase-structures are built in such a way that the linear order of terminals is a function of asymmetric c-command relations. In the specific implementation of Kayne ( 1994), asymmetric c-command is mapped on precedence. So, in particular,

46

HUBERT HAIDER

the head precedes the complement. Head-final structures are taken to be the result of XP-movement applied to the complements of head-initial projections. So, the OV structure for a VP in particular is the result of evacuating all phrasal elements out of the head-initial VP. The result is a VP that contains nothing but the verb and traces, with everything else situated in functional projections to the left. In a more recent proposal (Kayne 1 998), it is suggested that even in a VO-system like English there are movements of VP-internal phrases in some cases (e.g. negative quantifiers) to the left of VP, followed by fronting the remnant VP past that material again, resulting in what superficially looks like the original word order. This remnant VP-fronting must be ruled out for OV languages. The theory developed in Haider ( 1992) is an alternative to the LCA-based theory of the OVNO-relation. The basic axiom, the branching constraint (BC) postulates a universal right-branching structure for (extended) projections: The projecting node follows the non-projecting sister node. The linear aspect of the head-complement relation is determined by the parametric direction of structural licensing. Licensing to the left triggers the OV structure, licensing to the right the VO structure. In OV languages, with the licensing direction to the left, specifiers and complements precede their respective sister node, that is, the node on the projec tion line of the head of the projection. So, the licensing direction harmonizes with the right-branching structure. Complex head-initial structures, however, cannot meet the directionality of the licensing requirement unless the head is raised (see Section 2 for the details). Thus, head-chains (heads raised to the left) must be formed for the licensing of complements in the (extended) head-initial projections. Head-final structures, on the other hand, will not require head-chains, since the heads follow their complements as well as every left branch (including specifiers) in the (extended) projection. Repercussions of these differences, in particular with respect to the grammar of extraction and the distribution of VP-internal non-arguments, will tum out to be an epiphenomenon of the licensing require ment that forces VO languages, but not OV languages, to apply V chaining. Given this alternative - OV is derived from VO by phrasal movement to the left versus VO is derived from OV by head movement to the left - it should not be too difficult to find decisive empirical evidence. After all, the implica tions of the two accounts are diverse enough. The paper is organized as follows: Section 3 sketches the basics of the head movement account (BC theory) of VO and OV structures. Section 4 presents five areas of data that are of relevance for the evaluation of the competing approach es. It is argued that central implications of the LCA system are in conflict with empirical evidence both on the level of observational as well as on the level of

OV IS MORE BASIC THAN va

47

descriptive adequacy. It is argued that the alternative account provides a more satisfactory modelling of the pertinent facts. Section 5 discusses the trigger problem for each account.

2.

A BC account of VO and OV

The central axiom2 of the approach presented in Haider (1992) and developed further in Haider (1994) is the branching constraint formulated in (1) and illustrated in (2) with a V projection embedded under a functional projection that conforms to (1). It requires that lexical projections and their functional extensions are right-branching: (1)

Branching Constraint (BC): Projection-internal branching nodes on the (extended) projection line follow their sister node. 3

The qualification 'projection-internal' singles out the top node. Without this proviso, the BC would not admit basic head-final structures with a phrasal complement preceding the head, because in this case the top node of the complement phrase would have a right sister, namely the complement-selecting head. What the BC is to capture is the rigid right-branching structure internal to (functionally extended) projections of a lexical head. For the V projection, for instance, this is the V projection proper (as the lexical projection) plus its functional extensions up to CPo (2)

In (2), all non-top branching nodes on the V projection line, that is, all the V' nodes, follow their sister node. On the F-projection line, there is only one

48

HUBERT HAIDER

relevant node, namely F', and it follows its sister node, namely SpecF. The crucial structural difference between a head-inital and a head-final lexical projection will be explained below. (3a) violates the B e, because F' precedes its sister node SpecF. In (3b), V' precedes a VP-intemal node and therefore violates the Be. The Be applies to lexical projections and their functional extensions in general. VP in (2) and (3) is just representative for any complex lexical, head-initial projection. (3)

a. *

FP

�

F'

�O

D

VP

�

V'

� O

V

F

FP

b. *

D

D

The Be forbids a left branch in a binary projection which is a node on the projection line: For any two nodes immediately dominated by different nodes of the (extended) projection line, the node that precedes c-commands the node that follows, and the node that precedes is not a node on the (extended) projection line. This constraint eliminates right-associative projection structures as in (3). As a consequence of (1), precedence and c-command coincide. For all nodes that are immediately dominated by a node on the same (extended) projection line, the preceding nodes c-command the nodes that follow. The Be rules out base generated right-associative structures such as (3) as well as structures derived by movement, that is, as a result of adjunction to the right.4 If a functional projection is a functional extension of the projection of a lexical category, the Be rules out functional heads to the right in general. In this case the projection of the lexical category would be a left sister of the functional head and at the same time a node on the extended projection line as a left branch. This is illustrated in (4): (4)

*

FP

� D

F'

�O

VP

D

F

I

The VP node in (4) is a top node in the V projection, but simultaneously a node on the extended V projection, whose top node is the FP. At this point there is

OV IS MORE BASIC THAN va

49

need for a precise definition of functionally extended lexical projection: A functional projection is a functionally extended lexical projection if and only if the lexical head moves to the functional head position overtly. The BC, for instance, does not rule out clause structures with a clause-final complementizer particle. In this case, the CP is not a functional extension of the complement. It is just a functional projection with a complement selected by a CO-head. Rowev er, the BC would rule out a clause structure if a verb overtly moves to the position of a clause-final functional head that is alternatively realized by a lexical complementizer. In sum, the BC forbids any kind of movement to the right: It forbids head movement to the right, as in (4). It forbids movement into Spec-positions to the right, resulting in structures like (3a). And it forbids adjunction to the right, because this produces structures of the kind (3b). Let us now proceed to head-initial projections. Read-final and head-initial lexical projections have the same kind of branching structure but different head positions. The head position is a function of the licensing directionality.s In (5), the licensing direction is indicated by an arrow. The combination of the BC with the parametric options of licensing (either to the left or to the right) provides the grammatical reason that explains why complex head-initial projections involve shell-structures with a head-chain (cf. Raider 1 993: 28-30). The lexical projection in (2) is a head-final projection. The head and each node on the projection line follows the position to be licensed. So, the structure is simultaneously in harmony with the directionality of licensing and the BC. If, however, the directionality of licensing is progressive, that is, the position to be licensed has to follow, the BC structure provides a single position that meets the licensing requirement. This is the sister of the foot position of the head in (5). The other positions cannot be licensed unless the head is raised. In terms of Chomsky's (1995) framework, the structure (5) is a result of the merge function constrained by the BC: first a Spec-Read-complement configura tion is projected in accordance with the BC. This structure is merged with a head position in order to project another Spec-Read-complement structure. The result is a shell structure of the Larsonian kind (cf. Larson 1 988):

HUBERT HAIDER

50 (5)

The licensing requirement for a phrasal position in a projection is twofold. Licensing combines formal licensing plus identification: The phrase must be assigned to a possible phrase structure position and its dependency relation must be identified. Positions are formally licensed. The parametric direction of formal licensing is the trigger for the shell structure in head-initial lexical projections. Let us now compare the two alternative approaches: In both systems, movement to the right is blocked. The reason is straightforward: The structure presupposed or generated by movement to the right is characterized as ill-formed. In both systems, asymmetric c-command equals precedence. Since movement targets commanding positions, movement is to the left. The differences between the two approaches are easy to trace: In the LCA system, both in the version of Kayne (1994) and ( 1 998), OV is a derivative of a basic VO structure. In the BC system, the OV structure is a potential base structure (cf. structure (2) above). A complex head-initial projection of a lexical head is a shell-structure with a head-chain, as in (5). In order to check the empirical validity of each of these proposals, it is sufficient to derive distinctive, testable implications and check them. (6) lists a selection of areas of grammar in which the two approaches evidently differ. The relevant phenomena will be discussed in the following section.

(6) a. b. c. d. e.

V-head positions per VP VP-internal DP objects VP-internal = postverbal FP topicalization with Vfin universal Aux-V base order

LCA

BC

VO = OV *OV yes yes yes

VO > OV ,/ov

no no no

OV IS MORE BASIC THAN VO

51

(6a) refers to the difference illustrated by (2) and (5). In the LeA system, the V projection of a head-final VP is derived from a head-initial VP structure. Therefore the VP-internal structure is identical for both. In the Be system, however, a head-final V projection is well-formed with a single V position, that is, the verbal head in the foot-position of the projection. In a head-initial VP, the structure is potentially complex, since V chaining is necessary in order to license multiple argument positions. It will be argued below that the distribution of particles in English and Norwegian is a direct reflex of V chaining. (6b): According to the LeA system, the preverbal position of objects in an OV language is always a derived position (i.e. Spec-position of a functional head). In the Be system, the base positions of DP or PP arguments in a head final VP are preverbal. The differentiating prediction is evident: According to the LeA system, any argument is subject to the restrictions on derived positions. In the Be system, preverbal arguments in base positions are expected to behave like arguments in base-positions. In other words: The LeA system predicts that the arguments in an OV clause structure are subject to the kind of restrictions that apply to elements in Spec-positions (e.g. opacity restrictions). The Be system predicts that preverbal arguments in a head-final VP behave just like VP-internal arguments in a head-inital VP. (6c) addresses obligatorily VP-internal elements like selected adverbials or secondary predicates. According to the LeA theory, an obligatorily VP-internal element will surface in a postverbal position in an OV language. Obligatorily VP-internal just means that the element cannot and must not be fronted to a pre VP position. In the Be account, obligatorily VP-internal elements of a head-final VP are necessarily preverbal. (6d) concerns what is traditionally referred to as VP topicalization. In the Be system, it is VP topicalization after all. In the LeA system, the position of a preverbal object is in a higher functional projection. So, traditional VP topicalization must be reanalyzed as the topicalization of a functional projection. If the functional projection contains a link of the head-chain of the finite verb, crossing violations are expected in the LeA system, but not in the Be system. (6e) focusses on the order of auxiliaries. Since the universal base order in the LeA system is head-initial, the auxiliary precedes its complement VP. The VP is head-initial, too. So, the resulting base linearization is: auxiliary before main verb. In German, the linearization is in most cases the mirror image of the English order. In the Be perspective, this is a possible base order.

52 3.

HUBERT HAIDER Data and generalizations: against [OV]

=

[Oi [V ei]]

For ease of reference and for the sake of clarification, the issues listed in (6) will be rephrased as generalizations that ought to be captured by a descriptively adequate model of grammar. Generalization 1 : a. If a result predicate (particles included) may occur in more than one VP-internal position (i.e. adjacent or non-adjacent to the verb), the given language has a head-initial VP. b. In languages with V-final VPs, there is only one particle position for particle verbs, and it is preverbal and V-adjacent. 6 (cf. Haider 1 997 a for details) In English and in Norwegian, verb-particle combinations as well as combinations of a verb plus a resultative predicate occur in one of two serialization patterns: either adjacent or split. In Haider ( 1997a), the non-adjacent pattern is analyzed as the result of optional stranding.

(7)

a. b. c. d.

She cut the tree down carefully. The joggers ran the pavement thin. She cut down the tree carefully. The joggers ran thin the pavement.

(8)

a.

at han kastet matten ut that he threw carpet.the out 'that he threw out the carpet' at de skar kjrjJttet i biter that he cut meat. the to pieces 'that he cut the meat to pieces' at han kastet ut matten at de skar i biter kjrjJtet

b.

c. d.

(Nor)

If the stranding analysis is correct, the particle distribution in English and Norwegian is a direct reflex of verb positions on the V-chain in the V projection. In a stranding language there are as many particle positions as there are links on the VP-internal V-chain. 7

(9)

a. b.

[cu� [the tree [[ei down] carefully]]] [[cut down]i [the tree [ei carefully]]]

In German, which is representative for the Germanic OV languages in this respect, the particle position for verb-particle combinations is preverbal ( IOa-b vs. IOc-d), and adjacent (lOe).

OV IS MORE BASIC THAN va

( 1 0)

a. *daj3 er den Teppich waif weg that he the carpet threw out b. *daj3 er das Fleisch schnitt in (3 gleiche) StUcke that he the meat cut in 3 equal pieces c. daj3 er den Teppich weg waif d. daj3 er das Fleisch in (3 gleiche) StUcke schnitt e. *daj3 er den Teppich weg nichtlachtlos waif that he the carpet out not/carelessly threw

53 (Ger)

It is important to honour two facts: First, this pattern is not confined to particles but applies also to phrasal result predicates, as in ( l Ob, d). Particle incorporation, therefore, would not be an adequate solution. Second, in VO languages, particles and result predicates cannot move to clause internal positions preceding the VP: ( 1 1)

a. *The pavement was thi� [yp run ei] b. *The tree was dow� [yp cut ei]

The problematic aspect for the LCA account is this: If there are elements that do not obligatorily move out of the VP-internal position proper in a VO language, they are - ceteris paribus - expected to do so in an OV language: Given that particles and result predicates are VP-internal elements, they are incorrectly predicted to occur as postverbal elements in OV languages like German, which admit postverbal elements. In the BC account, the facts follow straightforwardly. Since there is only the basic V position in the head-final V projection, there is only one position for particles (cf. ( l Oc)) or result predicates (cf. ( lOd)). Generalization 2: Preverbal argument positions in VO clause structures are VP-external, pre-verbal argument positions in OV languages, however, display VP-internal properties. Phrases in uncontroversial Spec-positions of functional heads are opaque domains for extraction in general. But, as a matter of fact, preverbal positions in OV languages like German, scrambled or unscrambled, are not opaque. 8 So, they cannot be analyzed as Spec-positions of functional heads (without non-standard amendments to the theory, which would need to be independently justified). The contrast in (12), discussed in Kayne ( 1 983: 224), is representative for this generalization. VP-external positions in VO structures are opaque for wh extraction. Preverbal argument clauses in German, however, are not opaque, as (13a) illustrates. (13a) contains a subject clause. ( 1 2)

a. the book that it became difficult [to talk about e] b. *the book that [talking about e] became difficult

HUBERT HAIDER

54 ( 1 3)

Welches Buchi hat [ei zu lesen] dir mehr Spaj3 gemacht? which book has [to read] you more fun.Acc made 'Which book did you enjoy reading?' b. *Welches Buch sagte sie [cp [ei zu lesen] [habe [ihr which book said [she [to read] [has her a.

Spaj3 gemacht]]] ? fun made]]] 'Which book did she say she enjoyed reading?' Although extraction starts from within a subject clause in ( 13a), wh-extraction is possible in this case in German. The contrast between English and German becomes straightforward once it is realized that a German subject stays in its VP-internal position. 9 For a recent survey on this and related issues of German clause structure see Haider ( 1997b), Haider & Rosengren ( 1 998). In ( 1 3b), an embedded V2-clause, the extraction site is contained in a constituent fronted to SpecCP. In this case extraction is ill-formed, as expected. This shows that the standard opacity domains are operative in German. The various movement operations that produce the apparent OV order in the LCA system target functional Spec-positions. Thus, the preverbal XPs in an OV language are predicted to be as opaque for extraction as XPs in uncontroversia1 functional Spec-positions (as for instance the functional subject position in a VO language). These counterfactual implications for VO-to-OV do not arise, of course, if the structure of a head-final projection is identified as an underived, base-generated structure. Generalization 3 : Selected adverbials and secondary predicates are VP-internal in V O languages and preverbal in OV languages. The fact that an element can surface in a VP-internal position in a head-initial VP proves that there is no universal necessity for moving this element to a VP-exter nal position. For OV languages, VP-internal elements would appear postverbally, because VP-internal in OV is, according to the LCA approach (Kayne 1994), identical with VP-internal in a head-initial V projection. Elements that are obligatorily VP-internal in VO languages are particles, result-predicates, object related depictive predicates and selected manner adverbials. All these elements are ungrammatical in preverbal positions in uncontroversial VO structures in English, Romance or Scandinavian languages (cf. ( 14a'-d')). This proves at least that there is no universal trigger for moving these elements out of the VP.

OV IS MORE BASIC

( 14)

a. a'. b. b'. c. , c. d. d'.

THAN

55

VO

They handed it out *They out handed it They drank him under the table *They under the table drank him The meati was served ei raw *The meat was raw served They have lived frugally *They have frugally lived

In the LeA-geared VO-to-OV scenario, the postverbal elements in (15) would have failed to move. In the Be system they could not have been generated in a postverbal position from the beginning. The crucial problem for the LeA approach is that there is no grammatical reason at all for moving these elements: Particles must not move out of the VP (14a). Result predicates do not leave the VP (14b). Depictive predicates are obligatorily VP-internal (14c). Particularly instructive is the distribution of selected manner adverbials. Although a manner adverbial may be placed before the VP, this is not grammatical for selected manner adverbials. All these elements cannot be moved out of the VP in VO languages, so they ought to stay in their VP-internal position in OV languages as well, just like in the regular VO languages. The resulting pattern would be ( 1 5). ( 1 5)

a. *Sie haben es gehiindigt aus ( 14a) they have it handed out b. *Sie haben ihn getrunken unter den Tisch ( they have him drunken under the table c. *Das Fleisch wurde serviert roh ( 14c) the meat was served raw d. *Sie haben gelebt geniigsam ( 14d) they have lived frugally =

=

14b)

=

=

The examples in (15a-d) correspond to (14a-d), respectively. They are ungram matical just because the postverbal elements in ( 1 5) cannot appear postverbally in a head-final projection. The grammatical order is preverbal. To claim that they have to move obligatorily to the left would amount to merely begging the question. There is no OV language known in which these elements appear postverbally, 1O and what is crucial, there is no VO language in which these elements could move to the left, out of the VP. In fact, given the LeA system, one would expect that there are some VO languages in which these elements have to move out of the VP, because the triggers for the evacuation of the VP are in principle independent for each class of items. Why this is trigger obligatorily

HUBERT HAIDER

56

absent in VO languages but obligatorily present in OV languages is a crucial question without an answer at hand. So, we conclude with the insight that there is no straightforward way to derive the OV order from a VO structure for these elements. Generalization 4: Topicalized projections must not contain the trace of the finite verb. In the LCA approach to OV, preverbal elements are assigned to functional Spec positions above VP. What used to be analyzed as VP topicalization must now be analyzed as the topicalization of a VP contained in a functional projection that hosts the preverbal object. In this case, it is important to note that the F-project ion must be lower than the starting point of the head chain that leads to the V2-position of the finite verb. That this is so is easy to demonstrate with the contrast between ( 16a) and ( 16c).

( 1 6)

a.

b. c.

[Einen Fehler nachgewiesen] hat er ihm noch nie.

[a mistake PRT.proven] has he him ever never 'Given him proof of a mistake, he never ever has'

Er wiesj

ihm noch nie

einen Fehler nach-ej .

he prove� him ever never a

mistake PRT-ei

* [Einen Fehler nach-ej ] wiesj er ihm noch nie. [a mistake PRT- ei] prove� he him ever never 'Given him proof of a mistake, he never ever has'

The examples in ( 1 6) feature a particle verb. If the finite verb moves to SpecC, the particle is stranded ( 1 6b). ( 16c) shows that the stranded particle cannot be part of the fronted constituent. In other words, the trace of the finite verb must not be part of the topicalized constituent: ( 16c) demonstrates that the topicalized constituent cannot contain the trace of the finite verb. The particle in ( 16b-c) is an indicator for the position of the trace of the finite verb since the verb is one with a so-called separable particle (cf. ( 1 6b)) that is stranded by V2. Topicalizing the constituent that contains the trace of the verb incurs a crossing violation: The trace of the verb in (16c) fails to be in the c-command domain of the moved verb. With this in mind, let us proceed to the argument: If the topicalized constituent in ( 16a) contained the trace of the finite verb, it would be predicted to be ungrammatical, contrary to the facts. The conclusion must be, therefore, that the topicalized phrase cannot contain the trace of the finite verb. For ( 16a) this means that the topicalized constituent must be a complement of the auxiliary verb. It is only in this case that the finite auxiliary would not have to pass through the functional head of the functional projection that hosts the argument of the main verb (cf. (17)).

OV IS MORE BASIC

THAN

57

va

Unavoidable though this conclusion is, it is an unwanted conclusion, and so is the premise, therefore, which it is derived from: It is unwanted at least for the following reason: This solution is bound to overgenerate. The serialization of the structure (17) is ungrammatical, as the examples ( 1 8a-b) illustrate. The finite auxiliary follows the main verb ( 1 8c). (17)

a. b.

[Aux-VP VAux [FP XPj FO [vp VO . . . ej VP

• • •

]]]

�

VO-aux

FP

�

)Opi

F'

�

FO

VP

�

VO . . . � .

. .

According to this structure, the auxiliary verb in its base position licenses a functional projection as its complement. The Spec of the functional head hosts an element that is moved out of the head-initial VP. If there are more elements, there must be a cascade of functional projections, each of which gives room for one phrase. The result is the surface OV order within the FP. As the examples ( 1 8a-b) illustrate, the order in (17) results in an ungrammatical serialization. ( 1 8)

a. *daj3 er hat (ihm) einen Fehler nachgewiesen that he has him a mistake given.proof.of b. *daj3 er (ihm) einen Fehler hat nachgewiesen that he him a mistake has given.proof.of c. daj3 er (ihm) einen Fehler nachgewiesen hat that he him a mistake given.proof.of has

So, either the structure ( 17) is inadequate or the whole FP must move to a higher position. In the latter case, the FP would tum into an opaque extraction domain. ( 19a) would be predicted to be ungrammatical for the same reason that accounts for the ungrammaticality of extraction out of a fronted constituent in English, as illustrated in (19b): ( 1 9)

WOriiberj [hatj [er [ej gesprochen] ej]] ? what.about has he talked 'What has he talked about?' b. *the book [that [talking about e] he liked] a.

58

HUBERT HAIDER

On the other hand, structure ( 17) could be replaced by a structure in which the auxiliary selects a VP, not an FP (cf. Zwart 1 993), with the surface verb order derived by verb-raising (head-head adjunction). But in this case, the functional projection targeted by VP-intemal elements would be higher than the auxiliary position. So the finite auxiliary would have to pass through the corresponding functional head position. The result would be that (16a) is parallel to ( 16c). In both cases the fronted constituents would contain the trace of the finite verb, and both are predicted to be ungrammatical. There is still another but equally unsuccessful derivational trail that starts with (17) and leads to the word order in ( 1 8c). This is the combination of VP evacuation and the fronting of the remnant VP, as suggested by Kayne ( 1998) for overt quantifier movement in English. The problems remain, however. Since the remnant VP is placed between the evacuated material and the auxiliary, the evacuated material necessarily c-commands the auxiliary, and so do the function al heads that host the material. If the auxiliary moves to the top F-head in the V2-clause, 1 1 it will pass through these head-positions and the ensuing crossing violations cannot be avoided when the minimal constituent that contains the object and the main verb is fronted. Generalization 5: Universal #16 and its extension to auxiliary sequences 12 A final piece of evidence is the order of auxiliaries. The German order, which is representative of OV systems in that respect, is the mirror image of the English sequence. 13 If the OV order is the derivational result of a basic VO order, the base orders of auxiliaries in a VO structure and in an OV structure are predicted to be identical. The evacuation of VP, which produces the OV order, leaves the serialization of verbs unaffected (cf. (20)). If they differ nevertheless, this must be attributed to an additional move in the derivation (20c): (20)

b.

[Vaux [vpVO XP ]] [XPi [Vaux [vpVO ei]]]

Evacuation

c.

XP VO Vaux

Aux-V-reordering (details below)

a.

VO order

In German, the grammatical order (21b) is the mirror image of the English order (21 a). The order parallel to the English one (2Ic) is ungrammatical. In the LCA system, (21b) must be derived from (21 c). In the BC approach, (21b) is a possible base order: Each VP complement is licensed by an auxiliary as the head of a V projection and the VP complement precedes since a verbal head licenses the complement to the left.

OV IS MORE BASIC THAN va

(21)

a.

They [must [have [been [persuaded by him.]]]]

b.

daB [[[[sie von ihm uberredet vp] worden yp] sein vp] that they by him persuaded been have mussen yp] ( 2 1 a) must

59

=

c. *dafi sie miissen sein worden iiberredet von ihm that they must have been persuaded by him The following discussion is meant to highlight the difficulties of integrating this word order property into the LeA system. Of course, there cannot be a demon strative proof that it could not be implemented somehow. The crucial point is just this: In the Be account the German pattern falls out as the expected pattern for head-final languages. This is in accordance with what is known about OV languages. In the LeA account, additional derivational machinery is necessary. Dutch has been claimed to clearly support the LeA approach towards Ov. That this is not so, and that the V-raising phenomenon is a neutral ground at best for a decision between the LeA system and the headedness approach towards OV NO, is what the following paragraphs are meant to indicate. Two possibilities come to mind that could lead to (21b), namely either V-raising or iterative VP movement to the left. Zwart (1993), who primarily analyzed Dutch, advocates a V-raising approach. The auxiliary order is derived by iterative head-to-head adjunction (cf. Zwart 1993 Sect. 2.4). It is possible to derive the order in (21b) from the order in (21 a, c) by means of the devices suggested by Zwart, but the theoretical and empirical soundness remains to be demonstrated. There are several problem areas that undermine this approach as a viable analysis in a Kaynean framework. First, multiple head-to-head adjunction cannot be assumed under the premises of the LeA system, because multiple head-to-head adjunctions are explicitly ruled out by Kayne ( 1994: 8 , 1 9). Secondly, Zwart (1993: 335f.) is forced to admit non-local adjunctions to heads in a derived position in order to capture optional, alternative serializations in the verb cluster in Dutch and German IPP-constructions in which the finite verb is sandwiched by two non finite verbs: (22)

a.

dat Jan verteld zal hebben, dat hij Marie gekust heeft (Dut) that John told

b.

will have

that he Marie kissed has

dafi er sie grufien hiitte mussen that he her greet had must 'that he should have greeted her'

(Ger)

60

HUBERT HAIDER

In terms of the solution proposed by Zwart ( 1 993 : 337), the past participle has moved across the non-finite auxiliary in (22a) and the modal in (22b), respective ly, in order to adjoin to the finite verb in the position of the functional head. But this is in conflict with two standard assumptions: First, head movement is subject to minimality (i.e. the head movement constraint), so the intervening auxiliary should block this movement. Second, if it left-adjoins to the finite verb in the position of an F-head, V-second should transport both verbal elements to SpecC, and not just the finite verb (cf. the movement of finite verbs with adj oined clitics). The result would be ill-formed in Dutch and German, however. If the adjunction approach is hard to maintain, VP movement seems to be the only option left: Starting with the hypothetical base order (2Ic), the order (2 Ib) should be the result of evacuating the VP plus moving every VP out of the VP that contains it to a position preceding the mother VP. The intermediate derivational steps are illustrated in (23). (23a) is the outcome of the evacuation of the proj ec tion of the main verb. The next steps are less straightforward. Let us assume that the finite verb moves to a functional head position (23b), and the remnant VP is fronted (23c). How do we get the inverse order within the fronted VP? (23)

a.

*daj3 siei von ihmj [VP l miissen [VP2 sein [VP3 worden [VP4 ei that she by him

must

have

been

iiberredet ej]]]]

persuaded

b. *daj3 sie von ihm miisseni [VP l ei [VP2 sein [VP3 worden [VP4 e iiberredet e]]]] c.

*daj3 sie von ihm [VP l ei [VP2 sein [VP3 worden [VP4 e iiberredet e]]]] miisseni

Since adjunction is banned in the LCA system, the desired order cannot be achieved by VP fronting. More structure is needed. The mirror order can be obtained if each auxiliary projects at least one separate functional projection, whose Spec will then host the fronted complement. (24) illustrates the derivation for the most deeply embedded VP. (24)

a.

[FP Spec [Fo [VP3 worden [VP4 e iiberredet e]]]] been

b.

persuaded

[FP [VP4 e iiberredet e]j [wordeni [VP3 ei ej]]]]

The FP in (24b) will have to move into the Spec of the functional projection whose complement is the VP of the auxiliary sein, as illustrated in (25).

OV IS MORE BASIC THAN VO (25)

a. b.

61

[FP- l Spec [Fo [vp sein [FP-2-]]]] [FP-l [FP-2 -]j [seini [vp ei ej ]]]

The result would be a complex of stacked F-projections in the Spec o f an F-projection. But the complexity of the derivation is not the problem. The real problem is an empirical one. The assumption that the VP and the higher auxiliary-verb projection are each stacked in separate F-Specs overgenerates: (26a) shows that the extraposed object clause can be part of the topicalized phrase that contains only the main verb. But, independent of topicalization (cf. (26b, d)), the extraposed clause cannot intervene. This would be possible, however, if in (26b, d) there were a VP or a higher projection in a SpecF position. In this case, (26b, d) would be expected to pattern parallel to (26a). (26)

a.

[Sagen, [wo

sie wohnt]], wurde er dir nicht konnen

[tell where she lives] would he you not be.able 'To tell you where she lives he would not be able' b. * [ [Sagen, wo sie wohnt] konnen] wurde er dir nicht [tell where she lives be. able] would he you not c.

[Sagen konnen, wo sie wohnt], wurde er dir nicht [tell be.able where she lives] would he you not

d. *Er wurde dir nicht [sagen [wo sie wohnt]] konnen he would you not tell [where she lives] be.able The VP-movement analysis misses an important property. It does not capture the 'verb cluster property' : The clause-final sequence of non-finite verbs in a simple clause in German must not be interrupted by nonverbal material. It would be unfair to withhold that the Be-based account needs a separate condition for capturing the verb-cluster property. But the crucial difference is that the LeA approach has no consistent way of implementing this: In the Be system, the order restrictions for (26a) and (26d) are different, because (26d) must be a possible base order. In the LeA system, however, (26d) and (26a) are instances of orders derived by the same type of movement, that is, movement of V-projec tions into functional Spec-positions. In sum, there are central data areas that bear on the empirical validity of the LeA account and the Be approach. If put to the test, it turns out that central implications of the LeA system with respect to the analysis of OV structures are not compatible with the full range of the empirical evidence.

62

4.

HUBERT HAIDER

Structure and linearization: What triggers what?

The LeA account is too strong and too weak at the same time: It is too strong because it employs more derivational machinery than justified by independent evidence and it is too weak because it does not provide a general enough trigger theory for the OVNO-parametrization. As for the additional machinery, it should be noted that the LeA account and the Be account of complex head-initial projections share one essential device, namely head chaining: In double object constructions, for instance, the verb in the VP-initial position is the head of a head chain. In addition to head chains, the LeA system must invoke phrasal movement in order to derive the OV structure from the VO structure. In the Be system, head movement is the only device. Head movement is sufficient to capture both, the principal differ ence between the OV and VO structures and the concomitant difference in the internal organization. The evidence discussed above points to the conclusion that the more economical approach is at least empirically adequate. The lack of independent empirical evidence for the need of phrasal movement in view of systematic counterevidence is a non-trivial challenge for the LeA strategy. The lack of a trigger theory is a serious deficit. In the absence of a trigger theory, the LeA theory predicts that natural languages are head-initial languages : The O V order i s the result o f evacuating the basic head-initial projection, but this evacuation must be triggered. In the LeA system, the trigger must be a global one because it indiscriminately affects all VP-internal elements, independent of their category and grammatical function: arguments, attributes (including relative clauses), adverbials, particles, (secondary) predicates. Holmberg (this volume) proposes c-selection (i.e. strict subcategorization) as the parametric locus for the global trigger of the respective movement types: The basic difference between OV and VO languages is in his view reducible to a difference in terms of checking c-selection features: In OV languages, c-selec tion features are to be checked by phrasal movement, but in VO languages by head movement. As he acknowledges, this does not account for the serialization of non-subcategorized elements, such as PP adverbials, adverbial clauses, extraposed relative clauses, etc. without some non-standard assumptions. What is more problematic however, is the existence of mixed language types, such as for instance German: N-, P- and functional projections are head-initial, V- and A-projections are head-final. Since the trigger is framed as a computational property of the different implementation of a feature checking mechanism, parametrization according to category subclasses would amount to a parametri zation on the computational level. In addition, this account is open to the issues

OV IS MORE BASIC THAN va

63

raised against an account that takes head-initial structures as a starting point for deriving head-final ones. The trigger for a head movement structure (i.e. a complex head initial lexical projection) in the Be-based approach is the conflicting set of demands for a convergent structure assignment posed by a serialization with an initial head: A convergent structure must be binary branching and it must comply with the Be and the endocentricity requirement, that is, there must be a head position at the bottom of the projection in a right-branching structure. Given these demands, what is the convergent structure for a serialization like (27a)? The solution is (27b): The convergent structure for (27a) is a structure with head movement: This is the only way to simultaneously have a head-position at the foot of the projection and a lexical head element in initial position without violating the Be. Each head position in (27b) is the local directional licenser of its complement, and for each phrase in the projection there is a local head. In a head-final structure (27c), each phrase has a sister that is either the head or a projection of the head in the canonical licensing configuration and, what distinguishes (27c) and (27b), (27c) meets the Be with the head in the base position. (27)

a. b. c.

[HP hO XP YP ZP] [hOi [XP [ei [YP [ei ZP]]]]] [XP [YP [ZP hOH'] H'] HP]

This way of describing the triggering situation may appear strange because it characterizes the problem from a representational point of view: Given an array of terminals, what is the minimal convergent structure? In this perspective, UG is a complex cognitive capacity of symbol processing recruited for representa tional, that is, projective robustness. It enables the learner to assemble the knowledge system called core grammar. The system of representations and principles of core grammar is the recursive solution of the projection problem for a given natural language L, that is, the function from one-dimensional expres sions ( a string of terminals of L) to an at least two dimensional expression ( the grammatical structure of the string). The core grammar determines the projection of a syntactic structure onto a given string of terminals of L. The solution of the projection problem is the criterion of empirical adequacy for grammar theory. The solution is the algorithm that maps strings of L onto well formed structures. From the point of view of the Be hypothesis, the primary question is 'What is the structure for a given serialization?' and not 'What is the serialization for a given structure?' The Be is an attempt to model a principle of structure =

=

64

HUBERT HAIDER

assignment provided by UG that narrowly restricts the construction space for projections, given an array of terminals: Precedence in linear order corresponds to c-command in structure. The LeA perspective is a perspective of structure disambiguation: UG is supposed to provide a principle that organizes the structure in such a way that the terminals of a given phrase structure can be mapped in a unique way on a linear ordering. Kayne ( 1 994) chose to implement this as a function that maps asymmetric c-command relations on precedence relations. This is only one possible implementation out of many possible alternatives, however. Asymmetric c-command could be mapped on succession in linear order rather than on precedence. The result would be a grammar with consistently left branching structures. 14 Moreover, a grammar in which each head is parametrize able for either precedence (i.e. Spec-head-complement) or succession (i.e. complement-head-spec) would also provide a well-formed system of structure-to string mapping. In other words, the branching directionality is not an integral part of Kayne's system. It is first of all an empirical issue, and secondly, a fact about grammars to be modelled in a theory of UG. A final area of difference in a meta-theoretic perspective is the level of applicability of the respective constraints: The Be is a universal local constraint on structure projection or merger. The LeA, however, is a global constraint. It is a prespecified theorem rather than an axiom. What it amounts to is this: The LeA does not constrain structures but first of all gramma rs. The LeA is a criterion of success for grammars. Grammars must be organized such that they obey the LeA. They obey LeA if the structures they admit fulfill the mapping requirements spelled out by the LeA. So, a grammar has to conspire to meet the LeA: The conspiracy combines constraints on structures (Spec before head before complement), distinctions on the projection level (between categories and segments), constraints on merger (at most one adjunct), and constraints on movements (e.g. no adjunction to the right). A local constraint on admissible data structures, as the Be, is necessarily less far-reaching in its theory-internal implications but it is as strong a claim on the level of the cognitively adequate modelling of a UG property as the global benchmarking of grammars is.

Acknowledgments I want to thank Anders Holmberg and Peter Svenonius for many helpful comments. Remaining shortcomings are of course to be blamed on the author.

OV IS MORE BASIC THAN va

65

Notes 1.

Linear correspondence axiom (LCA): d(A) is a linear order of T, for a given phrase marker P, with T the set of terminals and A the maximal set of ordered pairs (�, Yj), such that for each j , � asymmetrically c-commands Yj. (Kayne 1994: 5f.)

2.

The BC is axiomatic in the following sense: If correct, it describes a universal property of data structures of human grammars. The property modelled by the BC is considered to be a primitive element of UG. The axiomatic element of the LCA system is the postulate that asymmetric c-command is mapped on precedence. The system itself does not break the symmetry.

3.

There are at least two areas of facts that are not yet satisfactorily integrated, namely, the order and structure of postverbal adjuncts in VO languages, and the structure of mirror-image VO languages (cf. Pearson, this volume). The order of postverbal adjuncts in English (V-respect > process > space > time [cf. Quirk et al. 1 986: §8.87]) is the inverse of the order of adjuncts in German, which are preverbal. If it turns out that the traditional account of right-adjunction is correct, the scope of the BC would have to be narrowed in to the projection of the A-structure and the functional extension of a lexical projection.

4.

So, scrambling by movement to the right is ruled out. The phenomena discussed under the heading 'Scrambling to the right' are better analyzed as the result of V movement to the left (cf. Haider 1997c; Mahajan 1997). Extraposition by movement to the right is ruled out by the same reason. In Haider (1994, 1997c), extraposition is analyzed in terms of V movement to the left. The type of V movement in these constructions is an instance of the kind of V movement found in head-initial lexical proj ections.

5.

Licensing in this context is to be understood as a structural relation of node-admissibility in the overt projection structure: For a given projection P with the head pO, the sister node of pO and the sister node of each intermediate projection of pO is subject to a directionality requirement. Depending on the parametrization, the head either precedes or follows the nodes to be licensed.

6.

If the verb is finite, this particle is stranded by V-to-C. Adjacent is but a descriptive character ization: The only elements that may intervene between the particle and the verb proper are elements of the inflectional morphology: The ge-prefix of the participial morphology and the zu-prefix of the infinitival morphology (cf. Hinterh61z1, this voL). These prefixes cannot be stranded.

7.

As noted by Den Dikken (1992: 38) and others (e.g. Fraser 1974; Svenonius 1992), particles in the medial or V-adjacent position cannot be modified (cf. b, d). In these positions particles are XO_ elements that combine with the verb. Only in the final position can a particle be treated as phrasal: a. Mike tossed me the wrench (right) up Mike tossed me (*right) up the wrench b. c. He threw the ball rightlstraight up/back/down He threw (*rightlstraight) up/back/down the ball d.

8.

Local scrambling, as in German, is assumed to be a VP-intemal phenomenon, whence the transparency for extraction. A detailed account of this approach in comparison to competing accounts is presented in Haider & Rosengren (1998).

9.

Since subjects remain in their VP-intemal position and since scrambling is confined to VP-intemal positions as well, neither extraction out of scrambled elements nor out of subjects

66

HUBERT HAIDER is affected by an opacity restriction that applies to Spec-positions.

10.

There seem to exist languages in which arguments precede the verb and the rest follows, for instance Bambara (cf. Diallo 1 987). However, this does not contradict the claim just made. These languages are VO languages in which all arguments, not only the subject, are moved to functional Spec-positions overtly. Non-arguments remain in their VP-internal positions.

11.

Movement of an AuxP rather than the auxiliary itself would not help, since the auxiliary would be confined to the moved phrase. If it were allowed to move out, the ungrammatical German patterns discussed above would reappear.

12.

In languages with dominant order VSO, an inflected auxiliary always precedes the main verb. In languages with dominant order SOV, an inflected auxiliary always follows the main verb (Greenberg 1963).

13.

A systematic exception is the so-called IPP construction (infinitive instead of participle) with modals, some perception verbs, and the causative verb lassen (= let, make): (i) daB er es nicht lesen gekonnt hat that he it not read can has 'that he has not been able to read it' (ii) daB er es nicht hat lesen konnen Normally, the finite verb occurs at the left side of the verb cluster or in some cases even further to the left. But it is not ungrammatical if it it just changes place with the modal, i.e. in the order lesen hat konnen (see below in the text; see also Hinterholzl, this volume).

14.

The time-slot hypothesis (Kayne 1994: 37) does not provide the independent empirical motivation that is necessary for the breaking of symmetry in his system. This hypothesis is itself in urgent need of empirical justification.

References Chomsky, Noam. 1995 . The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Dikken, Marcel den. 1992. Particles. Leiden: Holland Institute of Generative Linguistics. Diallo, Mohamed L. 1987. Zur Verbalstruktur und Syntax des Bambara. Ph.D. dissertation, Universitat Bayreuth. Fraser, Bruce. 1974. The Verb-Particle Combination in English. Tokyo: Taishukan. Greenberg, Joseph. 1963. "Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements." In Joseph Greenberg (ed.), Universals ofLanguage. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 73-1 1 3 Haider, Hubert. 1992. "Branching & discharge." In Working Papers of the Sonderfor schungsbereich 340 (Universities of Stuttgart and Tlibingen) 23, 1-3 1 . (In press in Peter Coopmans & Martin Everaert & Jane Grimshaw (eds), Lexical Specification and Insertion. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 1 35-164. Haider, Hubert. 1993. Deutsche Syntax Generativ. Tlibingen: Niemeyer. Haider, Hubert. 1994. "Detachment - the later, the deeper." Working Papers of the Sonderforschungsbereich 340 (Universities of Stuttgart and Tlibingen) # 4 1 . Haider, Hubert. 1997a. "Precedence among predicates." The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 1, 3-4 1 .

OV IS MORE BASIC THAN VO

67

Haider, Hubert. 1997b. "Projective economy. On the minimal functional structure of the German clause." In Abraham, Werner & EUy van Gelderen (eds), German: Syntactic problems problematic syntax. Tlibingen: Niemeyer. 83-103 . Haider, Hubert. 1997c. "Extraposition." In Beerman, Dorothee, David LeBlanc & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), RightwardMovement. Amsterdam: John Benjamins [Linguistics Today 17]. l I S-lS I . Haider, Hubert and Rosengren, Inger. 1998. "Scrambling." Sprache & Pragmatic #49. Lund University. Kayne, Richard. 1983. "Connectedness." Linguistic Inquiry 14: 223-249. Kayne, Richard. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Kayne, Richard. 1998. "Overt vs. covert movement." Syntax 1: 219-19I. Larson, Richard. 1988. "On the double object construction." Linguistic Inquiry 19: 335-39 I. Mahajan, Anoop. 1997. "Against a rightward movement analysis of extraposition and rightward scrambling in Hindi." In Tonoike, Shigeo. (ed.), Scrambling. Tokio [Linguistics Workshop Series #5]. 93-124. Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan 1986. A Compre hensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman. Svenonius, Peter. 1992. "Movement of pO in the English verb-particle construction." In Black, Andrew & James McCloskey (eds.), Syntax at Santa Cruz, vol. 1 . Santa Cruz: Syntax Research Center, UCSc. 93-1 13. Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 1993 . Dutch Syntax. A minimalist approach. Ph.D. dissertation, Groningen University.

Remnant Movement Liliane Haegeman University of Lille III

Abstract This paper focuses on the derivation of the verb-final pattern in the West Germanic OV languages. The paper concentrates entirely on West Flemish. An antisymmetric approach which assumes short V-movement or no V-movement at all is compared with more recent antisymmetric approaches which postulate both V-to-I movement and remnant XP-movement. I will show that an analysis which postulates absence of V-to-I movement and one-by-one leftward feature driven movement of the V-complements seems to entail a number of funda mental syntactic differences between the West Germanic OV languages on the one hand and the Scandinavian languages, English and the Romance languages on the other hand. These differences have to be stipulated. The analysis elaborated below is in line with Kayne's ( 1994) LeA. I propose that the West Germanic OV order be derived by (i) morphology-driven V-movement to a functional head and (ii) remnant movement of the extended projection of V. This analysis brings the West Germanic OV languages in line with the other languages examined.

1.

Introduction: Antisymmetry and OV order

Embedded clauses in the West Gennanic OV languages such as Dutch, Gennan, and West Flemish (WF), the language focussed on here, have a surface verb-final pattern, as illustrated in WF ( 1 a). (1)

a.

da Valere nen hoek no Gent stiert that Valere a book to Ghent sends 'that Valere sends a book to Ghent'

LILIANE HAEGEMAN

70

In universal base approaches based on Zwart ( 1 993), it is assumed that the com plement-verb order is derived by one-by-one feature-driven leftward movement of the complements of the verb. For instance, in ( 1 a) the indefinite direct object nen boek ('a book' ) moves to SpecAgrOP; the predicate PP no Gent ('to Ghent' ) moves to SpecPredP (Hinterh61zl 1 999; Koster 1 994; Zwart 1 993). Since the finite verb follows the object in SpecAgrOP and the constituent in SpecPredP, the sentence-final position of the verb is taken to be relatively low. Either the verb remains in its base position ( 1 b), or it moves to a low functional head, such as Pred, for instance, in terms of Koster's ( 1 994) analysis ( l c). (1)

b. c.

da [IP Val. [IO] [AgrOP nen boeko [PredP no Gentpp [yp [vo stiert] to tpp]]]] da [IP Val. [IO] [AgrOP nen boeko [PredP no Gentpp [PredO stiert] [vp [vo tv] to tpp]]]]

The consensus is then that the West Germanic OV languages do not display morphology-driven V-to-I movement in the sense of Pollock ( 1 989) and later work. While in Haegeman ( 1 998a, 1 998b) I myself did argue for morphology driven finite V-movement to T and to Neg in WF I continued to assume that the landing site of V was not the 'traditional' high T-head, but rather a second, lower T-head. I will reconsider this analysis below. The present paper re-evaluates the antisymmetric approach illustrated in ( lb-c) in comparative terms. I concentrate on WF but I assume that the analysis carries over to the other West Germanic OV languages. I will show that an analysis which postulates absence of V-to-I movement and one-by-one leftward feature-driven movement of the V-complements implies a number of fundamental syntactic differences between the West Germanic OV languages on the one hand and the Scandinavian languages, English and the Romance languages on the other hand. These differences have to be stipulated. The analysis elaborated below is in line with Kayne's ( 1 994) LeA and parallel to Pearson's analysis (this volume). I propose that the West Germanic OV order be derived by (i) morphol ogy-driven V-movement to a functional head and (ii) remnant movement of the extended projection of V. As we will see, this analysis brings the West Germanic OV languages in line with the other languages examined. The paper is organised as follows. Section 2 summarises a set of problems raised for the analysis outlined above in the light of comparative syntax. These problems have been signalled in the literature. Section 3 introduces a set of additional problems concerning the (comparative) syntax of negation. Section 4 provides an alternative analysis which derives OV orders in terms of double movement. Section 5 shows that the problems raised in Section 2 are solved by ,

REMNANT MOVEMENT AND OV ORDER

71

this analysis. Section 6 briefly examines another implementation o f the anti symmetry approach elaborated by Zwart (1 996). The major problem with this analysis concerns the syntax of infinitival clauses. Section 7 is a brief conclusion to the paper.

2.

Problems with the analysis

This section will show that the analysis with short or no V-movement and one by-one fronting of the complements of V gives rise to paradoxes for a compara tive approach to syntax. Two broad areas will be considered: constructions involving argument positions and constructions involving sentential negation. 2. 1

V-morphology and V-to-/

Based mainly on comparative data drawn, among other places, from the German ic VO languages and from the diachronic development of English, it is generally assumed that there is a correlation between V-movement and inflectional morphology (Roberts 1 985; Pollock 1 989; Rohrbacher 1 994; Holmberg & Platzack 1 995; Vikner 1 997; Ackema 1 999; etc.). The West Germanic OV languages Dutch, German and their dialects, have a fair amount of overt inflectional morphology, which would lead one to expect V-to-I movement (see B obaljik & Thrainsson 1 997: 66; Vikner 1 997: 1 92). Based on the agreement morphology of the relevant languages, Kayne ( 1 994) himself suggests that V-to-I movement must be assumed for the West Germanic OV languages: Since German and Dutch show person agreement, it would follow that in those languages, too, V raises to AgrS . . . . this raising must be thought of as leftward, just as for Icelandic, French, and Italian. The specificity of German and Dutch lies in their requiring most of their complements to move leftward past V. Since the finite V in German and Dutch must raise to AgrS, by the preceding argument, I am led to conclude that in those languages the leftward-moved complements must end up to the left of the AgrS position. (Kayne 1994: 52) Concerning the derivation of the embedded OV order Kayne adds: That leftward movement of complements in German and Dutch does not simply take place within the V projection is reinforced by two observations. First, when the verb is infinitival, the complements must precede not only it but also the infinitival marker zulte, which I take to be heading a separate projection, as with English to. Second, the leftward moved complements in

72

LILIANE HAEGEMAN West Flemish precede not only the verb but also the preverbal negative clitic, which is almost certainly as high as NegP. (Kayne 1994: 52)

While Kayne himself advocates V-to-I movement, this is not the position adopted in Zwart (1993) and those following his approach. As mentioned, if V is taken to move overtly at all, it is taken to move to PredO (cf Koster 1 994) and no link is established between the overt movement of the verb and its morphology. In antisymmetric approaches there also seems to be a tacit agreement that sentence final finite verbs occupy the same position as infinitives. The fact that infinitival morphology is poorer than the finite morphology is not taken into consideration. 2.2 Diesing 's generalisation: syntax and interpretation of indefinite objects A second problem for the antisymmetric approaches to the West Germanic OV order concerns DiesiIlg's generalisation, which postulates a correlation between i a.! �10 ��e aIlc! ,VP-inteJ:n.Cl.1 positiQns. In the more traditional OV ap i , , " ,�� ,!�12� proaches, indefinite pre-verbal objects such as nen boek in ( 1 a) were taken to occupy their VP-internal base positiop"s , ,!() t.l1� left of the verb. Such an analysis ' was in line with Diesing; s scope-related analysi� o{ihe distribution of object DPs ( 1992, 1 996, 1 997). On the basis of German data such as those in (2), Diesing proposed that indefinite objects with existential readings relIl,aip withill yg ,' where they are suojecfto e'-xisteiiiliil closure. '

(2)

a.

weil Elly immer Lieder singt

, . ._,.

(Diesing 1 996: 5)

since Elly always songs sings 'since Elly always sings songs' b.

weil Elly Lieder immer singt since Elly songs always sings 'since Elly always sings songs'

In (2a) indefinite Lieder ('songs' ) is VP-internal and receives an existential reading. In (2b), it has moved out of the VP (hence it precedes the adverbial immer ('always'» and it receives a strong reading. 1 See also de Hoop 1992. In Diesing's approach, the distribution of indefinite object DPs in the West Germanic OV languages was analogous to that in Scandinavian. For reasons of space I will not elaborate the data here, and refer the reader to Diesing's own discussions. Diesing's analysis also accounts for the asymmetries in was for extraction illustrated in (3). In a GB approach, extraction from the object DP in the VP-internal base position is grammatical (3a); extraction from the object in a moved position (3b) is interpreted as an ECP-viohitioll.

REMNANT MOVEMENT AND OV ORDER (3)

a.

73

Wasi hat Otto immer [yp [ti flir Bucher] gelesen ?]

what has Otto always for books read 'What kind of books did Otto always read?'

b. *Wasi hat Otto [ti flir Bucher] immer [yp [t] gelesen ?] (Diesing 1 992: 1 1 8-1 20) According to the antisymmetric view the object in OV languages always moves to SpecAgrOP to check its accusative case (den Dikken 1 996; Van den Wyn gaerd 1 989; Zwart 1 993, 1 996). It is hence not possible to make the leftward movement of the object dependent on features such as [±specific] . This means that the distribution of the indefinite object in the West Germanic OV languages would have to differ substantively from the Scandinavian patterns discussed by Diesing, where movement to SpecAgrOP forces a strong reading, as also expressed by the following citation from Hinterh61zl: nominal complements of the verb always have to leave the VP before Spell-out (independently of whether they are definite or indefinite) and are licensed in functional projections (HinterhOlzl 1999: Ch. 4, p. 42; this volume, p. 304).

There is, of course, a solution to this problem but one that is unsatisfactory in that it creates further problems for Germanic comparative syntax. If all nominal complements move leftward in OV languages, we might restate Diesing's generalisation in terms of the degree of leftward movement and propose that existential indefinites move somewhat less than strong indefinites. The asymme try in the was flir extraction data would then also have to be accounted for in terms of the 4egree of movement of the object. This solution is not satisfactory because it leacis to new problems with respect to the syntax of the Germanic VO languages. ()ne w0l..lld have to assllllle that either indefinite object,s.,�!th. existen tial readings" do" not move ln Scandinavian, or else tlieY UIldergo . similar short movement. . In the" former option, the syntax �f S'candi�a�ian indefirrlte objects �wouId'-remain different from its West Germanic counterpart, an unexpected result. In the latter case, the syntax of indefinites in Scandinavian would receive the same analysis as that in West Germanic, but the postverbal position of Scandinavian existential indefinites will imply that the verb itself must now be taken to move leftward. This conclusion again would lead to a number of modifications in our assumptions concerning the grammar of the Scandinavian languages. In particular, the question would arise as to the trigger of V-move ment. (But see Hr6arsd6ttir 1 999, this volume for a different analysis.) The analysis below will allow us to maintain Diesing's generalisation in full and to assume that the syntax of the Scandinavian indefinite object is identical

74

LILIANE HAEGEMAN

to that of its West Germanic counterpart, i.e. the existential indefinite object remains VP-internal. 2.3 Holmberg 's generalisation The syntactic operation responsible for the movement of the object out of the VP in ( 1 a) is generally taken to be object shift (Van den Wyngaerd 1989), which is also at the basis of the leftward object movement in the Scandinavian languages. For the latter, object shift tends to be correlated to V-movement (Holmberg 1986: 176, Chomsky 1 993: 1 8, Zwart 1996: 237-243) . Zwart ( 1996) reformulates the generalisation as in (4): (4)

Holmberg's generalisation Object shift of an element ex from the complement position of a verb 13 to the specifier position of 'Y, the AgrOP associated with 13, is possible only if 13 moves to the head of 'Y (Zwart 1 996: 238)

An approach i� which tll,ere jS )1Q , Qr yepj )J�stricte.d. �Y�to�I movelIlel1t in the , . Germanic OV· langu �ges implie s. that Holmberg's , ��p�<:I,:: �iiii!l�!i�,(1I',�2��_" l1�t apply. Even if 'one ' nllglii 'argi:i�tlha.r'·B15jeCt 'shift' {s licensed by V-to-Ag�O movement, as represented in (5), this would not solve the problem. (5)

da [IP Valere [IO] [AgrOP nen boeko [AgrO kuopt] [yp [vo tv to]]] that

Valere

a

book

buys

First of all, as shown in ( 1b-c) which contain pre-verbal predicates, V-movement cannot have reached AgrO, since this would mean V has to precede the predi cate, contrary to fact. (1)

d. *da [IP Valere [IO] [AgrOP nen boeko [AgrO stiert] [PredP no Gentpp [Pred tv] [yp[vo ly [to tpp]]]]

Moreover, ultimately, the verb would have to move to the left of AgrO, i.e. it should cross the direct object. 2 2.4 Transitive expletive constructions The availability of tr�nsitive expletive cOllstructiol1� (TEC) illust�at�.
�� ,�el1, correlated to" V-to�rm6vemen((Bobaljlk & Jonas 'ig'§'(j;' Jon�s i99'6).

75

REMNANT MOVEMENT AND OV ORDER

(6)

dan der drie studenten nen hoek no Gent gestierd een

that there three students a book to Ghent sent 'that three students have sent a book to Ghent'

have

Again, this raises problems for an approach in which very short or no V-move ment is assumed because the availability of TEC has to be dissociated from V-to-I movement. This would create another unexpected contrast between the Scandinavian TEC and that in the West Germanic OV languages. 2.5 The syntax of negation In the Germanic OV languages, as well as in the Scandinavian VO languages, negative quantifiers such as WF niets ( ,nothing'), obligatorily undergo feature driven leftward movement (Haegeman & Zanuttini 1 99 1 , 1 996; Haegeman 1995 ; Watanabe 1 998; Svenonius this volume; for German see Hamann 1 993; Zins meister 1 995; for Norwegian see Christensen 1986; Hoekstra 1 995: 123 ; Zins meister 1 995; Kayne 1 998; for Danish see Zinsmeister 1 995: 39-40; for Icelandic see Jonsson 1 996: 86). WF is illustrated in (7). (7)

a. b. c.

da Valere van niets

(nie) ketent

was

that Valere of nothing not contented was 'that Valere was not pleased with anything'

da Valere (nie) ketent van niets was (*NC , OK with DN reading)

da Valere (nie) ketent was van niets (*NC, OK with DN reading)

WF negative sentences may also contain a negative head, en-, whose distribution is subject to a number of restrictions. One constraint is that the negative head en is compatible with finite verbs and not with infinitives. (7)

d. e.

da Valere van niets

ketent

mee Valere van niets

ketent

en-was

that Valere of nothing contented EN-was

(*en) te (*en) zyn

with Valere of nothing contented (*EN) to (*EN) be 'because Valere was not pleased with anything. '

In Haegeman ( l998a, 1 998b) I interpret this finite/non-finite asymmetry to mean that the negative head en- is cl�p�ndent on or gives rise to V-lllovel11ent. I propose that finite . ver� s IIlOve higller than infinitives, and the neg�tive ' hea� is . . licensed in the-i��dlii.g site of finite verbs', which is inaccessible to Infinitives. _

76

LILIANE HAEGEMAN

The WF IPP construction offers evidence that the negative head en- on the verb triggers overt V-movement. In (8), the finite verb without en- may remain to the right of the IPP complement while that with en- must move leftward (Haegeman 1 998a, 1 998b). (8)

a. b.

da Valere nie willen dienen hoek kuopen (*en)-eet

that Valere not want that book buy EN-has 'that Valere has not wanted to buy that book'

da Valere nie (en)-ee willen dienen hoek kuopen3

If V-movement in (8b) is induced by a checking requirement of the negative affix en-, then it seems plausible that it targets a head carrying the Neg feature. However, in anti symmetric terms, this conclusion leads to a paradox (see Haegeman 1 995 for a first discussion). (i) The leftward Neg movement of the negative constituent van niets in (7a) targets the specifier of a head with the Neg feature. (ii) V-movement in (8b) is also assumed to be triggered by a negative head feature. Yet the negative constituent and the en-affixed verb need not be adjacent, as shown by (9). (9)

da Valere niets

mee no Gent (f!JJ -stiert

that Valere nothing more to Ghent (EN) sends 'that Valere doesn't send anything to Ghent any more'

One solution would be to propose that the Neg feature which checks the negative quantifier is not situated on the functional head which hosts en-. More precisely, a Neg feature on a lower head, Neg2, would be spelt out by the morpheme en-, while leftward Neg movement of negative quantifiers would target a Neg feature on a higher functional head, Neg l . Below we will see that the particular hierarchy would be problematic. In Haegeman ( l998a, 1 998b) I have shown that the distribution of the verb in the IPP pattern is also determined by inflectional properties. This is illustrated in (8c-f). (8)

c.

da Valere willen dienen hoek kuopen eet/*oat

d.

da Valere oaf!ee

e.

that Valere want that book buy has/*had 'that Valere has wanted to buy that book'

willen dienen hoek kuopen

that Valere hadl?has want that book buy 'that Valere hadl?has wanted to buy that book'

Dienen hoek willen kuopen een was en misse.

have was a mistake that book want buy 'It was a mistake to have wanted to buy that book.'

REMNANT MOVEMENT AND OV ORDER

f.

77

* Dienen boek een willen kuopen was en misse.

(8c) and (8d) show that in the absence of the negative affix en-, the present tense auxiliary remains preferably to the right of the IPP complement, while the past tense form must move leftward. The infinitival form of the auxiliary cannot 'lnc)'ve-firtlie"left eottn'{tI:Pp-'constrliCtion (8e, f). Since infinitives do not move to the left of the IPP complement, and since the negative affix en- is licensed to the left of the complement (8a-b), en- is incompatible with infinitives: (8)

g.

Dienen boek nie willen kuopen (*en-)een was en misse.

that book not want buy (*EN) have was a mistake. 'It was a mistake not to have wanted to buy that book.'

Based on the data in (8) I assumed in my earlier work (Haegeman 1 998a, 1998b) that the head which hosts en- is dominated by TP, a projection whose head attracts the tensed verb. Following this view, the WF clause would have the following partial hierarchy: (10)

AgrSP > NegPI

niets

>

AgrOP

>

PredP

>

TP2

>

NegP2

en

Though ( 10) derives the non-adjacency of the negative head en- and the moved negative quantifiers, we will see in the next section that this analysis is undesir able because it leads to an unexplained contrast with the hierarchy of negative projections postulated in work on Romance by Zanuttini ( 1 997a, 1 997b).

3.

The syntax of negation

3 . 1 Two domains for negation in Romance Based on an extensive comparative study of a wide range of Romance languages and their dialects, Zanuttini ( 1997a, 1997b) proposes that the expression of sentential negation is not confined to a unique NegP. Rather, she proposes that at least two domains expressing negation should be distinguished: (i) what she calls the preverbal negation, typically associated with the negative morpheme, (ii) the post-verbal domain for negation, associated among others with post-verbal negative adverbs. Zanuttini proposes a partial clausal hierarchy as in ( l I a). (Ub) and ( l I c) illustrate the corresponding fillers for the positions in French and in Piedmontese respectively.

LILIANE HAEGEMAN

78

(11)

a. b. c.

Fr. Pied.

AgrSP TPI NegPl TP2 NegP2 AspP

pas-ne pa

nen

not

not

plus pi nen

AspP

to ujours sempre

no more always

In French, the head of NegP1 is realised by ne, its specifier is realised by pas. In Piedmontese, on the other hand, SpecNegP1 is only realised by pa when the negation is presuppositional (see Zanuttini's discussion for details). Non-presup positional negation is expressed by the negative marker nen, which occupies SpecNegP2. Aspectual negative adverbs such as French plus ('no more') and Piedmontese pi nen ('no more') are associated with a lower AspP. 3.2 WF en- and French ne Zanuttini proposes that French ne is a clitic which undergoes leftward movement to a c-commanding functional head, which I re-label T. For reasons of space I cannot elaborate this point here, and I refer to Haegeman ( 1 999). In finite clauses, the inflected V moves to T. Consequently, ne ends up on the finite V. Infinitival lexical V s do not move to T; they remain in a lower functional head, and ne is stranded in T. Infinitival auxiliaries may move to T, and hence ne may head-adjoin to the infinitival auxiliary. (12)

TP

a.

I

T'

�

T

�

ne-

T (Vfin-T)

NegP

�

Spec

I

Neg'

�

pas Neg b. c. d.

t

Jean ne mange

pas

ne

pas

n 'avoir

pas

Jean NE eats NE

NE have.INF

not

not not

FP

------de chocolat

of chocolate

manger de chocolat eat.INF

of chocolate

mange de chocolat eaten of chocolate

Zanuttini assumes that the relevant TP and NegP occupy a high position in the clausal domain.

79

REMNANT MOVEMENT AND OV ORDER

The WF negative element en- shares some of the properties of a negative head like French ne or Italian non (see Haegeman 1995, 1 999 for arguments). On closer inspection, and based on Zanuttini's (1997a, 1997b) criteria, WF en- is more like French ne than like Italian non. (i) Whereas the Italian negative head non can negate a clause alone, French ne and WF en- cannot do so. They need to be accompanied by another negation marker. ( 1 3)

a.

Non l'ho

b.

Je ne l 'ai

c.

K'en-een hem *(nie) gezien.

visto.

NON him.have-l sG seen 'I haven't seen him. ' I NE him.have I EN-have him

*(pas) vu.

not seen

not seen

(ii) Unlike the case in Italian ( 14a), the occurrence ()f .�ren<;h . ne (141:» .aIld WY " en- (14c) is not related to the pre�-oi�post:verbarp��iti �;; -�f" th� n:�g ative indefinite. _

.

..

(14)

.

a.

Nessuno (*non) e venuto.

b.

Personne n ' est venu.

c.

Niemand en-eet er

no one NON is come 'No one has come. '

no one

no one

NE is come

.

*(Non) e venuto nessuno. II n ' est venu personne. It NE is come no one

da gezien.

EN-has there that seen

T-en-eet da niemand gezien.

it-EN-has that no one seen 'No one has seen that.'

I will assume then that WF en- is like French ne in that it heads a negative projection, NegP, which is dominated by TP. Like French ne, WF en- is a clitic and must left-adjoin to a c-commanding head. Unlike French ne, WF en- also need,s to be adjoined to a V-head. On the basis of the distribution oftensecl"verbs In - the WF IPP constructIon (8c-d) and on the basis of the finite/non-finite asymmetry in the distribution of en- (8a-b), I assume that finite verbs in WF may move to T. Past tense verbs move obligatorily (8c), present tense verbs optionally (8cld). Infinitives on the other hand do not move to T but remain in a head position lower than Neg (8e-t) As a result,_'Yf'. �.�- is r��trj�!t3d W finite clauses (8g) (in Haegeman 1 998a, 1 998b I offer a slightly different analysis).

80

LILIANE HAEGEMAN

(15)

TP

a.

I

T'

�

T

�

NegP

�

T Spec Vfin-T

en

Neg'

�

N g b. c.

en

[PAST]

werkte

;

* en

T

werken

[infinitive]

Recall from Section 2.5 that I postulated that the projection TP and NegP in (10) were relatively low in the clausal domain. 3.3 Neg movement and negative adverbials Zanuttini proposes that NegPl , associated with the negative head in Romance, c-commands a lower domain in which are found negative adverbials and negation markers. Such negative markers and adverbials are interspersed among aspectual and temporal adverbs. Piedmontese, for instance, displays the sequence in ( 1 6). ( 1 6)

pa gia

nen pi nen

sempre tut

not already not no more always everything

Recall from the discussion of ( 10), that adopting an antisymmetric analysis like that in Zwart ( 1 993), I assumed that the WF negative head en- was associated with a low TPlNegP2, which is dominated by a higher NegPl . NegPI was the projection associated with the obligatory leftward movement of negative quanti fiers and it was also taken to be the domain in which are found negative adverbials such as nie meer ( 'no more' ) and the negative marker niet. (17)

da Valere a

nie meer atent

no Gent en-goat

NegPI NegP2 that Valere already no more always to Ghent EN-goes

However, the WF negative adverbials and negation markers have the same distri bution with respect to temporal and aspectual adverbials as their Piedmontese

81

REMNANT MOVEMENT AND OV ORDER

counterparts. Observe, for instance, the similarity in the relative order of post verbal elements in Piedmontese ( 1 8a) with the negative and other adverbials in WF ( 1 8b). ( 1 8)

a.

A l 'ha

b.

da Valere nie atent

nen dine sempre tut.

he he-has NEN told always everything

alles

(Zanuttini 1 997b: 230)

en-zeidige

that Valere not always everything EN-said

As shown in (19), the ordering in Piedmontese ( 1 6) is parallel to that in WF

.

( 1 9)

a. b.

Piedmontese (pa) gia

WF

a

nen pi nen sempre tut nie nie meer atent alles

(not) already not no more always all

3 .4 The hierarchy of the negative domains The combination of the short V-movement analysis discussed in Section 1 with Zanuttini's ( 1 997 a, 1 997b) proposals for negation in Romance, which assumes two negative projections in the clausal domain (see (10) and (1 1 a)), would lead to the clausal hierarchies summarized schematically in (20). The Romance negative ne-V is associated with the head of the higher NegPI, while the -negative advetbials - associate with the domain of the lower NegP2. ·· The WF negative en-V would ' be ' associated with the head of the lower NegP2, and the negative adverbials associate with the higher NegP l . (20)

a.

ROM.

SU >

TP1 > NegPl > . . . NegP2 AspP Vfin pas ne nen pi nen

b.

WF

SU >

NegPl AspP

nie

nie meer

> TP2 > NegP2 > . . . Vfin en

This hypothesis is not satisfactory, in that it postulates an unexplained difference in the hierarchical organisation of the negative projections. The semantic correlates of the hypothesis are also undesirable: th� _ st:1:l?:f:lQ!iS,JEP99-Q]}$-8t-fu� ne�a,tiye_ ._p:roj�cti()Ils . Negg� .,.:wd NegP2 .become'-reversed. ,;inc,the · two -language �g91lp�. :Zanuttini sh�w-� that' in Romance NegPl is associated with what she calls -----·�' p�e��pp ositional negation, i.e. where the negation in fact reverses the presup posed positive polarity of the clause. As a matter of fact, WF en- in the lower Neg2, also expresses presuppositional negation (see Haegeman 1 999 for discus sion). Typically spelling out en- emphasises the polarity of the clause and contrasts it with a presupposed polarity. In some well-defined contexts, en- may ..

82

LILIANE HAEGEMAN

be even used without an accompanying negative constituent in which case it purely functions as a polarity reversing element. (21)

a. b.

Valere ee nog nie betoald vu zen gezette.

for his newspaper Valere has yet not paid 'Valere has not paid for his newspaper yet.'

J' en-doet.

he EN-does 'He has.'

Semantically then, the low WF NegP2 in (20b) would have to have the function of the high Romance NegPl in (20a). A further drawback of the hypothesis in (20) is that temporal and aspectual adverbs would also have rather different distributions in the two language groups. In Romance, they are c-commanded by the presuppositional negation; in Germanic they c-command the presuppositional NegP. Such oppositions go against current attempts to propose a uniform analysis of adverbial positions related to their semantics (Cinque 1 999). I consider the parametric variation in the hierarchical organisation of projections in (20) to be undesirable. It would be preferable to assume that such specialised projections correlate with some semantic property and have a universal hierarchy. To solve the paradoxes in the syntax of negative sentences, I continue to follow Zanuttini ( l997a, 1 997b) in postulating at least two NegPs in the clausal domain. One NegP is associated with negative markers and adverbials and a second NegP is associated with the negative head and relates to sentential polarity. The latter NegP could plausibly be relabelled PolP (Cormack & Smith 1998). I assume that the hierarchy of projections is that found in Romance (and in English cf. Cormack & Smith 1 998), with the polar NegP, NegP1 , c-com manding the adverbial NegP, NegP2. On the basis of the semantic functions associated with the two projections and following Zanuttini's analysis of the distribution of the temporal and aspectual adverbials, I propose that the WF IP displays the hierarchy in (22). (22)

TPI NegPl FP TP2 NegP2 AspP

polarity

en

adverbial

a

niet

AspP

nie meer atent

N�gP l,-, head�d , PY , gn:: . in , WE, is a, Polarity projectioJ;l. . ,It . is . dominated . . by a .'

fLJn�tjonal projectiQIl" .w,h.ose hea� �ttract� the fiI?te v�rb, let us continue to call r -it TP1': "A�" � fir�t app��ximaf1on� ('assume th"at 'TFf is 'the familiar 'Pollockian' TP. In the next section I will examine the word order in WF in terms of the structure in (22). FP is the projection whose head hosts the infinitival verb.

83

REMNANT MOVEMENT AND OV ORDER

4.

Double movement and. OV ord.ers

4. 1 Overt V-to-/ movement I have shown (Haegeman 1 998a, 1 998b) that WF displays morphology-driven V-to-I-movement. The data in (8) above illustrate the patterns. The finiteinon finite asymmetry in the distribution of en- and in IPP constructions reflects the degree of movement. Past tense Vs and verbs with en- move to T l via F (8c-d). A present tense V without en- may remain in F, or it may move to T l (8c-d). An infinitive must remain in F (8e-g). Some degree of infinitival movement would not be unexpected since the WF infinitive is clearly morphologically identified by its -en ending. That the infinitive does not move as high as the pnite v:�r.!?.jrt ,�9-mparal?1�.J2 t1ie sI��Iati61i" �iri' 'prench- (p6116ck" 1989: 1997). A deiaii;d discussion of the s��tureis- f��((ln'Haegeinan (1998a, 1998b, 1999). As a result of the head-to-head movement of the verb, the head position of the VP, and all V-related head positions between VO and FO or TO (as the case may be) contain a trace of the moved V. My analysis is different from the . antisymmetric proposal discussed in Section 1 which assumes either very restricted V-movement or no V-movement at all and is in line with the analysis suggested by Kayne ( 1994) and by Pearson (this volume). 4.2 Deriving the West Germanic OV order Without further modifications, the hierarchy in (22) obviously derives the wrong word order. V moves to Tl ; en-, which heads NegP l , left-adjoins to T l ; negative, temporal and aspectual adverbials and negative quantifiers are associated with NegP2. Without additional movements, we expect to find the surface order in (23). But these examples are ungrammatical. The grammatical counterparts are given in (24). (23)

a. *da Valere en-komt a nie meer atent nor us that Valere EN-comes already no more always to house b. *da Valere en-goat a nie no Gent that Valere EN-goes already not to Ghent c. *mee Valere te kommen nie meer atent nor us with Valere to come no more always to home

(24)

a.

da Valere a

nie meer atent

nor us

en-komt

that Valere already no more always to house EN-comes 'that Valere already doesn't always come home any more.'

84

LILIANE HAEGEMAN

b.

da Valere a

c.

mee Valere nie meer atent

nie no Gent en-goat

that Valere already not to Ghent EN-goes 'that Valere is already not going to Ghent.'

nor us

te kommen

with Valere no more always to home to come 'as Valere does not always come home any more'

In order to derive the grammatical patterns in (24), we need to reorder all the constituents found to the right of the verb in (23) with respect to the verb, while preserving their relative order. Crucially, the reordering is. r�qull:�d, both,for firgte . that 'ill '��h�negative sentences as w�iC'" ye�lJs alJ.d for non-finite verbs:1:tecaii also the � ��piemetits' pre��de-ilie verb, again both in finite and non-finite clauses. (25)

a. b.

da Valere neu atent

nor us

komt

mee Valere neu atent

nor us

te kommen

that Valere now always to house comes 'that Valere now always comes home.'

with Valere now always to home to come 'as Valere now always comes home'

4.3 Remnant movement

In earlier antisymmetric analyses the reordering of the verb and its complements

was achieved by one-by-one movement of individual constituents, such as object DPs and small clause predicates. VP-complements such as the direct object and the small clause predicate which precede the finite verb in the West Germanic OV-Ianguages follow the finite V in Romance. Like Pearson ( 1999), I propose that the West Germanic OV order is not achieved by one-by-one feature-driven leftward movement of the individual constituents. Rather, thLQY�,,,,,Q!der is E�E��,�,g�1Jx,i!l,y;,!g;,.l;lJlQ.;�t, and by (lD",,!':�' ll111�t�Q.x�, m�p.t(cf. Mtille;T996) _QL�,£�1endedpmj ., �ctiQll-q,(""Y".m_�£�£.!!:t Further research into the relative positions of adjuncts and into the mechanisms that derive extraposition effects (see Haegeman 1998c) will be needed to determine precisely which constituent undergoes this remnant movement. I will provisionally label this projection XP. (26) is a schematic representation.

85

REMNANT MOVEMENT AND OV ORDER

CP

(26)

�

Spec

C'

�

C

AgrSP

I

�

dat Spec

I

SU

AgrS'

�

AgrS

TP1

�

Spec

I

XP

T1'

�

T1

I

�

en-Vv Spec XP NegP2

niets

ten

�

I

tv

�

I

Neg2'

Neg2

Neg1'

Neg1

�

Spec

NegP1

VP

�

etc.

FP

�

Spec

F'

I

F

�

Tb,e." remnant movem�DCi�.jl1de12el:l,g�Ilt 9f th� m�v�l11ent. ()f V }0 l" 1 alld of the .. . v�i-b p�ese��'-oi�th�'��gative h��i " 'It t��" pi�ce" 'also!'"�h�� ' 'th�"\�fi�ti��(' "-'� ....-"" .-

,

j"�--I.�.:::-t ""'.r�."�h-"""-'";'-";.';::,\.'�h,J ''-��'''t,.t.>'_'''' ,_",,"\:-i';'�� <:�; p.:L-',:'..�...i?m-"-L:

'remains in the lower head F and it takes place in non-negative sentences. V-to-T1 movement is triggered obligatorily by overt past tense and by the presence of the negative head en-, it is triggered optionally with a present tense verb without en-. An obvious question is what triggers the movement of the remnant extended VP in West Germanic OV languages and how these languages differ from, say, Romance, in which no such movement is postulated here (but see Hr6arsd6ttir 1 999, this volume). At this point I can only speculate on this issue. One option would be to propose that the extended projection .Vp has a strong aspectual ,,i��tu.r� \Vhich must be checke(rin'"a"specifierl1ead";�f:ition"'-wltfTf:' The"'p'�·arnet. ric vaIlatlon in the remnant movement could be related to variation in strength of the aspectual features. Alternatively, following Pearson (1999) we may assume

LILIANE HAEGEMAN

86

that3E��,!E£Y�lP:�!lJ:. ofY, Q�!,gf J4�,.prQJ�yti21l:)g), ��()X�,s .tl1� .Y,J�.�WF�§,-9.t,Jh!s projection a� � makes the . fe, atllres of "'��'�"" s1! , lJi��t PP, - �(),P;!�!l�q , .witml�L it, . '-'-accessiole': IfiIiighfoe 'proposed thaf tlie subject DP is attracted by T (for case ---"assTgnmentfand pied-pipes the remnant project1on�'Fotre'asons 'orspace I cannot elaborate this propos��i1 Eere';T refer�-io-'' P��§§!f''(r?99) for discussion. In negative sentences, the negative affix en- clitiCizes to the finite V in T. As before, following Pearson ( 1 999) we may propose that the negative features of constituents contained in the lower NegP2 become accessible for Neg1 as a result of the extraction of V. The lower projection NegP2, which is contained in the moved remnant, attains a specifier head relation with en- as a result of the remnant movement. It is not clear whether the remnant movement should proceed via SpecNegP1 , or whether the specifier head relation can be established with the surface position of en-. 5.

Consequences of the analysis

The double movement analysis of the West Germanic OV orders has conse quences in other areas in Germanic syntax. In particular, it solves the undesirable aspects of the earlier antisymmetric approach developed in Section 2. 5. 1 V-movement My analysis postulates V-to-I movement in the West Germanic OV languages. This is in line with the observed overt verbal morphology as discussed in the literature. There is an asymmetry between finite and non-finite verbs in that the former move to T 1 , while the latter remain in a lower head, F. This asymmetry accounts for the finite/non-finite asymmetry in the realisation of the negative head en-. 5.2 Object shift and specificity, Diesing 's generalisation The implementation of the antisymmetry approach discussed in Sections 1 and 2 implied abandoning Diesing's generalisation. In the double movement analysis of OV orders elaborated here it can be maintained. In (2a), diagrammed here as (27a), singt has moved to T1 and the bracketed remnant projection XP has moved to the left of V. It may well be the case that the indefinite object Lieder has remained VP-intemal. In (2b), analysed as (27b), the distribution of the object w.r.t. the adverbial immer shows it must have moved out of the VP.

87

REMNANT MOVEMENT AND OV ORDER

(27)

a. b.

wei! Elly [xp immer [yp 1y Lieder]] singt �p wei! Elly [xp Liedero immer [yp 1y to]] singt �p

5.3 Object shift and V-movement: Holmberg 's generalisation To the extent that V-movement and object shift correlate quite systematically in the Scandinavian languages (cf. 2.3), antisymmetric proposals without V-to-I movement and with generalised object shift in the West Germanic languages were forced to abandon the view that object shift systematically correlates with V-movement. Even if we do not need to postulate generalised object movement to derive the order in (27 a), we have to maintain the view that objects may undergo leftward movement to derive (27b), in which a direct object precedes a duration adjunct. Similarly, the following WF example is taken to illustrate object shift: (28)

da Valere dienen boek nog niet kent that Valere that

book yet not knows

Since we assume generalised V-to-I movement, the object shift data are in line with Holmberg's generalisation. 5.4 TEe

It has also been proposed that transitive expletive constructions illustrated in (6) and repeated here as (29) correlate with V-movement (Bobaljik & Jonas 1 996; Jonas 1 996). (29)

dan der drie studenten nen boek no Gent gestierd een that there three students a book to Ghent sent 'that three students have sent a book to Ghent'

have

In the double movement analysis, the correlation between TEes and V-move ment can be maintained. 4 5.5 Hinterh6lzl$ analysis of VR as remnant movement

In antisymmetric approaches (den Dikken 1 996), Verb Raising structures like that in (30) were derived by leftward extraction of the constituents from the infini tival domain. In (30), both the direct object het boek ('the book') and the adjunct lang move from the domain of lezen (,read' ) into the matrix domain.

LILIANE HAEGEMAN

88 (30)

dat Jan het hoek lang wi!

lezen

that Jan the book long wants read 'that Jan wants to read the book for a long time'

Hinterh61z1 (1 999) rejects the one-by-one movement of the embedded constitu ents and proposes a remnant analysis of VR-patterns. while the infinitive [lezen, lh] may stay in the embedded clause everything else, namely the arguments of the embedded verb and the adverb modifying it, must move into the matrix clause . . .We have argued that this movement cannot be scrambling of the individual constituents . . . . It is thus natural to assume that adverbs end up in the domain of the matrix clause by being pied-piped by the movement of a larger constituent. . . movement of this larger constituent is to a position below all matrix adverbs . . . We thus propose that the embedded FIP, that is essentially the VP plus the potentially empty infinitival marker, is moved into [Spec, CP] of the infinitival after which process the remaining TP of the embedded clause is moved into SpecPredP of the matrix verb (1999, Ch. 4, 57-58).

Hinterholzl's analysis of VR is in line with my own proposal for a remnant movement analysis of OV orders in that the remnant movement which derives VR patterns will be similar to (if not identical to) the remnant movement required for deriving OV orders in general. 5.6 Summary

In Table 1 I list the problems raised for the original antisymmetric approaches to the OV order, which postulated that there is no V-to-I movement and that verbal Table 1. Survey ofproblems (i) Analysis

No V-movement One by one XP movement

Double movement

Problem Morphology and V-movement

Remains

Solved

Finite/non-finite asymmetry in V-movement

Solved ( 'short' V-movement)

Solved

Diesing's generalisation

Remains

Solved

Holmberg's generalisation

Remains

Solved

Transitive expletives

Remains

Solved

PolP > XP

Remains

Solved

REMNANT MOVEMENT AND OV ORDER

89

complements move individually to a pre-verbal position. With respect to the problems raised by sentential negation, the non-adjacency of a preposed negative constituent and the negative head as such can be solved if one postulates two NegPs; the remaining problem concerns the hierarchical relation between these NegPIlPolP and NegP2. Various implementations are possible here but for reasons of space I will not develop them. See Haegeman 1999.

6.

An alternative antisymmetric account: Zwart's (1996) F-feature movement analysis

6 . 1 Introduction Zwart's (1996) analysis of the embedded V-final position captures the V-to-I movement effects without postulating overt V-movement to a high inflectional position. Following Minimalist traditions (Chomsky 1995), lexical items are taken to be bundles of features of two types: lexical-categorial features (LC-fea tures) and formal features (F-features). Formal features are involved in feature checking operations (tense, agreement, Case, wh, etc. see Zwart 1 996: 170). To account for the sentence-final position of the verb while attaining the movement effects, Zwart proposes that in both main and embedded finite clauses, the V-features of AgrS are strong and attract the F-features of the verb. The F-features of the verb move successive cyclically via AgrO and T to AgrS. In embedded finite clauses, AgrS, with the F-features of the verb, moves to C. As C is lexically filled, the F-features of the verb can be united with the LC-features of the complementizer and there is no need for movement of the LC-features of the verb to C. As a result the verb is spelled out in V (see Zwart 1996: 244). Zwart's 1996 proposal thus achieves the effects of V-movement without overt reflex. As a result, it overcomes some of the problems encountered by other anti symmetric views. However, the analysis has a number of drawbacks compared to the double movement analysis. The major issue that needs clarifying in this approach is to what extent the movement of F-features proposed for finite verbs extends to infinitivals. Zwart himself does not address the issue, but it is crucial in the light of the discussion here. I will therefore attempt to sketch an analysis in the spirit of Zwart's own proposal and point out its drawbacks. The absence of a root/embedded asymmetry in infinitivals might be taken to mean that there is no F-feature movement. However, infinitival clauses exhibit object shift and TEC. To maintain the correlation between V-movement on the one hand and object shift or TECs on the other, F-feature movement therefore

90

LILIANE HAEGEMAN

has to generalise to infinitives. Let us try to implement this idea. If F-features may move separately from the LC features of the verb as long as they can be spelt out in association with LC-features, we might propose that whenever the infinitival complementiser is overt, the F-features of the infinitival verb can be spelt out by associating with the LC-features of the complementiser while the LC-features of the verb remain stranded. This applies straightforwardly to examples like WF (3 1 a) in which van might be said to realise the embedded C: a.

(3 1 )

Jan ee beloofd

[van dienen boek te lezen] .

Jan has promised [of this book to read] 'Jan has promised to read this book.'

One problem with an F-feature analysis for infinitives is that it is not obvious how to analyse the position of te in such an approach. If te is a functional head of the I-system (cf. Kayne 1 994; Haegeman 1996b, 1 998a, 1 998b) and if the F-features of V always move to C, then F-feature movement will have to be able to skip or strand teo This movement would seem to lead to a violation of the Head Move ment Constraint or its Minimalist equivalent (cf. Zwart 1996: 203, note 1 0). In WF it is not necessary to spell out the complementiser in complement clauses of beloven. This means that no LC-features are available in the embedded C. This in tum might be taken to imply that the conditions for stranding the LC features of the verb are not met and that pied-piping is required, contrary to fact. ,

(3 1 )

b.

Jan ee beloofd

[dienen boek te lezen].

Jan has promised that

book to read

To solve this problem, one might argue5 that the F-features of infinitival lezen move into the matrix domain and associate with the LC-features of the matrix V, giving rise to some form of reanalysis. However, if IPP is an indicator of reanalysis, the absence of the IPP effect in (3 1a-b) suggests there is no reanaly sis (cf. Haegeman 1998b). Further support for the absence of reanalysis is that WF disallows the so-called third construction which involves long distance scrambling of a constituent out of complement clauses as that in (3 1 c) (cf. den Besten and Rutten 1989; Rutten 199 1 on the Dutch third construction). (3 1 )

c. *Jan ee dienen boek beloofd te lezen. Jan has that book promised to read

It is not clear then how the F-features of the complement of beloofd in (3 1b) can be lexicalised without pied-piping the LC-features. A similar question is raised by examples of so-called VP-topicalisation, illustrated in (3 1 d), in which an extended projection of an infinitival V is fronted.

REMNANT MOVEMENT AND OV ORDER

91

For arguments that the fronting involves more than VP see Haegeman 1 995. (3 1 )

d.

Dienen boek an Marie tuogen ee Valere niet gewild.

that book to Marie show has Valere not wanted 'What Valere did not want was to show Marie that book. '

If the F-features of infinitival tuogen move t o the C node of the fronted projec tion, then it is not obvious why the LC-features are not pied-piped, since there are no LC-features available in the embedded C for the moved F-features of the infinitive to associate with. Similarly, in independently used infinitival clauses, the infinitive remains sentence-final, even if there is no lexical host for the F-features: (3 1)

e.

Jenen boek morgen

nie vergeten!

your book tomorrow not forget 'Don't forget your book tomorrow! '

In the next section, I return to the problems discussed above with respect to the earlier anti symmetry approach. 6 For finite clauses, Zwart's (1 996) F-feature movement analysis solves some of the problems, but as shown above, the account does not naturally generalise to infinitives. In contrast, the double movement analysis elaborated in this paper offers an account that extends naturally to infinitival clauses and is therefore superior. 6.2 F-feature movement and the problems discussed above Zwart's (1 996) F-feature movement analysis will not alleviate the problem raised for Diesing's generalisation, since OV orders in his approach continue to be derived by feature-driven one-by-one movement of constituents. The problems raised by absence of morphology-triggered V-to-I movement are solved, if we re-interpret V-to-I movement as F-feature movement. However, on such an account, the observed finite/non-finite asymmetries in WF are hard to capture. Moreover, in Section 6. 1 . I have shown that infinitival F-feature movement is problematic. However, if infinitives are taken not to display F-feature movement, the OV order and TEe remain problematic. It is not clear if the problems raised with respect to the syntax of negation can be solved in the F-feature analysis. On the positive side, the non-adjacency of the negative head en- and the moved negative quantifier finds a natural explanation if we assume that F-feature movement pied-pipes the feature Neg. Assuming successive cyclic movement of the F-features, a fronted negative constituent which occupies the specifier of say AgrO, will be able to check its

92

LILIANE HAEGEMAN

Neg feature with the matching feature which is among the F-features in AgrO. On the negative side, in terms of Zwart's ( 1 996) account, the inflected V with its overt negative head en- remains in a low position. Since the presence of en triggers V-movement to that particular position, the most plausible hypothesis is that the lower projection whose head attracts the verb with the negative head is PolPlNegPl . This hypothesis, though, implies that there is a difference between the hierarchical organisation of Romance (and English, see Cormack & Smith 1 999) and WF. Table 2 summarises the discussion. For the F-feature movement analysis, I consider the variant with infinitival F-feature movement and without such movement separately. Table 2. Survey ofproblems (ii) No V-movement

Double movement

F-feature movement (also in infinitive)

F-feature movement (not in infinitive)

Morphology and V-movement

Remains

Solved

Solved

Solved

Finite/non-finite asymmetry

Solved

Solved

Remains

Solved

Diesing's generalisation

Remains

Solved

Remains

Remains

Holmberg's generalisation Remains

Solved

Solved

Remains

Transitive expletives

Remains

Solved

Solved

Remains

PolP > XP

Remains

Solved

Remains

Remains

Analysis

Problem

7.

Summary

In one type of antisymmetric analyses of the Germanic OV languages, the embedded verb-final order is derived by feature-driven leftward movement of lower constituents. The sentence-final position of the embedded verb is taken as evidence for the absence of V-to-I movement or for short V-movement. Such analyses create a number of problems, concerning the correlation between (i) V-morphology and V-movement, (ii) V-movement and object shift, (iii) V-movement and transitive expletives, (iv) the interpretation and position of indefinite objects. A further paradox arises with respect to the syntax of negation. In the Germanic OV languages, as well as in the Scandinavian VO languages, negative

93

REMNANT MOVEMENT AND OV ORDER

quantifiers obligatorily move leftward in order to establish a specifier head relation with a Neg head feature (Haegeman 1 995). On the basis of the WF IPP construction, Haegeman ( 1998a, 1 998b) shows that the presence of the negative head en- on the verb triggers overt V-movement. This suggests that V-movement is induced by Neg. If (i) Neg-movement of XPs targets the specifier of a head with the Neg feature, and if (ii) en-V-movement is triggered by a Neg head feature, the moved negative XP and the en-affixed verb will be expected to be adjacent, contrary to fact. A first analysis proposes that there are two NegPs (cf. Zanuttini 1 997a, 1 997b) and that movement of the negative XP targets the specifier of a higher NegP (NegP1 ) than movement of the en-affixed V (NegP2). Under this hypothe sis a problem is shown to arise w.r.t. the hierarchical relations of the two NegPs. To solve these problems, it is proposed that, like in Romance, the WF higher NegP1 (plausibly PoIP) hosts the negative head en; a Spec feature of the lower Neg2 triggers Neg-movement (32a). (32)

a. b.

SU > TP1 > PolP (en) > . . . FP . . . NegP2 (nie) SU > [TP 1-.lXPk. . . [NegP2 n iel . . . l [Tl en-V] > PoIP > [XP tk .J] .

I propose that Germanic embedded OV orders are derived by double movement: (i) generalised V-to-I movement, and (ii) generalised remnant extended VP movement to SpecTP1 (32b). This derivation applies to both negative and non negative clauses, and to both finite and non-finite structures. The finite/non-finite asymmetries in WF are captured in terms of the degree of V-to-I movement. Essentially based on a set of empirical arguments from WF my analysis is similar to that of Pearson ( 1 999). In the last section of the paper I review Zwart's 1 996 F-feature movement analysis. His analysis fares better in accounting for some of the issues raised, but it can only do so if there is taken to be no finite/non-finite asymmetry in F-feature movement. This is problematic, also in view of the observed finite/non finite asymmetries in WF Moreover, the F-feature movement analysis cannot capture Diesing's generalisation and the problem of the hierarchical relations of the two negative projections remains. ,

.

Notes 1.

Definite DPs may also move leftward: (i) wei! Elly diese Lieder immer singt since EUy these songs always sings 'since EUy always sings these songs'

LILIANE HAEGEMAN

94 2.

Cf. the conditions on domain extension in Chomsky's 1993 analysis of object shift.

3.

For reasons of space I ignore the difference between eet in (8a) and ee in (8b) here. I refer to Haegeman 1998c.

4.

It is not possible to assume that the indefinite subject of the TEC occupies SpecTPl all by itself, given the structure I assume. Following Pearson (1999), we may assume that after the removal of the V-head from the remnant XP, the features of the indefinite subject become accessible for attraction by T and that remnant movement is the result of pied piping. In such a view, the indefinite subject of the TEC would be licensed in SpecTP.

5.

This would be the option assumed by Zwart (p.c.).

6.

It is sometimes claimed that the transparency of extraposed CP complements in the West Germanic OV languages is accounted for in the antisymmetry approach because, it is claimed, under this view so-called extraposed clauses may be said to occupy their base positions. Obviously this would not be compatible with the remnant movement theory espoused here. However, in independent work I have demonstrated that it is not the case that all transparent sentence-final CP complements can be argued to be in their base position. For reasons of space I will not elaborate this point here and refer to HinterhOlzl 1999, this volume, and to Haegeman 1998c, 1999.

References Ackema, Peter. 1999. On the relation between V-to-I and inflectional features. Ms. University of Groningen. Besten, Hans den and Rutten, Jean. 1989. "On verb raising, extraposition and free word order in Dutch." In Danny Jaspers, Wim Klooster, Yvan Putseys, and Pieter Seuren (eds), Sentential Complementation and the Lexicon: Studies in honour of Wim de Geest. Dordrecht: Foris. 4 1-56. Bobaljik, Jonathan, and Jonas, Diane. 1996. "Subject positions and the role of TP." Linguistic Inquiry 27: 1 95-236. Bobaljik, Jonathan, and Hoskuldur Thrainsson. 1997. "Two heads aren't always better than one." Syntax 1 : 37-7 l . Chomsky, Noam. 1993. " A minimalist program for linguistic theory." In Hale, Kenneth and Samuel J. Keyser (eds), The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, MA: MIT press. 1-52. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Christensen, Kristi Koch. 1986. "Norwegian ingen: A case of post-syntactic lexicalization in Scandinavian dialects." In Paola Beninca (ed.), Dialect Variation and the Theory of Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris. 53-83. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1 998. Adverbs and Functional heads. A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford: OUP. Cormack, Annabel and Smith, Neil. 1998. "Negation, polarity and V positions in English." UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 10, 285-322. Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

REMNANT MOVEMENT AND OV ORDER

95

Diesing, Molly. 1 996. "NP types and conditions on interpretation." In Don, J., B . Schouten and W. Zonneve1d (eds), OTS Yearbook 1995. Utrecht: OTS. 1-12. Diesing, Molly. 1997. "Yiddish VP order and the typology of object movement in Germanic." Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15: 369-427. Dikken, Marcel den. 1996. "The minimal links of verb (projection) raising." In Werner Abraham, Sam. Epstein, Hosku1dur Thnlinsson, and Jan-Wouter Zwart (eds), Minimal ldeas. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 7-96. Haegeman, Li1iane. 1995. The Syntax ofNegation. Cambridge: CUP. Haegeman, Liliane. 1996a. "Object clitics in West Flemish." In Aaron Halpern and Arnold Zwicky (eds), Second Position Clitics and Related phenomena. Stanford: CSLI Press. 135-164. Haegeman, Liliane 1996b. "The typology of syntactic positions: L-relatedness and the AlA' distinction." In Werner Abraham, Samuel Epstein, Hoskuldur Thnlinsson and Jan-Wouter Zwart (eds), Minimal Ideas. New York and Philadelphia: John Benja mins. 141-165. Haegeman, Liliane. 1998a. "V-positions and the middle field in West Flemish." Syntax. 1 : 259-99. Haegeman, Liliane. 1998b. "Verb Movement in embedded clauses in West Flemish." Linguistic Inquiry 29: 63 1-56. Haegeman, Liliane. 1998c. Extraposed clauses in the Germanic SOY languages. Ms. University of Geneva. Chomsky Celebration Website. MIT Press. Haegeman, Liliane. 1999. Embedded verb positions and remnant movement in the West Germanic OV languages. Ms. University of Geneva. Haegeman, Liliane and Zanuttini, Raffaella. 1 99 1 . "Negative heads and the Neg criteri on." The Linguistic Review 8 : 233-25 1 . Haegeman, Liliane and Zanuttini, Raffaella. 1 996. "Negative concord in West Flemish." In Adriana Belletti and Luigi Rizzi (eds), Parameters and Functional Heads: Essays in comparative syntax. Oxford: OUP. 1 17-1 80. Hamann, Cornelia. 1 993. Notes on negation in German. Ms. University of Geneva HinterhOlzl, Roland. 1999. Restructuring Infinitives and the Theory of Complementation. Ph.D. dissertation, USc. Hoekstra, Teun. 1995. "To have to be dative." In Hubert Haider, Susan Olsen, and Sten Vikner (eds), Studies in Comparative Germanic syntax. Kluwer: Dordrecht. 1 1 9-137. Holmberg, Anders. 1986. Word Order and Syntactic Features in the Scandinavian Languages and English. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Stockholm. Holmberg, Anders and Platzack, Christer. 1 995. The Role of Inflection in Scandinavian syntax. Oxford: OUP. Hoop, Helen de. 1 992. Case Configuration and NP Interpretation. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Groningen. Hr6arsd6ttir, porbjorg. 1999. Verb Phrase Syntax in the history of Icelandic. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Troms¢.

96

LILIANE HAEGEMAN

Jonas, Diane. 1996. "Clause structure, expletives and verb movement." In Werner Abraham, Samuel Epstein, Hoskuldur Thrainsson, and Jan-Wouter Zwart (eds), Minimal Ideas. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 1 67-1 88. J6nsson, J6hannes Gfsli. 1 996. Clausal Architecture and Case in Icelandic. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Kayne, Richard. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Kayne, Richard. 1998. "Overt vs. covert movement." Syntax 1: 128-1 9 1 . Koster, Jan. 1 994. "Predicate incorporation and th e word order o f Dutch." In Guglielmo Cinque, Jan Koster, Jean-Yves Pollock, Luigi Rizzi and Raffaella Zanuttini (eds), Paths towards Universal Grammar. Georgetown: Georgetown University Press. 255-276 Mliller, Gereon. 1 996. Incomplete Category Fronting. Habilitation thesis. Tlibingen. Pearson, Matthew, 1999. "Feature inheritance and remnant movement: Deriving SOY order under the LCA." In Gianluca Storto (ed.), Syntax at Sunset 2, vol. 3. Los Angeles: UCLA Department of Linguistics. 133-173 . Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. "Verb-movement, universal grammar, and the structure of !P." Linguistic Inquiry 20: 365-424. Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1 997. "Notes on clause structure." In Liliane Haegeman (ed.), Elements of Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 237-279. Roberts, Ian. 1 985. "Agreement parameters and the development of English modal auxiliaries." Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3 : 21-58. Rohrbacher, Bernard. 1994. The Germanic VO Languages and the Full Paradigm: A theory of V-to-I raising. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Rutten, Jean. 199 1 . Infinitival Complements and Auxiliaries. Ph.D. dissertation, Universi ty of Amsterdam. Vikner, Sten. 1 997. "V-to-I and inflection for person in all tenses", In Liliane Haegeman (ed.), The New Comparative Syntax. London: Longman. 237-279. Watanabe, Akira. 1 998. Absorption: Interpretability and feature strength. Ms. Department of English, University of Tokyo. Wyngaerd, Guido van den. 1 989. "Object shift as an A-movement rule." MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 1 1 : 256-27 1 . Zanuttini, Raffaella. 1997a. Negation and Clausal Structure: A comparative study of Romance languages. Oxford: OUP. Zanuttini, Raffaella. 1 997b. "Negation and V-movement." In Liliane Haegeman (ed.), The New Comparative Syntax. London: Longman. 214-245. Zinsmeister, Heike. 1995. Die Lizenzierung von kein. Ein Vergleich der syntaktischen Vertaelung von N-Phrasen im Danischen und Deutschen. MA dissertation, Universi ty of Stuttgart. Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 1993. Dutch Syntax: A Minimalist Approach. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Groningen. Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 1996. Morphosyntax of Verh Movement. A Minimalist Approach to the Syntax of Dutch. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

V-movement and VP-movement in Derivations Leading to VO order Knut Tarald Taraldsen University of Troms¢

Abstract In this article, I assume that the Gennanic VO languages are just like the Gennanic OV languages except that a raising operation not found in Gennan, Dutch or Afrikaans has the effect of placing the V to the left of its comple ments in English and Scandinavian. The main purpose of the article is to investigate the nature of this operation: Is it an instance of head-movement (V-raising) or phrasal movement ((remnant) VP-raising)? What is the trigger? Using the distributional properties of verb particles as a diagnostic, I conclude that the VO order of English and Scandinavian must be the result of remnant VP-preposing. The analysis developed below can be seen as an attempt to extend the proposals of Kayne ( 1998), integrating them with certain insights due to Haider ( 1992), (1997).

1.

The options

Assuming the correctness of Kayne's ( 1994) conclusion that all constituents must have Spec-Head complement order, Koster (1994), Zwart ( 1993) and others have analyzed German and Dutch OV order as the result of verbal complements raising out of the VP to check "strong" features in the functional layer above the VP. In the Germanic VO languages, the complements of the verb would remain inside the VP until LF, because the relevant features are "weak". Disregarding criticism that could be directed against the theoretical frame work underlying this analysis, e.g. the absence of any independent motivation for the "strong" vs. "weak" distinction, I tend to consider a simple observation made

KNUT TARALD TARALDSEN

98

by Haider ( 1 992) as a decisive argument against this approach: The observation is that the complements of the verb are ordered with respect to one another as in ( 1 ) both in the Germanic OV languages and in the Germanic VO languages: 1 (1)

(V) - 10 - DO - PP - (V)

This is illustrated by the following examples from German and English (both from Haider ( 1 992), see also Barbiers (this volume)): (2)

dass sie jedem

ein Paket

that they everybody a

an seine Privatadresse schicken

package to his

home. address send

werden will

(3)

(Ger)

that they will send everybody a package to his home address

If the German sentence has the three verbal complements in SpecFP positions above the VP, while the complements of the verb remain inside the VP in its English counterpart, the system must add stipulations about the ordering of the relevant licensing positions in the functional layer to guarantee that extraction of the complements from the VP must preserve the initial ordering. So, I agree with Haider that deriving the VO order of English and Scandina vian from OV by shifting the V leftward across its complements is preferable to deriving the OV order of German or Dutch by moving complements across the V. Haider ( 1 992) proposes the following initial structure common to all German ic languages: (4)

[10 [DO [PP V]]]

OV languages are characterized as those which allow the V to license its complements from right to left ("regressive licensing"), taking the domain of licensing to be the maximal projection of the head. Hence, in German or Dutch, the V licenses its complements in (4) without leaving its base position. English and Scandinavian, on the other hand, only allow the V to license its complements from left to right ("progressive licensing"). Hence, licensing requires that the V raises (successively) across the structure in (4): 2 (5)

[V [10 tv [DO tv [PP tv]]]

Haider attributes the universality of (4) to his "basic branching condition" (the BBe) requiring the projecting node to follow its (unique) sister. However, (4) obvious ly becomes consistent with Kayne's LCA when viewed as a VP-shell structure as in (6) below, and the BBC would follow from the LCA plus the assumption that all complements of V must be analyzed as specifiers of VP-shells: 3

DERIVATIONS LEADING TO VO-ORDER (6)

99

[10 V [DO V [PP V]]J

There is, however, a different way of implementing the idea that VO order results from placing the V to the left of its complement. Suppose that the complements of the V raise overtly to SpecFP positions above the VP in all 4 Germanic languages, giving rise to (intermediate) representations like (7):

(7)

[10 Fio [DO Fdo [PP Fpp [yp V tlO tDO tpp]]]

The fact that the sequence IO-DO-PP shows the same internal order in all Germanic languages will then reflect the universal ordering of the heads Fio' Fdo and Fpp . The VO order characteristic of English and Scandinavian can then be attributed to the remnant VP of (7) raising to a Spec-position above FioP: (8)

[[yp V tro tDO tpp] [IO Fio [DO Fdo [PP Fpp typJ]]

Remnant VP-raising will of course not provide any directly visible clues enabling one to distinguish the two analyses on empirical grounds unless the remnant VP sometimes contains material that cannot be part of the V. In the following sections, however, I will argue that verb particles cannot be part of the V, but may raise across a direct object as part of a remnant VP.

2.

The distribution of particles correlates with VO vs. OV

In the Germanic VO languages, verb particles have two properties not shared by verb particles in the Germanic OV languages: 5 they follow the verb even outside V2-contexts, and whereas some Germanic VO languages (e.g. English) allow a verb particle to precede the direct object, no Germanic OV language has this property. The first of these two contrasts is illustrated in (9)-( 1 0), and the second one in ( 1 1 )-( 14): (9)

that they *outwentlwent out

( 1 0)

dass sie ausgingen/*gingen aus

(11)

They will let the cat in.

(12)

They will let in the cat.

(13) ( 1 4)

that they out.wentl*went

out

(Ger)

Sie werden deine Freunde ein laden.

(Ger)

*Sie werden ein deine Freunde laden.

(Ger)

they will they will

your friends in.invite

in your friends invite

1 00

KNUT

TARALD TARALDSEN

Leaving aside the first contrast, 6 I will briefly show how the second one would be explained on Haider's V-raising account of Germanic VO order. 7 Taking the V and the particle to be one complex V, Haider takes the position of the particle in ( 1 2) as a side-effect of V-raising, as indicated in ( 1 5): (15)

[[vV Prt] [DO tv] ] ]

In the derivation of ( 1 1), the V excorporates from the complex V, stranding the particle in its base position:

( 1 6)

[V [DO [v tv Prt]]]

If particles never move on their own, the ungrammaticality of ( 14) follows straightforwardly from the lack of V-raising in languages with "regressive licensing". In general, no Germanic OV language can have "particle-shift". It is obvious, however, that Haider's V-raising analysis establishes a link between particle-shift and VO order only if a particle is in fact part of a complex V. I will now present a number of reasons to reject that assumption.

3.

The particle is not part of the V

First, we have the familiar problem with V-raising to the V2-position. In no Germanic language does a particle accompany the host V in this situation: 8

Hvoifor slapp hun ut katten ?

(Nor)

( 1 8) *Hvoifor slapp ut hun katten ? why let out she cat. the

(Nor)

( 17)

why

let

she out cat.the

If the particle forms a complex V together with the verb, why must it always be stranded under V2-movement? The problem seems particularly serious, since it is the host of the "incorporated" particle that must excorporate, an option taken not to be available in much recent work (e.g. Kayne 1 994). Notice also that even though one might get around the excorporation problem for Norwegian by saying that the particle may (e.g. in the Norwegian counterparts of ( 1 2)) or may not (e.g. in the Norwegian counterpart of ( 1 1 )) be part of a complex V and assuming that somehow only a simple V is allowed in the V2-position, this would not extend to a language like Swedish, where only the word order in ( 1 2) is gram matical (see Section 5), forcing the conclusion that in Swedish, the particle must be part of a complex V, and yet, the particle is stranded in V2-contexts. 9 Another problem with the assumption that the particle is part of a complex

101

DERIVATIONS LEADING TO VO-ORDER

V i n sentences like (12) i s that the structure [v V Prt] i s inconsistent with Kayne's ( 1994) LeA and would in any event be the opposite of the [x Y X] structure typical of compound words in Germanic. To circumvent this objection, the V-raising account of particle-shift would have to posit obligatory leftward movement excorporating the V even in the derivation of (12):

( 1 9)

They will let [vin tv] the cat.

This extra movement is not motivated by anything in Haider's analysis, however. Nor is there any obvious reason why it would have to strand the particle. Moreover, it undermines an otherwise promising account of the contrast between (20) and (21): 1 0

(20) She let the cat in and the dog out. (21) *She let i n the cat and out the dog. In (20), we apparently witness a successful conjunction of non-constituents. However, (20) lends itself to an analysis in terms of across-the-board (ATB) V-movement, in the sense of Williams (1 978) out of a conjunction of FPsY

(22)

... X [[the cat in [vp let tDP trrJ] and [the dog out [vp let tDP tPrt]]] I

I

I

ATE

The ATB-derivation of (21) in (23) is illicit, if the V cannot excorporate from complex V containing the particle, since ATB-movement only applies to identical tokens of a constituent:

(23)

... Y [[[let in] [the cat [vp tv tDP tPrt]]] and [[let out] I

I

ATE

I

[the dog [vp tv tDP tPrt]]]]

But if the verb actually always excorporates from the complex V in the deriva tions leading to particle-shift, this account of (20) vs. (21 ) clearly becomes unavailable. That the particle cannot in general be taken as part of a complex V is also shown rather straightforwardly by examples like the Afrikaans sentence in (24) (from Donaldson 1 993): 1 2

(24)

Sy hoe! nie die Zig

af te geskakel het nie.

she need not the light off to turned have not 'She needn' t have turned the light off.'

(Afr)

1 02

KNUT TARALD TARALDSEN

Here, the particle is separated from the potential host verb by the infinitival marker te, which itself cannot be taken as part of that verb, a past participle. A similar argument can be made on the basis of the distribution of weak pronouns in English and Norwegian. Both of these languages allow the word order seen in ( 1 2). Yet, when the direct object is a weak pronoun, it must precede the particle: (25)

(Nor)

Han har sluppet n ut. he

has let

it out

(26) *Han har sluppet ut n. he has let out it

(Nor)

Thus, the sequence containing the verb and particle shifting over the direct object position in the derivation of particle-shift constructions like ( 1 2) must also contain a weak pronoun, sandwiched in between the verb and the particle. But the weak pronoun cannot easily be analyzed as forming a complex verb either 3 with the verb or the particle, since it separates from both in V2-contexts: 1 (27)

Deifor

slapp han n ikke ut.

therefore let

he it not out

(Nor)

(28) *Deifor slapp n han ikke ut. therefore let it he not out

(Nor)

(29) *Deifor slapp han ikke n ut. therefore let he not it out

(Nor)

Finally, notice that even sequences that are indisputably phrasal may behave like particles, as in the following examples from Norwegian: (30)

Hun sendte pengene

(3 1 )

Hun sendte med lens pengene.

she sent

she sent

med lens.

money. the with Jens

with Jens money.the

(Nor) (Nor)

The contention that the PP behaves like a particle in (30)-(3 1 ) is strengthened by the observation that Danish, which never allows particles preceding the direct object, also does not allow (3 1), while Swedish, which never allows particles following the direct object, rejects (30).

DERIVATIONS LEADING TO VO-ORDER

4.

103

Particle-shift via remnant VP-raising

If VO order is derived by raising a remnant VP to a Spec-position preceding the complements previously extracted from the VP, as suggested at the end of Section 1 , we can take particle-shift constructions like (12) to have the derivation indicated in (32), where the particle is inside the raised remnant VP: (32)

[[vp V Prt] [DO Fdo tvp]]

The structures with the particle left behind to the right of the direct object, like ( 1 1), must then have the particle extracted from the VP, on a par with the other complements of the V: (33)

[[vp V] [DO Fdo [Prt Fprt tvp]]]

The problems listed in Section 3 do not arise on this analysis. Since the particle is not taken to be part of the V, it is not expected that it will carried along under V-movement to the V2-position. 14 The V-Prt order seen in ( 1 2) is consistent with the LeA, since the particle is analyzed as (the head of) a VP-intemal comple ment rather than a head adjoined to V. The fact that the particle can be separated from the V by an infinitival marker or a weak pronoun is also unproblematic. This analysis of particle-shift generalizes Kayne's ( 1 998) analysis of particle-shift in focus constructions. Kayne argues that a sentence like (34) is to be analyzed as in (35), where the particle shifts as part of a remnant VP raised to a Spec-position immediately above the the focus phrase (FocP): (34)

She will let in only one student.

(35)

she [wp[vp will [let in tDP]] Foc+W [FoeP [DP only one student] tFoe tvp]]

(36), then, must have the particle outside the VP: 1 5 (36) (37)

?She will let only one student in. she [wp[vp will [let tPrt tDP]] Foc+W [FoeP [DP only one student] tFoe [in Fprt tvp]]]

Kayne does not take remnant VP-raising to be the source of particle-shift except in focus constructions like (34). But certain observations concerning the distribu tion of verb particles across the Mainland Scandinavian languages suggest that an analysis of particle-shift as a by-product of remnant VP-raising in (34) cannot co-exist happily with a V-raising analysis of particle-shift in (12). As already mentioned, Norwegian is the only Mainland Scandinavian language allowing both options illustrated by (1 1 )-(12) :

104

KNUT TARALD TARALDSEN

(38) (39)

Hun slapp katten inn.

(Nor)

Hun slapp inn katten.

(Nor)

�

let

she let

cat.the in

in cat. the

Swedish allows only the word order in (39), while Danish only allows the one in (38) 16 :

(40)

Norwegian Swedish Danish

DP Prt ok *

ok

Prt DP ok ok *

Significantly, this pattern is replicated with focussed direct objects:

(41)

Hun slapp bare en katt inn.

(Nor)

(42)

Hun slapp inn bare en katt.

(Nor)

(43)

she let she let

only one cat in

in only one cat

Norwegian Swedish Danish

only DP Prt ok *

ok

Prt only DP ok ok *

No Mainland Scandinavian dialect has only the DO-Prt order with non-focussed direct objects (like Danish) while allowing the Prt-DO order with focussed direct objects (like Norwegian and Swedish). If particle-shift across non-focussed direct objects is an effect of V-raising, while particle-shift across focussed direct objects reflects remnant VP-raising, we must assume that a particle is necessarily pied-piped under V-raising unless it is outside the VP. But there is no obvious reason why this assumption should hold, unless one takes a VP-internal particle to be necessarily adjoined to the V, an assumption which is inconsistent with the evidence discussed in Section 3 . If all instances of particle-shift are attributed to the raising of a remnant VP containing a particle, however, the identity of the patterns in (40) and (43) follows directly. On the analysis of particle-shift as a side-effect of remnant VP-raising, Swedish must only allow VP-internal particles, 17 Danish must only have particles outside the VP and Norwegian (like English) must have both options. Interesting ly, this view allows us to see a parallelism between the NorwegianiSwedish contrast and a superficially different contrast between Dutch and Afrikaans. In both of the latter two languages, complements of the main verb appear separated

DERIVATIONS LEADING TO VO-ORDER

1 05

from it, preceding the modal, in sentences like (44)-(45) (Dutch) or (46)-(47) (Mrikaans) : (44)

dat Jan Marie wi! opbellen

(Dut)

(45)

dat Jan Marie op wi! bellen

(Dut)

dat Jan Marie sal opbel

(Afr)

*dat Jan Marie op sal bel

(Afr)

(46) (47)

that Jan Marie will up.call

that Jan Marie up will call that Jan Marie will up.call that Jan Marie up will call

Particles, however, show a different behavior from that of DP complements like the direct object Marie in (44)-(47). In Dutch, a verb particle either immediately precedes the main verb, as in (44), or moves in front of the modal, like the direct object, as in (45). In Mrikaans, the particle must remain next to the main verb, as in (46). Assuming an analysis of "verb raising" constructions along the lines of HinterhOlzl ( 1 997) or Koopman & Szabolcsi ( 1 997), only complements that raise out of the VP, 1 8 to some SpecFP above it, can end up preceding the modal. Hence, we take both structures in (48)-(49) to be available to Dutch, while Afrikaans only has access to (48) : (48) (49)

[DO Fdo [vp Prt V]]] [DO Fdo [Prt Fprt [vP V]]]

Thus, Dutch is just like Norwegian (and English), while Afrikaans is like Swedish, although this underlying parallelism has different reflexes in West Germanic as opposed to Mainland Scandinavian, since only the latter are VO languages, i.e. have remnant VP-raising. 5.

An excursus on Kayne (1998)

According to Kayne ( 1 998), scope cannot be assigned via covert movement. 1 9 Thus, the wide scope reading of bare en student "only one student" in Norwegian example (50) comes from a structure in which this DP has raised to a position above the matrix VP, with subsequent remnant VP-raising to a still higher Spec position masking the effect of the first movement (and stranding the second object previously extracted from the VP, as will be discussed below):

106

KNUT TARALD TARALDSEN (50)

I de siste arene har hun ¢nsket a matte gi

bare en

in the last years has she wished to have.to give only one

student en A. (5 1)

student an A

(Nor)

. . Foc+W [PocP only one student tFoc [an A [vp has wished ... .

I

I

Kayne proposes that the FocP must be the complement of a head W which attracts a VP to its Spec, as indicated in (5 1) . He makes no commitment as to how the raising of the remnant VP to SpecWP is to be related to the processes determining the position of the V in general. Yet, there seem to be good reasons to believe that if the analysis of (50) in (5 1) is correct, VP-raising to the pre FocP SpecWP should be assimilated to the process inducing VO order. First of all, the property of attracting a VP to its Spec cannot be a property of W in general. Even in (52), where the subject is focussed by only, the focussed DP must be preceded by W, taken to attract only from the head position of the FocP: (52)

Only John chose the marinated salmon.

But this W does not attract the VP to its Spec. In general, W attracts a VP to its Spec just in case the following focussed constituent is such that it is generally postverbal, e.g. a direct object rather than a subject. This fact seems to force one to view the VP-raising to SpecWP in (5 1) as a special case of whatever process makes complements of the verb postverbal in VO languages. Assuming the correctness of Kayne's analysis of (50), this process should therefore involve VP-raising, although not to the Spec of a head (W) appearing only in front of a FocP, but rather to the Spec of some FP always projected in between the subject position and the various complements extracted from the VP (according to the analysis sketched at the end of Section 1) . 20,21 Another straightforward observation supporting this view is that not even focussed direct objects have the VP shifting to their left in languages which, like German and Dutch, are not VO languages, even though the fact that the focus particle (e.g. German nur "only") precedes the focussed phrase would require the presence of a W even here. Finally, notice that the focussed indirect object in (50) is followed by a non focussed direct object. On the wide scope reading of the focussed DP, this direct object must also be in a position outside the matrix VP, as indicated in (5 1), i.e. it shows the distribution characteristic of DP complements in the West Germanic "verb raising" construction. The unavailability of the wide scope reading in (53),

DERIVATIONS LEADING TO VO-ORDER

107

then, would be correlated with the fact that hate is not a trigger for "verb raising" in West Gennanic either:

(53)

I de siste arene har hun hatet a matte gi

bare en student

in the last years has she hated to have.to give only one student (Nor) en A. an A

But if the direct object of the infinitive can raise across the matrix V (provided the matrix V is a "verb raiser"), and VO order is derived by V-raising, (54) would be derived by applying V-raising to the intennediate structure in (55):

(54) *Hun har en A ¢nsket a fa.

she has an A wished to get

(55)

(Nor)

. . . [an A [vp has wished . . .

If VO order is the result of remnant VP-preposing, on the other hand, only the grammatical (56) can be derived from (55) : 22

(56)

Hun har ¢nsket a fa en A. she has wished to get an A

(Nor)

I conclude that if Kayne's ( 1998) account of the wide scope reading of (50) is correct, Gennanic VO order should be derived by remnant VP-preposing, a conclusion which obviously dovetails with the analysis of particle-shift argued for in preceding sections. 6.

Two problems

At this point, it seems that the weight of the evidence favors analyzing Gennanic VO order as the result of remnant VP-raising. But particle constructions raise two important problems that remain to be dealt with. First, we must return to a question raised in Section 1 : Why do we always find the order Prt-V in the Gennanic OV languages (modulo V2), but always V-Prt in the VO languages? In the analysis developed so far, the particle is VP-internal in particle-shift constructions like (12) (repeated below), and it is likewise VP-internal in Dutch and Afrikaans sentences like (44)1(46) (also repeated below): (12)

(44)

They will let in the cat.

dat Jan Marie wil opbellen

that Jan Marie will up.call

(Dut)

KNUT

108 (46)

TARALD TARALDSEN

dat Jan Marie sal opbel

that Jan Marie will up.call

(Afr)

Yet, we have the order V-Prt in (12), but Prt-V in (44)/(46). In view of the previous discussion of the contrast (20) vs. (21) (repeated below), we do not want to derive ( 1 2) by having V-raising applying to the output of VP-raising (assuming the VP-internal order to be always Prt-V, perhaps with Prt(P) in the Spec-position of a VP-shell):

(20) She let the cat in and the dog out. (21) *She let in the cat and out the dog. But the only available alternative would seem to be postulating VP-internal V-Prt order for the VO languages and VP-internal Prt-V order for the OV languages, a devastating conclusion in the context of an attempt to reduce the word order differences between the Germanic VO languages and their OV cousins to the effects of remnant VP-raising. The second problem concerns the claim that the particle is never part of a complex V. Although we have seen good evidence supporting this conclusion, there is also a well-known fact which at first sight seems inconsistent with it. A particle modified by an element like right doesn't shift, as illustrated by the following examples from English and Norwegian:

(57) They will let the dog right in. (58) *They will let right in the dog. (59) Hun sendte katten rett ut.

(Nor)

(60) *Hun sendte rett ut katten.

(Nor)

she sent she sent

cat.the right out

right out cat.the

Strikingly, even Swedish, which allows simple particles only to the left of the direct object, can only have a modified particle after the direct object:

Dam sliippte hunden ratt in.

(Swe)

(62) *Dam sliippte ratt in hunden. right in dog.the they let

(Swe)

(61)

they let

dog.the right in

This fact would find a straightforward explanation if the theory only allowed a particle to shift as part of the V, since presumably only a head can incorporate into the V. Thus, we seem to be led towards a paradox: A shifted particle both must and must not be part of the V.

DERIVATIONS LEADING TO VO-ORDER

1 09

The same paradox may also arise in a somewhat different guise in Mri kaans. According to Donaldson ( 1993), bare nouns optionally behave like particles, in the sense that they may stay next to the infinitives in "verb raising contexts", while modified nouns must shift across the matrix V:23 (63 )

dat die olifante

kom water drink

(Afr)

dat die olifante

water kom drink

(Afr)

(65) *dat die olifante

kom vars water drink

(Afr)

dat die olifante

vars water kom drink

(Afr)

(64)

that the elephants come water drink

that the elephants water come drink

that the elephants come fresh water drink

(66)

that the elephants fresh water come drink

This strongly suggests that in Mrikaans, nouns (and particles) may remain next to the selecting V just in case they are incorporated into the V. But, as pointed out in Section 3, the construction exemplified in (24) (repeated below) shows that particles are not incorporated into the V, and (67) leads to the same conclusion for bare nouns:

(24)

(67)

Sy hoe! nie die Zig

af te geskakel het

nie.

she need not the light off to turned have not 'She needn't have turned the light off. '

Die olifante

hoe! water te gedrink het.

the elephants need water to drunk have 'The elephants need to have drunk water.'

(Afr)

(Afr)

In the next section, I present an implementation of the basic idea underlying the VP-raising account of VO order which seems capable of resolving this paradox and of eliminating the VP-internal Prt-V vS. V-Prt problem as well. 7.

Generalized VP-to-SpecWP raising

The fact that modified particles don't shift means that a shifted particle must be incorporated into the head of the constituent that raises across the direct object: We can then prevent modified particles from shifting by saying that all comple ments of that head, including a PrtP containing a modified particle, are extracted out of its maximal projection:

1 10

KNUT TARALD TARALDSEN (68)

... FeompI ... Feompn (x:p Spec Prt+X compI ... compn]

I'

I

I

'

I

XP should contain the V, since particle-shift only occurs in languages where the V as well ends up preceding the direct object. But this does not entail that X is the V, since we can take the V to be contained in a remnant VP in SpecXP, i.e. the VP originates as the complement of the particle and subsequently raises to SpecXP above it. By making that assumption, we avoid the undesirable conclu sion that a shifted particle must be part of the V. In other words, the paradox that the facts about modified particles apparently led to is not a real one: It dissolves under the scenario depicted in (68). Likewise, the problem raised by Prt-V order in the OV languages vs. V-Prt in VO languages is sidestepped: According to (68), the particle is outside the VP, and V-Prt order is the result of placing a remnant VP in SpecXP, preceding the head X to which the particle is adjoined. We may take it that the VO languages always place the VP in SpecXP, 24 while the OV languages never do, leaving it instead in its base-position below X. The analysis embodied in (63) bears an obvious resemblance to Kayne's ( 1 998) analysis of focus constructions. As we saw in Section 4, Kayne analyzes a sentence like (34) (repeated below) as in (35): (34)

She will let in only one student.

(35)

she [wp[yp will [let in tDP]] Foc+W [FoeP [Dpon1y one student] tFoe typ]]

The focussed DP is raised to SpecFocP, the head Foc adjoins to the immediately higher head W which also attracts the VP to its Spec. The parallelism between this analysis and the analysis of particle constructions in (68) is brought out more clearly if we adopt the more elaborated version of (68) in (69), which is the analysis I propose for the Norwegian particle-shift sentence in (39) (repeated below):

(39)

Hun slapp inn katten.

(69)

. . . [wp [yp slapp ts d [Prt inn]] +W [PrtP [s c katten P] tPrt typ]]

she let

in cat.the

(Nor)

According to this analysis, a shifted particle originates as the head of a particle phrase (PrtP) whose Spec is filled by a small clause (SC) with a null predicate identified under Spec-Read-agreement by the Prt head. 25 The Prt head incorpo rates into the immediately higher W (corresponding to the X of (68)), and the remnant VP is raised to SpecWP. The "stationary" particles of Dutch and Afrikaans will be analyzed like the shifted particle of (39), except that the VP doesn't raise to SpecWP:

DERIVATIONS LEADING TO VO-ORDER

(44) (46) (70)

111

dat Jan Marie wi! opbellen

(Dut)

dat Jan Marie sal opbel

(Afr)

that Jan Marie will up.call

that Jan Marie will up.call . . . [wp [Prt op] ]+W [PrtP [s c Marie P] tPrt [yp bel(len) ts cJ]]

Before we consider the details of the derivation of (39) from (69), the derivation of (44)/(46) from (70) and the treatment of non-shifting particles, it is appropri ate to clarify certain aspects of the general analysis of the "extended VP" which my analysis of particles must fit into. Here, I will outline the approach which seems most appealing to me for general conceptual reasons. In the final section, however, I will discuss an empirical problem that may force one to adopt an alternative formulation. The approach I shall pursue takes it that the analysis in (69)-(70) is a special instance of the general structure (7 1), which replicates itself at all levels of the extended VP above the VP itself up to and including the F hosting the indirect object DP in its Spec:

(7 1)

. . . Fxp+W [FXPP XP tFxp [

. . •

[yp V . . .

W attracts the VP to its Spec in some languages, which for that reason come out as VO languages. The OV languages are those where W does not attract VP.

Thus, this extension of Kayne's analysis of focus constructions is motivated by the empirical observations made in Section 5: The VP-raising to SpecWP in focus constructions in English and Scandinavian must be identified with the process creating VO order in general. But how does the theory enforce the presence of the W heads interspersed between the functional projections of the extended VP? The functional heads instantiating the Fxp of (7 1) select a phrase and are themselves selected by the lexical head in whose extended projection they appear. Adapting a proposal by Fukui & Speas ( 1986), we may say that a functional head only establishes a selection relation with a phrase in its Spec, while a lexical head only establishes the required selection relationship with a projection whose head is incorporated into it, hence only with its complement. The second half of this assumption entails that each functional projection above the VP in the extended projection of the V must be the complement of a copy of the V, i.e. it must be the complement of W now taken to be essentially an abstract V: 26

KNUT TARALD TARALDSEN

1 12

We can now say that the remnant VP raises to SpecWP in the Gennanic VO languages in order to identify the +V feature of W via Spec-Head-agreement, arriving at an analysis which in certain respects is rather close to Haider's ( 1992) proposal: The W heads correspond to the V-positions filled by successive V-raising in Haider's (5) (repeated below):

(5)

[V [10 tv [DO tv [PP tv]]]

They indirectly license complements of the verb by licensing (under selection) the functional heads that license them. There are two important differences, however. In (72), V-raising to the W-positions is not an option because of the intervening functional heads. Hence, the identification requirement on the +V feature can only be satisfied by VP-raising to SpecVP. Moreover, the general assumption that selection by a lexical head only can be established via incorpora tion into it forces the presence of [w +V] heads even in the OV languages, raising the question why VP-raising is not forced. However, we might adapt Haider's assumption about a basic asymmetry between OV and VO languages with respect to the relationship between a V and its complement, by taking this asymmetry to be relevant to the identification of +V features on the W heads: In an OV lan guage, the overt V may identify the Ws in its extended projection from right to left, but in the VO languages, identification must proceed from left to right. The idea that W heads are V s also implies that a WP is really itself a VP. This will become important when we examine the subsequent steps in the derivation of (39) from (69).

8.

The derivation of Prt-DO order

The next steps in the derivation from (69) are driven by the need for the DP subject of the SC to be licensed: 27

(73) (74)

. . . Fdp +W I [PdpP katten tpdp [WP2 [vp slapp ts cJ [Prt inn]]+W2 [PrtP [SC tDP P] tPrt tvp]]] . . . [WP I [WP2 [vp slapp ts cJ [Prt inn]+W2 [PrtP [s c tDP P] tPrt tvp]]Fdp +W I [PdpP katten tpdp twp2]]

In (73), the DP subject of the SC has been raised to the appropriate SpecFP above the WP having the remnant VP in its Spec. The head Fdp is selected by V, and so there is an occurrence of W immediately above FdpP to which F dp adjoins. (74) is fonned by raising the lower WP (WP2) into the Spec of the higher WP (WP I ) ·

DERIVATIONS LEADING TO VO-ORDER

1 13

The raising of WP2 to SpecWP 1 must be motivated by the need for the +V feature of W2 to be identified. Obviously, the latter requirement would have been satisfied by raising the VP from SpecWP I stranding the particle adjoined to W2. However, the VP and WP2 both have the +V feature attracted by W I . 28 Assum ing a version of the A-over-A principle, it follows that SpecWP I must be filled by WP2' and we get the effect of particle-shift. The analysis correctly predicts that particle-shift won't occur in the German ic OV languages, since particles shift only as part of a WP and the W above FdpP does not attract VPIWP to its Spec in these languages. The only relevant further step in the derivation of (44)/(46) from (70) is the one driven by the licensing requirements of the small clause subject, corresponding to (73) above: (75)

9.

. . . Fdp +W l [FdpP Marie tFdp [WP2 [Prt oP]] +W2 [PrtP [sc tDP P] tPrt [yp

bel(len) tsd JJ

A resolution of two problems for the V-raising account of particle shift

The analysis also provides an account of the particle-like behavior of full PPs seen in (30)-(3 1) (repeated below): (30)

Hun sendte pengene

(Nor)

(3 1)

Hun sendte med lens pengene.

(Nor)

she sent she sent

med lens. money.the with Jens

with Jens money. the

Assuming that the SC-predicate can contain the complement of a null head, we can give the particle-shifted version in (3 1 ) a representation like (76): 29 (76)

. . . [WPI [WP2 [yp sendte tsd [Prt med] +W2 [PrtP [s c tDP P lens] tPrt typ]] Fdp +WI [FdpP pengene tFdp twp2]]

Pairs like (30)-(3 1) are problematic for the V-raising account of particle shift, since that account must analyze a shifting particle as part of the V undergoing raising, and therefore seems to predict that full PPs shouldn't shift. For similar reasons, the fact that a weak pronoun always interrupts the V Prt sequence in English and Norwegian is also unexpected on the V-raising approach, since, as we saw in Section 3, the weak pronoun does not incorporate either into the verb or into the particle: (25)

Han har sluppet n ut.

he has let

it out

(Nor)

1 14

KNUT TARALD TARALDSEN

(26) *Han har sluppet ut n. he has let out it

(Nor)

The analysis we are now exploring has an account of (25)-(26), provided weak pronouns must be inside the VP moving to the Spec of the W to which the particle adjoins, as suggested by the analogy with the partially homophonous definiteness markers in DPs, which seem to originate in a position immediately above the NP: (77)

den svarte katten i nabohuset

the black cat.n in the.neighbors .house r

In particular, we might take weak pronouns to originate as functional heads in the extended V-projection immediately above the VP, perhaps with a null DP raising to its Spec, as in Sportiche (1992):

(78)

. . . W [FelP DP [Fc1 n ] [vp V tDP]] When (78) is embedded under a particle head, we end up getting (79): (79)

. . . [WP I [WP2 [vp sluppet tsd [Fc1 n ] +W2 [FelP DP tFc1] ] [Prt inn]] +W 1 [PrtP [sc tDP P] tPrt twp]]

At first sight, this account of weak pronouns seems desperately at odds with the well-known fact that Scandinavian weak pronouns sometimes clearly occur in positions higher than those occupied by other DPs. This is the case in V2 contexts: (80) (81)

Vi sa

n

ikke (*n).

Vi sa

(* katten) ikke katten.

we saw him not we saw

him

cat.the not catthe

(Nor) (Nor)

But in fact, the analysis under consideration suggests an analysis that has certain advantages over the traditional "object shift" analysis of (80). Suppose V2 has remnant VP-raising across negation and adverbials as a necessary subcompo nent. 3D Assuming, as before, that VP-raising applies to WPs as well (since these are essentially VPs), we can then take both of (80)-(81) to have a WP corre sponding to (78) (with the VP shifted to SpecWP) raised across the negation. This correctly only allows for the pre-negation position of the weak pronoun in (80): (82)

. . . [wp [vp sa tDP] [Fc1 n ] +W [FelP DP tFc1]] [NegP ikke . . . twp In (8 1), Fc1 is null, and the object DP is extracted from the relevant WP to a licensing SpecFdpP, so that it necessarily follows the negation:

DERIVATIONS LEADING TO VO-ORDER

(83)

1 15

. . , [wp [vp sa tDP] [Fcl 0]+W [FelP DP tFcl]] [NegP ikke . , . [FdpP katten Fdp . . . twp]]

so, this approach would take object shift to be a side-effect of remnant VP-rais ing, made possible precisely by the property that weak pronouns themselves remain very low in the tree. 3 1 Its main appeal comes from the fact that Holm berg's generalization is now automatically accounted for: A weak pronoun may appear in a position preceding negation or sentence adverbials only when the governing V moves. 32 Unfortunately, there are serious problems as well. One of them is a special case of a more general problem discussed in the next section. In structures containing both a weak pronoun and a particle, successive application of VP-rais ing applying to VP and WP will assemble WPs like (79) (repeated below): (79)

. . , [WP I [WP2 [VP sluppet tsd [Fcl n] +W2 [FelP DP tFcl] ] [Prt inn]] +WI [PrtP Esc tDP P] tPrt twp] ]

Since (27)-(29) show that the particle and the weak pronoun must eventually end up on opposite sides of the negation, we must ensure that remnant VP-movement in this case can only apply to the smallest WP, i.e. WP2 in (79): ' (Nor) (27) Derfor slapp han n ikke ut. therefore let he it not out (Nor) (28) *Derfor slapp n han ikke ut. therefore let it he not out (Nor) (29) *Derfor slapp han ikke n uf. therefore let he not it out And apart from the consequences with respect to object shift, the analysis based on (78) raises a question concerning the distribution of the contrast (25) vs. (26) across the Scandinavian languages. In fact, the contrast is reversed in Swedish, i.e. (26) is grammatical, and (25) isn't. The fact that even weak pronouns follow particles only in the one Scandinavian language which also only has ordinary DP objects following particles, is unexpected on the analysis suggested above, as Anders Holmberg (p.c.) points out. But even if this observation should lead one to reject the analysis of weak pronouns in (78), we still have the more fundamen tal conclusion that while the pattern in (25)-(26) is inconsistent with attributing particle shift to V-movement, it is in principle compatible with seeing particle shift as a reflex of remnant VP-movement. 33

KNUT TARALD TARALDSEN

116

10. The derivation of DO-Pri order

On the analysis developed above, a particle that fails to shift in a VO language cannot be the head of PrtP. Thus, I will take it that particles, in English or Norwegian, either are functional heads, occurring in the Prt-positions, or else are part of the SC in SpecPrtP. 34 A sentence like (38) will have a representation like (84) at an early stage of its derivation (with Prt an empty functional head): (38) (84)

Hun slapp katten inn.

she let cat.the in . . . [wp [yp slapp tpp] Prt+W [[pp katten [pp inn]] tPrt typ]]

(Nor)

Unlike an SC with an empty head (licensed by a "functional" particle), the SC in (84) must raise to a designated licensing position outside the WP, just like the small clause subject: (85)

. . . [WPI [WP2 [yp slapp tpp] Prt+W2 [PrtP tpp tPrt typ]] Fdp +W I [FdpP katten tFdp [FscP [pp tDP [pp inn] Fsc twp2]]]]

I also hold movement to SpecFscP responsible for the appearance of the particle to the left of the modal in Dutch "verb raising" sentences like (45): 35 (44) (45)

dat Jan Marie wil opbellen

(Dut)

dat Jan Marie op wil bellen

(Dut)

that Jan Marie will up.call

Taking the "verb raising" effect to be automatic, as is indeed the case for DPs in (Standard) Dutch, we conclude, as before, that Dutch, like English and Norwe gian, allows a particle to be analyzed either as a functional head outside the corresponding small clause, or as the lexical head of the small clause itself. In the latter case, (45), but not (44), is derived. The derivation of (38) as reflected in (85) has two instances of VP-raising to SpecWP, neither of which has a counterpart in Dutch, an OV language. (Also, Norwegian shows no "verb raising" effects. 36) First, the VP raises (string vacuously) to the SpecWP immediately above PrtP, and then, that WP raises to the SpecWP immediately above FdpP, crossing over both the lexical particle and the object DP. According to the scenario described in Section 7, however, one should also expect an intermediate step at which the lowest WP (WP2 in (85)) raises to a SpecWP immediately above FscP, yielding (86): (86)

. . . [FdpP katten Fdp [WPI [WP2 [yp slapp tpp] Prt+W2 [PrtP tpp tPrt typ]]

Fsc+W 1 [FscP [pp tDP [pp inn] tFsc twp2]]]]

DERIVATIONS LEADING TO VO-ORDER

1 17

This is because every functional projection in the extended projection of the VP should be immediately dominated by an occurrence of W attracting VP to its Spec. But if (86) is a stage in the derivation of (38), VP-raising to SpecWP above FdpP must target WP 1 rather than the larger WP2 including it. Otherwise, the particle would incorrectly end up preceding the object DP. But we have previously seen that when VP-raising reapplies to the output of VP-raising to the SpecWP immediately above the functional particle projection (PrtP), the larger VP (WP) must be targeted. Thus, the pied-piping effect for VP-raising must somehow be made to take force selectively. 37 It seems impossible to achieve this in a way entirely consistent with the general ideas about the extended VP-projection put forth in Section 7. In particular, it now seems impossible to maintain that all functional projections are governed by Ws each of which is a replica of the lexical head V. Rather, one must introduce some formal distinction between the Ws cooccurring with the PrtP (and FelP, if the analysis of (25) in Section 9 is correct) on the one hand, and all higher occurrences of W on the other, in a way reminiscent of Hinter holzl's distinction between his PredP level and the higher functional projections. The least costly implementation of this with respect to the proposals of Section 7 might be to say that the + V feature of a higher W is erased once a licensing VP has been raised to its Spec, while the + V feature of the W associat ed with PrtP (or FelP) remains visible. This move might be justified, if it can be shown that the latter plays a role at LF, while the + V features of the higher Ws do not. Alternatively, one must fall back on a different scheme according to which there is a W attracting VP just above the PrtP and a different W' just above FdpP attracting WP, but no Ws in between, leaving the nature of these two heads un determined for now. Unlike the analysis adopted above, this alternative analysis would also seem to predict that there could be languages where VP doesn't raise above a functional particle, but WP (i.e. Prt VP) raises above the object DP, or vice versa. Although I know of no Germanic language verifying the second expectation, Yiddish appears to have VO order (resulting from WP raising above the direct object), but Prt V order (indicating failure of the VP to raise past the functional particle), judging from Diesing ( 1997) ((87) Diesing's (23)): =

(87)

Maks vet avekshikn a briv.

Max will away. send a letter

(Yid)

118

KNUT

TARALD TARALDSEN

11. Conclusion

The principal claim made in this article is that VO order in Germanic (outside V2 contexts) arises as the result of remnant VP-raising across a functional layer inside which various complements of the V have previously been placed. From this point of view, the complements of the V behave the same way in all the Germanic languages, but the VP is forced to raise only in the Germanic VO lan guages. The arguments in favor of this view have largely centered on the syntax of verb particles. In particular, I have argued that the particle shift phenomenon characteristic of the Germanic VO languages cannot be successfully analyzed as a by-product of V-raising, while it can be understood as a side-effect of remnant VP-raising. On the other hand, the special behavior of modified particles (and of modified nouns vs. bare nouns in Afrikaans) turns out to be reconcilable with this view only if certain assumptions are made about the nature of the extended V-projection. In Section 7, I presented a set of assumptions generalizing recent ideas of Kayne's about focus constructions and suggested a partial integration of these with the basic ideas of Haider (1992). Whether this interpretation can be maintained, will depend in part on whether it allows for a satisfactory solution of the problem discussed in Section 10. If not, alternative conceptualizations compatible with the basic idea that Germanic VO order reflects remnant VP-rai sing remain to be explored. Notes 1.

Even disregarding the effects of Scrambling, the text statement must perhaps be somewhat modified. The basic (e.g. non-scrambled) order of double objects has been claimed to be DO-IO in German; cf. den Dikken (1995). The relative ordering of postverbal PPs in Dutch may not correspond to the one found in English or Scandinavian; cf. Barbiers (1995), Nilsen (1998).

2.

Actually, Haider has the lowest complement to the right of the V in VO languages. Given the assumption that heads license their complements from left to right in VO languages, this allows the lowest complement of the V to be licensed without V-raising.

3.

See Brody (1997) for discussion.

4.

The idea that direct objects raise out of the VP in overt syntax even in English and Scandina vian was already argued for by Johnson (1991).

5.

Yiddish has Prt-V order. Swedish and some dialects of Norwegian have Prt-V order where the V is a past participle not combining with auxiliary ha 'have' . Danish never allows a particle to the left of the direct object. See Taraldsen ( 1983), Vikner (1987), Svenonius (1994), Haider (1997).

6.

Haider actually attributes the V-Prt order of English and Scandinavian to the V having to precede its lowest complement in the VO languages (cf. footnote 2).

DERIVATIONS LEADING TO VO-ORDER

1 19

7.

If *(14) is explained as a result of further DP-movement across a (shifted) particle, (i) still calls for further assumptions (about Q-stranding): (i) * . . . deine Freunde ein aUe laden

8.

Except, perhaps, in Yiddish, in which case Prt+V in Yiddish should probably always be analyzed as a lexical compound similar to lexical Prt+V compounds in Scandinavian and the suggestion made about Yiddish at the end of Section 10 is incorrect.

9.

In the following paradigm from Afrikaans, a particle associated with the second V in what appears to be a conjunction of Vs moving to the V2 position, is stranded exactly as in the cases where a single V moves: dat sy hom sit en aanstaar (i) that she him sits and at.stares (ii) *dat sy hom aan sit en staar that she him at sits and stares (iii) *Sy sit en aanstaar hom. she sits and at.stares him (iv) Sy sit en staar hom aan. she sits and stares him at It is not immediately obvious how this is to be integrated into the standard analysis of the effect of V2 on verbs.

10.

The basic observation is due to Svenonius (1 994), and is also discussed by den Dikken (1995).

11.

However, this predicts that there should be no OV counterpart of (20), if the V never raises in (Germanic) OV languages except in V2 contexts. The prediction may be wrong. Wilma ter Haar (p.c.) finds a Dutch embedded sentence modeled on (20) relatively acceptable.

12.

See also Hinterh6lzl (1 997, this volume), who constructs a similar argument on the basis of West Flemish.

13.

Notice that a weak pronoun precedes a particle even in contexts where the weak pronoun does not undergo "object shift", i.e. in contexts where the governing verb has not moved, as in (25)-(26).

14.

V2 as V-raising incorrectly predicts (i) to be grammatical as an instance of ATE V-raising to C, unless the complement of C for some reason cannot be a conjoined structure: (i) *Han slapp inn hunden og ut katten. he let in dog.the and out cat.the Anders Holmberg (p.c.) suggests that the ungrammaticality of (i) in Norwegian may be due to the particle being unable to bear contrastive focus when it precedes the object. If focused constituents must be phrases (licensed in SpecFocP), this approach fits in with the analysis in Sections 7-8 where a particle that precedes the object must be a bare head. However, Holmberg also notes that (i) is marginally acceptable in Swedish.

15.

The fact that (37) is less than perfect, in contrast to ( 1 1), raises a problem for the generalization of the remnant VP-raising approach proposed here.

16.

See Taraldsen (1 983), Vtkner (1987), Svenonius (1994), Haider (1997).

17.

Except in the special case discussed in Section 6: When modified by (the Swedish equivalent of) right, the particle must follow the direct object even in Swedish.

18.

Actually, a particle will raise across the modal just in case it is outside the PredP, a constituent that properly contains the VP, on Hinterh6lzl's analysis. This distinction can be overlooked here, but will be important in Section 7.

120

KNUT TARALD TARALDSEN

19.

This conclusion is virtually forced by HinterhOlzl's (1997) observations about scope in German.

20.

The assumption of a fixed target for VP-raising may not be necessary. The central claim is rather that the SpecWP appearing in conjunction with a FocP cannot be the (only) target.

21.

A reason for dissociating VP-raising to SpecWP from the process leading to VO order in general might come from the fact that in the Scandinavian languages, all of them VO languages, the VP is not raised to a position preceding an internal complement raised to SpecNegP.

22.

Sentences with the word order of (54) remain derivable to the extent that the embedded VP can also be extracted from the matrix vP, an option which I take (modem) Scandinavian languages and English not to have, but which may have been available to Middle Icelandic; cf. Hr6arsd6ttir (1999, this volume).

23 .

But Robbers (1997) disputes the facts. In particular, she claims that some speakers allow even the phrasal complements to stay low. The grammar of these speakers might have the "verb projection raising" option found in varieties of Dutch and German.

24.

Yiddish is perhaps an exception (see footnote 8).

25.

From the perspective of Kayne's (to appear) analysis of (prepositional) complementizers, Prt may be taken to correspond to the C of the SC, and the empty SC-predicate would correspond to the trace of the head of that predicate, an "intransitive" P, raised to C.

26.

It is as yet not clear how T and Agr are best fitted into this analysis.

27.

For clarity of exposition, I sidestep the issue of the licensing of the SC-predicate, taking it that a SC-predicate with a null head needs no further licensing. The issue will come up again below, however.

28.

Because the +V of W2 is itself identified by the vP, we may assume that it can itself be used to identify a second occurrence of +V.

29.

Here, the assumption that a SC with a null head needs no further licensing is crucial.

30.

That V2 movement should involve remnant VP-raising is independently supported by the prop erties of negation in Norwegian. Many Norwegian speakers can license an inherently negative phrase like ingen "nobody" by raising it to SpecNegP (according to Kayne's (1997) analysis of negation) only in V2 contexts, i.e. they have the contrast in (i-ii) (cf. Svenonius, this volume): (i) *fordi VI zngen m¢tte because we nobody met (ii) Vi m¢tte ingen. we met nobody Assuming Kayne's account, the ungrammaticality of (i) might be attributed to the Neg head needing to adjoin to W which in tum requires VP-movement to its Spec. But on this assump tion, the derivation of the V2 sentence in (ii) should involve VP-raising.

31.

If this account of object shift is correct, precedes the subject, may suggest that VP-raising rather than V-raising: (i) Diirfor gomde sig therefore hid themselves

32.

Swedish sentences like (i), where the weak pronoun even the final step of V2 (sometimes) is remnant

bamen. the. children

Holmberg's generalization has been interpreted in a variety of ways in the syntactic literature, e.g. as a reflex of Chomsky's (1992) "minimal link condition" in conjunction with his notion of "equidistance", an account which Holmberg (1997) shows to be incapable of handling cases like (i), where object shift is licensed by Yep) topicalization:

DERIVATIONS LEADING TO VO-ORDER (i)

121

Kysset har jeg henne ikke. kissed have I her not

33.

Anders Holmberg (p.c.) suggests the following: Weak pronouns are generated in the same positions as other DPs, but have the special property that they, rather than Prt, are attracted to W in W [PrtP [sc n Pred] Prt VP], when Prt is null. Subsequently, VP is raised to SpecWP and derivations proceed as in the text. Since, by assumption, a particle can only be introduced under the functional Prt head in Swedish, this correctly predicts that even weak pronouns follow verb particles in Swedish, but must precede particles in Danish, where particles are only introduced in the SC-predicate. However, Norwegian, which may introduce particles either in the SC-predicate or under Prt, is incorrectly predicted to allow weak pronouns preceding particles.

34.

Corresponding to heads of SC-predicates that have not raised to C, on the interpretation in footnote 25.

35.

See Cinque (1997) and HinterhCilzl (1997) for two different approaches to restructuring, both of which seem compatible with the text proposal.

36.

Among the Germanic VO languages, at least Icelandic seems to have "verb raising" effects at an earlier stage of its development; cf. footnote 22. Hr6arsd6ttir (1999) discusses the change that led to their loss.

37.

This is the "more general problem" alluded to at the end of Section 9.

References Barbiers, Sjef. 1995. The Syntax of Interpretation. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Leiden. Brody, Michael. 1997. Mirror theory. Ms. University College London. Chomsky, Noam. 1992. "A minimalist program for linguistic theory." MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 1 . Cinque, Guglielmo. 1997. O n clitic climbing and other transparency effects. Paper presented at MIT. Diesing, Molly. 1997. "Yiddish VP order and the typology of object movement in Germanic." Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 15: 369-427. Dikken, Marcel den. 1995. Particles: On the syntax o/verb-particles, triadic, and causative constructions. Oxford: OUP. Donaldson, Bruce. 1993 . A Grammar 0/Afrikaans. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Fukui, Naoki and Speas, Margaret. 1986. "Specifiers and projection." MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 8. Haider, Hubert. 1992. "Branching and discharge." Arbeitspapiere des SFB 340 23. University of Stuttgart. Haider, Hubert. 1997. "Precedence among predicates." Journal o/Comparative Germanic Linguistics 1 : 3-41 . Hinterh6lzl, Roland. 1997. A XP-movement account of restructuring. Ms. University of Southern California.

122

KNUT TARALD TARALDSEN

Holmberg, Anders. 1 997. "The true nature of Holmberg's Generalization." In Kiyomo Kusumoto (ed.), Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 27. Amherst: GLSA, University of Massachusetts. 203-218. Hr6arsd6ttir, porbjorg. 1999. VP Syntax in the History of Icelandic. Ph.D. dissertation, University of TromS!i>. Johnson, Kyle. 199 1 . "Object positions." Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 9: 577-636. Kayne, Richard S. 1 994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Kayne, Richard S. 1 998. "Covert vs overt movement." Syntax 1: 128-19 1 . Kayne, Richard S . To appear. "A note o n prepositions and complementizers." In Parame ters and Universals. Oxford: OUP. Koster, Jan. 1994. "Predicate incorporation and the word order of Dutch." In Guglielmo Cinque, Jan Koster, Jean-Yves Pollock, Luigi Rizzi, and Raffaella Zanuttini (eds.), Paths Toward Universal Grammar: Studies in honor of Richard S. Kayne. Washing ton, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. 255-276. Nilsen, 0ystein. 1998. The Syntax of Circumstantial Adverbs. M.A. thesis, University of Troms!i>. Robbers, Karen. 1997. Non-Finite Verbal Complements in Afrikaans. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Amsterdam. Sportiche, Dominique. 1995. "Clitics constructions." In Laurie Zaring and Johan Rooryck (eds.), Phrase Structure and the Lexicon. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Svenonius, Peter. 1994. Dependent Nexus: Subordinate predication structures in English and the Scandinavian languages. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz. Taraldsen, Knut Tarald. 1983. Parametric Variation in Phrase Structure. Ph.D. disserta tion, University of TromS!i>. Vikner, Sten. 1987. Case assignment differences between Danish and Swedish. In Robin Allan and Michael Bames (eds), Proceedings of the 7th Conference of Scandinavian Studies in Great Britain. University College London. 262-28 1 . Williams, Edwin. 1978. "Across-the-board rule application." Linguistic Inquiry 9 : 3 1-43 Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 1993. Dutch Syntax: A minimalist approach. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Groningen.

.. ...... ....·. "" .....

in

Anders Holmberg University of Troms¢

Abstract It

is claimed that head-final order is derived by movement of the complement of a head H to the Spec of H in a right-branching structure. The movement is triggered by selection, expressed syntactically as feature-movement from the selectee to the selector, pied-piping the selectee head or pied-piping nothing in the case of head-initial phrases, pied-piping the entire phrase hosting the selectee feature in the case of head-final phrases. In mixed order structures a head-final phrase may be embedded as a complement of a head-initial phrase, but not vice versa, universally. This generalization is explained by postulating that selection requires adjacency between selector and selectee, either the relevant features or the heads hosting these features. The theory is exemplified mainly by facts from Finnish, a mixed order language. The special condition on OV order in Finnish, that the sentence must have sentence-initial focus, is accounted for by postulating a focus head in IP, obligatory except when the sentence has initial focus, which takes VP as complement and (as a language particular property) attracts the verb, creating a head-initial phrase, blocking the derivation of higher head-final phrases.

1.

Introduction

Finnish is standardly classified as an SVO language, based on the fact that SVO is the unmarked order in declarative sentences. Yet SOY order occurs as an optional variant in certain contexts. This word order variation is interesting for several reasons. To begin with, the conditions on SOY order are intriguing: SOY order occurs typically when the sentence has initial focus, as in a wh-question or a declarative sentence with a sentence-initial contrastively focused constituent.

ANDERS HOLMBERG

124

The preverbal object cannot itself "convey the main news of the sentence", in the words of Vilkuna ( 1989). Another interesting fact about the mix of VO and OV which Finnish exhibits is the following: A verb, auxiliary or main, may precede or follow its complement whether it is a nonfinite clause, a DP, a PP, or a VP. However, if an auxiliary verb selects a VP headed by a verb V which itself takes a complement, call it 0, then the selected VP can precede the auxiliary only if o precedes V. In other words, the orders Aux-V-O, Aux-O-V, O-V-Aux are permitted, but the order V-O-Aux is excluded. The same phenomenon has been observed in other mixed order languages; see Hr6arsd6ttir ( 1999, this volume) on Old Icelandic. This is a special case of a more general pattern: In general, a language which is head-initial in VP is head-initial all the way up to CP, while a language which is head-final in VP need not be head-final all the way up. As will be shown, this is supported by observations concerning word order universals among the languages of the world, based on Dryer ( 1992). Cf. also Sigursson's ( 1988) suggestion that change of word order type from head-final to head-initial is always top-down: first IP-C changes to C-IP, then VP-I to I-VP, then OV to VO. The generalization which captures these facts can be expressed as follows: (1)

If a phrase Ci

Ci is head-initial, then the phrase � immediately dominating is head initial. If Ci is head-final, � can be head-final or head-initial.

In this paper I will present the pertinent facts concerning the Finnish SOY construction, and propose a formal explanation of them. This explanation is based on a particular explanation of generalization ( 1), which in turn is based a theory of OV order suggested in Kayne ( 1994) and elaborated in Julien (2000). 2.

Properties of the Finnish OV construction

The unmarked word order in declarative finite sentences in Finnish is SVO, as in (2). (2)

a.

Jussi kirjoitti

romaanin.

Jussi wrote (a) novel

b. *Jussi romaanin kirjoitti. Jussi novel wrote SOY order occurs quite frequently, though, as a marked alternative. The condition can be formulated as follows; see Vilkuna ( 1989: 1 3 1). 1 (3)

OV order in finite sentences is possible if and only if the 0 and V are embedded in a sentence headed by a focus-marked C.

DERIVING OV ORDER IN FINNIS H

125

So the word order in (2b) is, in fact, well formed under one condition, that is if the subject is (contrastive) focus. The analysis of (4a) is shown in (4a'): the focused subject is in the Spec of a C with a focus feature. (4b) is a question marked by a question particle on the focused, initial constituent, which in this case is the subject. (4c) is a wh-question, and (4d) has a focused, initial verb, with a focus particle attached to it. The analyses are given in (4b', c', d'), respectively. (4)

a. b. c. d.

(4')

a'.

fUSSl romaanin kirjoitti.

wrote Jussi novel 'It was Jussi who wrote a novel.'

fussiko romaanin kirjoitti?

wrote Jussi.Q novel 'Was it Jussi who wrote a novel?'

Milloin fussi romaanin kirjoitti?

when Jussi novel wrote 'When did Jussi write a novel?'

Onpas fussi romaanin kirjoittanut.

has.Foc Jussi novel written 'Jussi HAS written a novel.' [cp ruSSI [c' C [IP t . . . ]]] [FOC]

b'.

[cp Jussi [c' [c -ko] [IP t . . . ]]] [Q]

c'.

[cp Milloin [c' C [IP . . . t . . . ]]] [Q]

d'.

[cp [c' [c on [c -pas] [IP . . . t . . . ]]]] [FOC]

Taking Q to be a kind of focus feature, the generalization is that the sentence in each case has a focus feature in C which attracts a category to SpecCP (if the category is a phrase) or to C (if the category is a head). The analysis (4c') is uncontroversial; Finnish has a 'standard' form of wh-movement, with obligatory movement of one and only one wh-phrase to SpecCP. The analyses (4b', d'), too, are relatively uncontroversial: The question or focus particle attaches to the first constituent of the sentence, with the result that that constituent is focused, except in unmarked yes/no-questions, where the finite verb is moved to initial position to serve as host of the question particle. Compare (4b) with (Sa-c), where (Sc) shows that the question particle must attach to the first constituent.

126

ANDERS HOLMBERG (5)

a. b.

Romaaninko Jussi kirjoitti?

Jussi wrote novel.Q "Was it a novel that Jussi wrote?"

Kirjoittiko Jussi romaanin ?

wrote.Q Jussi novel "Did Jussi write a novel?"

c. *Jussi kirjoittiko romaanin ? Jussi wrote.Q novel This is accounted for if the question or focus particle is a realization of an affixal feature in C, attracting a focus able category to SpecCP (if it is a phrase) or C (if it is a head), with attraction of the closest head, namely the finite head (verb, auxiliary, or negation) as a last resort.2 See Holmberg et al. (1993) on the syntax of IP in Finnish. The analysis (4a') is less obviously correct. How can we tell that the initial contrastively focused subject is in SpecCP rather than in the usual subject position, say SpecIP? There are, in fact, strong indications that the subject has moved to SpecCP in this case: As discussed by Holmberg (1997), an epistemic adverb cannot precede a phrase in SpecCP, for instance a fronted wh-phrase or a fronted, contrastively focused object (in Finnish and a number of other languages). (6)

a.

(*Oikeastaan) milloin sina (oikeastaan) tulet takaisin ?

b.

(*Ilmeisesti) taman romaanin (ilmeisesti) Jussi (ilmeisesti)

actually when you actually come back 'When are you actually coming back?' apparently this

novel

kirjoitti (ilmeisesti) jo

apparently Jussi apparently

nuorena.

wrote apparently already as.young 'This novel Jussi apparently wrote already as a young man.' As shown by (6b), the epistemic adverb can precede the subject. As shown by (7), an epistemic adverb cannot precede a contrastively focused subject, though, most clearly so when the sentence exhibits OV order. (7)

(*Ilmeisesti) JUSSI (ilmeisesti) taman romaanin (ilmeisesti) on

apparently Jussi

apparently this

(ilmeisesti) kirjoittanut.

novel

apparently has

apparently written

This follows if the contrastively focused initial subject is in SpecCP. In addition,

127

DERIVING OV ORDER IN FINNIS H

note that we can insert a resumptive pronoun between the contrastively focused initial subject and the finite verb. 3 (8)

JUSSl se

taman romaanin on kirjoittanut.

Jussi he/it this

novel

has written

The pronoun is presumably in SpecIP; see Holmberg & Nikanne (to appear). I conclude that the cases of OV order in (4) all have a phrase or word moved to the checking domain of C. See also Vilkuna (1989, 1995) for a discussion of initial contrastive focus in Finnish. The examples under (9) show that the focus licensing OV order has to be sentence-initial. (9a) shows that contrastive focus can be indicated by intonation alone, without (overt) movement.4 (9b) shows that this does not license OV order between the direct object and the verb. (9c), finally, shows that movement of the focused indirect object to initial position (SpecCP) does license OV order. (9)

a.

Jussi sai sen kellon ANNALTA.

Jussi got that watch from.Anna 'It was from Anna that Jussi got that watch. '

b. *Jussi sen kellon sai ANNALTA. Jussi that watch got from.Anna c. ANNALTA Jussi sen kellon saL from.Anna Jussi that watch got 'It was from Anna Jussi got that watch.'

The examples under (10) show that the focused category and the verb undergo ing the VO-OV switch need not be in the same simplex clause. In ( lOa) the wh phrase fronted from a position in the main clause licenses OV in the embedded clause, shown by the fact that the same structure without the wh-phrase is ill formed with OV order. (10)

a.

Mista

sina kuulit [etta Jussi romaanin kirjoittaa] ?

from.where you heard that Jussi novel

b. *Mina kuulin [etta Jussi romaanin kirjoittaa]. I heard that Jussi novel is.writing

is.writing

As shown in (11) the complement in the OV construction can scramble. In this example the object precedes the main verb, but the auxiliary ole (here in the conditional form olisi) and the modal verb voi (here in the participial form voinut) each precede their complement. In this case the object can occur in any of the indicated positions, with no discernible effect on the interpretation.

128

ANDERS HOLMBERG

( 1 1)

Miten Jussi (romaanin) olisi

how Jussi novel

(romaanin) voinut (romaanin)

would.have a novel

could a novel

kirjoittaa ?

write 'How could Jussi have written a novel?' If there are several verb complements, they may scramble to different positions. (12a) is a consistent VO structure. In (12b) both of the bold-face constituents of the small clause have moved, each to its own position. (12)

a.

Mina olen kuullut lussin puhuvan ranskaa.

b.

Milloin sina lussin olet ranskaa kuullut puhuvan ?

I

have heard Jussi speak

French

when you Jussi have French heard speak 'When have you heard Jussi speaking French?'

If there are several verb complements, some may precede and others follow the verb.

(13)

a.

Minka takia sina pullat panitjiiiikaappiin ?

b. c.

Minka takia sina panit pullatjiiiikaappiin ? Minka takia sina pullatjiiiikaappiin panit?

what reason you buns put in. fridge 'Why did you put the buns in the fridge?'

The examples under (14) show that the complement of the auxiliary ole 'be, have' and other verbs taking nonfinite verbal complements may precede their selecting head. ( 14a) is a consistent VO structure. In (14b) the DP object precedes the main verb. In (14c) the VP headed by the main verb precedes the auxiliary verb (here in the conditional form olisO. However, as shown by (14d), when the VP precedes the auxiliary, the object must precede the main verb. (14)

a.

Milloin Jussi olisi

kirjoittanut romaanin ?

b.

Milloin Jussi olisi

romaanin kirjoittanut?

c.

Milloin Jussi romaanin kirjoittanut olisi.

when Jussi would.have written

when Jussi would.have a novel

a novel

written

when Jussi a novel written would.have 'When would Jussi have written a novel?'

d. *Milloin Jussi kirjoittanut romaanin olisi? when Jussi written a novel would.have

Thus, even though Finnish in general appears to have OV order optionally, OV order

DERIVING OV ORDER IN FINNIS H

129

in the VP is obligatory in this case, that is when the VP is itself embedded as a preverbal complement. This is an instantiation of generalization (1), repeated here: (1)

If a phrase ex is head-initial, then the phrase � immediately domi nating ex is head-initial. If ex is head-final, � can be head-final or head-initial.

Furthermore, when there are two or more verbs taking verbal complements, each verbal complement may precede its selecting head. (15a) is consistently va, while (15b) is consistently OV, with a sequence of sentence-final verbs mirroring the order in the va sentence. (15)

a.

Milloin Jussi oUsi

b.

Milloin Jussi romaanin kirjoittaa ehtinyt oUsi?

c.

Milloin Jussi romaanin kirjoittaa olisi ehtinyt?

ehtinyt

kirjoittaa romaanin ?

when Jussi would.have had.time write novel 'When would Jussi have had time to write a novel?' when Jussi a novel

write

had.time would.have

when Jussi a novel write would.have had.time

As shown in (15c) the order of the sentence final verb cluster need not be strictly OV in the sense that the highest verb is furthest to the right. The contrast between (15b-c) looks, on the face of it, like the contrast between German and Dutch: In (standard) German the sentence final verb cluster has OV order (except for the IPP construction). In (standard) Dutch, although nonverbal objects all precede their head, the order of the verbs is "Va", i.e. the higher the verb, the further to the left. 5 In most theories of German and Dutch this variation is accounted for under the heading of Verb Raising, an operation (or series of operations) which has the effect of creating a sentence final verbal cluster which cannot be broken up by intervening constituents; in this sense the verb cluster is wordlike. In Finnish, the sentence final verb cluster in (15b) is similar to its German counterpart in that it cannot be broken up by intervening material. As I will discuss in more detail below the claim is that it is derived essentially by the same process that derives the German verb cluster, that is successive movement of complement phrases leftwards: simplifying somewhat, first the infinitival clause moves to the Spec of the governing head ehtinyt 'had time' , then the resulting constituent moves to the Spec of the auxiliary. The final verb sequence in (15c), on the other hand, does not form an opaque verb cluster. Consider the fact that an adverbial may intervene between the two final verbs in (15c), as shown in (16a), but not between the two final verbs in (15b), as shown in (16b).

130

ANDERS HOLMBERG

(16)

a.

(siina

Milloin Jussi romaanin kirjoittaa olisi

when Jussi novel

write

would.have in.that

tapauksessa) ehtinyt?

b.

case

had.time

Milloin Jussi romaanin kirjoittaa ehtinyt (* siina

when Jussi novel

write

had.time

in.that

tapauksessa) olisi ?

would.have case 'When would Jussi, in that case, have had time to write a novel?' I therefore assume that the word order in (15c) is the result of long movement of the complement of ehtinyt, across both that verb and the auxiliary. The order of Neg and its complement is strictly VO. 6 (17)

a.

Miksi Jussi ei romaania kirjoittaisi ?

why Jussi not novel would. write 'Why would Jussi not write a novel?'

b. *Miksi Jussi romaania kirjoittaisi ei.

The order of (finite) C and its complement is also strictly YO. (18)

a.

Milloin Jussi ilmoitti etta han tuZee ?

when Jussi reported that he comes 'When did Jussi report that he would come?'

b. *Milloin Jussi ilmoitti han tuZee etta.

Finally, a complement CP can never precede the verb (as in the Germanic OV languages) : (19) *Milloin Jussi [etta han tuZee] ilmoitti ? when Jussi that he comes reported 3.

Finnish as an OV language

3 . 1 The head-chain hypothesis of OV order The properties of the Finnish OV construction, in particular its discourse semantic properties, are discussed in Vilkuna (1989, 1995), who observe� the connection between sentence initial focus and OV order. She does not actually propose any explanation of this connection, though. A kind of formal explanation is suggested in Holmberg (1997): The idea is that OV order is the result when V

131

DERIVING OV ORDER IN FINNIS H

i s not moved to I . Movement of V to I i s otherwise obligatory, at least in finite clauses, but is optional when C contains a focus feature, because such a C somehow licenses an empty I. Let us refine this hypothesis, which I will refer to as the head-chain hypothesis, to see how far it will take us. First, the hypothesis that OV order is the result of not moving the verb presupposes that Finnish is underlyingly an OV language, either in the sense that OV is a base-generated order, or in the sense that movement of 0 to a position preceding V in VP is an obligatory rule. Second, assume that the feature in I which triggers V-movement is a finiteness feature (cf. Holmberg & Platzack 1995). Assume the finiteness feature needs to be checked either by movement of the properly inflected verb to I, or by movement of the finiteness feature to C, which is possible if C contains a focus feature. That V-movement is associated with finiteness is a familiar observation from the study of V2 languages. That there is a close connection between focus and finiteness is less often noted but probably true nonetheless; for example, there are languages where a focus particle serves as the only marker of finiteness (see Testelec 1997). So the present hypothesis has a certain initial plausibility. If V-movement in Finnish is triggered by the need to check a finiteness feature in I, the prediction is that we should find OV order in nonfinite clauses, independent of focus. This is partly true: OV order occurs not infrequently in infinitival clauses, even in the absence of any sentence-initial focus, as in (20a), in contrast with the finite clause (20b). (20)

a.

Mina en osaa viela [siihen kysymykseen vastata]. I 'I

not can yet that question can't answer that question, yet.'

answer

b. *Mina jo siihen kysymykseen vastasin. I already that question answered Matters are complicated by the fact that VO order is always an option, and often preferred or even obligatory in infinitival clauses, unless the matrix clause has initial focus. We would have to postulate other, optional, triggers for verb movement in addition to finiteness. However, there are other, stronger reasons for rejecting the head-chain hypothesis. To begin with, clearly OV order is not only the result of not moving the verb, since 0 moves as well in various constructions; cf. the example of scrambling shown in (12b), repeated here: (12)

b.

Milloin sina oiet lussin

kuullut ranskaa puhuvan?

when you have Jussi.GEN heard French speak

1 32

ANDERS HOLMBERG

Here Jussin is the subject of a small clause (a nominal participial small clause, hence the genitive case; see Koskinen 1998) which is selected by the verb kuullut 'heard' . Thus, excluding the possibility that the verb kuullut is lowered into the small clause, there is no way that the order in (l2b) can be derived without movement of Jussin leftwards, or (less plausibly) movement of the small clause predicate rightwards. This movement is conditional on the sentence initial focus. Second, the relation between the triggering C and the verb's potential landing site is non-local. (21)

a.

Miksi sina pelkaiit [etta se palamaan syttyy] ?

why you fear that it burning starts 'Why are you afraid that it will catch fire?'

(Vilkuna 1989)

b. *Mina pelkaan [etta se palamaan syttyy] . I fear that it burning starts

Here the licensing focus feature is in the matrix clause C, but the finite I licensed by the focus feature is in the embedded clause. (21b) shows that the order in the embedded clause is, indeed, conditional on the focus feature in the matrix clause. Under the head-chain hypothesis, and given standard assumptions about head head relations, we would have to assume some kind of head-chain relation, linking the initial focus-marked C with the embedded finite I, via a chain of intervening heads. But this analysis is compromised by the fact that the structural restrictions on the intervening heads are not the ones we expect from a head chain. Consider (22), which shows that the finite I licensed by the matrix focused C can be embedded in a relative clause. In (22a) the order in the relative clause is VO. (22b) , with OV order, is clearly not well formed. (22c) is well formed (although somewhat stilted), due to the focused matrix clause subject, which, as discussed, is in SpecCP, checking a focus feature in C. (22)

a.

Olen jo

nahnyt sen elokuvan josta

Lhave already seen

the movie

ne puhui

about.which they talked

uutisissa.

on.news

b. *Olen jo nahnyt sen elokuvanjosta ne uutisissa Lhave already seen the movie about. which they on.news puhui.

c.

talked

Minakin olen

Ltoo

sen elokuvan nahnyt josta

Lhave that movie

uutisissa puhui.

on.news talked

seen

ne

about.which they

DERIVING OV ORDER IN FINNIS H

1 33

Postulating a head chain relation linking a head in a relative clause with a head outside the DP containing the relative clause would entail giving up virtually all known locality conditions on head-chain relations, except perhaps the c-command condition. 3.2 OV order and information structure

There is another condition on the OV construction, observed and discussed by Vilkuna ( 1989, 1 995), which does not follow from the head-chain hypothesis. In Vilkuna's words, the preverbal V-complements cannot convey the main news of the sentence. In other words, 0 in the OV construction should be old informa tion. Initial focus does not help if 0 is not old. Consider, for example, the following conversation between A and B : (22)

A: What are you going to give the kids for Christmas? i. JUSSILLE minii annan KIRJAN. to.Jussi I (will) give book ii. #JUSSILLE minii KIRJAN annan.

B:

Here the alternative (ii) is sharply inappropriate even though the sentence has a focus feature in C, checked by the focused subject. The reason is that the object conveys new information. 7 Note that 0 in the OV construction can be contrastive (hence in that sense focus), as long as it is old, in the sense of being already a topic of the discourse, as in (23), assuming a discourse where Jussi's novel is under discussion. (23)

Miksi Jussi ROMAANIN kirjoitti? Miksei VAITOSKIRJAA ?

why Jussi novel wrote why.not dissertation 'Why did Jussi write a NOVEL? Why not a dissertation?'

In some cases it is almost sufficient that a verb complement is old information, for OV order to be acceptable. In (24) and (25) the embedded finite clauses are factive, conveying just old information. OV order may be unpreferred to VO order in this case in the absence of initial focus, but not inconceivable. (24) ?Se pelotti

minua [ettii se niin helposti palamaan syttyi].

it frightened me that it so easily burning 'It frightened me that it caught fire so easily.'

started

1 34

ANDERS HOLMBERG

(25)

? [Se etta tala

palamaan syttyi] ei merkitse ettei

it that house burning

enaa

asua.

slzna VOlSl

started not means that.not in.it you can

anymore live 'The fact that the house caught fire doesn't mean that you can't live in it anymore.' 4.

The universal validity of Generalization 1

One of the goals of the present paper is to propose an explanation of Generaliza tion 1 , repeated here: (1)

If a phrase ex is head-initial, then the phrase 13 immediately dominat ing ex is head-initial. If ex is head-final, 13 can be head-final or head initial.

The idea is that once we have an account of this generalization, the Finnish word order facts discussed above will fall out, given some additional parameter distinguishing between Finnish and other languages which are also mixed VO/OV but do not exhibit exactly the same pattern as Finnish, with OV dependent on a focus-marked C. Besides, whatever we think about Finnish, a theory of word order which has no explanation of Generalization 1 cannot be the right theory. How general is Generalization I ? We can get an idea by looking at the results of a large-scale cross-linguistic survey of head-complement order, such as Dryer (1992), the largest and most authoritative one to date. In this work Dryer tests a number of the word order universals proposed by Greenberg ( 1966) (and other generalizations in the same vein) against a much larger sample of languag es than Greenberg's, carefully sampled so as to avoid genetic and areal biases. Dryer's total sample was 625 languages, or more correctly "genera", where a genus is a group of closely related languages roughly of the order of the Germanic languages. 8 What Dryer investigated was the correlation between V and 0 order and a the order of a number of other pairs of categories that have been claimed to be analogues of V and 0, such as C and IP, Aux and VP, Article and NP, etc. One of the pairs he looked at is Want (a volition verb) and the main verb, the head of the complement of Want. (I use capitalized 'Want' to refer to a lexical item expressing volition.) On the basis of Greenberg's Universal 15 the expectation is that VO languages should strongly favour the order Want V, while OV languages should favour V Want. Dryer's (1992) results are shown in (26). The table can be read as follows: Dryer found data concerning Want

DERIVING OV ORDER IN FINNIS H

135

from 8 5 genera in his sample. Out of 46 va languages/genera 42 had the expected order Want V, and only 4 the order V Want. , Out of 39 OV languages/ genera 29 had the expected order V Want, while 10 had the order Want V. (26)

Want V & va Want V & OV V Want & va V Want & OV

42 10 4 29

genera genera genera genera

Dryer (1992) concludes that Want and V pattern like V and 0, as Greenberg ( 1966) had claimed. Consider Generalization 1 : If it is correct, we should find the orders Want-v-a, Want-a-V, 0-V-Want, but not V-a-Want. This is clearly the tendency in the table under (26). There are four potential conterexamples, though, the four V want & va languages. Do they, in fact, exhibit the order V-O- Want? Matthew Dryer has informed me that he now has seven languages/ genera in his database exhibiting the pattern V Want & va. I have so far been able to check his sources for four of those languages (thanks to Matthew Dryer's information). None of them contained any example of the word order V-O- Want. Two of them (Luvale and Pero) 9 did not, in fact, contain any examples of postverbal Want. Two of them did: Yindjibamdi and Guajajara. l O However, in these examples the main verb was intransitive. Both of these languages allow va as well as OV order. We are therefore not surprised to find that they allow the main verb, presumably heading a VP, preceding Want. What we expect, given Generalization 1, is that when the main verb precedes Want, the object, if there is one, will precede the main verb (0- V-Want) or possibly, will be found to the right of Want (V-Want-a), depending on other properties of the construction. ll In fact, mixed order languages like Finnish and Old Icelandic, if they had been in Dryer's (1992) sample, and if he had had access to rich enough data, would have appeared in the category V Want & va, since they are generally classified as va, but do allow the main verb to precede Want, along with other head-final constructions. However, they do not allow V-O- Want. A word order generalization which apparently is universal is that no va languages have sentence-final complementizers (see Dryer 1 992). This tallies well with Generalization 1 : A VP with the order v-a cannot be embedded in a VP-I but only in an I-VP structure, and an I-VP structure can only be embedded in a C-IP structure. Internal to Finnish we can test the validity of Generalization (1) in nominal as well as verbal projections. Finnish has the order N-Gen as well as Gen-N. (27)

a.

kuva

Marjasta

picture of.Marja

136

ANDERS HOLMBERG

b.

Marjan kuva

Marja's picture

Finnish also has postpositions as well as prepositions. There are even some adpositions which can be either. (28)

a. b.

ilman

kuvaa

without picture kuvaa ilman

picture without

If an NP containing a Gen is embedded in such a PP, the permitted orders are

P-N-Gen, P-Gen-N, Gen-N-P, but not N-Gen-P, in accordance with Generali zation 1 . (29)

a. b. c.

ilman

[kuvaa Marjasta]

ilman

[Marjan kuvaa]

without picture of.Marja without Marja's picture [Marjan kuvaa] ilman

Marja's picture without d. * [kuvaa Marjasta] ilman picture of.Marja without We conclude that Generalization 1 is valid over a wide spectrum of constructions across a wide spectrum of languages. 5.

How to derive OV order

The theory is based on a set of more or less controversial assumptions. First, I assume that inflected forms are derived by movement in the syntax, as used to be widely assumed within GB theory; see for example Baker ( 1988). More recently this theory has fallen in disrepute, following Chomsky's ( 1 995) revival of the lexicalist theory of inflection. However, forthcoming work by Marit Julien shows that the incorporation theory of inflection is well motivated both empiri cally and theoretically. 1 2 Another assumption is that all phrase structure is right branching (following Kayne 1 994; Haider 1 992, 1 997, this volume). I further more assume that the lower section of a transitive VP has the order OV univer sally, where I do not take a stand on whether the OV order is base-generated or derived by an obligatory O-movement operation.

DERIVING OV ORDER IN FINNIS H

1 37

Second, following a suggestion by Kayne ( 1 994), developed by Julien (2000), I assume that head-final structures are derived by movement of the complement of a head H to SpecHP. The derivation of a structure with three heads is shown schematically in (30): (30)

a. b. c. d.

Y [xp 0 X] [yp [0 X] [Y t]] W [yp [0 X] [Y t]] [wp [[0 X] [Y tn [W t]]

In (30a) Y is merged with XP (where the complement 0 already precedes X). In (30b) the XP [OX] has moved to the Spec of YP. In (30c) W is merged with

and in (30d) yP has moved to the Spec of WP. Successive application of complement movement in this fashion yields a structure which is effectively left branching except for the trace of movement left in each complement position. The theoretical status of the trace is unclear. It is presumably not a site of reconstruction for example, so it may well be that the movement depicted in (30) leaves no trace in the sense of a phonetically empty copy or any kind of empty category - in which case the movement derives a truly left-branching structure. However, the way this theory is set up, it is crucial that the structure is in fact derived by movement. Third, the trigger of complement movement is c-selection (Pesetsky 1982) or strict subcategorization (Chomsky 1 965). Following Svenonius ( 1994) I assume that this relation always involves movement, as follows: Every head selecting a complement has a feature specifying some syntactic feature(s) of its complement, essentially Chomsky's ( 1 965) subcategorization feature, here called a selectionfeature. The selection feature is an uninterpretable feature in the sense of Chomsky ( 1 995: Ch. 4), and therefore has to be checked and erased in the course of the syntactic derivation. It does so by attracting the relevant feature(s) of the complement. That is to say, just Merge of a head with its complement is not sufficient to check the selection feature: the feature selected has to move to the checking domain of the selection feature. This movement can take three forms, listed under (3 1): YP,

(3 1)

a. b. c.

Pure f(eature)-movement (i.e. covert movement; see Chomsky 1 995: Ch. 4), head movement, i.e. f-movement pied-piping the minimal word containing the relevant feature, XP-movement, i.e. f-movement pied-piping the minimal maxi mal category containing the relevant feature.

ANDERS HOLMBERG

138

Svenonius ( 1 994) recognizes (3 1 a) and (b) but not (c), but then Svenonius does not take OV languages into account. Following an idea suggested by Kayne ( 1 994) I will assume that so-called VO languages are languages which prefer (a) and (b), while so-called OV languages are languages which prefer (c). (32) is an example of the strategy (3 1 a) : (32)

[[c that] [IP John has+I . ]] .

.

There i s a selection feature in C attracting a feature o f L We may represent the feature as [_I] . There appears to be no pied-piping/overt movement involved in this case, so LI] appears to be checked by pure feature movement. 1 3 The strategy (3 1b) may be exemplified by (33a), and the strategy (3 1 c) by (33b) . (33)

a.

Milloin Jussi olisi when

b.

Milloin Jussi olisi when

kirjoittanut romaanin?

Jussi would-have written

a novel

romaanin kirjoittanut?

Jussi would-have a novel

written

Consider the derivations in detail: In both constructions the first step is forming the VP by merging the verb and its object, followed by movement of the object to a specifier position, let us say Spec VP; I omit taking the subject into account at this point, as well as any functional heads below the participle head labelled Prc. The next step is that the participle head -nut is merged with the VP (the trace of the object will be represented as to the trace of the verb as tv' etc.). ' (34) [PreP -nut [vp romaanin kirjoitta- to]] This head has a selection feature LV] attracting the feature [V] of the head of the VP. Since -nut is an affix the feature [V] has to pied-pipe (at least) the whole verb stem. At this point there are two options: (a) pied-pipe the minimal word dominating [V] , and adjoin it to Prc, or (b) pied-pipe the minimal maximal phrase dominating [V], and place it in SpecPrc. The result of applying option (a), the head movement option, is (35). ,

(35)

[PreP [Pre kirjoitta-nut] [vp romaanin 1y to]]

The result of applying (b), the XP-movement option, is (36): (36)

[PreP [vp romaanin kirjoitta- to] [Pre' -nut 1yp]]

A s a result o f the movement the verb stem and the participle affix are morpho logically merged into a word. This is uncontroversial in the case of (35) . Following Kayne ( 1 994) and Julien (2000) I assume that the verb stem and the

DERIVING OV ORDER IN FINNIS H

139

affix can be interpreted as a word in (36) as well, even though they do not fonn a syntactic constituent. The necessary and, by assumption, sufficient condition for the principles of the morphological component (henceforth called Morphological Structure, or MS, as in Halle and Marantz 1 993) to interpret the stem and the affix as a word is that they are phonologically adjacent, which they are in (36), being separated only by a trace (which may in fact not be there). Thus (36) as well as (35) satisfies the requirements of both Syntax (feature checking) and Morphology (word fonnation). See Julien (2000) for plenty of supporting evidence that MS is sensitive strictly to adjacency, not to syntactic constituency. 1 4 In tenns of economy of derivation the head-movement and the XP-movement option can be assumed to be equal: The head-movement option is more economi cal in the sense that it moves fewer features (cf. Chomsky 1995: Ch. 4 for an elaboration of the Last Resort condition in tenns of feature movement). On the other hand the XP that is a complement of a head H is structurally closer to H than the head XO of XP, so XP-movement is technically shorter than head-movement. Note that checking the selection feature of the participle head by VP-move ment presupposes that the VP have OV fonnat. If it had VO fonnat, the object would block the morphological merger of the verb stem and the participle affix. The head movement strategy, on the other hand, is compatible with either a VO or an OV complement. This is the beginning of an explanation of Generalization (1). The generalization is that structures of the fonn [H2P [HI X] H2] where X is overt are not found. When the selecting head H2 is an affix, this structure is ruled out by conditions on word fonnation: the selector affix and the selectee head have to be phonologically adjacent. What happens when H2 is not an affix? It seems that the adjacency condition between the selector head and the selectee head is a condition even then. Consider for instance the Gennan verb cluster, as in (37): (37)

dass er dieses Buch lesen konnen muss

that he this book read can must 'that he must be able to read this book'

Given that the verb cluster is a result of successive selection-triggered XP-move ment, the structure is as in (3 8 ): (3 8 )

[AuxP [AuxP [yp dieses Buch lesen to] konnen 1:"p] muss tauxp]

As well known, there is a strict adjacency condition holding among the verbs in the verb cluster. No phonologically visible category is allowed to intervene. In this sense the verb cluster is word-like. Yet the constituent parts are not affixes, judging by the fact that they do occur as independent words in other contexts, in

1 40

ANDERS HOLMBERG

particular, they undergo movement as independent heads under V2. In the case of Finnish, the effect of the adjacency condition can be seen in (39) : In (39b) the object intervenes between the fronted V and the auxiliary. (39)

a.

Milloin Jussi romaanin kirjoittanut olisi?

when Jussi novel written would.have b. *Milloin Jussi kirjoittanut romaanin olisi? The examples in (40) and (4 1 ) show that while an adjunct may intervene at various places in a multi-verb structure, it may never intervene between two verbs in an an OV structure. (40)

a.

Milloin Jussi (sinun when

mukaan) olisi

Jussi according to you

mukaan) kirjoittanut (sinun

(sinun

would.have according

mukaan) romaanin ?

to.you written according to.you novel 'When would Jussi, according to you, have written a novel?' b.

Milloin Jussi (sinun

mukaan) romaanin (sinun

when

Jussi according to.you a.novel according mukaan) kirjoittanut (*sinun mukaan) olisi? to.you written according to.you would.have (41 )

a.

Ei Jussi tule

(hiinkiiiin) hyviiksymiiiin (hiinkiiiin) sitii

not Jussi come he.neither accept

he. neither that

ehdotusta. proposal 'Jussi will surely not accept that proposal, either.' b.

Ei Jussi (hiinkiiiin) sitii ehdotusta (hiinkiiiin) hyviiksymiiiin not Jussi he.neither that proposal (*hiinkiiiin) tule. he.neither come

he. neither accept

What this suggests is that Generalization 1 may be a special case of something more general: In a head-final structure the selector and selectee heads must be adjacent, regardless of structure. I 5 When the selector is an affix , the movement to check the selection feature must be overt. By assumption they have a feature [affix] which is checked by a phonological feature matrix, forcing pied-piping of a head or a phrase. Assume that not only "real affixes", but various independent words as well have a feature which forces pied-piping of a head or a phrase with the selected fea ture(s). In terms of Chomsky ( 1 995), the selector feature can be weak or strong, its strength being fixed independently for each head. Now stipulate (42).

DERIVING OV ORDER IN FINNIS H (42)

141

The selection feature F of a head ex is checked by the selected feature F' of the head 13 if and only if either F' or 13 is adjacent to ex .

If the selection feature F is weak, it is checked by pure feature movement of F'. F' ends up adjoined to ex, satisfying (42). If F is strong, it is checked by overt move ment. If it is head-movement, then 13 will end up adjoined to ex, satisfying (42). If it is XP-movement, the head of 13 must end up adjacent to ex, to satisfy (42).

A consequence of this is that while selection by XP-movement at step s in the derivation is compatible with selection by XP-movement or by f-movement or head-movement at step s + 1 , selection by f-movement or head-movement at step s blocks selection by XP-movement at step s + 1 . To illustrate, consider the derivations of (44a-b), where (44a) is a well formed alternative to (33a-b) while (44b) is ill formed, violating (42): (44)

a.

Milloin Jussi romaanin kirjoittanut olisi.

when Jussi novel written would.have b. *Milloin Jussi kirjoittanut romaanin olisi. when Jussi written novel would.have Take (36) and merge the auxiliary stem ol- 'be' with it: (45)

[AuxP ol- [PreP [yp romaanin kirjoitta- to] [Pre' -nut �]]]

The auxiliary has a selection feature checked by a participle feature. There are two options: Pure f-movement or XP-movement. Head movement is ruled out in this case since (a) the participle head cannot move on its own since it is a suffix, and (b) the verb stem and participle suffix cannot move together since they do not form a constituent. Assume first that the selection feature of ol- is checked by pure f-movement. The next step in the derivation is Merge of T, here in the form of the conditional suffix -isi (see Holmberg et aL 1 993 on the properties of the Finnish tense and mood system). (46)

[TP -isi [AuxP ol- [PreP [yp romaanin kirjoitta- to] [Pre' -nut �]]]]

The T-affix has a selection feature checked by [V] . There is only one option in this case, namely head movement, which yields the word order in (33b). Pure f movement is not sufficient since T is an affix . XP-movement of AuxP, the result of which would be (47), is ruled out as a violation of the adjacency condition (42). (47)

[TP [AuxP ol- [PreP [yp romaanin kirjoitta- to] [Pre' -nut �]]][T' -isi tauxp]]

142

ANDERS HOLMBERG

The selector head and the selectee head do not end up adjacent to each other. The result in this case, where neither the selector nor the selectee head are independent words, is virtually a morpheme salad. Now consider the option when XP-movement is applied to (45). The result is (48), satisfying (42), since the participle head and the selecting auxiliary end up adjacent.

[AuxP [PreP [yp romaanin kirjoitta- to] [Pre' -nut �]] [Aux' ol- tprep]] The next step is merging T, in the form o f -isi. (48)

(49)

[TP -isi [AuxP [PreP [yp romaanin kirjoitta- to] [Pre' -nut �p]] [Aux' oltprep]]]

There are two options for checking the selection feature of T: head-movement of the auxiliary stem, which would give the same word order (though not exactly the same structure) as head movement applied to (46) . The other option is XP-movement, the result of which will be (50): (50)

[TP [AuxP [PreP [VP romaanin kirjoitta- to] [Pre' -nut �]] ol- �rep] [T' -isi tauxp]]

The adj acency condition (42) i s respected at every step, and the resulting string is (44a). To derive the ungrammatical (44b) we start from (5 I a), merge the auxiliary as in (S Ib), move the participle head with the adjoined verb to SpecAuxP, as in (S Ic). Then merge T, as in (S I d), and finally move the AuxP to SpecTP. (5 1 )

a. b. c. d. e.

[PreP [kirjoitta [-nut]] [yp romaanin [v' �]]] [AuxP ol- [PreP [kirjoitta [-nut]] [yp romaanin [v' �]]]] [AuxP [PreP [kirjoitta [-nut]] [yp romaanin [v' �]] [Aux' ol- �rep]] [TP -isi [AuxP [PreP [kirjoitta [-nut]] [yp romaanin [v' tV]] [Aux' ol tprep]]] hp [AuxP [PreP [kirjoitta [-nut]] [yp romaanin [v' �] ] [Aux' ol�rep]] [T' -isi]]]

The forbidden step in this derivation is the XP-movement resulting in (S Ic), forbidden because prior to it, at (5 I a), a selection feature was checked by head movement, resulting in a head-initial phrase, and hence a violation of (42). The only way the derivation can proceed to a convergent result after (5 I a) is by checking selection by head-movement or f-movement.

DERIVING OV ORDER IN FINNIS H

6.

143

The initial focus condition

So the derivation of an OV structure presupposes selection by XP-movement all the way. If at any point in the derivation selection is accomplished by pure f-movement or head movement, selection by XP-movement cannot be applied after that. The explanation I will now propose of the initial focus condition on OV order in Finnish makes use of this generalization. The idea is that any finite clause except those where focus is initial has verb movement at an early stage of the derivation, blocking any later applications of selection by XP-movement. It is a common observation that the focus in the sense of 'the news' of a finite sentence in the unmarked case is contained in VP, while the old or presup posed information is found outside, preceding VP. A prominent exception is when the focus is sentence-initial, as in wh-questions (in languages with wh-movement) or clefts, or declaratives with a contrastively focused initial constituent. I propose the following formal account: Among the categories provided by UG there is a functional head which I label New, hosting a [focus] feature, projecting NewP and taking VP as its complement. The semantic contribution of New is that of defining VP as the domain of new information. I leave open a number of questions concerning the formal properties of New. The properties which are most directly relevant for Finnish sentential word order are listed under (52): (52)

a.

b.

c.

Universally every independent (or root) sentence must contain at least one instance of the feature [focus] ; an independent sentence without focus is filtered out at LF as uninterpretable. That is to say, an independent sentence cannot be all presuppo sition; some part of the sentence must be intepretable as focus/ new information. The focus features which appear in C, including Q and Con trast, count as instances of the feature [focus] . Therefore a wh question or a sentence with a fronted contrastively focused constituent need not contain the head New, although they may do so, in which case the sentence has two foci. A parametrized property of Finnish is that New always attracts the verb. In present terms, the selection feature of New can only be checked by head movement.

Property (52c) explains why only sentences with initial focus permit OV order in Finnish. All independent sentences which do not have a focus feature in C have the head New next to VP, attracting V. Thus all such sentences go through a stage like (53) in the derivation:

1 44

ANDERS HOLMBERG (53)

[NewP V+New [yp Obj tv]]

A s discussed i n the previous section, once head movement i s applied at any stage in the derivation, this blocks subsequent selection by XP-movement. Consequent ly OV sentences cannot be derived in Finnish, in the presence of New. So the reason why (2b), repeated here as (54), is out is that New attracts V, which precludes any subsequent selection by XP-movement. There is no way to derive (54) from (55), provided that the object cannot scramble from its position in VP to a position preceding T (a point which I will return to below). (54)

*Jussi romaanin kirjoitti. Jussi novel

(55)

wrote

[TP -i [NewP kirjoitta+ New [yp romaanin iy]]]

The string Jussi romaanin kirjoitti is, however, well formed if the sentence is analyzed as having a C containing a focus feature attracting the subject, endowed with a feature [contrastive] , to SpecCP. In this case there need be no head New in IP attracting V. Consequently nothing prevents checking the selection feature of T by VP-movement. The result is (56a), analyzed as (56b) (still ignoring the IP-internal position(s) of the subject). (56)

a.

JUSSI romaanin kirjoitti.

b.

Jussi novel wrote 'It was Jussi who wrote a novel. ' [cP Jussi [c' C [TP [yp romaanin kirjoitta-] [T' -i �]]]]

This is consistent with the facts discussed in Section 3 .2: If the object conveys new information, OV order is out even if the sentence has initial focus. One of the examples was the sentence (57) ( (22Bii)), uttered as an answer to the question 'What are you going to give the kids for Christmas? ' , in which context the sentence is totally inappropriate. =

(57)

#JUSSILLE minii KIRJAN annan. to.Jussi

I

a.book give

In this context the expected answer has a VP which contains new information. This entails presence of New taking VP as complement. This triggers V-move ment to New, and this rules out the possibility of a preverbal object. The (somewhat marginal) possibility of OV order in factive clauses follows if they do not have New; presumably a defining characteristic of factive clauses. That OV order in those cases is somewhat marginal falls under the more general observation that OV order is never obligatory: even in cases where VP is clearly

DERIVING OV ORDER IN FINNIS H

1 45

not new information VO is always an option. This follows if the choice between head-movement, f-movement, or XP-movement to check selection is always optional in Finnish, except where other properties of the derivation disallow one option or the other. One of the problems posed by the Finnish SOY construction is the apparent nonlocality of the "ov rule". In Vilkuna's words, on the face of it "a switch at the end of the sentence has an effect on the first constituent" (Vilkuna 1 989: 1 3 1 ), the two positions being in principle infinitely far apart. The problem disappears in the present theory as no direct relation is postulated between the initial focus and the OV structure. OV order is made possible by the absence of sentence internal focus, in the form of the category New, which has two effects: (a) in the absence of a functional head triggering early head movement, selection of VP by means of XP-movement is possible, resulting in OV order, and (b) it makes a higher focus mandatory, since the sentence must have a focus somewhere. I6

7.

Typological predictions

In general, in any language where selection by head movement or pure f-move ment applies at stage s in a derivation D, OV order (or more generally, head final order) cannot be derived in D at any stage subsequent to s. In these terms, what is characteristic of rigid or consistent VO languages is that they have a head merged at an early stage of the derivation which can only select by head movement or pure f-movement. This is all it takes. Characteristic of a mixed language such as Finnish is that the head specified to select by head movement is an optional one (in this case optional in the sense that the feature it hosts can be realized higher up in the sentence). The present theory predicts that languages with [IP C] order have [VP I] order in IP (particles or auxiliary verbs encoding tense, mood, aspect etc. occurring to the right of the verb), and that languages with [VP I] order have OV order. Consequently languages with sentence-final complementizers have OV order. 1 7 The converse implication is not predicted: [VP I] does not imply [IP C] , and OV does not imply [VP I] or [IP C] . The predictions are by and large correct. As mentioned in Section 4 there are said to be no VO languages with sentence-final complementizers. As also discussed in Section 4 there are very few if any languages with the order V-O-Want, while the other 'mixed order' Want-O-V appeared to be fairly common. I 8 With regard to other sentential functional categories such as tense and aspect particles and the negation the situation is less clear. For instance, apparently there are languages of the VO type

ANDERS HOLMBERG

146

with sentence-final tense or aspect particles, presumably indicative of the position of I relative to VP, or with a sentence-final negation particle; see Dryer ( 1 992). If these languages actually allow the order VO in construction with a sentence final tense or aspect particle they are potentially counterexamples to the present theory. Certain other well known word order correlations, observed by Greenberg ( 1 966) and corroborated in Dryer ( 1 992) also follow from the theory outlined here, at least in part. Consider for example the correlation between postpositions . and OV order: Typically a VP containing a PP complement has the form [vp [DP P] V] in an OV language. In the case where the PP is selected by the verb, this is a consequence of the adjacency condition on selection expressed in (42) above. The fact that adjuncts have the same order in the PP does not follow directly, though. Furthermore, there are well known cases of OV languages which have prepositions (for instance German). I leave it an open question here how to account for such cases. 19 Sigursson ( 1 988) suggested, partly on the basis of a conceptual argument, partly on the basis of the history of Germanic, that diachronic change of sentential word order from head-final to head-initial (OV to YO) and vice versa, always proceeds top-down. 2o We can now conclude that Sigursson is right with regard to change from OV to VO but wrong with regard to change from VO to OV, as evidenced, for example, by the absence of SVO languages with sentence final complementizers, and more generally by facts discussed here in support of generalization ( 1 ) . If this generalization holds universally, change from VO to OV must be bottom-up.

8.

Remaining problems: Scrambling and mixed order

So far the theory accounts for the cases of "pure OV" and "pure VO" order, where all complements of a head H are on the same side of H. More has to be said about constructions where some complements follow and others precede H. More needs to be said as well about scrambling (also called object shift), where the complement of H turns up in the specifier position of a higher head H'. Consider first scrambling; (59) is a case in point.

(59)

JUSSI romaanin on kirjoittanut. Jussi a.novel has written 'It's Jussi who has written a novel'

The object of the verb has moved to the specifier position of the auxiliary. The

DERIVING OV ORDER IN FINNIS H

147

construction is possible only when the sentence has initial focus. A priori the object could have moved to its surface position directly from the complement-of V position. However, this would undermine the connection we have argued for between OV order and initial focus. Instead we must assume roughly the analysis (60) of (59) : (60)

[cp JUSSl C [IP ts romaanin on [PreP [yp to kirjoitta-] [Pre' -nut �J]J]

In the absence of New, Prc has selected VP by XP-movement. The sentence focus is realized in C, attracting the subject in this case. Following VP-move ment to specPrcP, the object has moved to a higher Spec or adjunct position. What we have to say, in fact, is that such scrambling or object shift is possible only from a phrase which itself has moved to a specifier position, since other wise we have no explanation for the absence of scrambling when the sentence lacks initial focus (and thus must have New generated outside VP). This is at odds with standard GB-theoretic assumptions about subject-object asymmetries, according to which complements (especially of lexical categories) are transparent while specifiers are islands: cf. Huang's ( 1 982) CED, and Chomsky's ( 1 986) Barriers theory. See also Haider (this volume). What we have to say is that the island conditions were wrongly formulated in those works. While movement out of certain specifiers is impossible or highly restricted, for example out of sentential subjects, movement is by no means excluded out of specifiers across the board. In fact, any theory which assumes that head-final structures are derived by movement of complements must assume that various types of movement are possible out of these moved complements, including wh-move ment and verb movement (for instance in V2 languages). 2 1 Note that if scram bling can only take place from specifiers, we have the beginning of an explana tion of the observation that scrambling is typically found in OV languages rather than VO languages. Note also that the condition may fall under some version of 'Holmberg's Generalization' (cf. Holmberg 1 999). Consider (6 1 a), where the verb has moved and adjoined to the participial head: Here the verb will block scrambling/object shift. (6 1 )

a. b.

Jussi on [PreP [Pre kirjoitta -nut] [yp romaanin 1y]] Jussi on [PreP [yp romaanin kirjoitta] [-nut 1"pJ]

In (6 1b), where the VP has moved to check the selection feature of the participi al head, the object precedes the verb, and is free to scramble/object shift. As for 'mixed' constructions, where some complements of H precede, while others follow H, there are at least three cases to consider. One case can be exemplified by (62).

ANDERS HOLMBERG

148 (62)

Milloin Jussi sinulle kertoi etta han on lahdiissa

Pariisiin ?

when Jussi to.you told that he is on.his.way to.Paris 'When did Jussi tell you that he is on his way to Paris?' Here the conditions are met for OV order, as shown by the fact that the goal object is preverbal, yet the CP complement is postverbal, and must be postverbal, since finite clauses are excluded in preverbal position. A possible analysis is that the finite clause has first been extracted from the complement XP to the Spec of an abstract functional head prior to selection of XP (now containing only the goal object) by the verb. Assuming only leftwards movement, (62) would have an intermediate structure like (63), where F is the abstract functional category attracting the finite embedded clause and PP is the goal object. (63)

[yp V [FP CP [F' F [xp PP X tep] ] ] ]

This presupposes that the mystical category FP is transparent for selection, since V selects XP, not FP. This may not be an unproblematic assumption. Another case can be exemplified by (64) ( 1 3 a) : =

(64)

Minka takia sina pullat panitjaakaappiin (mikset leipalaatikkoon) ? what for you buns put in. fridge why.not in.bread.box 'Why did you put the buns in the fridge (why not in the bread box)?'

This word order is natural with contrastive focus on the postverbal constituent, prompted in the example by the continuation in parentheses. Again a possible analysis, along the lines of Kayne' s ( 1 998) analysis of postverbal focus, is that the focused constituent jaakaappiin has first moved out of the complement of the verb, by assumption a form of small clause (SC), to the specifier of a Focus head. Subsequently the SC, selected by the verb, has moved to specVP. (64)

[yp [s c pullat X �p] [panit [PoeP jaakaappiin [Poe tse] ] ]

Acknowledgments Thanks to the audiences at the Tromsfli workshop on VO and OV, ConSOLE 7, and the Linglunch seminar at MIT, where parts of this paper have been presented. Special thanks to Matthew Dryer, Liina Pylkkanen, and Peter Svenonius.

Notes 1.

See also Vainikka (1989: 91ff.).

DERIVING OV ORDER IN FINNIS H

1 49

2.

A complication which I will ignore here is that the question particle attaches either to the first constituent of the sentence or to the first word of that constituent, as shown in (i): (i) a. Sinun autonko ne varasti? your car.Q they stole b. Sinunko auton ne varasti ? your.Q car they stole "Was it your car that they stole?" This means that simple phonological cliticization of a particle in C to a constituent in SpecCP is insufficient as an account of the morphology of question and focus particles in Finnish. See Halpern 1 995.

3.

The 3rd person pronoun se can refer to human as well as nonhuman entities.

4.

Alternatively, in the framework of Kayne ( 1998), it is overt movement of the focused constituent to a lower focus position, followed by remnant VP-movement to a higher position.

5.

See for example Kroch and Santorini (1991). The following examples exemplify this contrast in verb sequencing: (German) dass er das Buch lesen k6nnen muss. (i) that he the book read can.INF must (Dutch) (ii) dat ie het boek moet kunnen lesen. that he the book must can.INF read 'that he must be able to read the book'

6.

See Holmberg et al. (1993) on the properties of the Finnish negation; it is an auxiliary-like element in the sense that it is inflected for subject agreement

7.

Anne Vainikka (1989: 94f.) has observed the contrast shown in (i). (i) a. Kuka tahtoo kahvia ? who wants coffee Kuka kahvia tahtoo ? b. who coffee wants While (ia) is a conventional way of offering coffee to a group of visitors, (ia) , although grammatical, is totally inappropriate in that context, being most readily read as a rhetorical question with 'nobody' as implied answer. Why that should be the case is an interesting question which I have no answer for.

8.

Counting genera instead of languages is a way of avoiding genetic bias: The sample contains no closely related languages.

9.

See Horton (1949: 190, 193), Frajzyngier (1989: 256).

10.

See Bendor-Samuel (1972: 95), Wordick (1982: 1 63 , 204).

11.

In Wordick (1 982) on Yindjibamdi there is only one example (p. 1 63), where the verb is intransitive. Apparently the word meaning 'want' is a noun rather than a verb (see footnote on p. 204), so its inclusion in the table (26) is questionable (Dryer, personal communication). In Guajajara there are several morphemes expressing volition. One belongs to a class of 'post verbals' , including a causative, a future, and a negation particle, among other elements (pp. 92-95). The example with Want (p. 95) has an intransitive verb. There is only one example with a post-verbal which also contains an object, the causative construction (i). As seen, the object(s) follow(s) the causative particle. a-zuka kar kure awa pe (i) I-kill CADS pig man to 'I made the man kill a pig.'

150

ANDERS HOLMBERG This suggests that the main verb is moved across the causative particle either by head movement or by remnant VP-movement. Speculating, this may be how the post-verbal Want is derived as welL There is also a class of suffixes called 'verbalizers' , containing two items expressing volition. Again the examples (p. 99) do not contain any transitive verb.

12.

The theoretical advantage that the incorporation theory holds over the lexicalist theory is that it makes a stronger claim about the relation between syntactic structure, hence scope relations, and linear morphological order. In the overwhelming majority of cases the stronger claim holds true, according to Julien (2000).

13.

In the spirit of Kayne (1 998) one may also consider the possibility that selection in (32) is the result of two overt movements rather than one covert: one selection-driven movement pied piping IP to SpecCP, followed by another (specific to languages with clause-initial comple mentizers) moving the complementizer to a higher head position. I will not discuss this possibility further in this paper.

14.

Kayne ( 1994) suggests that a derivation like the one in (36), including word formation of nonconstituents, may be characteristic of languages with agglutinating morphology. Finnish is consistent with this suggestion; cf. Holmberg et al. 1993 on Finnish verbal morphology.

15.

Cf. van Riemsdijk (1995), who concludes, on the basis of evidence quite different from that discussed here, that "there is a tendency to organize the Mittelfeld [in Dutch: AH] in such a way that it consists of a sequence of phrases followed by a sequence of heads, regardless of whether these heads are simultaneously XPs as well".

1 6.

Vilkuna ( 1989), too, does not postulate any causal relation between the initial focus and the OV structure. The present theory can be viewed as a particular formalization of Vilkuna's theory.

17.

The languages Vata and Gbadi, described in great detail in Koopman (1984), are potential counterexamples: They are OV but I VP, and they have a sentence-final complementizer. However, that complementizer introduces specifically infinitival clauses, where I is not realized in pre-VP position, as far as I can see. Finite clauses have a sentence-initial complementizer. See Koopman (1984: 45ff.). If so, these languages provide interesting support for the general ization that I VP precludes IP C.

18.

I have not checked whether the languages listed as Want V & OV in Dryer (1992) do in fact allow a transitive VP with the order OV as complement of Want.

19.

There are other triggers for movement, though, than selection. For example, the movement of DP to preverbal position is not triggered (only) by selection, but also by something like Case. This may explain why there is at best a weak correlation between VOIOV and D NPINP D (see Dryer 1992).

20.

The conceptual argument is as follows: Assume a language, VO or Ov, which has V-movement to I, as many languages are known to have, especially in finite clauses. In such a language a change in the relative order of V and 0 in VP will not show in simplex (finite) sentences, while a change in the relative order of I and VP will show. Hence word order change within VP is unlikely to precede change in IP.

21.

This is most clearly true of derivational theories. In a derivational theory observing something like Chomsky's (1 995) Extension Condition we cannot, for example, first apply wh-movement out of a category C, a complement of a head H, and subsequently move C to spec-of-H; the shorter movement must apply first.

DERIVING OV ORDER IN FINNIS H

151

References Baker, Mark. 1 988. Incorporation: A theory of grammaticalfunction changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Bendor-Samuel, David. 1972. Hierarchical Structures in Guajajara. Norman, OK: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Bobaljik, Jonathan. 1995. Morphosyntax: The syntax of verbal inflection. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. Minimalist Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1998. Adverbs and Functional Heads. A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dikken, Marcel den. 1994. "Minimalist verb (projection) raising." Groninger Arbeiten zur

germanistischen Linguistik 37: 7 1-88. Dryer, Matthew. 1992. "The Greenbergian word order correlations." Language 68:

8 1-138. Frajzyngier, Zygmunt. 1989. A Grammar of Pero. Berlin: Dietrich Riemer Verlag. Greenberg, Joseph H. 1966. "Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements." In Joseph Greenberg (ed.), Universals ofLanguage. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 73-1 13. Haider, Hubert. 1992. "Branching and discharge." Arbeitspapiere des Sonderforschungs bereichs 340-23, UniversWit Stuttgart. Haider, Hubert. 1997. "Precedence among predicates." Journal of Comparative Germanic

Linguistics 1 : 3-41. Halle, Morris and Marantz, Alec. 1993. "Distributed morphology." In Kenneth Hale & S . Jay Keyser (eds), Th e Viewfrom Building 20. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 1 1 1-176. Halpern, Aaron. 1995. On the Placement and Morphology of Clitics. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Hr6arsd6ttir, Thorbjorg. 1999. Verb Phrase Syntax in the History of Icelandic. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Troms¢. Holmberg, Anders. 1997. "Word order variation in some European SVO languages: A parametric approach." In Anna Siewierska (ed.), Constituent Order in the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 553-598. Holmberg, Anders. 1999. "Remarks on Holmberg's Generalization." Studia Linguistica

63 : 1-39. Holmberg, Anders, Urpo Nikanne, Irmeli Oraviita, Hannu Reime & Trond Trosterud. 1 993. "The structure of !NFL and the finite clause in Finnish." In Anders Holmberg and Urpo Nikanne (eds), Case and Other Functional Categories in Finnish. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 177-206. Holmberg, Anders and Platzack, Christer 1995. The Role of Inflection in Scandinavian Syntax. Oxford: OUP.

152

ANDERS HOLMBERG

Holmberg, Anders, and Nikanne, Urpo. To appear. "Subjects, topics, and the EPP in Finnish." In Peter Svenonius (ed.), Subjects, Expletives, and the EPP. Oxford: OUP. Horton, A. E. 1949. A Grammar ofLuvale. Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press. Huang, James. 1982. "Move WH in a language without WH movement." The Linguistic

Review 1 : 369-4 16. Julien, Marit. 2000. Syntactic Heads and Word Formation: A Study of Verbal Inflection. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Troms!ZS. Kayne, Richard. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Kayne, Richard. 1 998. "Overt vs. covert movement." Syntax 1 : 1 28-1 9 1 . Koopman, Hilda. 1 984. The Syntax of Verbs. Dordrecht: Foris. Koskinen, Paivi. 1998. Features and Categories: Non-finite constructions in Finnish. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Toronto. Kroch, Antony and Santorini, Beatrice. 199 1 . "The derived constituent structure of the West Germanic verb-raising construction." In Robert Freidin (ed.), Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. 269-338. Pesetsky, David. 1 982. Paths and Categories. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Riemsdijk, Henk van. 1995. Push chains and drag chains: Complex predicate split in Dutch. Ms. CLS, Tilburg University. Sigursson, Halld6r A.. 1988. "From OV to VO." Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 34, Department of Scandinavian Languages, University of Lund. Svenonius, Peter. 1994. "C-selection as feature-checking." Studia Linguistica 58: 133-155. Testelec, Yakov. 1997. "Word order variation in some SOY languages of Europe." In Anna Siewierska (ed.), Constituent Order in the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 649-680. Vainikka, Anne. 1 989. Deriving Syntactic Representations in Finnish. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Vilkuna, Maria. 1989. Free Word Order in Finnish. Helsinki: SKS. Vilkuna, Maria. 1995. "Discourse configurationality in Finnish." In Katalin E. Kiss (ed.), Discourse Configurational Languages. Oxford: OUP. 244-268. Vilkuna, Maria. 1998. "Word order in European Uralic." In Anna Siewierska (ed.) Constituent Order in the Languages ofEurope. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 173-234. Wordick, F. J. F. 1982. The Yindjibamdi Language. Canberra: Australian National University [Pacific Linguistics, Series C, No. 71].

Parameter Change

Icelandic

porbjorg Hr6arsd6ttir University of Troms¢

Abstract In this paper, we will discuss various ways to account for the loss of the attested OV word order patterns in the history of Icelandic in line with a uniform VO base (SHe) hypothesis. First, by means of loss of overt leftward movements of the objects, leading to covert movements only in the modern language. The second approach to the loss of OV word order is in terms of interacting (leftward) movements of both the object(s) and the VP. According to this hypothesis, the cross-linguistic (superficial) word order differences observed depend on the number of both VP movements and object movements. It will be argued that although the uniform VO base hypothesis with overt versus covert leftward movement of objects yields positive results in the analysis of the Old(er) Icelandic VP, it cannot easily handle the diachronic aspect. Therefore, we will revise the uniform VO base hypothesis in the direction of a theory of remnant VP-preposing. We will focus on the fact that several different features of OV order all disappeared from Icelandic at the same time, arguing that this is not accounted for in earlier proposed analyses of the derivation of OVNO word order. We will propose that VO order is derived by remnant VP-preposing, an account which successfully links all features of OV order and correctly captures the fact that they disappeared simultaneously.

1.

Introduction

There has been much discussion of the possible base pOSItIOns of nominal objects, and base word order in general, in the Germanic languages in recent years. In particular, leftward movements of objects have received much attention

I>ORBJORG HROARSDOTTIR

1 54

in recent syntactic works. In the checking theory of Chomsky ( 1 993, 1 995), leftward movement is driven by the requirement that morphological features are 'checked off' in inflectional positions in the functional domain, external to the VP. Leftward object movements also play an important role in Kayne's ( 1994) anti-symmetry proposal. These developments raise a number of interesting questions; is it, for instance, plausible to assume that movement can always be reduced to morphological feature-checking? Moreover, how should languages with different surface word order be described and contrasted; especially, languages that have traditionally been taken to have an initial OV structure (such as German, Dutch, Yiddish and Old English), in comparison to languages that traditionally have been analyzed as VO languages (such as Modern English and the Modern Scandinavian languages). Modern Icelandic has pure VO order within the VP, as shown in example (1). The word order in ( 1 ) with [yp [auxiliary verb - main verb - object]] is the only possible order of these elements in Modern Icelandic (abstracting away from topicalization and stylistic fronting). The position of the sentence adverb marks the left edge of the VP. (1)

Peir munu aldrei hafa euo hdkarlinn . they will never have eaten shark.the 'They will never have eaten the shark. '

Unlike in Modern Icelandic, several other orders of the VP-internal arguments were possible at earlier stages in the history of Icelandic, including both pure and mixed OV word order patterns, in addition to VO word order (cf. Sigurosson 1 988; R6gnvaldsson 1 99411 995, 1 996; Indrioason 1 987; Hr6arsd6ttir 1 995, 1 996, 1 998, 1 999a, 1 999b). Icelandic has had rich subject-verb agreement morphology and case morphology throughout its history. It is generally assumed that both Old and Modern Icelandic have obligatory overt movement of the finite verb to Infl, in both main and subordinate clauses, since the difference with regard to the position of the finite verb in main and subordinate clauses in Icelandic is insignificant, contra most of the other Germanic verb-second languages, as, for instance, the Mainland Scandinavian languages, German and Dutch. This, of course, can have interesting consequences for the analysis of the argument movements necessary to derive all the various word order patterns in Old(er) Icelandic, especially in comparison to languages with SOY word order, or other mixed word order languages, lacking this overt movement of the finite verb.

PARAMETER CHANGE IN ICELANDIC 2.

1 55

The decline of OV word order

The frequency of the different word order patterns in the VP was studied in various texts dating from the fourteenth to the nineteenth century, in addition to personal letters dating from the nineteenth century. The frequency of OV order was counted according to the equation in (2), (2)

f(OV) =

OV

--

OV + VO

where OV order is taken to include sentences where not only the nominal object but also other complements of the main verb precede it (prepositional phrases, adverbials, adjectives, and other non-finite verbs). All of the complements included in the main study here are ungrammatical in a preverbal position in Modern Icelandic, except for negative and quantified complements. In (3) are shown some simple sentences with OV word order to exemplify the classification into the various types of the complements. Example (3a) shows a sentence containing a preverbal complement that is a nominal object, (3b) shows an example of a preverbal prepositional phrase, (3c) is an example of a preverbal adverb, (3d) shows a preverbal adjective, example (3e) shows a preverbal particle, and finally, examples (3f-g) show sentences containing a preverbal non-finite verb; that is, where the non-finite main verb occurs to the left of the non-finite auxiliary. (3)

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

so Porsteinn skyldi l{jinu tapa so I>orsteinn should life.the lose 'so that I>orsteinn should die' ao pu mcettir hjd mer vera nokkra daga that you could with me stay few days 'that you could stay with me for a few days' pv[ var riddarinn hingao sendur therefore was knight.the here sent 'Therefore, the knight was sent here' at pio munit nu satt segja that you will now true say 'that you will now tell the truth' dour sol var niOur runnin before sun was down slid 'before the sun had gone down'

I>ORBJORG HROARSDOTTIR

156

f.

g.

at vitinn hefir brendr verit that light.house.the has burned been 'that the light-house has been burned' Pu muntfrett hafa, ao . . . you will heard have that 'You will have heard, that . . . '

All sentences that showed signs of OV order were counted as OV (either 'pure' or 'mixed' order). A few examples of this classification are in (4) through (6). (4) illustrates pure OV order, and (5) and (6) show examples of the possible mixed OV orders. (4)

Pure OV word order ao hann hafi hana drepio a. that he had her killed 'that he had killed her' b. ao jJu . . . hafir pao bref fengio that you have that letter received 'that you have received that letter' ao eg skal per pao allvel launa c. that I shall you it well reward 'that I shall reward you well for it' d. at ek skylldi eigi fleiri born upp ala that I should not more children up bring 'that I should not bring up any more children' ao eg mundi hann sigrao geta e. that I would him defeat could 'that I would be able to defeat him'

(5)

Mixed word order: one non-finite verb plus two or more objects a. hafer jJu pinu lidi jatat peim have you your assistance promised them 'if you have promised them your assistance' b. jJa uilldi hann nu giarna hialp weita leoninum then wanted he now readily help give lion-the 'Then, he readily wanted to help the lion' c. Hafdi jJa huorgi sari komit a annann had then neither wound got on other 'Neither had been able to wound the other'

PARAMETER CHANGE IN ICELANDIC (6)

1 57

Mixed word order: at least two non-finite verbs plus at least one object a. ao hann skyldi aldrei mega sol sja that he should never be. allowed sun to.see 'that he should never be allowed to see the sun' og ekki skal Jaoir minn geta per hjalpao b. and not shall father mine can you helped 'And my father will not be able to help you' og hvor mundi pat hafa gjort c. and who would it have done 'And who would have done it' d. peir quaouz eigi pat mundu gera they said not it would do 'They claimed they would not do it' e. at hann mun raoa vilja feroum sinum that he will decide want journeys his 'that he will want to decide his own journeys' hann kuaz fundit hafa barn nyfrett f. he said found have baby newborn 'He claimed to have found a newborn baby'

In all the texts and letters, 4875 sentences were studied, of which 3497 were counted as VO and 1 378 sentences as Ov. The main results for the frequency of OV order are shown in Tables 1 and 2. There is no distinction made here between pure and mixed OV orders. Table 1 shows the rate of the frequency of OV order in each of the texts and letters from each age group studied, and Table 2 contains similar information for each century. There is no distinction made between main and embedded clauses here. OV orders occurred most frequently in texts dating from the fourteenth through the seventeenth century (from the average of 58.2% to 50.0%) and decreased to the average of 37.0% in texts from the eighteenth century. OV word order then gradually disappeared in texts and letters dating from the nineteenth century. These results are in accordance with previous studies on OV order in Old(er) Icelandic (cf. Rognvaldsson 1 99411995, 1 996; Indrioason 1 987). The OV orders therefore showed a remarkable stability for at least five or six centuries. The first important decline seems to occur in the language of writers in the eighteenth century, until OV word order has almost disappeared from the nine teenth century texts. This rapid disappearance of OV orders is especially interest ing since the frequency seems to have been quite stable in the preceding centuries.

I>ORBJORG HROARSDOTTIR

158

Table 1 . Number of sentences with OV and VO orders (in each text) Texts

All sentences OV

early 14th mid. 14th

late 14th late 14th early 15th late 15th early 1 6th late 1 6th late 17th late 1 7th ca 1700 early 1 8th early 1 8th late 1 8th early 19th early 19th 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

age group age group age group age group age group age group age group

Finn Guam Am

Din

Sig Vikt Afs Mora Skill Ann Munn J.Ey Bisk Pr6f Alf Esp 1730-1750 1750-1770 1770-1790 1790-1 810 1 8 10-1830 1 830-1 850 1 850-1870

VO

Total

% OV

78 43 41 68 81 59 29 100 43 1 82 73 15 25 48 138 18

46 54 32 33 47 65 24 79 103 1 08 87 15 50 85 123 1 16

1 24 97 73 101 128 124 53 179 146 290 1 60 30 75 133 26 1 1 34

62.9% 44.3% 56.2% 67.3% 63.3% 47.6% 54.7% 55.9% 29.5% 62.8% 45.6% 50.0% 33.3% 36. 1 % 52.9% 13.4%

88 47 65 45 36 27 29

250 203 345 342 425 418 447

338 250 410 387 461 445 476

26.0% 1 8 .8% 15.9% 1 1.6% 7.8% 6. 1 % 6. 1 %

1 378

3497

4875

Table 2. Number of sentences with OV and VO orders (in each century) Texts

All sentences OV

14th 1 5th 1 6th 1 7th 1 8th 19th

century century century century century century

VO

Total

% OV

230 140 129 298 88 493

165 1 12 103 298 150 2669

395 252 232 596 238 3 1 62

58.2% 55.6% 55.6% 50.0% 37.0% 15.6%

1 378

3497

4875

PARAMETER CHANGE IN ICELANDIC

3.

1 59

Theoretical implications

In the following, some theoretical implications of the Old(er) Icelandic facts will be introduced. We will begin to discuss the possibility of a uniform VO base for both Old(er) and Modem Icelandic, in accordance with Kayne's ( 1 994) theory of phrase structure, where derivations from the initial stage to later stages are claimed to invariably involve movements of syntactic heads and phrases to the left. On that hypothesis, the OV orders found in the Old(er) Icelandic corpus would be derived by optional object movements, regulated by feature strength. This leads to both ' short' (within the VP), and 'long' (out of the VP) object movements, as well as adjunction of the main verb to the auxiliary. We will show that even though this approach yields positive results in the analysis of the Old(er) Icelandic VP, it does not easily handle the diachronic aspect. According to this proposal, we are forced to account for the loss of the attested OV word order patterns in the history of Icelandic by means of loss of overt leftward movements of objects, leading to covert movements only in Modem Icelandic. Hence, the parameter change in question would have to do with the loss of the relevant strong N-features; the N-features of both AgrOP and PredP. We will show that this has certain unwanted theoretical consequences. Therefore, we want to revise the uniform VO base hypothesis in the direction of a generalized remnant VP-preposing hypothesis, which has properties in common with Kayne's ( 1 998) analysis of negative/focus constructions. 3.1

Uniform VO base

Let us begin by assuming a uniform VO base hypothesis, with overt versus covert leftward object movements. According to Kayne ( 1 994), all languages have S-H-C order. Chomsky ( 1 995 : Ch. 4) adopts a similar position. Besides, Zwart ( 1 993, 1 997), Koster ( 1994) and Lattewitz ( 1 996) have extended these insights by showing that this approach yields positive results in the analysis of Dutch and German, and Roberts ( 1997) and van der Wurff ( 1997) also argue that Old and Middle English can plausibly be analyzed as head-initial. Kayne's system can also account nicely for the word order variation in the Old(er) Icelandic VP, and the argument movements necessary to derive the existing patterns. A Kayne-style analysis for the VP in Old(er) Icelandic is therefore plausi ble; assuming that the object could move either 'short' (within the VP) or 'long' (out of the VP), and that the main verb could move individually and adjoin to the auxiliary. In (7) is an example of the possible argument movements for some common word order patterns in Old(er) Icelandic.

I>ORBJORG HROARSDOTTIR

1 60 (7)

a. b. c. d.

Vfin . . . [vp [Vaux - Vmain - object]] (no movement) Vfin . . . [yp [Vmain - V aux - object] ] (V-raising) Vfin . . . [object - [yp [Vaux - Vmain]]] (object moves long scrambling) Vfin . . . [object - [yp [Vmain - Vaux]]] (V-raising; object moves long scrambling) Vfin . . . [yp [Vaux - object - Vmain] ] (object moves short)

=

=

e.

According to this hypothesis, Old(er) Icelandic had two optional movements which resemble obligatory movements postulated for GermaniDutch by Zwart ( 1 993). First, the main verb can optionally adjoin to the left of a (non-finite) auxiliary, as in (7b). Second, the object may optionally move to a specifier position to the left of the verbs, as in (7c-d) (with and without V-raising). In addition, Old(er) Icelandic had one more option not observed in Standard German, namely short object movement, as in (7e), where the landing site of the object precedes the main verb but not the auxiliary (that is, movement of the object internal to the VP). More exactly, OV word order would involve raising of the object to SpecAgrOP for Case-checking reasons, both inside and out of the VP. The object movement would be triggered by the strong N-feature of AgrOP, in agreement with the assumption that overt movement is triggered by the necessity to eliminate the strong features in the Spec-Head configuration in the functional domain (Chomsky 1 993). This is, for instance, supported by the fact that the word order pattern [Vmain - object - Vaux] is absent from the Old(er) Icelandic corpus while [Vaux - object - Vmain] exists. Not even a sentence adverb seems to have been able to intervene between the main verb and the auxiliary in the [Vmain - Vaux] order. Therefore, we conclude that Kayne's ( 1 994) system can account for the word order in the Old(er) Icelandic VP, and the argument movements necessary to derive the existing patterns, but at the price of optionality. The other option is variable parameter-settings, namely, that the feature triggering the complement movement can be of variable strength; if we follow Kayne's ( 1 994) anti-symme try proposal, according to which all languages have S-H-C order, and combine it with Chomsky's ( 1 993) hypothesis that objects always have their case checked in SpecAgrOP, we have to assume that Old(er) Icelandic had a choice between overt and covert object movement to SpecAgrOP, whereas Modem Icelandic only has this movement in LF. We still have to explain the possible positions of the other complements in Old(er) Icelandic. One possibility is to follow Zwart's ( 1 993) and Koster' s ( 1 994) analysis o f Dutch a s an S-H-C language, where they assume that nominal

PARAMETER CHANGE IN ICELANDIC

161

objects move to SpecAgrOP but that PPs and (other) small clause predicates must move to a separate Predicate-Phrase position, SpecPredP, where they can check off their predicative features . That is, we have a movement into a special functional projection (the Predicate Phrase), located between AgrOP and the VP. Hence, there existed two object positions in Old(er) Icelandic, as well as in Modern Dutch, the SpecAgrOP position for nominal objects, and SpecPredP for directional PPs and small clause predicates. As previously mentioned, the optionality of these complement movements in Old(er) Icelandic seems to violate Chomsky's ( 1 993) principle of Procrasti nate, which says that LF movements are preferred to movements before Spell Out. If movement can be procrastinated, we expect it always to be so. It may be that the optionality in complement-movement concerns the strength of features of functional heads that trigger movement. One possible way to get around the economy problems is then to simply assume that while AgrOP and PredP have weak N-features in Modern Icelandic (postponing the movements of nominal objects and small clause predicates until LF), they have had optionally (weak or) strong features in Old(er) Icelandic, forming both VO and OV orders. 3.2 Problems So far, we hope to have shown that it is possible to assume a uniform VO base throughout the history of the Icelandic VP. In other words, it is possible to derive all the existing word order patterns, and exclude the non-attested ones, by assuming SVO word order base with overt versus covert object movements. However, there is one problem with this hypothesis, and that is the dia chronic aspect. With regard to the word order within (and out of) the VP, Old Icelandic differs from Modern Icelandic in three major aspects, as shown in (8). (8)

a. b. c.

Obje ct - Vaux - Vmain Vfin Vfin Vaux - Object - Vmain Vmain - Vaux • . .

• . .

All these three word order patterns are ungrammatical in Modern Icelandic (abstracting away from negative phrase constructions), namely, the short object movement (within the VP), the long object movement (scrambling out of the VP, to the left of non-finite auxiliary verbs and sentential adverbs), and the possibility of placing the non-finite main verb to the left of the non-finite auxiliary (V-raising). The striking fact is that all these three leftward movement processes seem to have disappeared from the language at the same time in the history of

1 62

I>ORBJORG HROARSnOTTIR

Icelandic. Furthermore, the possibility of placing nominal objects, on the one hand, and PPs and small clause predicates, on the other hand, to the left of the main verb also seems to have disappeared from the language at the same time. Given a uniform VO base for all stages in the history of Icelandic, together with leftward movements of the complements, the difference noted between Old and Modem Icelandic - that is, the language change in question - must be explained away by use of feature strength, as already mentioned: strong versus weak N-features in both AgrOP and PredP. This is, of course, a possible account. However, it leaves some important questions unanswered. First, if the decline of the OV word order was subject to the disappearance of the strong features in question, it would be necessary to assume that the N-features in AgrOP and PredP both became obligatorily weak at exactly the same time in the history of Icelandic. This is not easily accounted for within this framework. There is nothing in the theory that predicts or explains this fact. Second, the hypothesis does not connect the decline of the three operations shown in (8). It is possible, though, to connect the first two operations, the long and the short object movement, claiming that the short object movement was a necessary step in the derivation of the long object movement. Thus, when the short object movement disappeared, so did the long object movement. However, the third leftward movement, the movement of the non-finite main verb to the left of the non-finite auxiliary verb, would always be independent of the object movements (this is, for instance, supported by the difference between German and Dutch). Hence, there is nothing in the theory that leads us to expect this process to have disappeared from the language at the same time as the other two leftward movement processes. Third, there is the question of morphology. More exactly, the question of why the relevant features triggering the overt leftward movements in question have been weakened (or lost their possibility of being strong) in the history of Icelandic. According to our proposal, the old language contained optional leftward movements of the complements in overt syntax, while these are ungrammatical in overt syntax in the modem language. Hence, the parameter change in question has to do with the weakening of the relevant N-features, leading to the impossibility of movements due to UG-internal economy condition (the Procrastinate Principle). More exactly, the change consists of the disappear ance of the strong alternative in question, since the possibility of having strong or weak features must have existed at least from the time of the earliest pre served Icelandic manuscripts. This leads to the question of why the relevant strong N-features disappeared from the language, and why they disappeared at the same time.

PARAMETER CHANGE IN ICELANDIC

163

It is a well known fact that languages with rich case morphology have freer word order than languages without rich case morphology. Roberts (1997), for instance, has recently linked the cause of word order changes in the history of English to inflection, more precisely, the loss of morphological case marking. In this light, it seems plausible that some morphological changes have occurred in late Icelandic, causing the decline of OV word order. However, this does not have any empirical support since the agreement system and case in Modem Icelandic are as rich as they were in Old Icelandic. In fact, Icelandic has the richest overt inflectional system of any modem Germanic language.

3.3 Interacting movements Due to these shortcomings of the uniform va base hypothesis, as proposed earlier, with regard to the diachronic aspect, it might be desirable to revise the proposal in the direction of a theory of interacting movements. Because of the fact that there has not been any overt weakening of the status of the morphological system in the history of Icelandic, we will propose that the morphological features relevant for the triggering of leftward object movements in Old(er) Icelandic were indeed not weakened. Instead, the objects still have to move to the left of the main verb (say, to SpecAgrOP) in overt syntax in Modem Icelandic.

3.3 . 1 Non-finite verb movement There are actually at least two different ways to approach this diachronic view, assuming interacting movements. First, assuming that the difference between Old and Modem Icelandic has to do not with the position of arguments, but with the position of the verb. Hence, the non-finite verbs began to move to a higher position, to the left of the moved objects, resulting in va word order only. On this proposal, languages can differ minimally or maximally, depending on the number of both verb-movements and object-movements. Hence, any language that ends up moving the object further left than the verb results in having surface OV word order, and vice versa. This, of course, is similar to saying that languag es differ in the number of positions/strong features that attract both object and verb movements. The main advantage with this proposal is that it can account for the fact that many of the various OV word order patterns disappeared from the language at exactly the same time in the history of Icelandic. If the only difference between the word order in Old and Modem Icelandic has to do with the movement of the non-finite verbs higher up in the structure than all the various complements, then it would indeed be expected that all the various OV word order patterns disappeared at the same time in the history of Icelandic,

1 64

I>ORBJORG HROARSDOTTIR

independent of the type of the object. Hence, the disappearance of the OV orders would be due to a change in the setting of only one parameter: the relevant (non tense) features of the non-finite verbs became obligatory strong. Note, however, that this hypothesis has to face high empirical hurdles, since first, it can only account for the loss of OV word order patterns that were derived by short object movement (within the VP) and not for the more restricted long object movement (scrambling out of the VP). Second, the relative position of non-finite auxiliary verbs, especially with regard to the long object movement, and all the various mixed word order patterns in Old(er) Icelandic, complicate the picture tremendously; the mixed/split word order patterns cannot be account ed for on a proposal where the crucial difference between OV and VO languag es has to do not with the position of arguments, but only with the position of the verb (whether it has moved or not). Third, it does not explain the loss of the word order pattern [Vmain Vaux] nor the fact that this pattern declined at the ' same time as the other attested OV word order patterns. -

3.3.2 Remnant VP-preposing Therefore, we will revise our proposal in the direction of a hypothesis of remnant VP-preposing. More exactly, we will assume obligatory leftward movement of objects (nominal objects to SpecAgrOP and PPs and (other) small clause predicates to SpecPredP as before) at all stages in the history of Icelandic, together with optional extraction of the embedded VP from the matrix VP in the old language only, followed by obligatory remnant VP-preposing in VO lan guages, including all stages of (written) Icelandic. Our proposal has properties in common with Kayne's ( 1 998) analysis of negative/focus constructions. In this paper, we want to generalize Kayne's proposal. In his paper, Kayne did not propose that every single instance of VO in English involves VP-preposing. In particular, he did not propose there that ordinary non-quantified, non-negative, non-focused objects involve a derivation with VP-preposing. More precisely, Kayne ( 1 998) claims that there are no covert movements, so that some overt movements must be involved in the derivation of some VO structures in English, namely, overt movement of (quantified, negative or focused) arguments to the left of the VP, followed by remnant VP-fronting to the left of the already extracted arguments, deriving VO word order again. One of the aims of Kayne's paper is to account for negative phrase constructions; the difference between English and the Scandinavian languages. The Scandinavian negative phrase construction has some similarity with the English construction 'I have seen nobody' , which Kayne argues to involve a step parallel to the Icelan dic preposing, with the difference that in English there is a further operation

PARAMETER CHANGE IN ICELANDIC

1 65

(lacking in Icelandic) that 'undoes' the change in word order effected by the first preposing step. In other words, negative as well as quantified and focused arguments must exit the VP. However, the second step in the derivation, the VP-preposing, does only take place in English but not in Icelandic nor the Mainland Scandinavian languages. More generally, Kayne ( 1 998) makes a distinction between short and long movement, where the movement operations in question are always movement of a phonetically realized phrase (overt (pre Spell-Out) movement only) . This proposal requires that the object (the direct object) necessarily raises in overt syntax to SpecAgrOP. This is illustrated in (9) below. (9)

a. b. c.

[verb - object] [[object] [vp verb tobject]] [[vp verb tobject] object tvp ]

Generalizing this idea, we propose that the crucial difference between VO lan guages (like English) and OV languages (like Dutch) is that the OV languages lack the last step in the derivation, namely the VP-preposing. In VO languages, on the other hand, the overt movement of the objects is masked by the subse quent movement of the VP. Thus, the landing site of the objects in OV lan guages is not obscured by VP-preposing the way it is in VO languages (see also Hinterh61z1 1 997, this volume, and Johnson 1 996). In sum, the proposal makes it possible to dispense with covert movements and replace them with a combina tion of overt movements. The picture is a bit more complicated for mixed OVNO languages, such as Old(er) Icelandic, especially since it follows from the generalized remnant VP-preposing analysis that Icelandic must have been a VO language throughout its (written) history (since the finite verb always precedes its complements) . However, we will show that it is indeed possible to derive all the attested OV word order patterns in Old(er) Icelandic with the tools of this framework, by means of three main derivations: (a) obligatory movement of the direct object out of the VP (to SpecAgrOP in the functional domain) at all stages in the history of Icelandic, together with (b) optional extraction of the embedded VP from the matrix VP in the old language, followed by (c) obligatory VP-preposing (pre posing of the remnant VP, containing the finite auxiliary verb) in VO languages, including all stages of (written) Icelandic. The main advantage with this proposal is that, in addition to deriving the attested word order patterns, we can account for the decline of the various leftward movement processes. More exactly, this proposal can give answers to the diachronic aspect, addressed earlier; it can account for the fact that all the

I>ORBJORG HROARSDOTTIR

1 66

various OV word order patterns disappeared from the language at the same time in the history of Icelandic. As mentioned, Old(er) Icelandic mainly differs from Modem Icelandic in that the older stage has the (superficial) patterns in ( 1 0), while the modem language does not. Namely, given the previously proposed uniform VO base hypothesis, short object movement, long object movement, and V-raising (movement of the non-finite main verb to the left of the non-finite auxiliary). ( 1 0)

a. b. c.

Vfin . Object - Vaux - Vmain Vfin . Vaux - Object - Vmain Vm ain - Vaux . .

. .

The claim we want to make is that the two first movements still take place in Modem Icelandic, but that the third possibility was lost. On this proposal, the third possibility shown in ( 10) alone (or, that is, the loss of it) can account for the loss of the superficial existence of the two other patterns. In other words, after the loss of the possibility of extracting VPs out of VPs, the obligatory preposing of the remnant VP will always mask the two first operations, leading to VO word order only in Modem Icelandic. The three word order patterns in ( 1 0) are typical examples of restructuring in the West Germanic languages : ( l Oa) is the typical pattern of restructuring (long DP-movement) in Dutch, ( l Ob) is a case of verb-projection raising typical for West Flemish, Swiss German, and Tyrolean, and ( 1 0c) is the standard pattern of verb-raising in Standard German. Furthermore, these word order patterns all occurred in Older German until about the eighteenth century, where most of them suddenly disappeared (HinterhOlzl, p.c.). Hence, German seems to also have had VP-preposing, but lost it, while Icelandic preserved VP-preposing and lost verb-raising (VP-out-of-VP), and Yiddish still has both. This leads to the interesting comparative and historical question of what factors preserved a process in one language and led to its loss in the other.

4.

VP-preposing

4. 1

Outline

The diachronic problem, as mentioned, is that we do not want three unrelated changes, hence, it is necessary to unify (a), (b) and (c) in example ( 1 0). On the earlier proposed DPIPP-movement approach (the uniform VO base hypothesis), no unification (by implicational relationship) is possible regarding ( l Oa-c):

PARAMETER CHANGE IN ICELANDIC

1 67

namely, there is no reason to expect the loss of the verb cluster [Vmain - VauJ to have caused the loss of leftward movement of objects, nor vice versa. Finally, we could have the loss of ( l Ob) causing the loss of ( l Oa) if OV versus va is the result of more object-movement in OV languages, but if OV versus va is the result of more verb-movement in va, we would still have to explain why the word order pattern [Vaux - Object - tvaux - V main] (the va counterpart of ( l Ob)) is ungrammatical in Modern Icelandic. Therefore, we will try unification by reversing the implicational relationship, namely, we will show that the loss of the three word order patterns in ( 1 0) holds on two plausible assumptions. The first assumption is that (Germanic) va derives from OV by raising the verb across the object overtly extracted from the VP, and that Old Icelandic was a va language. In fact, even Old Icelandic is in a sense less of an OV language than German or Dutch, since the finite verb always preceded its complements (on our analysis as a result of raising a constituent (VP) containing (at least) the finite verb). In other words, we cannot say that Old Icelandic is just like Dutch, only that the VP is preposed in Icelandic. Rather, Old Icelandic was a va lan guage; it has the preposing of the finite VP (typical for va languages), but it also has the VP-out-of-VP phenomenon, characteristic of OV languages like German, namely [Vmain - Vaux] (unlike Dutch which does not have this VP-out of-VP option). So far, we have remained vague as to exactly how the finite verb (Vfin) comes to end up preceding its complements. As suggested in recent work by Kayne ( 1 998), Hinterh61z1 ( 1 997), Koopman & Szabolcsi ( 1 997), we will now assume that the verb can only be raised as a part of a (remnant) VP raising to SpecFP above the positions of the complements extracted from it. On this view, the intermediate structure [Object [Vfin [Vmain tObj ect]]] would still only yield the va order [Vfin - Vmain - Object] (as a result of raising the matrix VP). In order to get [Vfin - Object - Vmain] ' we must have a further step leading to [Object [Vmain tObj eca [Vfin tvp]] , namely, the embedded VP must extract from the matrix VP. This extraction is arguably also what leads to the [Vmain - Vaux] word order in general. Hence OV order as the result of 'long' object-movement depends on ( 1 0c). Therefore, if the [Vmain - Vaux] option is lost, the Modern Icelandic strict va order is an automatic consequence, that is, only one parametric change is needed to account for the change from Old to Modern Icelandic.

4.2 Additional support So far, we have been discussing the diachronic aspect, which clearly supports our

PORBJORG HROARSDOTTIR

1 68

analysis. However, there exist some interesting synchronic aspects in support of this analysis as well. Before moving on to more detailed implementation, we will briefly mention some additional arguments in favor of the preceding analysis of Old Icelandic. First, the optionality problem is greatly reduced. OV word order now results from taking two options: (a) 'long' object movement (as opposed to movement to SpecAgrOP in the extended projection of the selecting verb), and (b) extract ing the embedded VP from the matrix VP. Second, the analysis correctly predicts that we should not find any OV word order in contexts where the object could not have raised across a higher verb, as for instance in the sentence shown in ( 1 1 ) below. What excludes ( 1 1 ) is that it has failed to have VP-preposing apply within the subject phrase. ( 1 1)

*Bcekur ao lesa er pao skemmtilegasta

sem hann veit.

books to read is the most.entertaining that he 'Books to read is his greatest pleasure.'

(Icelandic)

knows

This is ungrammatical since there is no higher verb in this sentence, providing the AgrOP-position of the object. Hence, this correctly predicts the non-existence of this construction in (Old) Icelandic; we never expect to find an object without a preceding verb in Icelandic. In German and Dutch, on the other hand, this construction is fine because these languages lack the VP-preposing Icelandic has always had. Third, this approach captures the fact that the clause structure seems to have been the same throughout the history of Icelandic, by the absence of mirror image effects of OVNO word order patterns. Within this approach, the VP-pre posing makes sure that the order of the constituents within that VP comes out in the same way in OV and VO word order. The only way to obscure this order is to extract out of the VP, prior to the VP-preposing. Moreover, it follows from this hypothesis that within each clause in VO languages, the main verb moves in front of the complement. Therefore, the object must have moved long in order to derive OV order in Old Icelandic, as illustrated in ( 1 2) below. ( 1 2)

DO [VPaux Vaux [VPmain Vmain tDO]]

Such long movement is exemplified by a Dutch example in ( 1 3). (13)

dat Marie het boek wil proberen te lezen tDO that Mary the book will try to read 'that Mary will try to read the book'

PARAMETER CHANGE IN ICELANDIC

1 69

Our claim is that this is what has happened whenever we find OV order in Old Ice landic, namely, long object movement. Consider the Old Icelandic example in (14).

(14)

a.

En stulkan neitaoi pao . . . ao piggja. but girl.the refused it to accept 'But the girl refused to accept it'

b.

[Vfin object tVPfin Vmain tobj ect]

c.

En stulkan [VPfin neitaoi tvpmain] [A crOP pao [VPmain ao piggja tDO] tVPfin b

Hence, (14) is a case of long object movement (where the object has moved into the matrix VP). If the preposing of the finite VP would not take place, the result would be a perfect German (embedded) sentence. The prediction is further that we should only find this long object movement with (matrix) verbs that are so-called verb-raising verbs. This seems to be born out in the Old Icelandic data. Now, consider the Old Icelandic clause in (15) below.

(15)

a.

hafer pu pinu lidi jatat peim have you your help offered them 'if you have offered them your help'

b.

[Vfin DPex Vmain DP f3]

Since no examples of this kind are found in German or Dutch, this should be an effect from Old Icelandic being a VO language. Hence, we have the derivation in ( 1 6).

( 1 6)

a. b. c. d.

Initial order:

[VPfin Vfin [VPmain Vmain 10 D O ]] VPmain moves to SpecVPfin : [VPmain Vmain 10 D O ] [VPfin Vfin [tVPmain]] DO moves long:

D O [VPmain Vmain 10 tDO] [VPfin Viin [tVPmain]] VPfin moves to F:

[VPfin Vfin [tVPmain]] D O [VPmain Vmain 10 tDO] tVPfin

In other words, an extraction of VPmain out of VPfin followed by a movement of ' the direct object to SpecAgrOP. Finally, the finite VP is preposed across the moved complements. Note that we are assuming here that the direct object always necessarily exits the VP (it must move to SpecAgrOP for case-checking

I>ORBJORG HROARSDOTTIR

170

reasons), while the indirect object never can; the only way for the indirect object to move is within the VP, when it is preposed. 4.3 Implementation We assume that in Old and Modem Icelandic (in fact, in all Germanic VO lan guages), a complement raised to a licensing position within the extended projection of some verb activates the entire functional layer of the verb, which in the VO languages contains F attracting VP to its Spec, across intervening complements. This happens whether the verb is finite or not, an auxiliary verb or a main verb. Thus, 'short' object movement always leads to VO order. In order to obtain successive cyclic application of VP-extraction resulting in intermediate structures of the form [[Vmain V aux] [Vfin . . . ]], we take VP-extraction to be PredP-extraction, that is, VP-extraction is to be implemented as movement to SpecPredP, where PredP is immediately above the VP. Assuming that only the VP, and not the PredP, raises to SpecFP (across the complements), the final step in the derivation always puts the finite verb in front of its complements. 1 Let us now compare these derivations to the earlier proposed argument movements, where ( 1 8) through (26) illustrate the possible derivations for some common word order patterns in Old(er) Icelandic, given the tools of our propos al. Example (17) shows the initial structure, and the derivations shown in ( 1 8) and (19) would be the analysis of a (Modem Icelandic) VO sentence.

(17)

Initial order: F [PredPfin [VPfin Vfin [PredPaux [VPaux Vaux [PredPmain [VPmain Vmain object]]]]]]

There are actually two options to derive pure VO word order, depending on whether the complement is coherent/transparent or incoherent. 2 In ( 1 8), the object moves long, and if nothing else can be extracted, the finite VP preposes, containing not only the finite verb, but also the non-finite ones, thus, they end up to the left of the moved object. In ( 1 9), the object has moved short, and since this is a VO language, the verb (the main verb) must move in front of it, deriving VO word order again.

( 1 8)

[Vfin - Vaux - Vmain - object]

a.

Initial order:

[PredPfin [VPfin Vfin [PredPaux [VPaux Vaux [PredPmain [VPmain Vmain object]]]]]]

PARAMETER CHANGE IN ICELANDIC b.

171

Object moves long (coherent complement) :

object [PredPfin [VPfin Vfi n [PredPaux [VPaux Vaux [PredPmain [VPmain Vmain tobject3]]]]] c.

VPfin moves to F:

[VPfin Vfin [PredPaux [VPaux Vaux [PredPmain [VPmain Vmain tobject]]]]] object [PredPfin tvpfin]

( 1 9)

[Vfin - Vaux - Vmain - object] a. Initial order:

[PredPfin [VPfin Vfin [PredPaux [VPaux Vaux [PredPmain [VPmain Vmain object]]]]]] b.

Object moves short (incoherent complement) :

c.

[PredPfin [VPfin Vfin [PredPaux [VPaux Vaux [object] [PredPmain [VPmain Vmain tobject]]]]]] VPmain moves to F: [PredPfin [VPfin Vfin [PredPaux [VPaux Vaux [Ie [VPmain Vmain tobject]] [ object] [PredPmain tvpmain]]]]]

Example (20) shows the derivation of a simple OV word order, derived by the possibility of extracting VPs out of VPs (or moving PredPs into Spec of PredPs by cyclic application).

(20)

[Vfin - obj ect - Vmain] a. Initial order: b.

[PredPfin [VPfin Vfin [PredPmain [VPmain Vmain object]]]] PredPmain moves to SpecPredPfin : (the German option) [PredPfin [PredPmain [VPmain Vmain object]] [VPfin Vfin [tpredPmain]]]

c.

Object moves long:

object [PredPfin [PredPmain [VPmain Vmain tobject]] [tpredPmain]]] d.

[VPfin Vfin

VPfin moves to F:

[VPfin Vfin [tpredPmain]] object [PredPfin [PredPmain [VPmain Vmain tobject]] [tVPfin]] Example (21) illustrates the derivation of the [Vmain - Vaux] order, previously called V-raising. This order now simply reflects the VPs-out-of-VPs option. Alternatively, it is possible to derive this order in a more complex way, as shown in (22), depending on the relative position of the object in this respect.

172

I>ORBJORG HROARSDOTTIR (21)

[Vfi n - Vmain - VauxJ Initial order: a. b.

[PredPfin [VPfin Vfin [PredPaux [VPaux Vaux [PredPmain [VPmain Vmain]]]]]]

PredPmain moves t o SpecPredPaux : (the German option)

[PredPfin [VPfin Vfin [PredPaux [PredPmain [VPrnain Vmain]]] [VPaux Vaux]] [ tPredPmain]]

c.

(22)

VPfin moves to F:

[VPfin Vfin [PredPaux [PredPmain [VPmain Vmain]]] [VPaux Vaux] [ tPredPmain]] [PredPfin tvpfin] [Vfin Vmain - Vauxl -

a.

Initial order:

b.

PredPmain moves to SpecPredPaux: (the German option)

[PredPfin [VPfin Vfin [PredPaux [VPaux Vaux [PredPmain [VPmain Vmain]]]]]] [PredPfin [VPfin Vfin [PredPaux [PredPmain [VPmain Vmain]]] [VPaux Vaux]] [tPredPmain]]

c.

PredPaux moves to SpecPredPfin : (the German option)

[PredPfin [PredPaux [PredPmain [VPmain Vmain]] [VPaux Vaux] [tPredPmain]] [VPfin Vfin tPredPaux] d.

VPfin moves to F:

[VPfin Vfin tPredPaux] [PredPfin [PredPaux [PredPmain [VPmain Vmain]] [VPaux Vaux [tPredPmain]] [tvpfin]]

In (23) through (26), there are examples showing that by combining these three derivations, VPs-out-of-VPs, object movement and remnant VP-preposing, it is possible to derive all the various OV (pure and mixed) word order patterns. These are the only three main derivational possibilities (two of them are obliga tory), and the option is simply whether or not we choose to take VPs out of VPs and how often.

(23)

[Vfin - Vmain - Vaux - obje ct] a. Initial order:

[PredPfin [VPfin Vfin [PredPaux [VPaux Vaux [PredPmain [VPmain Vmain object]]]]]] b.

PredPmain moves to SpecPredPaux : (the German option)

[PredPfin [VPfin Vfin [PredPaux [PredPmain [VPmain Vmain object]] [VPaux Vaux [tPredPmain]]]]]

c.

Object moves long:

object [PredPfin [VPfin Vfin [PredPaux [PredPmain [VPmain Vmain tobject]] [VPaux Vaux [tPredPmain]]]]]

PARAMETER CHANGE IN ICELANDIC

173

VPfin moves to F: [VPfin Vfin [PredPaux [PredPmain [VPmain Vmain tobject]] [VPaux Vaux [tpredPmain]]]] object [PredPfin tvpfin] [Vfin - object - Vaux - Vmain] a. Initial order: d.

(24)

(25)

(26)

[PredPfin [VPfin Vfin [PredPaux [VPaux Vaux [PredPmain [VPmain Vmain object]]]]]] b. PredPaux moves to SpecPredPfin : [PredPfin [PredPaux [VPaux Vaux [PredPmain [VPrnain Vmain object]]]] [VPfin Vfin tpredPaux]] c. Object moves long : object [PredPfin [PredPaux [VPaux Vaux [PredPmain [VPmain Vmain tobject]]]] [VPfin Vfin tPredPaux]] d. VPfin moves to F: [VPfin Vfin tpredPaux] object [PredPfin [PredPaux [VPaux Vaux [PredPmain [VPmain Vmain tobject]]]] [tvpfin]] [Vfin - Vaux - object - Vmain] a. Initial order: [PredPfin [VPfin Vfin [PredPaux [VPaux Vaux [PredPmain [VPmain Vmain object]]]]]] b. PredPmain moves to SpecPredPaux : [PredPfin [VPfin Vfin [PredPaux [PredPmain [VPmain Vmain object]] [yPaux Vaux tpredPmain]] c. Object moves short (incoherent complement): [PredPfin [VPfin Vfin] object [PredPaux [PredPmain [VPmain Vmain tobject]] [VPaux Vaux tPredPmain]]] d. VPaux moves to F: [PredPfin [VPfin Vfin]] [Ie [VPaux Vaux tPredPmain]] object [PredPaux [PredPmain [VPmain Vmain tobject]] [tVPaux]] V [ fin - object - Vmain - Vaux] a. Initial order:

b.

[PredPfin [VPfin Vfin [PredPaux [VPaux Vaux [PredPmain [VPmain Vmain object]]]]]] PredPmain moves to SpecPredPaux : [PredPfin [VPfin Vfin [PredPaux [PredPmain [VPmain Vmain object]] [VPaux Vaux tpredPmain]]]]

174

I>ORBJORG HROARSDOTTIR c.

PredPaux moves to SpecPredPfin :

[PredPfin [PredPaux [PredPmain [VPmain Vmain object]] [VPaux Vaux tPredPmain]] [VPfin Vfin tpredPaux]]

d.

Object moves long:

object [PredPfin [PredPaux [PredPmain [VPmain Vmain tobject]] [VPaux Vaux tPredPmain]] [VPfin Vfin tPredPaux]] e.

VPfin moves to F:

[VPfin Vfin tPredPaux] object [PredPfin [PredPaux [PredPmain [VPmain Vmain tobject]] [VPaux Vaux tPredPmain]] [tvpfin]]

Given the remnant VP-preposing hypothesis, all the OV word order patterns shown above would disappear as soon as the possibility of the extraction of VPs out of VPs (PredPs into Spec of PredPs) was lost, as already illustrated in ( 1 8) above. In other words, the remnant finite VP will always necessarily contain all the non-finite verbs in addition to the finite verb (in the appropriate order), and the preposing of this remnant VP will always mask the object movement, deriving va word order only. A crucial factor in support of this analysis is related to the behavior of verbal particles in the Germanic va and OV languages. There are two interest ing facts to note in this respect. First, the ordering with respect to the verb is [particle-verb] in the OV languages, while it is [verb-particle] in the va lan guages. Second, while the particle can precede the DP object in (most) va lan guages, it invariably follows all complements in the Germanic OV languages. We will propose that certain occurrences of verbal particles in the Germanic languages cannot be derived by incorporation in terms of head movement, but must involve some XP-movement instead (see also Taraldsen, this volume). Assuming a uniform and universal SHe order of constituents (in the spirit of Kayne 1 994), it not only becomes necessary for the direct object to follow the verb in base word order (regardless of whether it is a surface OV or va lan guage), it also becomes necessary for the verbal particle to occur in a postverbal position. Assuming the particle to constitute a small clause together with the DP object, the base word order for both the OV and the va languages must be along the lines shown in (27).

(27)

[vp verb [s c DP [particle]] ]

a.

taka hattinn af

(Icelandic)

take hatthe off b.

skakeZ die Zig turn

af

the light off

(Afrikaans)

PARAMETER CHANGE IN ICELANDIC

175

According to our remnant VP-preposing hypothesis, the direct object must obligatorily and universally raise out of the VP into SpecAgrOP. The second type of movement, then, distinguishes the two languages, and OV and VO lan guages in general, namely the remnant VP raises to SpecFP above the extracted direct object. As a result, the verb is situated to the left of its complement (even in embedded non-verb-second clauses). The particle can at this point be situated inside the VP, as a result of it raising together with the verb within the remnant VP, acquiring its position to the left of the object. As no such movement applies in OV languages, according to our hypothesis, the particle cannot raise across the object in OV languages. The third step in the derivation, then, raises the finite verb to the verb-second position. This movement applies (both in main and subordinate clauses) in Icelandic and (in main clauses) in the Germanic verb second languages, but never in English. We claim that the verb movement to the verb-second position is a head-movement, rather than VP-raising. If the verb movement to the verb-second position is a head-movement, it follows directly that only the finite verb, and not the particle, can raise higher than the negation. This correctly excludes the particle from preceding the DP object in Dutch and other OV languages, since they lack the remnant VP-preposing.

5.

Summary

In this paper, various ways to account for the loss of OV word order patterns in the history of Icelandic were discussed, all in line with the uniform VO base hypothesis. First, by means of loss of overt leftward movements of objects, leading to covert movements only in Modem Icelandic. On that hypothesis, the parameter change in question would have to do with the loss of the relevant strong N-features in the functional domain; the N-features of both AgrOP and PredP. Hence, the word order change, the decline of OV word order, was described as a reflex of a parameter change, eliminating the relevant strong N-features in AgrOP and PredP, within the VP, leading to the unavailability of overt movement of objects (DPs, PPs and small clause predicates) to the left of the main verb, which in response has lead to the unavailability of scrambling (movement of objects to SpecAgrOP and SpecPredP outside the VP). It was argued that although this approach might yield positive results in the analysis of the Old(er) Icelandic VP, it does not easily handle the diachronic aspect. Second, it was claimed that the word order variation in the Old(er) Icelandic VP might be accounted for in terms of interacting leftward movements of both the object(s) and the non-finite verb(s) . On this view, the cross-linguistic

176

pORBJORG HROARSDOTTIR

superficial word order differences depend on the number of positions/functions that attract the movement of both the non-finite verb and its complements. Thus, the objects still have to move to the left in overt syntax in Modem Icelandic. The hypothesis that the main verb has begun to move to a higher position, to the left of the moved objects, however, also has to face high empirical hurdles. Therefore, the uniform VO base hypothesis was revised in the direction of a theory of remnant VP-preposing, which has properties in common with Kayne's (1998) analysis of negative/focus constructions. In short, we assumed three main transformations: a) obligatory leftward movement of the direct object out of the VP (to SpecAgrOP in the functional domain) at all stages in the history of Ice landic, in addition to b) optional extraction of the embedded VP from the matrix VP in Old(er) Icelandic, followed by c) obligatory preposing of the remnant VP, containing (at least) the finite auxiliary verb, in Old and Modem Icelandic. The only major drawback we can see with this proposal is that it needs to explain why the third leftward movement process, the extraction of VPs out of VPs, was lost - a question we do not have an answer to. 3 However, any other analyses seem to have to face this same problem, and at least we have pinpointed the diachronic aspect (the language change in question) to only one parameter change - the loss of a singe movement, which is a lot better than having to explain three unrelated but simultaneous changes. Of course, this proposal also has to assume a certain optionality with respect to the derivation of OV word order patterns in Old(er) Icelandic, especially with regard to long versus short object movement, but that seems to be a side effect that every possible frame work has to face to some extent. At least the generalized Kaynean approach does not do any worse in this respect than the other possibilities that we have studied, or that have been put forward in recent literature. In sum, the uniform VO base hypothesis, together with the tools of a generalized Kaynean (1998) proposal, can account for all the various attested pure and mixed word order patterns in Old(er) Icelandic, beside providing the diachronic account; explaining the language change in question in terms of a single parameter change; the loss of [Vmain Vaux] or in more general terms, the ' loss of extracting VPs out of VPs (PredPs into Spec of PredPs), leading to the superficial loss of all the other attested OV word order patterns. In the end, the relative base order of the verb and the object plays no role in the analysis, in particular since the object always moves. This gives the following comparative Germanic correlation: 4 -

177

PARAMETER CHANGE IN ICELANDIC Table 3. Comparative Germanic Correlation

Icelandic, English, The mainland Scandinavian languages Old(er) Icelandic German Dutch

VP-preposing

VP-out-of-VP

yes

no

yes no no

yes yes no

Notes 1.

Furthermore, if only arguments of F can be 'bare' VPs, while arguments of the verb must be an extended VP (an S), then it is possible to assume that only bare VPs raise to SpecPredP, while a full extended V-projection cannot be licensed there. Hence, bare VPs and extended VPs do not move into the same position. This correctly excludes the ungrammatical pattern [Vfin [Vmain Object] Vaux] .

2.

We use the label 'IC' for 'Incoherent Complement' i n the following examples. HinterhOlzl (1997), among others, assumes that there are two types of full sentential infinitival comple ments: incoherent/opaque CPs and coherent/transparent CPs. While the coherent infinitives are transparent for several types of extraction processes/restructuring effects, the incoherent infinitives block long distance scrambling/restructuring.

3.

Maybe there is no explanation in structural linguistic terms, but only in sociolinguistic terms: a certain type of word order became unfashionable (Holmberg, p.c.).

4.

In addition, there is a head movement (of the finite verb) to IIC in some of these languages:

Modern Icelandic English Mainland Scandinavian Old(er) Icelandic German Dutch

Main clauses

Subordinate clauses

yes no yes yes yes yes

yes no no yes no no

References Chomsky, Noam. 1993 . "A minimalist program for linguistic theory". In Kenneth Hale and S amuel Jay Keyser (eds), The View from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Also included in Chomsky 1995-0riginally distributed as MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 1, 1992) Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

178

pORBJORG HROARSD OTTIR

Hinterholzl, Roland. 1997. A XP-movement account of restructuring. Ms., University of Southern California. Hr6arsd6ttir, porbjorg. 1995. Setningafneoilegar breytingar a 19. old. I>r6un ]xiggja m:ilbreytinga. Master's thesis, University of Iceland, Reykjavik. (Published in 1998 as M:ilfrreoiranns6knir 10, M:ilvfsindastofnun Hask61a Islands, Reykjavik) Hr6arsd6ttir, porbjorg. 1996. "The decline of OV word order in the Icelandic VP; a diachronic study". Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 57: 92-14 1 . Hr6arsd6ttir, porbjorg. 1 998. "Interacting movements in the history of Icelandic". Paper presented at the Fifth Diachronic Generative Syntax Conference (DIGS 5), Universi ty of York, 30 May-l June, 1 998. (To appear in Pintzuk, Susan, George Tsoulas, and Anthony Warner (eds), DIGS 5 volume. Diachronic Syntax: Models and Mechanisms. Oxford: OUP) Hr6arsd6ttir, porbjorg. 1999a. VP-preposing in Icelandic. Paper presented at 14th Comparative Germanic Syntax Workshop, Lund, Sweden, January 8-9, 1999. Hr6arsd6ttir, porbjorg. 1999b. Verb Phrase Syntax in the History of Icelandic. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Troms¢. Indrioason, Porsteinn. 1987. Skyrsla urn oroaroo f sagnlio. Ms., University of Iceland, Reykjavik. Johnson, Kyle. 1996. In search of the English middle field. Ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA : MIT Press. Kayne, Richard S. 1998. "Overt vs. covert movement". Syntax 1: 128-1 9 1 . Koopman, Hilda and Anna Szabo1csi. 1997. The Hungarian verbal complex: Incorporation as XP-movement. Ms., UCLA. Koster, Jan. 1994. "Predicate incorporation and the word order of Dutch". In Guglielmo Cinque, Jan Koster, Jean-Yves Pollock, Luigi Rizzi, and Raffaella Zanuttini (eds), Paths to Universal Grammar: Studies in honor ofRichard S. Kayne. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press. 255-276. Lattewitz, Karen. 1996. Movement of verbal complements. Ms. University of Groningen. Roberts, Ian G. 1997. "Directionality and word order change in the history of English". In van Kemenade, Ans and Nigel Vincent (eds), Parameters of Morphosyntactic Change. Cambridge: CUP. Rognvaldsson, Ein1rur. 1994/1995. "Breytileg oroaroo f sagnlio". fslenskt mal og almenn malfrceOi 16-17: 27-66. Rognvaldsson, Ein1rur. 1996. "Word order variation in the VP in Old Icelandic". Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 58: 55-86. Sigurosson, Halld6r Armann. 1988. "From OV to VO: Evidence from Old Icelandic". Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 34.

Wurff, Wim van der. 1997. "Deriving object-verb order in late Middle English". Journal of Linguistics 33: 485-509.

PARAMETER CHANGE IN ICELANDIC

179

Zwart, Cornelius Jan-Wouter. 1993 . Dutch Syntax. A minimalist approach. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Groningen. [Distributed as vol. 10 of Groningen Disserta tions in Linguistics] .

Zwart, Cornelius Jan-Wouter. 1997. Morphosyntax of Verb Movement. A minimalist approach to the Syntax of Dutch. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1

The

.......... li..........

"" Periphery

SOV Languages

English and Dutch Sjef Barbiers Leiden University

Abstract This paper discusses the distribution of CP, DP, PP and Small Clause comple ments in the right periphery in English and Dutch from a modified anti symmetric perspective. English and Dutch are argued to be SOY underlyingly: all constituents except propositional CPs originate to the left of position V in S OY. English differs from Dutch in that it has overt short V movement. Arguments in English and Dutch basically have the same distribution. DP arguments and SC complements do not occur to the right of the underlying V position in SOY. This follows from the VP Intraposition analysis (Barbiers 1995) of extraposition according to which the trigger of VP Intraposition is to establish a predication relation. Since DP arguments and SC complements are saturated, VP cannot become their subject. The optional occurrence of PP complements in post-V position follows from the VP Intraposition analysis if PP complements are predicates of a V projection, not arguments. Most importantly, new evidence is provided to show that CP and DP complements have a different syntactic distribution because they bear different semantic relations to the verb. Whereas DP complements are subjects of internal predication, factive CPs are predicates of (extended) VP, while propositional CPs are the only real complements.

1.

Introduction

The starting point of this paper is the following hypothesis:

(1)

Syntactic structure i s generated from bottom t o top b y uniform leftward application of merge and move, starting out with a verb.

1 82

SJEF BARBIERS

This hypothesis entails that rightward movement and right-adjunction are not available, as in Kayne 1 994 and Haider 1997, and that languages are SOY underlyingly. I assume that the different surface position of V in English and Dutch is the result of short V-movement applying overtly in English (cf. Larson 1988; Johnson 1 99 1 ; Costa 1 996; Haider 1997; among others). The idea that a bottom-up derivation starts out with the verb is implicit or explicit in many existing syntactic theories, the background being that it is mostly V that deter mines which other constituents must or can occur in the sentence. From the perspective of the hypothesis in (l), this paper seeks to explain the following generalizations about the position X in the linear order S Vs 0 V X in English and Dutch (V indicates the position of the verb before short verb movement; Vs indicates the position of the verb after short verb movement). 1

(2)

(i)

DP arguments and Small Clause complements cannot surface in X. (ii) PP complements may surface in X. 2 (iii) Propositional CP complements must surface in X. (iv) In English, PP adjuncts and factive CP complements must surface in X, while in Dutch they may surface there.

Given ( l ), there are two possibilities for a constituent yP to end up in position X: (3)

yP is a verbal complement of the matrix V, i.e., a VP, IP or CPo Matrix V is merged to the left of YP. (ii) yP is generated to the left of V; an (extended) projection of V moves leftward, crossing YP (henceforth: VP Intraposition), yielding the linear order VP yp.3 (i)

_

Thus, X in the order S V s 0 V X always indicates a base position. However, V indicates a base position only in the case of verbal complements (3i) ; otherwise, it is a derived position, the landing site of VP Intraposition (3ii). In view of (3), two questions must now be answered to explain the generalizations in (2):

(4)

(i)

Why do certain constituents (e.g, PP complements and PP adjuncts) trigger/allow VP Intraposition, while others (e.g., DP arguments and SC complements) do not? (ii) Why is it impossible for CP complements to surface in 0 in the order SOY, either by base generation or by movement?

THE RIGHT PERIPHERY IN SOY LANGUAGES 2.

183

The data

Abstracting away from the position of V, English and Dutch show the same unmarked linear and hierarchical organization in double object constructions (5a-b), prepositional dative constructions (5c-d) , transitive Small Clause constructions (5e-f), DPgoaCPPtheme constructions (5g-h) and double PP construc tions (5i-j). This is shown for linear order in (5). It can be demonstrated with existing diagnostics for hierarchy (Barss and Lasnik 1 986), that in all of these constructions the first complement asymmetrically c-commands the second one. (5)

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

dat Jan

Marie het boek

that John gave

Mary the book

dat Jan

het boek aan Marie

that John gave

the book to Mary

dat Jan

de doos op de tafel

that John put

the box on the table

dat Jan

Marie van boeken

gaf gaf zette voorzag

that John provided Mary with books

dat Jan

met Marie over Piet

sprak

that John talked

with Mary about Pete

___

Reordering possibilities are the same in both languages. Reordering in the prepositional dative construction (6c-d) and the small clause construction (6e-f) requires that the DP complement be interpreted as new in the discourse, giving rise to "heaviness" effects : the DP must have focus, be heavy and cannot be pronominal. (Changes in) extraction possibilities are the same in both languages. For example, whereas extraction from the about PP in (5i-j) is possible, it is impossible from the about PP in (6i-j). Also, the binding properties of the two PPs in the double PP construction ((5i-j) and (6i-j)) are the same in the two languages (cf. Barbiers, to appear). (6)

a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. 1.

j.

*dat Jan

het boek Marie

*that John gave

the book Mary

gaf

dat Jan

aan Marie DAT boekl*het gaf

that John gave

to Mary THAT bookl*it

dat Jan

op de tafel de DOOSl*het zette

that John put

on the table the BOXl*it

*dat Jan

van boeken Marie

---

voorzag

*that John provided with books Mary

dat Jan

over Piet met Marie

that John talked

about Pete with Mary

sprak

1 84

SJEP BARBIERS

The null hypothesis is that the complements in (5) are in their base position both in English and in Dutch. There is no evidence that any of the constituents has moved before reaching the surface positions. The well-formed reorderings in (6) may be the result of scrambling or base-generation: both possibilities can explain why the first complement in the sentences in (6) behaves like an adjunct. Given the similarities between English and. Dutch in the middle field illustrated in (5) and (6), which can be supplemented with data from the distribution of adverbials, it seems to be safe to assume that the difference between English and Dutch in this domain is that English has overt short verb movement. This is not a very costly assumption: cross-linguistic parametrization of V positions is empirically well-motivated (cf. Pollock 1 989 and subsequent work) . If a movement operation that must be assumed for one language must be assumed for all other languages, we may say that short verb movement takes place in Dutch as well, but that the verb is spelled out in its base position, while it is spelled out in its landing site in English. The SOY hypothesis also makes it possible to show that English and Dutch have the same restrictions on the end field (position X in S Vs 0 V X). The distribution of CP complements will be discussed in Section 4. DP arguments and Small Clause-complements cannot occur in X:

(7) S a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h.

*

Ed

zal

Ed

will

*

*

*

0

V

de deur rood

verven

paint

the door red

de deur rood

Zal

*

*

Vs

Will

Ed

zal

Ed

will

Ed

zal

Ed

will

paint

the door red

paint

red

rood de deur paint

the door

verven

x Ed Ed

verven

de deur the door

verven

rood on Monday red

PP complements and PP adjuncts may occur in X; in English, PP adjuncts cannot occur in the middle field (between S and V) :

THE RIGHT PERIPHERY IN SOY LANGUAGES

1 85

(8) a. b. c. d.

Ed zal

het boek aan Marie

E d will read

the book to Mary

voorlezen

Ed zal

het boek

Ed will read

the book

tomorrow to Mary

S

Vs

V

e. Ed zal op zondag Ed will *on Sunday switch g. Ed zal h. Ed will switch

f.

3.

X

V

Vs

S

voorlezen

aan Marie X

de lichten uitdoen *on Sunday the lights off

de lichten uitdoen

op zondag

the lights off

on Sunday

Explanation of the distribution of DPs, PPs and Small Clause complements

The distribution of DPs, PPs and Small Clause Complements in the end field X (the data in (7) and (8» can be explained if we assume that DPs and PPs must be generated to the left of position V and can only surface in X as a result of VP Intraposition. On this view, the linear position V in (7) and (8) is a derived position. Consider first VP Intraposition with PP adjuncts. The linear effect of VP Intraposition (9a-b) corresponds to the structural analysis in ( 1 0a-b) .4,5 (9)

( 1 0)

a. b.

Ik zal

[vp de lichten uitdoen] [pp op zondag] I will switch [yp the lights o ff -switeh] [pp o n Sunday] [vp de lichten uittleen] . [vp the lights off switch]. __

VP

VP

�

W

on Sunday

------

W

-----PP switch off the lights � �

� � op zondag

�

VP

de lichten uitdoen

�

VPi

de lichten uitdoen

switch off the lights

op zondag

on Sunday

I assume that the trigger of this movement is semantic: only by moving into SpecPP can the VP become the subject of PP, such that PP is interpreted as

1 86

SJEF BARBIERS

predicating of VP. 6,7 If this is correct, then we can immediately explain why SC complements cannot "extrapose". The crucial property of a small clause comple ment is that it has its own subject, the internal DP argument. Under the assump tion that a PP can only have one subject (whichs need not be stipulated but follows from the theory proposed in Barbiers 1 995), VP Intraposition is blocked by the presence of the subject of the small clause ( 1 1 a-b). (11)

a.

Jan zal

__

fxp lOp de doos] IPp op de tafel]] &,rp zetten] . I t

>k

b.

John will pu�

fxp IDp the box] IPp on the table] [yp ...M ... ] . I t

>1<

Similarly, VP Intraposition is blocked in the case of DP arguments. Whereas a PP is interpretively incomplete without a subject, DP arguments are saturated. Therefore, they cannot host a subject. In the present framework, movement of (extended) VP into the Spec of a DP argument would tum the DP argument into a predicate of the (extended) VP, interpretively the wrong result. PP complements pattern with PP adjuncts in allowing VP Intraposition. Under the given analysis, this implies that a PP complement is interpreted as a predicate of VP. This requires some justification, since the traditional intuition has it that a PP complement is an argument of V, not a predicate of a projection of V. There are some data that strongly suggest that PP complements are predicates of the event denoted by a V projection: ( 12)

a.

Het wachten is [pp op Marie] .

the waiting is b. c. d.

for Mary

Jan wacht [pp op Marie] .

John waits for Mary John's talk was [pp about linguistics] . John talked [pp about linguistics] .

The PP in ( 1 2a) is a Small Clause predicate predicating of the event denoted by the subject het wachten. The semantic relation between PP and the event denoting subject in ( 1 2a) is exactly the same as the semantic relation between PP and the event-denoting V in ( 1 2b). The same holds for the pair of sentences in ( 1 2c-d). Hence, it is highly implausible that PP in ( 1 2b, d) must be analyzed as an argument of V. I therefore propose that "extraposition" of a PP complement is the result of movement of a projection of V into SpecPP, such that the projection of V becomes the subject of PP. The only difference between

THE RIGHT PERIPHERY IN SOY LANGUAGES

1 87

extraposition of a PP adjunct and extraposition of a PP complement is the size of the moved VP segment. Since PP adjuncts are generated higher than PP complements, the VP segment that moves is larger in the case of a PP adjunct. Finally, we have to address the question as to why VP Intraposition is obligatory with PP adjuncts in English. The fact that it is obligatory as such is not a problem. Given the interpretive trigger of VP Intraposition, the logic of the analysis must be that VP Intraposition is always obligatory when VP is interpret ed as a subject of PP. The question is then rather why VP Intraposition does not seem to be obligatory in the case of PP adjuncts in Dutch, and PP complements in English and Dutch. I will assume that it is obligatory in all cases but that there are spell-out options. 8 In Dutch, VP can be spelled out in its landing site or in its base position. This gives the illusion of optionality of PP-Extraposition. In English, VP must be spelled out in its landing site in the case of PP adjuncts, whereas it can be spelled out in its landing site or its base position in the case of PP complements. Although I have no deeper insights to offer as to why this difference between English and Dutch should exist, the obligatory "extraposition" of PP adjuncts in English is supported by the following observation: the only grammati cal order of PP adjuncts in English corresponds to the order of "extraposed" PP adjuncts in Dutch: 9, lO

(13)

a.

Jan zal Marie [PP2 op het perron] [PPI op haar wang] [yp John will Mary

on the platform

on her cheek

kussen] .

kiss b. *Jan zal Marie [PPI op haar wang] [PPl op hetperron] [yp kussen] . Marie [vp kussen] [PPI op haar wang] [PP2 c. Jan zal d. John will kiss M ary [vp · · .lHs-s- . . . J [PPI on her cheek] [PP2 __

op het perron] .

on the platform] .

kussen . yp lffs-s. . . ] f. *Jan will kiss Mary [ haar wang] .

e.

*Jan zal

__

Marie

.

her cheek] .

.

.

[PP2 op het perron] [PP2 on the platform]

[PPI op [PPI on

1 88 4.

SJEP BARBIERS

Distribution of CP complements

4. 1 The problem Putting aside for the moment the difference between factive and propositional CP complements, the hypothesis that English is SOY underlyingly and has overt short V-movement makes it possible to show that CP complements have the same distribution in English and Dutch, and DP complements too:

(14)

a. b. c. d.

I will [v say] <*cp that I was sick) [pp to Mary] [y-SilY]
Ik zal _ <*cp dat ik ziek was) [pp tegen M.] [v zeggen]
The complementary distribution of CP- and DP complements in both languages has been explained as a consequence of the Case Resistance Principle (Stowell 198 1 ). On this view, CP and DP complements are generated in the same position, as a sister to V, because they are supposed to bear the same semantic relation to V, and V must assign them a a-role to express this semantic relation. In addition to a a-role, V assigns case to a constituent in this position. The fact that Dutch is OV and English is VO comes out in this type of analysis as a consequence of a directionality parameter, i.e., V governs leftward in Dutch and rightward in English, combined with the assumption that Case and a-assignment occur under government. That DP complements get case in their base position is fine, but CPs should not receive case (e.g., they cannot occur as the complement of P in English and Dutch). Therefore, CPs must be extraposed. A well-known problem (cf. Hoekstra 1 983; Zwart 1 993) of this analysis is that it wrongly predicts that CPs are always islands for extraction. Another problem is that CP gets case even if extraposed. If CP-extraposition involves rightward movement, CP gets case via its trace. If CP is generated as an adjunct and must form a chain with an (empty) pronoun in the complement position of V to be interpreted as an argument of V, it will get case via that chain as well. The analysis based on the Case Resistance Principle is summarized in ( 15).

THE RIGHT PERIPHERY IN SOY LANGUAGES ( 1 5)

I. II.

English: S S

V V

DP

t/ei

CPi

Dutch:

DP

V V

CPi

S S

t/ei

1 89

)

)

An attempt to solve these problems in an antisymmetric minimalist framework is found in Zwart 1 993. According to that analysis, both in English and in Dutch DP and CP complements are generated as righthand sisters of V: [v' V DP] and [v' V CP] respectively. In both languages, DP moves to a position to the left of V to get its case checked, while CP remains in situ. The difference between English and Dutch is that the DP complement is spelled out in its base position in English while it is spelled out in its landing site in Dutch. This analysis is represented schematically in ( 1 6). ( 1 6)

I II

English: Comp Comp Dutch: Comp Comp

IWr V V DPi V V

Subject Subject Subject Subject

DPi CP

IWr CP

However, this analysis makes the prediction that CP and DP complements in English surface in the same position, as a righthand sister to V. As the data in (14) make clear, this prediction is wrong. DP complements must precede PP complements, whereas CP complements must follow PP complements. The facts in ( 14) can easily be accommodated if we assume that the complements are in their base position, that V moves in both languages, but that V is spelled out in its landing site in English and in its base position in Dutch: ( 1 7)

a. b. c. d.

Comp Comp Comp Comp

Subject Subject Subject Subject

V V ¥ ¥

DP PP DP PP

PP ¥ CP PP V V CP

¥

(English; 1 4a) (English; 14b) (Dutch; 14c) (Dutch; 14d)

If ( 1 7) is correct, CP complements and DP complements have different base positions. If two types of constituents that bear the same semantic relation to the selecting verb must be generated in the same position, an assumption underlying Stowell's, Zwart's and most other current analyses (cf. the UTAH, Baker 1988), then we must conclude from the data in (14) and the analysis in ( 1 7) that DP complements and CP complements do not bear the same semantic relation to the selecting verb. In the next section I argue that this conclusion is correct.

1 90

SJEP BARBIERS

4.2 DP complement position forces a quote interpretation upon CP On closer investigation it turns out that there is an interpretation that makes it possible for a CP complement to occur in 0 in the underlying linear order S 0 (PP) V. This is particularly clear with the verb say. ( I S)

a. b. c. d.

Ed heeft gez;e-gtl [cp "dat ik ga"] tegen de leraar gezegd. Ed has

said

[cp "that I go"] to

the teacher -said.

Ed heeftgez;e-gtl ["hallo"/"nee"/"Ik ga"] tegen de leraar gezegd. Ed has

said

["hello"l"no"I"I quit"] to

the teacher -said.

Although the CPs in ( 1 Sa-b) cannot be interpreted as ordinary factive or propositional clauses (cf. Section 4.3), they can be interpreted as quotes or phonological complements. For an embedded clause to be felicitous as a quote, a special context is required. For example, imagine a linguistics class in which Ed answered the teacher's question to mention the embedded clause in a given sentence. After class, one can report Ed's answer with the sentences in ( 1 Sa-b). The question now arises as to why position 0 in the underlying linear order S-O-(PP)-V forces a quote interpretation upon CPo Before I answer this question, I have to digress a little on the distribution of quotes. It has often been suggested that X in the underlying order S-O-(PP)-V-X is the unmarked position for quotes. 0 would be a marked, unnatural position. However, ( I Sc-d) show that a quote in 0 is quite acceptable. Moreover, if it were true that X is a more natural position for quotes than 0, this would not weaken the claim that 0 forces a quote interpretation upon CP: the effect is quite clear, and the claim does not imply that quotes cannot occur in other positions. In fact, it is likely that 0 is the unmarked position of a quote, just like 0 is the unmarked position of a DP complement. Unlike CPs and PPs, quotes and DPs in X must have their own complete intonational contour, which suggests that they constitute separate intonational phrases. In this respect, quotes and DPs in X pattern with, e.g., parentheticals. In 0, however, a DP or quote does not need to be a separate intonational phrase (cf. ( 1 Sa-d)). 11 Nespor and Vogel ( 1 9S6: I SS) claim that independent intonational phrases are not attached to the syntactic tree at S-structure. It is plausible that DPs and quotes in X are not part of the syntactic structure of the sentence. They are more like afterthoughts, which show exactly the same prosodic effect. Assuming that right-peripheral DPs and quotes are afterthoughts, not part of the syntactic structure of the sentence, I do not discuss them any further. Let us go back to the question why CP in 0 must be interpreted as a quote. The effect that syntactic position determines part of the interpretation of a

THE RIGHT PERIPHERY IN SOY LANGUAGES

191

constituent i s quite familiar. In The dog bit John, for example, the dog i s the agent and John is the patient, whereas in John bit the dog, John is the agent and the dog is the patient. The semantic relations that the arguments John and the dog bear to the verb bit are determined by their syntactic position. Given this, we expect a CP that occurs in 0, the position of a DP complement, to bear the same semantic relation to the verb as a DP complement. I therefore need to be more explicit about the semantic relation between V and DP complement. Following Hale & Keyser 1993 and slightly modifying their proposal, I assume that a DP complement of V is the subject of the root of V, i.e. the root is a Small Clause predicate with the internal argument as its subject. If the root of V give is GIFT, then in John gave the book (to Mary) the book is said to be an element of the set of gifts. Some objects fit more easily into this set than others. For example, John gave the destruction (to Mary) is odd because it is hard to interpret an event as a gift. A way to make sense of this sentence is to interpret the destruction as a name, e.g. a book title. Similarly, when a CP is generated in 0, it must be interpreted as an element of the set denoted by the root of the verb . In the case of ( l 8a-b), the CP must be interpreted as an element of the set of things said. However, an embedded CP is not an utterance, i.e. we don't find that-clauses as independent utterances. 1 2 Therefore, CP cannot easily be interpreted as an element of the things said. Parallel to the marked interpretation of destruction in John gave the destruction (to Mary), a way out is to interpret the CP as a quote. The same effect arises when an ordinary DP cannot be interpreted as an element of the set of things said, as in John said the victory. Here too, the sentence is felicitous if the victory is interpreted as a literal quote. The fact that a CP in ° can only have a quote interpretation, not the more common factive and propositional interpretation, shows that factive and proposi tional CP complements do not bear the same semantic relation to the selecting verb as DP complements. This raises the question what kind of semantic relation there is between a verb and its factive or propositional complement, and how this relation is expressed syntactically. Before answering this question, I discuss some relevant differences between factive and propositional CPs.

4.3 Factive and propositional CPs A CP is factive if its truth is presupposed and propositional if its truth is not presupposed (Kiparsky & Kiparsky 1970). A verb that selects a CP may have a preference for a propositional complement, e.g. , think, for a factive complement, e.g., admit, or it may allow both types of complements, e.g., say. I concentrate on

1 92

SJEF BARBIERS

Dutch for the moment, returning to English in Section 4.7. Dutch has a position, Y in the abstract underlying order S Y Vs 0 V X, that only allows factive CPs ( 1 9a-b). A propositional complement is ungrammatical in Y ( 1 9c-d), and a CP complement of a verb that allows both types of CPs is disambiguated ( 1 ge-f). 1 3 ( 1 9)

a.

Jan zal nooit toegeven [ep dat ie gelogen heeft] .

factive

John will never admit that he lied has 'John has lied and he will never admit that.' b.

Jan zal [ep dat ie gelogen heeft] nooit toegeven.

factive

John will that he lied has never admit 'John has lied and he will never admit that.' c.

Jan zal weI

vinden [ep dat Piet geschikt is].

that Pete eligible is propositional 'John will have the opinion that Pete is eligible.'

John will certainly find

d. *Jan zal [ep dat Piet geschikt is] weI vinden. John will that Pete eligible is certainly find propositional e. Jan zal je vertellen [ep dat ie haar gezien heeft] . John will you tell that he her seen has 'John will tell you that he has seen her. ' (which may or 1. may not be true) propositional II. 'John has seen her and he will tell you that. ' factive

f.

Jan zal [ep dat ie 'r gezien heeft] niet aan jou vertellen. John will that he her seen has not to you tell 1. * ' John will not tell you that he has seen her.' (which may or may not be true) propositional II. 'John has seen her but he will not tell you that. ' factive

The claim that sentences such as ( 1 9b, f) are acceptable is controversiaL To be sure, ( 1 9b, f) are marked compared to ( 1 9a, e), but the vast majority of my informants (both linguists and non-linguists) has a sharp contrast between sentences like ( 1 9b, f) on the one hand and sentences like ( 1 9d) on the other. The markedness of ( 1 9b, f) may have to do with the often reported fact that center embedding makes processing more difficult, leading to a tendency to extrapose longer constituents. A similar effect shows up with PP adjuncts that may precede or follow V in the order SOY, but preferably follow V if the PP is long. Another factor playing a role in the disagreement about the judgements is that there are hardly any CP-selecting verbs that completely disallow factive CPs. Even verbs that strongly prefer propositional complements, such as think and expect,

THE RIGHT PERIPHERY IN SOY LANGUAGES

1 93

tum out to allow factive complements when they occur in a suitable context. This can easily be shown by placing the complement of think or expect in Y: (20)

Sue had [cp dat ze zwanger was] nooit gedachtlverwacht.

Sue had that she pregnant was never thought/expected 'Sue was pregnant, and she would never have thought/expected that. '

Those speakers who accept sentences such as ( 1 9b, f) agree that the CP in that position must be interpreted factively. Linearly speaking, then, there is almost a one-to-one correspondence of position and interpretation. A CP is factive in Y in the order SYOVX, quotative in 0, and either factive or propositional in X. In the next subsections, I show that the linear position X is syntactically ambiguous between a complement and an adjunct: factive CPs are adjuncts, whereas propositional CPs are complements. In view of the data presented in this section, I will not adopt an analysis that lexically stipulates whether a verb can take a propositional complement, a factive complement or both. In the alternative analysis developed below, it is not the matrix verb but the structural position of the embedded CP that determines whether a CP is factive or propositional. Any verb can occur with a CP in any position. At LF, certain combinations of CP interpretations and matrix verbs are semantically anomalous. For example, in ( 1 9d) the position of the CP forces the presupposition that it is true that Pete is eligible. The lexical meaning of vinden is 'have the opinion' . Obviously, it does not make sense to have the opinion that Pete is eligible when it is known to be true that Pete is eligible.

4.4 Long Answer Scrambling as a diagnostic for adjuncthood offactive CPs A number of properties of factive and propositional CPs known from the literature suggest that factive CPs are adjuncts while propositional CPs are complements. I will summarize these properties in Section 4.6. First, I want to present two new arguments that strongly support the structural adjunct-complement distinction for factive and propositional CPs. The first argument is based on a construction that I will dub Long Answer Scrambling, for reasons that will become clear below. As far as I know, this construction has not been discussed elsewhere. Epistemic verbs such as denken 'think' , hopen 'hope' , vinden 'have the opinion' , vermoeden ' suspect' normally select a clausal or a prepositional but not a nominal complement. Constructions in which such a verb seemingly takes a nominal complement, for example the answer in (2 l a), arguably involve reduced complement clauses, not nominal complements. First, the pronominal hij in the answer in (2 l a) is nominative, whereas nominal complements are accusative in

1 94

SJEF BARBIERS

Dutch. Secondly, the answer in (2l b) shows that this construction is not limited to nominal constituents. It is also possible with adverbials and PPs. These adverbials and PPs do not entertain a direct semantic relation with denken as is normally the case with the complement of a transitive verb. They are interpreted as modifiers of a silent verb aankomt ' arrives' . Thirdly, the anaphor zichzelf 'himself' in (2 l c) is grammatical and interpreted as Jan, even though there is no visible antecedent in the sentence. 1 4 (2 1 )

a.

b.

c.

Q: A: Q: A: Q: A:

Who do you think has read the book?

Ik denk JANIHIJ. I think Johnlhe. When/where do you think John will arrive?

Ik denk MORGEN/IN AMSTERDAM. I think tomorrow/ in Amsterdam. Do you think that John will make Pete or himself chair?

Ik denk ZICHZELF. I think himself.

We can safely conclude that the answers in (2 1 ) involve reduction of a that clause. Clearly, it cannot be reduction of a non-finite clause, as (2 l a) shows: non-finite clauses cannot have a nominative subject in Dutch. The only constitu ent that is pronounced after that-clause reduction, henceforth the remnant, is the one that answers the question and represents new, pragmatically salient and phonologically prominent information. The other constituents, which represent given information, are phonologically silent but must be visible at the level of interpretation, such that the modifiers can be interpreted as such (22b) and binding can take place. 15 (22)

a.

Ik denk tim JAN hct heck hceft gelczcn.

b.

Ik denk dttt-1ttn MORGEN/IN AMSTERDAM tltlnA-,{}lnt.

c.

Ik denk dtlt Jtlni ZICHZELFi 'rleerzitrte lntltlkt.

I think that John the book has read

I think that John tomorrow/in Amsteram arrives

I think that John himself chair makes This construction is limited to propositional that-clauses. Long Answer Scram bling with factive that-clauses yields sharply ungrammatical results: (23)

a.

Ik hoop/denklvermoedlmeen/vrees tim PIET mrccteur rverdt.

I hope/thinklsuspectlmean/fear that Piet director becomes b. *Ik betreur/onthul/weet tim PlET dirccteur 1yverdt. I regretlreveal/know that Pete director becomes

THE RIGHT PERIPHERY IN SOY LANGUAGES

195

That-clauses in other structural positions do not allow for reduction either. Some examples are given in (24). All sentences in (24) are grammatical without 1 reduction. 6 (24)

*Piet laat [DP de hoop [ep dttt

JAN hct bock ml lezcn]] varen. Pete lets the hope that John the book will read go 'Pete gives up the hope that John will read the book.' b. *lk hoop erop [ep dttt JAN hct bock ml lczcn]. I hope it.for that John the book will read c. *lk vind [AP [ep dttt JAN hct bock ztd lczcn] bedenkelijk]. I find that John the book will read doubtful d. *Jan schreeuwde zo hard [ep dttt PIET hct bock lict. ',Jallcn] . John cried so loud that Pete the book dropped

a.

Not only is reduction impossible with these CPs, they are also islands for extraction: (25)

a.

*Wat laat Piet de hoop dat Jan

waf

zal lezen varen ?

what lets Pete the hope that John what will read go b. *Wat hoopte je erop dat Jan waf zou lezen ? what hoped you there.for that John what would read c. * Wat vindje dat Jan waf zal lezen bedenkelijk? what find you that John what will read doubtful d. *Wat schreeuwde Jan zo hard dat Piet waf liet vallen ? what cried John so loudly that Pete what let fall The sentence in (25a) involves extraction out of a complex DP. In (25b), we have extraction from an adjunct clause, since erop takes the complement position. In (25c), extraction has taken place from the subject of a small clause, and in (25d) we have extraction from a result clause. These are all well-known islands. Given the data in (23) through (25), the generalization appears to be that that-clauses which allow for extraction also allow for reduction and vice versa. Although factive complements are usually considered to be weak islands (cf. Szabolcsi & Zwarts 1 993), they clearly pattern with other islands with respect to Long Answer Scrambling, yielding strong contrasts. The obvious question to ask is now whether that-clause reduction involves movement of the remnant. If it does, we immediately understand why it is sensitive to the structural position of the that-clause. I will answer this question affirmatively, but before doing that, it is necessary to point out that Long Answer Scrambling must be distinguished from two constructions that look similar but are different. First, Long Answer Scrambling

1 96

SJEF BARBIERS

looks similar to Sluicing (Ross 1 969), for which movement analyses have been proposed. An example of sluicing is (26a). However, Ross already noticed that if sluicing involves movement, it violates all kinds of island constraints. As the contrast between (26a) and (26b) shows, sluicing but not Long Answer Scram bling is possible with factive complements. (26)

a.

Jan zegt dat er

b.

Jan zegt dat er

iemand komt en ik weet WIE.

John says that there someone comes and I know who

iemand komt en ik denkl*weet t1tH John says that there someone comes and I think/know that PlET l£enff. Pete comes

A second construction that must be distinguished is gapping, which is possible with factive complements too and differs in this respect from Long Answer Scrambling: (27)

Ik denklweet dat ED JOU 'n hoek geeft en t1tH JIJ HEM -!..n I think/know that Ed you a book gives and that you him a heek gee-ft. book give

More evidence that Long Answer Scrambling involves movement of XP constituents is the fact that heads cannot be a remnant, just like they cannot be fronted. An example is given in (28). (28)

(Is John sleeping or is he working?)

*Ik denk det Jen WERKT. I think that John works

The correlation between extraction and reduction, and the impossibility for heads to be a remnant support a movement analysis of that-clause reduction. The next questions to be answered are: (i) what kind of movement is it, and (ii) what is the landing site of this movement. As for the first question, it is clear that we are dealing with focus movement: non-focusable constituents cannot be remnants: (29)

a.

Jan hoopt det

Piet

DAARaan!*eraan denkt.

John hopes that Pete thereof/thereof b.

thinks

DAARaan!*eraan hoopt Jan dat Piet denkt. thereof/thereof

hopes John that Pete thinks

The landing site of this movement operation must be outside the embedded clause.

If it were inside the embedded clause, there should be no island sensitivity. For

THE RIGHT PERIPHERY IN SOY LANGUAGES

1 97

example, a factive island can perfectly well be an embedded question (e.g, Jan onthulde wie de maaltijd bereid had 'John revealed who had prepared the meal'). The Spec of the matrix CP cannot be the landing site either, or else we would be unable to distinguish between the two cases lk denk Jan 'I think John' and Jan denk ik 'John 1 think' . The remnant in that-clause reduction constructions seems to move to a position inside the matrix VP. The idea that the matrix VP is a landing site for movement was already put forward on theoretical grounds in Chomsky 1 986. There is empirical evidence too. Firstly, although some speakers of Dutch do not accept the constructions in (30a-b), they frequently occur in spoken language. Secondly, in (30c) a wat voor-DP moves out of the embedded clause. The part consisting of voor-DP is stranded in the matrix VP, while wat moves further up to the matrix SpecCp. 17 Thirdly, Barbiers ( 1995) shows that focus particles in Dutch must immediately c-command their arguments, with one exception: when the argument moves, the focus particle can be stranded in its base position. This generalization captures the fact that the focus particle can take the DP which contains a numeral as its argument in (30d), but not in (30e). Interestingly, when this DP is fronted into the matrix CP, it can be the argument of the focus particle in the matrix VP (30f). Apparently, the focus particle can be stranded in the matrix VP when the DP moves up. (30)

a.

lk had [yp [MORGENJi gedachtl*toegegeven [cp dat Jan ti 1 had tomorrow thought/admitted that John het boek zou brengen]] .

b.

lk had [vp [ in de TUINJi gehooptl*onthuld [cp dat het feest 1 had in the garden hoped/revealed that the party ti zou zijn]] .

c.

Watj hadjij dan [yp [DP tj voor boeken]i gedacht [cp dat

the book would bring

would be what had you then

Piet ti zou Pete d.

for books

thought

that

lezen] .

would read

[DP Twee boeken]i had ik gedacht [cp dat Piet maar ti ZOU two books had 1 thought that Pete only would lezen] . read 'I had thought that Pete would read only two books. '

198

SJEF BARBIERS

e.

Ik had [vp maar gedacht [cp dat Piet twee boeken zou only thought

I had

that Pete two books would

lezen]] . f.

read * '1 had thought that Pete would read only two books.' [DP Twee boeken]i had ik [vp maar ti gedacht [cp dat Piet ti two books had I only thought that Pete

zou

lezen]] .

would read 'I had thought that Pete would read only two books.' In view of this evidence, it is not far-fetched to analyze Long Answer Scram bling as involving movement into the matrix VP. Long Answer Scrambling as a whole can then be analyzed as a combination of this movement and reduction of the remaining backgrounded embedded clause at PF, as indicated in (3 1). 18,19 (3 1)

Ik had [morgen]i gedacht [cp dtlt Jan ti zeu I had tomorrow thought

that John

As:emcn].

would come

4.5 Evidencefrom topicalization A second new piece of evidence for the idea that factive CPs are adjuncts while propositional CPs are complements comes from topicalization. Topicalization in Dutch is only possible with maximal projections, not with heads. The prediction is then as follows. If a factive CP is an adjunct to some (extended) projection ZP of V, as in (32a), topicalization of the matrix V, i.e., ZP, should be possible, leaving CP behind. On the other hand, structure (32b) predicts for propositional CPs that V can only be preposed if CP moves with it. 2o (32)

a.

b.

Factive ZP

�

CP

ZP

�

Propositional VP

�

V

CP

... V ...

As (33) shows, this prediction is borne out by the facts. When a verb can only take a propositional complement, such as vinden 'find' , fronting of this verb without CP is ungrammatical (33b). On the other hand, fronting of a verb that can only take a factive CP is possible (33d).

THE RIGHT PERIPHERY IN SOY LANGUAGES

1 99

The pair (33e-t) is important. In the first place, it shows that topicalization causes disambiguation, as expected: topicalization of V (i.e. ZP) is only possible with factives. Secondly, this pair enables us to refute a potential objection. The objection runs as follows: there is no structural reason for the fact that verbs taking a propositional CP complement, such as think, cannot be preposed; they cannot be preposed because they do not have sufficient semantic content, and verbs with little semantic content generally cannot be preposed. However, the sentences in (33e-t) show that this is an implausible explanation, since it amounts to the claim that vermoeden 'suspect' with a factive complement would have enough semantic content to be preposed, whereas the same verb with a propositional complement would not have sufficient semantic content to be preposed. Since there is not any semantic difference between the two occurrenc es of the verb vermoeden in (33e-t), this alternative explanation for the facts in (33) can be safely rejected. This means that the topicalization contrast in (33b, d) supports the adjunct-complement analysis of the factive-propositional distinction. (33)

a.

Ed zal weI [v vinden [ep dat Piet de winnaar is]] .

that Pete the winner is Ed will AFF find 'Ed's view will certainly be that Pete is the winner. ' b. * [v Vinden] zal Ed weI [ep dat Piet de winnaar is]. find will Ed AFF that Pete the winner is c. Ed zal weI [[yp toegeven] [ep dat Piet de winnaar is]] . Ed will AFF admit that Pete the winner is 'Ed will certainly admit that Pete is the winner. ' d. [zp Toegeven] zal Ed weI [ep dat Piet de winnaar is] . admit will Ed AFF that Pete the winner is 'Ed will certainly admit that Pete is the winner.' e. Ed zal weI vermoeden dat Piet thuis is. Ed will AFF suspect that Pete at.home is I. 'Pete is at home, and Ed will suspect say that. ' factive II. 'Ed will certainly suspect that Pete is at home. ' propositional f. Vermoeden zal Ed weI dat Piet thuis is. Suspect will Ed AFF that Pete at home is I. 'Pete is at home and Ed will certainly suspect that. ' factive II. * 'Ed will certainly suspect that Pete is at home.' propositional The contrasts in (33) also exist in German and in English, although the preposing of verbs in the construction in (34c-d) is not completely natural ? 1

200

SJEP BARBIERS (34)

a.

*Finden wird er schon dass Marie intelligent sei. find

b.

will he AFF

that Mary intelligent were

Zugeben wird er schon dass Marie intelligent ist.

admit will he AFF that Mary intelligent were ?Realize/Admit though he does that you lied, he's still willing to cooperate. d. *Imagine/Think though he does that you lied, he' s still willing to cooperate.

c.

4.6 Further evidence There is more evidence that supports the adjunct-complement analysis of the factive-propositional distinction. As already mentioned in Section 4.4, factive CPs are weak islands, whereas propositional CPs are not islands at all. I have to admit, however, that extraction contrasts are not as strong as one would expect on the basis of the adjunct status of factive CPs. In addition, it is possible that weak islands should be explained semantically, as proposed in Szabo1csi & Zwarts 1 993. I will not go into this issue any further, but if the analysis of Long Answer Scrambling proposed in Section 4.4 is correct, factive CPs sometimes do behave as strong islands. Other evidence comes from Principle C effects. The analysis predicts the following. If factive CPs are adjuncts to some extended verbal projection ZP, then major constituents contained in ZP, such as PP complements, do not c-command constituents within the embedded CPo In the case of propositional complements, however, major constituents in the main clause do c-command all constituents in the embedded clause, since a propositional CP is a sister of the matrix V. These predictions are correct for many speakers of Dutch: (35)

factive a. *Hiji verborg voor ons [ep dat Edi gekozen was]. he hid for us that Ed chosen was 'Hei was holding back from us that Edi had been chosen.' b. We verborgen voor 'mi [ep dat Edi gekozen was]. factive we hid for him that Ed chosen was 'We were holding back from hi� that Edi was chosen. ' C.

*Hiji vond [ep dat Edi intelligent was]. he found that Ed intelligent was 'In hisi view, Edi was intelligent. '

d. *Ik vond van 'mi [ep dat Edi intelligent was]. I found of him that Ed intelligent was 'In my view, E� was intelligent. '

propositional

propositional

THE RIGHT PERIPHERY IN SOY LANGUAGES

201

These facts also show- that a factive CP is higher than a PP complement but lower than the subject of the matrix verb. These contrasts can be replicated in English (Peter Svenonius, p.c.), although the marginality of the example (36b) remains unexplained. (36)

factive a. *Hei revealed to us that E� had been elected. b. ?We revealed to hi� that Edi had been elected. factive propositional c. *Hei shouted to us that E� had been elected. d. *We shouted to hi� that Edi had been elected. propositional

Sequence of Tense effects also support the proposed analysis. As is well-known (cf. Ormazabal 1 995 and references cited there), in many languages it is impossi ble to embed a present tense under a past matrix tense when the embedded CP is propositional, whereas such embedding is possible with a factive CP: (37)

a. Marie erkende gisteren [ep dat ze is- zwanger is]. factive b. Mary admitted yesterday [ep that she is pregnant is-] . factive propositional c. *Marie dacht [ep dat ze is- zwanger is]. propositional d. *Mary thought [ep that she is pregnant is-].

In the present analysis, this can be captured by the statement that matrix Tense can only impose restrictions on a Tense that occurs in its c-command domain. If factive CPs are attached higher than the matrix TP, it follows that there are no restrictions on the Tense of a factive CPo Ormazabal 1 995 derives the same result from the assumption that factive CPs move at LF to a position outside the scope of the matrix T. However, such an analysis does not shed any light on the topicalization contrast: it does not follow that V cannot be fronted in the case of a propositional CP while it can in the case of a factive CPo In this respect, the present proposal appears to be superior. A final piece of evidence is noted in Kiparsky & Kiparsky 1970. They observe that ECM is possible with propositional complements, not with factive complements. If ECM involves case-driven movement of the embedded subject into the matrix clause, these facts follow too, since such movement cannot take place from adjuncts. Adding up the evidence presented,22 the conclusion of this section is that there is a one-to-one correspondence between hierarchical positions and interpre tations of CP complements: factive CPs are adjuncts to an extended projection of V, propositional CPs are right-hand sisters of V, and quotative CPs are in the position of DP complements, which I will claim below to involve SpecAgrOP.

202

SJEF BARBIERS

4.7 How syntax determines semantics We can now be more explicit about the structural positions of CP complements. It is hard to see how the distribution and interpretation of the different types of CPs could be derived from the interaction between 8-theory and Case theory. I therefore adopt the alternative for 8-theory developed in Barbiers 1995. The basic idea of this theory is that semantic relations are established by X-bar structure in the way defined in (38), not by 8-role assignment. For an LF-structure to be fully interpretable, the lexical relational structures of the terminals in the tree must be compatible with the semantic relations defined independently by the tree. (38)

Principle of Semantic Interpretation (PSI; Barbiers 1 995) A node Z establishes a Semantic Relation between a node X I. and a node Y iff X immediately c-commands Z and Z immedi ately c-commands Y. A node Z is a Qualifier (property/modifier/predicate) of a node II. X iff Z establishes a Semantic Relation between X and Y, and X and Y are coindexed (where coindexed means: Y is a copy of X, or Y is Agreement coindexed with X).

According to the PSI, syntactic structure is fully compositional. In fact, the way binary relations are defined here is not different from standard compositional approaches. However, a crucial difference with such approaches resides in the second clause of the PSI. Monadic predication is not simply the result of function al application under sisterhood, but requires one of the more complex syntactic configurations defined by the second clause: monadic predication arises when the two arguments of a dyadic relation are formally identical. Although this syntactic mechanism is new, the reduction of dyadic predicates to monadic predicates is a quite familiar lexical operation (cf. Chierchia 1989; Reinhart 1 997). The PSI in (38) must now be applied to the structures in (39). (39)

a.

b.

Factive

Propositional

ZP

�

CP

ZPi

�

ZPi

CP

c.

Quote AgrOP

VP

�

V

�

CPi

CP

�

C

AgrOP

�

AgrOi

IP

VP

�

"Yroot

AgrOi

THE RIGHT PERIPHERY IN SOY LANGUAGES

203

Little needs to be said about (39c), where CP is in a position normally occupied by a DP complement. In Section 4.2, I have pointed out that a constituent in this position must be interpreted as a subject of the root of the verb, i.e., as an element of the set denoted by the root of the verb. Structurally, this interpretation is forced by the triple Vroot (CPj, AgrOj), in which CPj immediately c-commands Vroot and Vroot immediately c-commands AgrOj. Since AgrOj and CPj count as identical, this triple satisfies the second clause of the PSI and Vroot is interpreted as a predicate of CPo As we have seen in Section 4.2, this gives rise to a phonological or quote interpretation, since CP cannot satisfy the selectional restrictions imposed by Vroot " 23 In factive constructions, CP is generated as a left-hand adjunct to ZP, an extended VP (39a). ZP moves into SpecCP. When the moved ZP is spelled out in its base position, CP surfaces in position Y in the linear order S Y Vs ° V X. When the moved ZP is spelled-out in its landing site, CP surfaces in position X. Thus, we explain that a CP-adjunct may occur to the right of V even though right-adjunction is not available. This analysis of factive CPs is the same as the analysis of PP-Extraposition proposed in Section 3. English and Dutch differ in that factive CPs can only occur in X in the order S Y Vs ° V X in English, whereas they can occur in either Y or X in Dutch. This now follows in the same way: VP Intraposition is obligatorily overt in English with phrasal adjuncts, i.e. the intraposed (extended) verbal projection ZP is spelled out in its landing site obligatorily (cf. the parallel with PP adjuncts in ( 1 3)). The structure in (39a) satisfies the second clause of the PSI: the moved ZPj immediately c-commands CP and CP immediately c-commands the copy ZP/4 Therefore, CP is interpreted as a predicate of ZP, not as an argument of V, similar to the semantic relation in [DP What John admitted] was [ep that he was sick], where CP is a predicate of DP. Since factives are generated as adjuncts to an extended VP, they are outside the domain of existential closure (i.e., VP; cf. Diesing 1 992). Therefore their truth is presupposed. In this respect, factive CPs pattern with scrambled DPs in Dutch, having a presuppositional interpretation. However, factive CPs cannot be equated with DPs: in the order S Y Vs ° V X, DPs may occur in ° and Y, but not in' X, while factive CPs may occur in Y and X but not in 0. A part of the analysis of factive CPs that is still missing at this point is an explanation of the complementary distribution of full DP complements and factive CP complements. It is clear that so far there is nothing in the analysis that prevents the two from cooccurring: if a factive CP is a predicate of an extended V projection, not an argument of V, there is no reason why V could

204

SJEP BARBIERS

not have a DP argument as well. I assume that the true argument position of a verb with a factive CP (i.e., SpecAgrOP; see below) is taken by an empty pronoun that is interpreted as an element of the set denoted by the root of the verb. Thus, the factive interpretation of John said that Mary would call may be described informally as: 'John said it, that Mary would call' . The pronoun may be empty because its content is licensed by the factive CP.25 The structure of propositional CPs in (39b) satisfies the first clause of the PSI: V immediately c-commands C and C immediately c-commands IP. There fore, C establishes a Semantic Relation C (V, IP). Following Davidson 1 968, I assume that finite complementizers like that and dat are demonstrative both historically and synchronically. The relation C (V, IP) then, is a demonstrative relation between the matrix event denoted by V and the embedded eventuality denoted by IP. One semantic function of a demonstrative in the domain of DPs is to introduce a new entity into the discourse by pointing at it. A demonstrative, then, is a relation between someone/something that points and something new pointed at. Transposed to propositional CPs, we can say that there is a pointer from the matrix event to the embedded eventuality, i.e., the embedded eventuality does not exist in the domain of discourse before it is introduced by the matrix event. This is consistent with the fact that the truth of a propositional CP is not presupposed and the fact that a propositional CP must be within the matrix VP, the domain of closure. We can now also understand why a CP cannot occur in SpecAgrOP and be interpreted factively or propositionally. For such an interpretation, it is necessary that the first argument of the demonstrative-like complementizer denotes an event. However, no such argument is available when CP is in SpecAgrOP. The fact that a propositional CP cannot be generated as a lefthand sister of V also follows from the proposal. This would give rise to the configuration in (40). If we follow Kayne in assuming that c-command is from left to right, there is no triple C(V, IP) in this configuration such that V immediately c-commands C and C immediately c-commands IP. Hence, the demonstrative-like comple mentizer cannot establish the required semantic relation between matrix V and embedded IP.

THE RIGHT PERIPHERY IN SOY LANGUAGES

205

VP

(40)

�

CP

�

C

V

IP

For propositional complements, the proposal now makes the following typo logical predictions: (41)

i. 11.

When a CP complement is postverbal, it has a clause-initial complementizer. When a CP complement is preverbal, it has a clause-final complementizer.

Bayer (1996: 192) claims that (i) and (ii) are probably universally true. A striking illustration of (41) is Bengali, which has both preverbal and postverbal CPs. When the CP is preverbal, the complementizer must be clause-final; when the CP is postverbal, the complementizer must be clause-initial. Another prediction is that a clause-final complementizer in a preverbal CP cannot be a demonstrative: in such a configuration, embedded IP immediately c-commands C and C immediately c-commands the matrix V. Thus, the hierar chical order of pointer (the matrix V) and pointee (the embedded IP) is the reverse of the order with a postverbal CP, so the pointing should be in the opposite direction. For factive CPs, the predictions are less clear. A crucial ingredient of the interpretation is a CP outside the domain of existential closure, predicating of an intraposed (extended) VP. If that were all, the position of the complementizer should not matter. On the other hand, if the complementizer does make a semantic contribution, we expect it to be clause-initial when it is demonstrative like and the factive CP is in a postverbal position. What is unclear is what the complementizer should be like when the CP can only be preverbal. 4.8 Another structural difference between propositional andfactive complements In the preceding sections it was argued that propositional and factive comple ments differ in their structural position: a propositional complement is a sister of the selecting verb, a factive complement is an adjunct to an extended VP. In this section, I argue that there is an additional syntactic difference between the two types of complements. My claim is that verbs with a propositional argument have negation/affirmation as their second argument. Such verbs are binary relations

206

SJEP BARBIERS

between negation/affirmation and a proposition. I show that this argument structure has important consequences for the syntactic structure in which these verbs occur. I will derive the syntactic structure of verbs with a propositional comple ment step by step. First, as was discussed above, a crucial semantic difference between a factive and a propositional complement is that the former is specified for truth and the latter is not. Whereas the sentence John regrets that Mary is here implies that Mary is here, the sentence John thinks that Mary is here does not imply anything about the truth of Mary is here. I assume that this semantic difference corresponds to a formal difference: as opposed to a factive comple ment, a propositional complement lacks a functional projection that specifies its truth. Negation/affirmation typically specifies the truth of a clause, so I take the label of the lacking functional projection to be NegP, with a head Neg that can be [±neg]. Since a propositional clause can have its own negation/affirmation (l think that Mary is not here), I assume further that a normal simplex clause contains two NegPs: one dominating the entire clause and one dominating VP. The idea that a clause contains two positions for negation is not new. Lasnik (1974) argues convincingly that English has two positions for negation, one being the first position in the clause. 26 Propositional clauses are defective, then, in that they lack the higher NegP. However, although the higher NegP is not within the embedded clause, it is not absent, as we will see. Semantically, the truth of a propositional complement is relativized by the matrix verb: the embedded proposition is not simply true or false, it is true or false according to someone's hope, thought, etc. A verb with a propositional complement establishes a relation between a truth specification and a proposition. Its argument structure is: V (Specification of truth, Proposi tion). If Neg is the locus of specification of truth and the proposition is a CP, the binary relation that must be defined configurationally is V (Neg, CP). 27 According to the Principle of Semantic Interpretation in (38), such a binary semantic relation can be realized syntactically in two ways: (i) Neg immediately c-commands V, and V immediately c-commands CP, or (ii) CP immediately c-commands V and V immediately c-commands Neg.

THE RIGHT PERIPHERY IN SOY LANGUAGES (42)

i.

NegP

� VP �

n.

Neg [±neg]

V

CP

207

NegP

�

CP

VP

�

V

Neg [±neg]

As noticed in the previous section, in (42ii) where propositional CP c-commands V, the complementizer C would not be able to establish a demonstrative relation between V and the embedded IP. Therefore, (42i) must be the right structure. This structure has two properties that require empirical justification. First, the structure determines Neg (i.e. negation/affirmation) as an argument of the verb. Secondly, Neg, although related to the embedded clause, is situated in the matrix clause. Also, it must be shown how the structure in (42i) can be integrat ed into the structure of the matrix clause in a way that is compatible with current ' assumptions about clausal structure. Let us start with the empirical evidence. The data in (43a, c) are strong evidence for the first property. A verb with a propositional complement can have negation/affirmation as an argument (43a, c), but a verb with a factive complement cannot (43b, d). Given (43e), (43a) cannot be analyzed as a case of ellipsis: when denken 'think' , hopen 'hope', menen 'mean' etc. occur with the argument [van nietlwel], they cannot take a CP complement. 28 (43)

a.

Ik denklhooplmeen van nietlwel.

propositional

I thinklhope/mean of not/AFF 'I do/don't thinklhope/think so.' factive b. *Ik weetlbetreurlonthul van nietlwel. I know/regret/reveal of not/AFF propositional c. I thinklhope/believe/suspect so/not. factive d. *1 realize/regret/remember so/not. e. *Ik denklhooplmeen van nietlwel dat Jan komt. I thinklhope/mean of not/AFF that John comes

Evidence for t�e second property, embedded negation/affirmation occurring in the matrix clause, comes from so called "Neg-raising" contexts (cf. Hom 1989 and references cited there), in which embedded negation/affirmation occurs in the matrix clause. The data in (44) show that the negative polarity item hoeven 'need' in the embedded clause can be licensed by a negation in the matrix clause in the case of propositional complements but not in the case of factive comple ments. These data also show that the scope of negation is restricted to the

208

SJEF BARBIERS

embedded clause in "Neg-raising" contexts: (44a) does not say that there is no think, find or hope event; rather, it says that 1 thinklfindlhope that something is not the case. (44)

a.

(Ik zei) dat ik niet denklvindlhoop dat Jan hoeft te werken. (I said) that 1 not thinklfindlhope that John needs to work 'I thinklfindlhope that John does not need to work.' propositional

b. *(Ik zei) dat ik niet weetionthul dat Jan hoeft te werken. that 1 not knowIreveal that John needs to work factive c. (Ik zei) dat ik weI denklvindlhoop dat Jan moet werken. that 1 AFF thinklfindlhope that John must work

1 would like to claim that "Neg-raising" constructions directly reflect the common argument structure of verbs with a propositional complement. The embedded NegP is generated within the matrix clause; there is no Negation/ Affirmation raising or lowering. The structure in (45) shows how the structure of verbs with a propositional complement (42i) can be integrated into the structure of the matrix clause. 29 (45)

CP

�

C

IP

�

1

NegP

�

Spec

NegP

� VP �

Neg [±neg]

V

CP

The properties of this structure can be summarized as follows. (i) The comple ment of V is defective in that it lacks high NegP. (ii) The matrix verb is generated in a position between two functional heads (Neg and C) of the embedded clause because it establishes a relation between Negation/Affirmation and the embedded proposition. In a way, verbs occurring in such a position may be considered as functional themselves (cf. Cinque 1 999). This may provide the beginning of an explanation for the fact that in some languages functional C-elements diachronically derive from verbs like say (cf. Bayer 1 996 for

THE RIGHT PERIPHERY IN SOY LANGUAGES

209

Bengali). (iii) At the same time, the matrix verb is clearly lexical and has to move up to matrix Tense and other functional heads at some level of derivation. Nothing prevents it from doing so, as it is dominated by exactly the same functional material as verbs in other constructions. (iv) Since the embedded high NegP dominates the matrix VP, there is no clear-cut boundary between the matrix clause and the embedded clause. We expect to find signs of domain fusion; Sequence of Tense effects are such a sign. The assumption that the embedded high NegP is in the matrix clause also explains that extraction from a propositional clause may proceed via a position in the middle field of the matrix clause. In Section 4.4 three cases of this kind were discussed: (i) the position preceding the matrix verb can be used as a landing site for what I have called Long Answer Scrambling (46a); (ii) when a constituent is extracted from the embedded clause and moves to the matrix SpecCP, a focus particle associated with the extracted constituent can be stranded in the middle field of the matrix clause (46b); (iii) the result of wat-voor split can be that the wat part ends up in the matrix SpecCP, while the voor-NP is stranded in the middle field of the matrix clause (46c). (46)

a.

lk had [MORGENJi [Vmatrix gedacht [cp dat Jan 1i zou I had tomorrow

thought

that John

would

komen]] . b.

come 'Tomorrow I had thought that John would come.' [ Twee boeken]i had Jan maar ti [Vmatrix gedacht [cp dat hij ti two books had John only thought that he

zou c.

krijgen]] .

would get 'John had thought that he would get only two books.' Watj had jij dan [tj voor boeken] [Vmatrix gedacht [cp dat what had you then for books thought that Jan ti ZOU kopen]]. John would buy 'What kind of books had you thought that John would buy?'

None of the constructions in (46) is possible with factive complements. This difference between propositional and factive complements follows if we assume that the Spec of the higher NegP can host these constituents. The higher NegP of a factive complement is within that complement, being its highest projection. We therefore do not expect extracted material to occur in the middle field of the matrix clause.

SJEF BARBIERS

210

This may lead to the expectation that with factive complements the Spec of the higher NegP can also be used as a landing site for moved elements. Since high NegP is the topmost projection within a factive clause, we should be able to find preposed elements in the first position of factive clauses. We cannot test this for stranded focus particles and voor-NPs, because they require long extraction which is less good with factive complements, a property that I ascribe to the adjunct status of factive complements. It can be tested for embedded focalization and the result is completely ungrammatical: (47) *(Ik denk) dat Jan Evmatrix weet [NecrP MORGEN [cp dat Piet '" tomorrow that Pete I think that John knows

komt]]]. comes However, this ungrammaticality directly follows ' from the proposed analysis. . Recall that we analyzed factive complements as adjuncts to an extended VP and that this extended VP moves into the highest Spec of the factive clause: the factive clause must be defined syntactically as a predicate of the extended VP. This means that the highest Spec of a factive clause, i.e., SpecNegP, must be available as a landing site for the extended VP; otherwise, the factive clause would not be interpretable as a predicate of the extended VP. As a result, SpecNegP is not available for preposed materia1. 30 Finally, there is another property of propositional complements that can be explained with the proposed analysis. This involves the fact that proposi tional complements are incompatible with certain manner adverbials and PP complements: •

(48)

a.

Jan denkt langzaamlhelder.

John thinks b. *Jan denkt John thinks c. Jan denkt John thinks d. *Jan denkt John thinks

slowly/brightly

langzaamlhelder dat dit een probleem is. slowly/brightly that this a

problem is

aan Marie. of Mary

aan Marie dat ze aardig is. of Mary that she kind

is

These data cannot be explained in terms of the 8-criterion, since manner adverbials and PP complements do not compete with propositional clauses for the same 8-role. It is clear why (48b, d) are bad once we realize that manner adverbials are adjuncts of a low V projection, while PP complements are sisters to V, as in (49).

THE RIGHT PERIPHERY IN SOY LANGUAGES

211

The presence o f a manner adverbial and/or a PP complement makes it impossible for the matrix verb to establish a relation between Negation/Affirmation and the embedded proposition, as this requires a configuration in which Neg immediately c-commands V and V immediately c-commands CP. When a manner adverbial or a PP complement is present, Neg does not immediately c-command v. 31 (49)

NegP

�

Spec

NegP

� VP �

Neg [±neg]

Manner Adverb

VP

� PP

V

�

V

CP

Conclusion

The following picture arises from this paper. English and Dutch (and German) are SOY undedyingly. Derivations consist of uniform leftward application of merge and move and start out with a verb. A difference between English on the one hand and Dutch and German on the other is that in English the verb is spelled out in the landing site of short verb movement, while it is spelled out in its base position in German and Dutch. The distribution of DPs, PPs and CPs is identical in English, German and Dutch: in the unmarked case, they surface in their base position. So there is no need to assume massive evacuation of postverbal constituents from the end field in German and Dutch to the middle field. DPs and PPs, not having a verbal core, are generated to the left of V in the order S Ov. In English, they end up to the right of V as a result of overt short V-movement. A constituent ZP may occur in X in the abstract linear order S Vs 0 V X (where Vs indicates the landing site of short verb movement) in two cases. First, when ZP has a verbal head, it can be base-generated as a sister of matrix V. This is the case, among other verbal constituents, with propositional complements. Secondly, a constituent may surface in X as a result of VP Intraposition, i.e., movement of an (extended) projection of V into the specifier of the "extraposed"

212

SJEF BARBIERS

constituent. The assumption that VP Intraposition can only happen if VP is interpreted as the subject of the "extraposed" constituent explains why SC complements and DP arguments cannot be "extraposed", while PP adjuncts and PP complements can. An unusual but well-motivated conclusion from this analysis is that so-called PP complements are not arguments of a verb but predicates of a V projection. It was further argued that CP complements do not form a uniform syntactic class, even though they can or must occur in the position X in the linear order S Vs 0 V X. When a propositional clause occurs in X, it is a sister of the matrix V. However, when a factive clause occurs in X, this is the result of VP Intra position: factive clauses are adjuncts that predicate of an extended V projection. In Dutch, they may occur both in the middle field and in the end field; in this respect, they behave like PP adjuncts. I have claimed that Dutch has the option to spell-out the intraposed V projection in its base position or in its landing site. In English, factive clauses can only occur in X. In this respect, they behave like other phrasal adjuncts. I have assumed that the intraposed (extended) VP must be spelled out in its landing site in English. The different structural positions of factive and propositional complements explains their different behavior with respect to Sequence of Tense effects, Principle C effects and two new diagnos tics: topicalization of the matrix verb and an ellipsis construction that I have dubbed Long Answer Scrambling, Besides the adjunct-complement distinction, I argue that there is an addition al difference between factive and propositional complements. With propositional complements, the matrix verb is inserted within the higher functional layers of the embedded clause. As a result, there is an "embedded" functional projection (high NegP) that dominates the matrix V. This was shown to capture the following properties of propositional comple ments: Neg- 'raising' and movement into the middle field of the matrix clause (i.e., SpecNegP) are possible, the argument structure of verbs with propositional complements is V(Negation/Affirmation, Proposition), the truth of the proposi tional clause is not specified within the clause itself, and propositional comple ments are incompatible with certain manner adverbials and PP complements. With factive clauses, the higher NegP is the highest functional projection within the clause itself. As a result, Neg- 'raising' is impossible, movement into the middle field of the matrix clause is impossible, the verb is not a relation between affirmation/negation and a proposition, the truth of the factive clause is specified within the factive clause itself.

THE RIGHT PERIPHERY IN SOY LANGUAGES

213

Acknowledgments I thank Peter Svenonius for his comments, which have led to considerable improvements. The usual disclaimers apply.

Notes l.

The generalizations for Dutch in (2) also hold for German.

2.

Infinitival CPslIPsNPs will not be considered in this paper, as they give rise to reordering phenomena that complicate matters considerably.

3.

I am putting aside the possibility that surface orders are derived by more complex operations involving remnant movement, as in Kayne 1998.

4.

See Section 4.7 and Barbiers 1995 for discussion of the theory behind this movement and for technical details. At this point, it is important to see that VP-movement into SpecPP does not involve lowering. That VP in SpecPP c-commands its trace follows, e.g., from the definition of c-command in Kayne 1994.

5.

It has been suggested to me several times that it is more elegant to assume that VP lands in the Spec of a functional projection dominating VP. However, there is empirical evidence that strongly suggests that such an analysis cannot be correct. The evidence involves the distribution and interpretation of scalar focus particles in Dutch. In Barbiers 1995, I have shown that a scalar focus particle must be left-adjacent to the base position of its syntactic argument. In a linear order [Focus Particle > XPIXP > YP], only XP or its copy left after movement can be the syntactic argument of the focus particle. The only exception to this generalization is found in "extraposition contexts": in the order [Focus Particle > VP > PP], both VP and PP can be the syntactic argument of the particle. The generalization can only be maintained if we assume that VP is in SpecPP, since in such a configuration the Focus Particle is structurally left-adjacent both to VP and to PP: [yp [Focus Particle] [yp [pp VPi [p' P DP]] ¥Pi]] .

6.

For the idea that PP-adjuncts are predicates o f VP, cf. Gawron 1986 and references cited there.

7.

The VP Intraposition analysis entails that auxiliaries move with the intraposed VP in Dutch. Since no adjunct can occur within the clause final verbal cluster in Dutch, I assume that auxiliaries and main verb are base generated as a head cluster. Reordering phenomena should then be the result of (complex) head movement within the cluster. This further implies that we have to allow for excorporation of heads both in Dutch and in English. This is visible in overt syntax in Dutch in the case of V2, while it is visible in English with every auxiliary. If all languages have the same movement operations but differ with respect to the level of applica tion, the generalization is that every English verb moves to a higher head position overtly, whereas Dutch verbs move to a higher head position covertly (putting V2 aside).

8.

In Barbiers 1 995: 1 13-1 17, I give some evidence for the assumption that VP-Intraposition is obligatory in Dutch too. The evidence involves topicalization that destroys the configuration necessary for covert VP-Intraposition.

9.

As was noted in Section 2, ordering of adverbials other than PP-adjuncts is largely identical in English and Dutch. For example, both languages have the obligatory order modal adverb frequency adverb-manner adverb.

214

SJEF BARBIERS Jan zal zeker vaak goed hebben gespeeld John will certainly often well have played John will certainly often have played well b. Complications arise when non-prepositional adverbials occur in the right-periphery. If rightward movement and right-adjunction are not available, the example in (ii-a) must be the result of (extended) VP Intraposition. However, Dutch does not allow VP Intraposition with frequency adverbials (ii-b). many times > willingly She kissed him willingly many times (ii) a. *Ze heeft hem vrijwillig gekust drie keer b. she has him willingly kissed three times A similar problem arises with depictives. The restrictions on "extraposition" of non-preposition al adjuncts in English and Dutch are not very clear to me, also because the interference with comma intonation is blurring the judgements. For cases such as (ii), a solution along the lines of Kayne 1 998 suggests itself: preposing of many times followed by preposing of the remnant across many times in English, combined with Kayne's assumption that the latter step is not available in Dutch. (i)

10. 11.

12.

13.

a.

Cf. Koster 1974 for this observation. This mirror-effect or roll-up effect is explained by the theory proposed in Barbiers 1 995: 109-1 13.

This is supported by the fact that a quote in 0 may trigger optional It/-deletion in a consonant cluster, unlike a quote in X (Jeroen van de Weijer, p.c.). The third person singular morpheme It/ can be deleted in (i-a) because it occurs in a cluster Iftp/ within one intonational phrase. It cannot be deleted in (i-b) because the cluster Iftp/ is not within one intonational phrase: Ipl is in a separate intonational phrase constituted by Piet komt. (i) a. Jan heef(t) "Piet komt" gezegd John has Pete comes said dat Jan gezegd heef*(t) "Piet komt" b. that John said has Pete comes There is a potential exception. That-clauses with a special intonation and an exclamative interpretation seem to occur independently: Dat Jan ziek is! (That John is ill) 'How surprising that John is ill ! ' In view of the English translation, however, it is not unlikely that these exclamatives must be analyzed as ellipsis.

It can be shown with negation and certain adverbials that position Y is distinct from and higher than than position O. When CP is to the right of, hence below negation or frequency adverbials (still preceding V), it can only be interpreted as a quote. When CP is to the left of, hence higher than negation/frequency adverbials, it can only be interpreted as factive, not as a quote. (i) a. Jan heeft nietlheel vaak "dat hij zal meedoen" gezegd John has not/very often that he will participate said Jan heeft dat hij zal meedoen nietlheel vaak gezegd b. John has that he will participate not/very often said Jan heeft <*ja) nietlheel vaak va) gezegd c. John has yes not/very often yes said

14.

Unlike English himself, Dutch zichzelJ cannot be logophoric (cf. Barbiers, to appear.)

15.

A similar analysis is necessary for the construction I prefer in the morning, as discussed in Neeleman 1997. Neeleman claims that this construction involves a PP functioning as and occurring in the position of a DP-argument. However, the PP in the morning is neither interpreted as an argument nor as a modifier of the verb prefer. It is interpreted as a modifier of a silent verb or noun denoting an event (e.g., leaving, travelling, meeting, depending on

THE RIGHT PERIPHERY IN SOY LANGUAGES

215

context). TIlls observation, taken together with the fact that the other arguments adduced by Neeleman in favor of his PP-argument analysis could equally well be used as arguments in favor of a DP-analysis, leads me to suggest that this construction too involves reduction, namely of a nominal constituent with a verbal core. 16.

The reason that the sentences in (24) are ungrammatical cannot be that it is impossible to formulate a corresponding question. Although the construction often occurs in answers, it also shows up in other contexts, as (i) shows. (i) a. Er zal wei een man directeur worden, en ik hoop [cp dat there will probably a man director become and I hope Piet tlil'ectcur i�er,#] Pete b. *Er zal wei een man directeur worden, maar ik laat bp de hoop there will probably a man director become but I let the hope [cp dat Piet het "ereit]] varen that Pete it becomes go

17.

TIlls construction raises an interesting issue. The fact that stranding of the voor-NP in the matrix VP is possible suggests that movement to the matrix VP is A-movement, since voor-NPs cannot be stranded in A-bar positions, such as the landing site of short scrambling. However, movement to the matrix VP gives rise to Weak Cross Over effects and obligatory reconstruc tion for condition C, suggesting that the landing site in the matrix VP is an A-bar position.

18.

An alternative analysis to explain the facts in (30) would be that the embedded clause as a whole moves to the matrix VP, followed by PF-deletion of everything except the remnant. However, propositional clauses cannot occur in the middle field of the matrix clause overtly. Moreover, factive clauses can occur there, exactly the opposite of what one would expect given this alternative analysis. In addition, such an analysis would not explain the island effects discussed.

19.

A number of possibly problematic observations need to be taken into account in future research. First, as an answer to How did you hope that who would work we can get Ik had gehoopt Jan hard, Piet langzaam etc. (I had hoped John hard, Pete slowly etc.), but we cannot get *Ik had Jan hard gehoopt (I had John hard hoped). Secondly, Marc van Oostendorp (p.c.) observes that *Ik denk JAN dat het hoek leest (I think John that the book reads) is ungrammatical, whereas Ik denk JAN 'I think John' is fine. However, for reasons that I do not understand, Ik denk in de TUIN dat Jan het hoek zal lezen (I think in the garden that John the book will read) is much better. TIllrdly, judgements with respect to case become unstable when a remnant subject precedes the matrix verb, whereas they are stable when a remnant subject follows it: (Who will buy the book?) Jan denkt ikl*mij (John thinks IIme) versus Jan had %ud'1omij gedacht (John had IIme thought).

20.

The structural position of ZP in (32a) corresponds to the linear position Y in the order SYOVX. A factive CP may surface in X as a result of VP-Intraposition. See Section 4.7.

21.

I thank Chris Reintges and Peter Svenonius for their help with the German and the English data.

22.

For reasons that are unclear, variable binding gives rise to varying judgements.

23.

Since the semantic relations between a CP (or DP) object and the selecting verb are established structurally within AgrOP, and since such semantic relations are checked at LF, there is no need to assume that the object originates within VP: it is directly inserted in SpecAgrOP.

24.

For reasons of space I cannot go into the technical details. The definition of c-command used

216

SJEP BARBIERS is a modified version of Kayne 1994: a node X c-comroands a node Y iff X and Y do not dominate each other and there is a (connected) path of left-branches from Z, the minimal node dominating X and Y, to X. See Barbiers 1995 for ample empirical motivation of this definition.

25.

I do not understand why the acceptability of an overt pronoun varies with the verb; e.g., in English and Dutch regret can have an overt pronoun, but say cannot.

26.

Zanuttini (199 1) argues that Italian and French clauses contain two NegPs. However, she does not situate the higher NegP as the topmost projection.

27.

I assume that the DP subject of such a verb is not an argument of the verb itself but of an abstract higher head (cf. Larson 1988; Hale and Keyser 1 993; Chomsky 1 995; among many others).

28.

I leave the syntactic analysis of the data in (43) for future research.

29.

High and low NegP of the matrix clause have been omitted. Possibly, low matrix NegP and high embedded NegP coincide.

30.

A difference between propositional and factive clauses that I will leave for future research is embedded WH. This is impossible with propositional complements, while some factive clauses allow it, depending on the matrix verb. Since WH cannot occur in the Spec of the NegP that dominates the matrix verb in propositional constructions either, we might assume that SpecNegP cannot host WH . Embedded WH in factive clauses must then be in the Spec of an FP lower than high NegP.

31.

A reviewer suggests that langzaam 'slowly' is incompatible with denken 'think' and a CP-complement, because langzaam requires a dynamic verb. However, this raises the question why denken must be stative when it takes a propositional complement but need not be stative otherwise. Also, the incompatibility of helder 'brightly' with a propositional complement suggests that the restriction on manner adverbials is a more general phenomenon: helder has a strong preference for stative verbs, witness the marginality of ??Jan is helder aan het denken 'John is thinking clearly' .

References Baker, Mark C. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory ofGrammatical Function Change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Barbiers, Sjef. 1995. The Syntax of Interpretation. Ph.D. Dissertation, Leiden University. Barbiers, Sjef. 1998. "Gaps and Remnants." In Sjef Barbiers, Johan Rooryck and Jeroen van de Weijer (eds), Small Words in the Big Picture: Squibs for Hans Bennis. [HIL Occasional Papers 2] . 1-6 Barbiers, Sjef. To appear. "On the interpretation of movement and agreement: PPs and binding." In Hans Bennis, Martin Everaert and Eric Reuland (eds.), Interface Strategies. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Barss, Andrew and Lasnik, Howard. 1986. "A note on anaphora in double objects." Linguistic Inquiry 17: 347-354. B ayer, Josef. 1996. Directionality and Logical Form. On the Scope of Focusing Particles and WH-in-situ. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.

THE RIGHT PERIPHERY IN SOV LANGUAGES

217

Chierchia, Gennaro. 1989. A semantics for unaccusatives and its syntactic consequences. Ms. Cornell University and University of Milan. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads. A Cross-linguistic Perspective. Oxford: OUP. Costa, Joao. 1996. "Adverb positioning and V-movement in English: Some more evidence." Studia Linguistica 50: l . Davidson, Donald. 1968. "On Saying That". Synthese 1 9 : 130-46. Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Gawron, Jean Mark. 1986. "Situations and Prepositions." Linguistics and Philosophy 9 : 327-382. Haider, Hubert. 1997. "Extraposition." In Dorothee Beerman, David LeBlanc and Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.), Rightward Movement. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 1 15-152. Hale, Ken and Samuel J. Keyser. 1993. "On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations". In Ken Hale and Samuel J. Keyser (eds), The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 53-109. Hoekstra, Teun. 1983. "The distribution of sentential complements." In Hans Bennis and W.U.S. van Lessen Kloeke (eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 1983. 93-104. Hom, Lawrence. 1989. A Natural History of Negation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Johnson, Kyle. 1991 "Object Positions". Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9 : 577-636. Kayne, Richard. 1 994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Kayne, Richard. 1998. "Overt vs covert movement". Syntax 1 : 128-19 l . Kiparsky, Paul and Carol Kiparsky. 1970. "Fact." In D. Steinberg and L . Jacobovits (eds.), Semantics. London: CUP. Koster, Jan. 1974. "Het werkwoord als spiege1centrum." Spektator 3 : 601-618. Larson, Richard. 1988. "On the double object construction." Linguistic Inquiry 19: 335-397. Lasnik, Howard. 1974. Analyses of negation in English. Ph.D. Dissertation. Indiana University Linguistics Club. Neeleman, Ad. 1997. "PP complements." Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15 (1): 89-137. Nespor, Marina, and Vogel, Irene. 1986. Prosodic Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris. Ormazabal, Javier. 1995. The Syntax of Complementation. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Connecticut. Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1 989. "Verb Movement, Universal Grammar, and the structure of IP." Linguistic Inquiry 20: 365-424. Reinhart, Tanja. 1997. "Syntactic effects of lexical operations: reflexives and unaccusa tives." Utrecht University, OTS Working Papers in Linguistics.

218

SJEF BARBIERS

Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. "The fine structure of the left periphery." In Liniane Haegeman (ed.), Elements of Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 28 1-337. Ross, John R. 1969. "Guess who." In Robert Binnick et al. (eds), Proceedings of the fifth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society.

Stowell, Tim. 198 1 . Origins of Phrase Structure. Ph.D. Dissertation MIT, Cambridge, Ma. Szabo1csi, Anna, and Zwarts, Frans. 1993. "Weak islands and an algebraic semantics for scope taking." Natural Language Semantics 1 : 235-284. Zanuttini, Raffaella. 199 1 . Syntactic Properties of Sentential Negation. A comparative study of Romance languages. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 1 993. Dutch Syntax. A minimalist approach. Ph.D. Dissertation, Groningen University.

Nominal Structure An Extension of the Symmetry Principle Naoki Fukui

Yuji Takano

University of California, Irvine

Kinjo Gakuin University

Abstract Certain extensions of the Symmetry Principle proposed by Fukui and Takano (1998) are explored in this article. By applying the principle to the analysis of nominal structures (in particular, relative clauses), we argue that a variety of differences between, say, English and Japanese, fall out in a simple and elegant fashion, based solely on the single parametric difference between the languages: English exhibits N-to-D raising, while Japanese does not (simply because the latter language lacks the category D). We then extend our discus sion to classifiers, and show that the existence of a rich classifier system in Japanese (and the "floatability" of numerals), as opposed to the non-existence of classifiers in English, is just another consequence of the lack of N-raising in the language. We also briefly investigate how our analysis relates to Chierchia's (1998) Nominal Mapping Parameter.

1.

Introduction

This article extends the scope of the "Symmetry Principle of Derivation" proposed in our previous work (Fukui & Takano 1 998) to the study of the internal structure of noun phrases. The Symmetry Principle dictates that the pre Spell-Out derivational computations and the post-Spell-Out (pre-Morphology) derivational computations form mirror images of each other. More specifically, we argued in Fukui and Takano (1998) that language computation maps an array of linguistic elements to a PF representation in such a way that it starts with a lexical item (a head) proceeding in a bottom-up fashion (Merge) and at some

220

NAOKI FUKUI & YUll TAKANO

point of a derivation, starts "decomposing" the structures already formed in a top-down fashion (Demerge) until the derivation reaches a completely unstruc tured sequence with a fixed linear ("temporal") order. The central tenet of the Symmetry Principle is that Demerge, which is an operation undoing the result of Merge, abstractly reflects and reverses the order in which Merge has applied, thereby rendering the applications of these operations "symmetric" with respect to the point of Spell-Out. Fukui & Takano ( 1 998) argues that the Symmetry Principle, when coupled with a parametric statement about the nature of a "light verb" v, derives in an extremely elegant way numerous crosslinguistic differences observed among a variety of languages. There, we focused our discussion primarily on the analyses of various phenomena as they pertain to the clausal structure, paying only limited attention to internal structures of other categories, in particular, noun phrases, although it was clear that the effects of the Symmetry Principle could be readily and straightforwardly extended to the analyses of nominal structures. Thus, this article can be regarded as a sequel to Fukui & Takano ( 1 998), exploring the consequences of the Symmetry Principle for the analysis of nominal structures, with a special focus on relative clause structures. The organization of the paper is as follows. Section 2 discusses general issues of linear order in the theory of grammar and summarizes the basic claims of the theory of phrase structure proposed in our previous work. Section 3 is mainly concerned with crosslinguistic variation in relative clauses. The section takes up such issues as the order of elements in nominal structures, the existencellack of relative pronouns, the properties of relative complementizers, the nature of internally headed relative clauses that are attested in some types of languages but not in others, etc., and argues that the Symmetry Principle offers a unifying account of all of these phenomena. Section 4 extends the discussion to the analysis of classifiers in human languages, in an attempt to account for the existence/non-existence of classifier systems on principled grounds. Section 5 makes some concluding remarks.

2.

Phrase structure and linear order

l This section first presents general discussions on the nature of "linear order" in the theory of grammar (Subsection 2. 1 ) and then summarizes the framework within which our analysis of nominal structures in the following section is to be presented (Subsection 2.2).

NOMINAL STRUCTURE

221

2. 1 Issues of linear order The concept of linear order in a phrase marker was never questioned in an earlier framework of generative grammar. 2 In fact, it was one of the few crucial primitive concepts in the theory of phrase structure, and a variety of gramm atical rules were formulated with crucial reference to linear order (see, for example, the "pronominalization" transformation in the 1 960s). However, it has been increas ingly less obvious that linear order plays a role at all in language computation, apart from phonology. Thus, virtually all the principles and conditions assumed in the principles-and-parameters theory in the 1 980s are formulated purely in hierarchical terms (in terms of domination and c-command), without referring to linear order. The "head parameter" (and its variants) seems to be the only notion in linguistic theory which crucially refers to linear order. Kayne ( 1994) challenges this notion of head parameter. He proposes a universal principle, the Linear Correspondence Axiom (LCA) , which states essentially that asymmetric c-command imposes a linear ordering of terminal elements. More specifically, the LCA dictates that if a nonterminal X asymmetri cally c-commands a nonterminal Y in a given phrase marker P, then all terminals dominated by X must precede or follow all terminals dominated by Y in P. Kayne takes the relevant ordering to be precedence, rather than subsequence (following), based on his assumptions about the relation between terminals and "time slots" (see Kayne 1994 for more details). Thus, within Kayne's theory, asymmetric c-command relations uniquely map into precedence relations: all terminals dominated by X precede all terminals dominated by Y, in the configuration stated above. It then follows, given Kayne's formulation, that there is a universal S(pecifier)-H(ead)-C(omplement) order (in particular, S(ubject)-V(erb)-0 (bj ect)), with other orders (S-C-H1S-0-V, for example) being derived via movement. With the universal S-H-C order, the head parameter is entirely eliminated. Note that in Kayne's theory, linear order still plays a role in the core computation of language (albeit redundantly, because it is entirely determined by asymmetric c-command relations). Kayne proposes that linear order is not parametrized and that it is uniquely determined by asymmetric c-command relations, given his LCA which he claims to apply at every syntactic level. Thus, linear order is still defined and remains visible throughout the derivation and could conceivably play a role in the core computation of language. Chomsky ( 1994, 1 995), adopting and incorporating the basic insights of Kayne's LCA into his "bare phrase structure" theory, makes a step further toward complete elimination of linear order from the core of language computa tion. In Chomsky's bare theory, the recursive procedure Merge, in particular,

222

NAOKI FUKll & YUn TAKANO

does not encode any information regarding linear order of syntactic elements. This is based on his understanding that there is no clear evidence that linear order plays a role at LF or in the core computation of human language. Thus, he assumes that linear order is not defined and hence does not play a role in the core computation of language, and suggests that ordering is a property of the phonological component, a proposal that has occasionally been made in various forms in the literature. Specifically, he claims that a modified version of the LCA applies as a principle of the phonological component to the output of Morphology, a subcomponent of the phonological component (see Chomsky (1995) for detailed discussion). Thus, under Chomsky's proposal, phrase structure is defined without reference to linear order in the core computational part of human language, and will be assigned a linear order later by (a modified version of) the LCA in the phonological component. The status of the head parameter, however, is not entirely clear in Chomsky's approach. While, as we just saw, linear order is not even defined in the core language computation, leaving no room for the head parameter, it could still be possible to formulate the head parameter as a parameter in the phonological component, something similar to a parameter in stress assignment proposed in phonology. See Fukui & Takano ( 1 998: 78) for much relevant discussion. On the other hand, Saito & Fukui ( 1 998) (see also Fukui 1993 and Fukui & Saito 1 992) claims that linear order indeed plays an important role in the core computational part of human language, and argues that the head parameter, or more precisely a modified version of it, should be maintained. One way to incorporate the head parameter into the bare theory, as Saito and Fukui propose, is to replace the set notation {ex, 13 } in Chomsky's formulation of Merge by an ordered pair (ex, 13), thereby specifying which of the two elements is to "project" (in the usual sense of the term in the theory of phrase structure) in a given language. Thus, we have (2) instead of ( 1): E

(1)

Chomsky 's Merge: K = {'Y, {ex, 13 } }, where 'Y

(2)

Saito and Fukui 's parametrized Merge: K = {'Y, (ex , 13) }, where 'Y

E

{ex, l3 }

{ex, 13 }

If 'Y takes the value "ex", we have a "head-initiallleft-headed" language such as English, whereas if 'Y = 13, a "head-Iastlright-headed" language like Japanese is defined. Thus, in left-headed English, elements can be merged only on the right side of a head, whereas in right-headed Japanese, Merge occurs only on the left side of a head. If something is to be introduced on the opposite side of the structure (i.e., on the left side of a head in English, and on the right side of a head in Japanese), it must be "adjoined" to the target without inducing projection,

NOMINAL STRUCTURE

223

i.e., creating a multi-segmented structure (see Chomsky 1 986, 1 995 for relevant discussion on substitution vs. adjunction). A case in point is the status of subjects in these languages. The subject in English is in an adjoined position because it appears on the left side of the head, where projection of the target is prohibited by (2) as it is parametrized for English. The subject in Japanese, on the other hand, is introduced into the phrase structure by Merge (i.e., substitution; see below), since it shows up on the left side of the head, where merger is possible (Japanese is a right-headed language). See Saito & Fukui (1998) for more detailed discussion, as well as illustrations of this point. Saito and Fukui argue that given the parametrized version of Merge (2), it becomes possible to characterize the traditional "adjunction" operations, viz., scrambling in Japanese and heavy NP shift in English, as paradigm cases of Merge (i.e., as substitution, in the sense that they always accompany projection of the target), and hence, given the costless nature of Merge (Chomsky 1 995), the optionality of these operations, a matter that has been quite disturbing for the general economy approach to movement, is also straightforwardly accounted for. On the other hand, traditional "substitution" operations (wh-movement and NP-movement) are analyzed in this system as genuine adjunction since they never induce projection of the target, creating a multi-segmented structure of the target (see Saito & Fukui 1 998 for much detail). Further, they point out that the "directionality" of these optional movements correlates with the "directionality" of projection in the language. Thus, head-initia1/left-headed English has rightward heavy NP shift, whereas head-Iastlright-headed Japanese exhibits leftward scrambling, but no other combination is allowed. It is clear that such a correla tion can only be captured by a parametrized Merge embodying linear order, as in (2). Saito and Fukui show that a number of other differences between English and Japanese also follow from their theory of phrase structure. 2.2 The Symmetry Principle Fukui & Takano ( 1998) develops a theory of phrase structure and linear order based on the intuition captured by Saito and Fukui's ( 1 998) proposal, while maintaining the basic insights of Kayne ( 1994) and Chomsky (1995). The intuition behind Saito and Fukui's proposal (cf. also Fukui 1 993) is that as long as projections (applications of Merge) consistently occur on the same side of a head, they are "unmarked" and "costless", whereas if Merge is to apply on the other side of a head, it is "costly", and hence requires a driving force, i.e., feature-checking. As we saw above, Saito and Fukui propose that there is a choice (the head parameter) as to which side of the head we start applying Merge.

224

NAOKI FUKUI & YUn TAKANO

Kayne rejects the postulation of the head parameter, claiming that his LCA uniquely determines the linear ordering of elements based on asymmetric c-com mand, with the universal S-H-C order. Chomsky claims that linear order does not play a role in the core (pre-Spell-Out) computation of human language, and that a modified version of Kayne's LCA applies in the "phonological component", determining the linear order of elements (with potential room for the "head para meter in the phonological component", in our opinion; see the discussion above). Fukui and Takano adopt the basic intuition of Saito and Fukui that, putting it in slightly different terms, maximal projections occurring on the same side of a head are "unmarked". However, we reject postulating the head parameter in the core computational part and claim, following Chomsky ( 1 995), that linear order is determined in the phonological component. Thus, we propose the following

Symmetry Principle of Derivation: (3)

The Symmetry Principle of Derivation Pre-Spell-Out computations and post-Spell-Out (and pre-Morpholo gy) computations are "symmetric", in the sense that they form mirror-images of each other.

We refer the reader to Fukui & Takano ( 1 998) for detailed discussion, but the general idea presented in our previous work, in a nutshell, is as follows. In the pre-Spell-Out portion of the derivation, Merge, as is standardly assumed, applies in a bottom-up fashion, combining two syntactic objects (both maximal projec tions) to form a new, larger syntactic object; Merge continues to apply recur sively until there is no object available for further merger. Spell-Out then applies to the structure � formed by successive applications of Merge, sending the relevant portions of � into the phonological component. This much is a "stan dard" view presented in, say, Chomsky (1995) (but see Chomsky 1 998 for a different view on Spell-Out). The modified � (by Spell-Out) is then mapped to 'IT, a linguistic expression at the "PF" interface, by operations in the phonological component. We propose that in the pre-Morphology portion of the phonological component, the process of Linearization takes place. The structure � that enters into the phonological component first undergoes this process of Linearization. The process of Lineari zation consists of two distinct operations: (i) Demerge, and (ii) Concatenate. Demerge is a kind of a "reverse" operation of Merge. It applies to the structure � in a top-down fashion (recall that Merge applies from the bottom up), applying to a single root element and breaking it into two roots. The resulting two roots are of course both maximal projections, but it is important to note that it is always the case, given the nature of Merge, that one of them is already a maximal

NOMINAL STRUCTURE

225

projection when Demerge applies, whereas the other becomes a maximal projection only "as a result of' an application of Demerge (see Fukui & Takano, op. cit.: 40 for much more detailed discussion). Like Merge, Demerge only applies to maximal projections. Concatenate then applies to assign the linear order of the two maximal projections made available by Demerge, making reference to the inherent asymmetry of the maximal projection status between them just men tioned: of the two root elements, the one that is already a maximal projection at the point of an application of Demerge always "precedes" the other. We can thus summarize the basic workings of Linearization as follows, where (L - 01.) indicates the object resulting from detachment of 01. from the structure L. (4)

Linearization

Applied to the structure L, Demerge yields {01., {L - 01.} }, 01. an Xmax constituent of L, and Concatenate turns {01., {L - 01. } } into 01. + (L - 01.).

To illustrate briefly how Linearization works, let us look at the following structure, where X, Y are maximal projections (as well as VP). (5)

2:

VP

=

�

X

V'

�

Y

V

Demerge applies to L ( VP) and breaks it into two root elements, X and V'. X is already a maximal projection when Demerge applies whereas V' becomes a maximal projection as a result of an application of Demerge. Thus, Concatenate puts them in a sequence (X + V'). Now V' is a maximal projection to which Demerge applies, yielding two root elements Y and V, both maximal projections. Y is a maximal projection independently of the application of Demerge, while V becomes a maximal projection only as a result of Demerge. Concatenate, then, assigns them the order (Y + V). Taken together, the output of the Linearization process applying to the structure in (5) is the sequence (X + Y + V). X and Y are conventionally called Specifier and Complement of the head V, respectively. Therefore, Fukui and Takano's Linearization process, based on their Symmetry Principle, predicts that S-C-H (S-O-V, in particular) is the "basic" order, as opposed to the S-H-C/S-V-O order which is claimed to be basic by Kayne's LCA. Then, how do we get the S-H-C/S-V-O order, as exemplified by, say, English? The S-H-C/S-V-O order is the result of movement. Fukui and Takano assume with Chomsky (1995) that the external argument of a transitive verb occupies a specifier =

226

NAOKI FUKUI & YUll TAKANO

position of v, a "light verb" taking a VP as its complement. On this view, the core proposition of a ditransitive structure should look like the following. (6)

vP

�

Z

v'

�

VP

�

X

v

V'

�

Y

V

In (6), Z is an external argument, X is an indirect internal argument, and Y is a direct internal argument, all maximal projections. Applied to this structure in the way already described before, Linearization assigns the surface order Z-X-Y-V-v, if no movement is involved. This is exactly what happens in, say, Japanese, where no V-raising takes place (see Fukui & Takano, op. cit. for supporting arguments for this hypothesis). In languages like English, where overt V-raising takes place (see Chomsky 1 995), the structure to which Linearization applies is different. Fukui & Takano (op. cit., Section 2.2) argue in this connection (but on independent grounds) that head movement should be analyzed as "substitution into Spec", rather than as "adjunction to head" as has been standardly assumed. Under this analysis of head movement, the V-to-v movement (V-raising) which takes place in English can be depicted as follows (tv is the trace left by the V-to-v movement). (7)

vP

�

Z

v'

�

V

v'

�

VP

�

X

v

V'

�

Y

tv

NOMINAL STRUCTURE

227

If Linearization applies to the structure (7), it first yields the sequence Z + V i (i.e., the upper V i ) , and then linearizes the latter as V + V i (i.e., the lower V i ; note that

V in (7) is a maximal projection (and also a minimal projection), under the assumptions of bare phrase structure theory assumed here, and hence is visible to Demerge). Linearization eventually gives rise to the surface order Z + V + X + Y + tv + v (with tv and v invisible). This is essentially how we get the S-H-C/ S-V-O order. Thus, Fukui & Takano ( 1 998) attributes the VO/OV (i.e., head-initial vs. head-last) distinction between, say, English and Japanese, to the presence/absence of V-raising. The VO order (in English) results from overt V-raising while the OV order (in Japanese) reflects the "base properties" of the verb phrase, involving no V-raising. The relevant difference ultimately arises from a parame ter associated with the "functional head" v. It was then hypothesized in our previous work that the fundamental difference between the head-initial English and the head-last Japanese with respect to word order is the following. 3 (8)

v has the property of attracting V in English but not in Japanese.

The hypothesis (8) is consistent with the restrictive theory of parameters (cf. Fukui 1 988, 1 995) according to which the locus of parametric variation must be limited to the "functional domain" of the lexicon. Furthermore, the hypothesis is in line with the "traditional" view on English/Japanese comparative syntax (see Fukui 1 986; Kuroda 1988; among others) that functional categories in Japanese, if any, are "inactive/inert" (triggering no movement), as compared to corresponding elements in English, a view that is incompatible with Kayne's way of obtaining the S-C-H/S-O-V order (See Fukui & Takano, op. cit., for much detailed discussion). Summarizing, the Symmetry Principle of Fukui & Takano (1998) dictates that pre-Spell-Out computations in syntax and post-Spell-Out computations in the phonological component form mirror images of each other. More specifically, the Linearization process consists of two operations, Demerge and Concatenate, the former of which does exactly the reverse of what Merge does, reversing the order of operations of Merge in a step-by-step manner. Thus, the Symmetry Principle predicts that Spec always comes first in a given maximal projection, since it is the first element that Demerge encounters. Similarly, the second element that is to linearize has to be the complement of a head, because that is the next maximal projection that Demerge detects. Finally, the head of a phrase (which becomes a maximal projection after its specifier and complement have been demerged) is to be linearized by Demerge and Concatenate. The Symmetry Principle, therefore, claims that the S-C-H/S-O-V order, having S and C/O on the same side of the head, represents the "basic" order, contrary to the LCA, which

228

NAOKI FUKUI & YUn TAKANO

states that the S-H-CIS-V-O order is the "basic" order.4 Fukui and Takano then go on to argue that the S-H-CIS-V-O order is indeed a "derived" order, involving V-raising triggered by the "light verb" v. Thus, the difference between, say Japanese (S-O-V) and English (S-V-O) is reduced to the lexical property of v: v attracts V in English, resulting in the S-V-O order, whereas it does not attract V in Japanese, leading to the "basic" S-O-V order. Fukui and Takano further argue that if this approach is correct, then it becomes unnecessary to postulate a number of hypothetical "functional categories" triggering overt movements in languages like Japanese (S-O-V languages generally), a necessity under the LCA approach to get the right surface order, thereby getting along quite nicely with the "traditional" view of comparative JapaneselEnglish syntax that the "move ment portion" of the Japanese grammar is very inactive, if not completely inert, compared to the English counterpart. In the remainder of this article, we will attempt to extend the scope of the Symmetry Principle to the analysis of nominal structures, with a special focus on relative clauses and classifiers.

3.

Variation in relative clauses

3 . 1 Order in nominal structure As is well known, Japanese is a consistent head-last language and English is a fairly consistent head-initial language. Thus, just as English and Japanese differ in the location of V in the clausal/verbal structure, they also differ in the location of N in the nominal structure. English places N before its complement, whereas Japanese puts it after its complement:

(9) ( 1 0)

the student of physics

buturigaku-no gakusei physics-GEN student 'the/a student of physics'

According to Fukui and Takano' s theory of phrase structure and linear order summarized in the preceding section, this difference between English and Japanese should be explained in terms of different positions that the nominal head occupies within the noun phrase structure. Specifically, the Japanese case involves the nominal head N in situ, that is, it stays in its original position. The English case, by contrast, involves raising of the nominal head to SpecD. 5 The difference can be schematically shown as in ( 1 1). 6

229

NONITNAL STRUCTURE

( 1 1)

Japanese

English

NP

DP

�

complement

N

�

determiner

D'

�

N

D'

�

NP

�

complement

D

tN

Given Fukui and Takano's system of Linearization (which we described briefly in the preceding section), the Japanese structure is linearized into the sequence "complement + N", while the English structure is linearized into the sequence "determiner + N + complement".7 Note that, in this theory, the difference in linear order is directly correlated with the difference in hierarchical structure, much in the spirit of Kayne's ( 1994) approach based on his LeA. Thus, the nominal head is within NP in Japanese and follows its complement, while it is raised out of NP and precedes the complement in English. Given this fundamental parametric difference in the syntactic structure, we naturally expect to see other differences that could be shown to correlate with the position of the nominal head N. In particular, it will be interesting if we are able to deduce some properties of nominal structure in the two languages from this single difference in the structural position of N, much in the same way that we have done in the case of verbal/clausal structure. In the remainder of this section, we will explore this possibility for an empirical domain related to relative clauses in English and Japanese. 8 We will show that a number of different properties concerning relative clauses in the two languages follow rather straightforwardly from the hypothesized single paramet ric difference in the position of N within the nominal structure. 3.2 Relative pronouns First, we look at the difference between English and Japanese with respect to the presence vs. absence of relative pronouns. English relative clauses have relative pronouns (as underscored in (12)), whereas Japanese equivalents do not: (12)

a. b.

a picture which John saw yesterday a student who(m) John met yesterday

230

NAOKI FUKUI & YUn TAKANO

( 1 3)

John-ga kinoo

a.

mita syasin

John-GEN yesterday saw picture 'the/a picture that John saw yesterday'

John-ga kino 0

b.

atta gakusei

John-GEN yesterday met student 'the/a student who(m) John met yesterday' If we compare (12) and ( 13), we see that they differ in two ways: (i) in the position of the relative head and (ii) in whether or not the relative pronoun is present. English places the relative head (picture in (a) and student in (b)) before the relative clause and has relative pronouns (which in (a) and who(m) in (b)), whereas Japanese places the relative head (syasin in (a) and gakusei in (b)) after the relative clause and has no relative pronouns. Under Fukui and Takano's theory, it is actually possible to deduce the two differences in a unified way from the hypothesis that the nominal head stays in its original position in Japanese, but is raised to SpecD in English. Let us first look at the English case, taking ( 12a) as an example. We claim that (12a) has the following structure: ( 14)

DP

�

a

D'

�

picture

D'

�

Nl

�

CP

�

D

N 1 =tpicture

which

Here the relative head is raised to SpecD in accordance with our basic claim about the parametric property of the English nominal structure. Following the traditional intuition, we assume that a relative clause is always adjoined to the maximal projection of N. Under the bare phrase structure theory, this means that if there is no complement of N, the relative clause is adjoined to N, because there is no such thing as a "non-branching projection" in the bare theory. Thus, in (14), the upper N l and the lower N l form a two-segmented category.9 Notice that the two-segmented category [N 1 , N 1 ] is maximal, in the sense that they do

NOMINAL STRUCTURE

23 1

not project any further (Chomsky 1 995). Therefore, the relative clause CP in (14) l is properly adjoined to the maximal projection of N. O Another common assumption about relative clauses is that the relative pro noun is referentially identified with the relative head. Suppose that there is a general requirement on the licensing of the relative pronoun of the following kind: ( 1 5)

The relative pronoun must be bound by the relative head.

Thus, the proper relation between the relative head and the relative pronoun is established through the syntactic relation of binding Y Now let us look at the structure in (14) in this light. There the relevant requirement on the relative pronoun is met: the raised N picture c-commands the relative pronoun which in CP and thus the former can bind the latter. The relative pronoun is then correctly licensed in the English relative clause. 12 The structure in (14) also yields the correct surface order under our Lineariza tion procedure. Disregarding elements lacking phonetic content, this structure yields the surface order "a + picture + CP", with the relative head preceding the relative clause, which is a consequence of the supposed raising of the relative head. Now, let us turn to the Japanese case. Recalling that the nominal head stays in place in Japanese, we see that the Japanese relative clause in (13a) has the following structure: ( 1 6)

N1

�

CP

N1 syasin =

As in the English case, the relative clause is adjoined to a maximal minimal category N l forming the two-segmented category [N l ' N d. The difference is ' that in the Japanese case, the nominal head N does not raise but stays put. The system of Linearization in Fukui & Takano ( 1 998) correctly assigns the structure in ( 1 6) the linear order "CP + Nt on the assumption that Demerge always affects only a maximal projection/category. 13 In ( 1 6), CP is a maximal category, whereas the lower N 1 is not (it is a segment), and hence, when Linearization applies in the phonological component, Demerge detaches CP from the structure, thereby sending CP into Concatenate prior to N l ' Now, let us suppose that the relative clause in ( 1 6) contained a relative pronoun. Recall that, in order to be licensed, the relative pronoun must satisfy the condition in ( 1 5), which dictates that it bound by the relative head. However, in the structure in ( 1 6), this condition cannot be met if we assume the following definition of c-command, adapted from Kayne (1994):

232

NAOKI FUKUI & YUll TAKANO

(17)

X c-commands Y iff X excludes Y and every element that domi nates X dominates Y.

( 1 8)

X excludes Y iff no segment of X dominates

Y.

Suppose that the two-segmented category [N l' N 1 ] is the relative head. Then, it does not c-command CP, since [N 1 , N 1 ] does not exclude CP with the upper N 1 , a segment of [N 1 , NrJ, dominating CPo Even if we assume that the lower N l alone is the relative head, it does not c-command CP either, given that the upper N l' which is a segment of the category [N l' N rJ, dominates CP, thereby failing to satisfy the exclusion condition in (17). As a result, if the relative clause in ( 1 6) contained a relative pronoun, the relative pronoun would fail to satisfy the condition in (15) and hence could not be properly licensed. This explains why the Japanese relative clause lacks a relative pronoun, in contrast to the English relative clause. The Japanese relative clause cannot have a relative pronoun since the latter can never satisfy the licensing condition on relative pronouns (15). 3.3 Properties of relative clauses We have just reached the conclusion that the Japanese relative clause cannot contain a relative pronoun. What exactly does this mean for the syntax of relative clauses in Japanese? This means that Japanese cannot have an "operator-orient ed" relative clause, which is licensed as a modifier of the relative head through the mediation of a relative pronoun functioning as an operator creating an open position within the relative clause. In the case of the operator-oriented relative clause, the relation between the relative head and its associated relative clause is established in a syntactic way, namely, by binding of the relative pronoun by the relative head (and by a predication relation between the relative head and the relative clause; see note 1 1), as we have seen in the English case. The question then is how the relative clause in Japanese is licensed. Since it lacks an operator, syntactic binding (and predication) is not an option. The only remaining option, then, is licensing the relative clause semantically. In fact, Kuno (1973) and Murasugi ( 1 99 1 ), among others, have already addressed this problem and reached the conclusion that the relative clause in Japanese is licensed by a semantic relation with the relative head. More specifically, the Japanese relative clause is licensed by an "aboutness" relation with the relative head. The "aboutness" condition is not peculiar to the licensing of the Japanese relative clause; it can also be seen in the licensing of certain topic constructions in Japanese and in English (see Kuno 1 973 and Saito 1 985 for extensive discussion on this):

NOMINAL STRUCTURE

( 1 9)

(20)

233

Sakana-wa tai-ga ii. fish-TOP red.snapper-NoM good 'As for fish, red snapper is the best.' (Kuno 1 973) As for sports, I like baseball best. (Lasnik 1 989)

Thus, in both cases, the topic construction is licensed to the extent that the sentence following the topic is interpreted as being relevant to, or about, the topic. Kuno ( 1 973) and Murasugi ( 1 99 1) argue that this is also true of the Japanese relative construction. Consider the following example. (21)

John-ga kinoo mita syasin John-NOM yesterday saw picture 'the/a picture John saw yesterday'

In (21), the relative clause can be interpreted as being about a picture. Since the relative clause is in an "aboutness" relation with the relative head, it is properly licensed. If the Japanese relative clause is licensed by "aboutness", the question arises as to the status of the object in the relative clause in (21). Murasugi (199 1), adopting Perlmutter's (1972) proposal, claims that the gap in the Japanese relative clause is a pro (see also Oka 1988). In the case of (21), then, the pro in the object position in the relative clause is interpreted as referring to the relative head syasin 'picture' and this interpretation makes the relative clause compatible with the "aboutness" condition on the relative clause. 14 Given that the gap in the Japanese relative clause is a pro and that the relative clause is licensed by an "aboutness" relation with the relative head, we can naturally account for the well-known fact that in Japanese, the relation between the gap and the relative head can be unbounded, showing no island effects, as Kuno ( 1 973), Oka (1988), and Murasugi (1991) observe. Compare (22) and (23), taken from Kuno ( 1 973). (22) *a gentleman [whoi the suit that ti is wearing is dirty] [proi kiteiru yoohuku-ga yogoreteiru] sinsii is.wearing suit-NOM is.dirty gentleman Lit. 'the/a gentleman who the suit that is wearing is dirty'

(23)

Unlike its English counterpart in (22), the Japanese example in (23) is fully grammatical, despite the fact that the gap in the relative clause and the relative head are separated by a complex NP. The existence of the so-called gapless relative clauses in Japanese, also discussed by Kuno (1973), follows as well from the fact that the Japanese relative clause is licensed by the aboutness relation with the relative head:

234

NAOKI FUKUI & YUTI TAKANO (24)

[syuusyoku-ga taihen na] butungaku employment-NoM difficult is physics Lit. 'physics (that) finding a job is difficult'

The English equivalent is simply impossible, since the English relative clause must be licensed by a binding relation between the relative head and the relative pronoun. So far we have observed (i) that the Japanese relative clause is licensed by an "aboutness" relation with the relative head, (ii) that the gap in the relative clause is a pro, (iii) that the gap can be related to the relative head in an unbounded manner, and (iv) that the relative clause can be gapless. As we have noted, these observations are far from new and have been discussed in the traditional literature on Japanese syntax. Our claim here is that the theory of phrase structure and linear order developed by Fukui and Takano ( 1 998) can deduce these properties from the fundamental property of the nominal head staying in situ in Japanese. Because of this fundamental property, the relative clause cannot contain a relative pronoun and hence cannot be "operator-orient ed". Since it cannot be operator-oriented, the relative clause must be licensed semantically, namely, by an "aboutness" relation with the relative head. One way to satisfy the aboutness condition is for the relative clause to contain a pronomi nal which is coreferential with the relative head. Since the relation between the pronominal in the relative clause and the relative head does not involve move ment, the lack of island effects within the relative clause and the existence of gapless relative clauses also follow. In this way, we derive the four well-known properties of the Japanese relative clause from the single parametric property concerning the location of the nominal head. Notice, incidentally, that in our account of the presence of a pronominal element within the relative clause just mentioned, we did not make any specific reference to a pro, a pronominal without phonetic content. This is because the relevant pronominal can be an overt element, as noted by Kuno ( 1 973): (25)

watakusi-ga sono hito-nolkare-no namae-o wasuretesimatta I-NOM that perSOn-GENlhe-GEN name-ACC have. forgotten okyakusan guest 'a guest whose name I have forgotten'

On the other hand, the overt pronominal is not always allowed in the relative clause: (26)

hJohn-ga

kinoo sore-o mita syasin John-NOM yesterday it-ACC saw picture 'the/a picture John saw yesterday'

NOMINAL STRUCTURE

235

The example (26) is extremely awkward. This observation is reminiscent of the well-known restriction on the distribution of resumptive pronouns in questions and relative clauses in other languages (Chao & Sells 1 983), and Japanese seems to exhibit similar effects in the form of the distribution of overt pronominal elements within the relative clause, though we do not go into any further details on this matter (See Ishii 1 99 1 for extensive discussion on this point). Whatever the exact restriction, we hold that the availability of pro is not directly relevant to the fundamental parametric property that is responsible for the Japanese relative clause, unlike Murasugi ( 1 99 1 ) , who, following Perlmutter's ( 1 972) original claim, argues that the presence of pro is part of the necessary condition that accounts for the properties of the Japanese relative clause. In our account, what is fundamental is the absence of N-raising in Japanese. In contrast to Japanese, the English relative clause has the following properties: (i) it is "operator-oriented", licensed by syntactic binding of the relative pronoun by the relative head, (ii) the gap in the relative clause is a trace/ copy of the moved relative pronoun, (iii) the relation between the relative pronoun and the gap shows island effects, and (iv) the relative clause always contains a gap. Properties (ii) and (iv) follow from (i), and property (iii) is a direct consequence of (ii). The reason why English can (and in fact does) have a relative pronoun is that English has N-raising. Thus, the four properties follow from this single property. 3 .4 Relative complementizers Another property that follows from our basic parameter is the presence vs. absence of a complementizer in relative clauses. English has such a complemen tizer, whereas Japanese lacks it: (27) (28)

a picture that John saw yesterday

John-ga

kinoo

mila syasin

John-NOM yesterday saw picture 'the/a picture that John saw yesterday' In explaining this difference, we follow Murasugi (1991) and Sakai ( 1994) and assume that the English relative clause is CP, whereas the Japanese relative clause is TP (we also assume, contra Kayne ( 1 994), that the English relative clause in (27) involves a phonetically null counterpart of the relative pronoun which). On different grounds, Murasugi and Sakai independently argue that the Japanese relative clause lacks the CP level (though some of their arguments are based on assumptions that are not adopted in the current framework and their validity can

236

NAOKI FUKUI & YUn TAKANO

thus be questioned now). If the Japanese relative clause is TP, the absence of a complementizer in the relative clause follows straightforwardly, on the standard assumption that complemetizers appear exclusively in CP (as heads of CPs). Here, we might ask why the Japanese relative clause lacks the CP level altogether. In contrast to the relative clause, subordinate clauses in Japanese do have complementizers (or, at least, equivalents of that and whether in English; see Fukui 1 995 for relevant discussion): (29)

a.

b.

John-wa Mary-ga kuru to omotteiru. John-TOP Mary-NOM come that think 'John thinks that Mary will come.' John-wa Mary-ga kuru ka szrztagatteiru. John-TOP Mary-NOM come whether want.to.know 'John wants to know whether Mary will come.'

Apparently, then, in Japanese, the subordinate clause has a CP projection, while the relative clause lacks it. In this connection, we would like to adopt Diesing's ( 1990) basic idea about the presence of functional projections in the structure. To account for a certain asymmetry between matrix and embedded questions in Yiddish with respect to where the fronted wh-phrase moves, Diesing proposes that embedded questions, being selected by matrix predicates, have a CP node, while matrix questions have only an IP ( TP) node, and suggests that this will follow if we assume that only the minimal amount of A-bar structure is generated. Slightly modifying Diesing's suggestion, let us adopt the following condition: =

(30)

A functional category is present in the structure only when it is necessary.

In effect, this condition requires every syntactic structure to contain only necessary functional projections. This condition allows subordinate clauses in English and Japanese to have CP, since the subordinate clauses are always marked for the declarative/interrogative distinction and this marking is carried out by [±Q] features of C (Fukui & Takano 1 998). The relative clause in English is also allowed to have CP, given that it is "operator-oriented" and thus contains a relative pronoun, which follows from the presence of N-raising, and that CP is necessary to hold the overtly raised relative pronoun. 1 S Turning to the Japanese relative clause, we see that it does not need CP: because of the lack of N-raising, the Japanese relative clause cannot be operator oriented but is licensed by the "aboutness" relation with the relative head, and for this purpose, the functional category C is not necessary. Therefore, given

NOMINAL STRUCTURE

237

condition (30), it follows that the Japanese relative clause lacks CP. 16 In this way, we can derive the difference between English and Japanese with respect to the presence/absence of a relative complementizer in a relative clause from the fundamental difference we are pursuing. 3 .5 Internally headed relative clauses

Let us move on to still another difference between English and Japanese: the presence/absence of the so-called internally headed (or head-internal) relative clause. The following is an example of the internally headed relative clause in Japanese: (3 1 )

Susan-wa [Mary-ga sandoitti-o tukutta no]-o tabeta. Susan-TOP Mary-NOM sandwich-ACC made NM-ACC ate (NM nominalizer) 'Susan ate a sandwich Mary had made.' =

In (3 1), the object of tabeta 'ate' is an internally headed relative clause where

the "internal head" sandoitti 'sandwich' is located in the object position of the verb tukutta 'made' in the relative clause. Unlike Japanese, English does not have this construction. Cole ( 1 987) argues that internally headed relative clauses are allowed only in languages with left-branching structure in noun phrases. He then claims that this restriction on the distribution of internally headed relative clauses follows if it is assumed (i) that internally headed relative clauses in fact have heads that are null pronominals coreferential with the internal heads (the "anaphoric head analysis") and (ii) that an anaphoric element cannot both precede and c-command its antecedent. Given these assumptions, the difference between Japanese and English can be seen in the structures in (32). (32)

Japanese

English

NP

NP

�

CP

� ... Xi ···

proi

�

prOi

CP

� ... Xi ···

In (32), X is the internal head and pro is the "hidden external head". In the

English structure, proi both precedes and c-commands �. As a result, English cannot have internally headed relative constructions. On the other hand, the Japanese structure does not violate the condition, since proi does not precede �.

NAOKI FUKll & YUfl TAKANO

238

Incorporating Cole's anaphoric head analysis of internally headed relative clauses, Kayne ( 1 994) argues that his "antisymmetric view" of syntax allows us to dispense with specific reference to precedence in the account of the distribu tion of internally headed relative clauses. This is because the antisymmetric view ensures that if some element c-commands another and not vice versa, then the former necessarily precedes the latter on the surface. Essentially following Kayne's reinterpretation of Cole's idea, we analyze the internally headed relative clause in (3 1 ) as follows: 17 (33)

Nl

�

TP

�

N1 =pro

... sandoitti ...

At LF, the external head pro is interpreted as coreferential with the internal head sandoitti 'sandwich' , which is allowed, given that neither [N 1 , Nd nor the lower Nl c-commands the internal head (recall discussion in 3 .2). Suppose that English has an internally headed relative clause. The structure would be as in (34). (34)

DP

�

pro

D'

�

Nl

�

CP

�

D

Nl = 1pro

... x ...

Because of raising of the nominal head, the external head pro is located in SpecD. Imagine now that the external head pro were coreferential with the internal head X. This would violate condition (C) of the Binding Theory, which dictates that a referential expression not be bound. This shows that English cannot have an internally headed relative clause, because of the existence of N-raising. Note that on this analysis, the existence of a relative pronoun and the lack of an internally headed relative in English are treated as essentially the same effect, caused by the existence of N-raising. Since N raises to SpecD, it c-com mands the relative clause CP, and as a result, the relative pronoun is licensed and

NOMINAL STRUCTURE

239

the internal head is banned. In the same vein, the lack of a relative pronoun and the existence of an internally headed relative in Japanese follow. This kind of unification of the two phenomena has been impossible in traditional approaches but becomes a natural consequence of our approach. 3 .6 Properties unified

Summarizing so far, we have shown that the theory of phrase structure and linear order proposed by Fukui and Takano ( 1 998) deduces the differences concerning relative clauses given in (35) between English and Japanese from the single fundamental parametric property in (36). (35)

order relative pronoun licensing of relative clause

gap in relative clause island effects gapless relative clause relative complementizer internally headed relative (36)

English

Japanese

N-initial

N-final

present

absent

syntactic: binding (and predication)

semantic: aboutness

trace/copy

pro absent present absent present

present absent present absent

The nominal head overtly raises to SpecD in English but stays in place in Japanese.

Thus, our approach provides a unified account of the phenomena given in (35) under the hypothesis in (36). Unification of these properties has not been discussed in traditional literature. In this sense, the present proposal offers significant insights into the nature of parametric variation and lends further support to Fukui and Takano's ( 1 998) theory. 3 .7 Comparison with Kayne :S (1994) proposal

Before closing this section, let us compare the present proposal with Kayne's ( 1 994), which is also intended to explain some of the properties discussed above. 1 8 Unlike Fukui and Takano ( 1 998), Kayne proposes (via his LeA) that

NAOKI FUKll & YUll TAKANO

240

UG allows only S-C-H order, and offers an analysis of the English relative clause compatible with this claim, as in (37). (37)

DP

�

the

CP

�

picture

C'

�

that

1P

�

John saw "tpicture yesterday In this analysis, the relative clause CP is a complement of D and the relative head picture is moved from within the relative clause and occupies SpecC. For cases where the relative clause involves a relative pronoun, Kayne suggests the following analysis:

(38)

DP

------

the

CP

-------

DP

C'

�

picture

D'

�

which

tpicture

�1P

C

� John saw tDP yesterday

Here, what moves to SpecC is the DP which picture and within the raised DP, the NP picture moves to SpecD. Kayne further proposes to analyze N-final relatives as in Japanese as involving overt movement of the relative head to SpecC followed by overt movement of 1P (IP in Kayne's terms) to SpecD. The resulting structure is shown in (39).

NOMINAL STRUCTURE (39)

241

DP

�

TP

D'

6 � D

CP

� C' �

syasin 'picture'

C

tTP

This structure yields the observed N-final order. Further, Kayne argues that the lack of a relative pronoun and of a relative complementizer in N-final relatives follow from this analysis. For Kayne, the relative pronoun is the D head of the raised DP, as in (38), and hence does not form a constituent with TP. As a result, moving TP with the relative pronoun, which would yield the surface form "relative clause + relative pronoun + relative head", is simply impossible. Howev er, as Kayne himself notes (Kayne 1 994: 158, note 29), it is not clear why N-final languages do not show the order "relative clause + relative head + relative pronoun", which would result if the DP headed by the relative pronoun raised to SpecC, the relative head moved to SpecD of the raised DP, and TP moved to SpecD (of the entire DP). As for the lack of a relative complementizer in N-final relatives, Kayne claims that it follows directly from the fact that what moves to SpecD is TP, a category which cannot contain a complementizer. Here, too, the question remains as to why C in (39) must be empty (if it were overt, the relative complementizer would follow the relative head, which never happens in N-final relatives). Kayne suggests that this may be treated on a par with that-trace effects, given that in his analysis, TP necessarily moves in N-final relatives, as shown in (39), thereby creating a configuration similar to that which induces that-trace effects. Howev er, in a different context in which he discusses the lack of that-trace effects in complementizer-final languages, Kayne also suggests that it is due to TP movement to SpecC, which yields C-final order, as shown in (40). (40)

CP

�

TP

C'

6 � C

tTP

NAOKI FUKUI & YUll TAKANO

242

Kayne suggests that that-trace effects arise only when an overt complementizer c-commands a trace in SpecT, so that the lack of that-trace effects in C-final languages follows from the structure in (40). If so, one cannot have recourse to that-trace effects to account for why C cannot be overt in (39). Also potentially problematic is Kayne's claim that N-final relatives neces sarily involve overt movement of TP. As discussed in Takano ( 1 996) and Fukui & Takano ( 1 998), there is no independent evidence internal to Japanese for the existence of such obligatory movement in the language. In order to maintain Kayne's proposal, a general theory of movement that tells us which element moves where for what reason would need to be constructed. Finally, Kayne's analysis of N-final relatives makes wrong predictions for cases where the relative head and the gap in the relative clause are separated by an island. Recall that under Kayne's analysis, the relative head always moves from within the relative clause to SpecC. This predicts that the relation between the gap in the relative clause and the relative head should be bounded in N-final relatives, as in N-initial relatives. However, as we have seen in 3.3, this is not the case. The relevant examples are repeated here: (22)

*a gentleman [whoi the suit that ti is wearing is dirty]

(23)

[proi kiteiru yoohuku-ga yogoreteiru] sinsii is.wearing suit-NOM is.dirty gentleman

The Japanese counterpart of (22) is fully grammatical, showing that the gap in the relative clause (i.e., pro in (23)) and the relative head can be separated by an island. This fact stands as a problem for Kayne's analysis, which takes the gap to be a trace/copy of the relative head. These problems do not arise in our approach, as is clear from the discussion in the previous subsections. The lack of a relative pronoun and a relative complementizer in the N-final relative clause follows from the lack of N-raising. We do not invoke TP movement to derive the observed N-final order; in fact, the crucial part of our claim is that no movement is involved in the head-final structure. The lack of island effects in the Japanese relative clause is attributed to the gap in the relative clause being a pro , which in tum is ultimately attributed to the lack of N-raising. 4.

Classifiers

As in many other languages, Japanese has a classifier system. Thus, when a numeral and a noun co-occur, a classifier, which expresses the kind of objects that the noun refers to, is attached to the numeral.

NOMINAL STRUCTURE (41 )

san-nin no gakusei three-cL( 'person') GEN student 'three students' san-satu no hon three-cL('volume') GEN book 'three books' go-dai no kuruma five-cL('body') GEN car 'five cars'

(CL

243

=

classifier)

With "no-insertion", whose nature does not concern us here, a noun phrase with a numeral in Japanese comes out as "numeral-classifier-no + noun" (e.g., san-nin no gakusei 'three students'). English does not have a classifier system of this sort. The question to be addressed is, of course, why Japanese has classifiers, while English lacks them. Again, we claim that this difference between English and Japanese derives from the existence/non-existence of N-raising in these languages. Our basic idea is that classifiers are on a par with Case-particles in the relevant respects. Thus, as argued by Fukui and Takano ( 1 998), Japanese lacks V-raising and therefore invokes overt Case-particles, whereas English has V-raising, thereby rendering overt Case-particles unnecessary (and thus impossi ble). Similarly, Japanese lacks overt N-raising (due to the lack of D in its lexicon; see above), thus requiring classifiers, while English exhibits overt N-raising, which makes classifiers unnecessary (hence impossible, under minimalist assumptions). Let us illustrate how this intuition can be worked out. Assume first that prenominal numerals have the following structure (see Fukui & Takano 1 998: 2.5 for relevant discussion): (42)

NumP

�

three

Num

Num(eral) is a functional head that takes a numeral as its complement. Num has a formal feature that needs to be eliminated before the derivation reaches LF. Given that numerals are necessarily related to nominals, we call the feature [nominal]. In English, this feature gets eliminated by entering into a checking relation with the nominal head N that has raised to D. The exact derivation proceeds as follows. First, D attracts FF(N) (the set of formal features of N), 19 inducing overt movement of the category N to SpecD (see Fukui & Takano 1 998):

NAOKI FUKUI & YUJI TAKANO

244

DP

(43)

�

N

D' D

NP

�

�

NumP

N'

�

three

Num

�

X

FF(N)

D

tN

Then, FF(N) attached to D attracts FF(Num), which includes [nominal], and as a result, NumP moves to SpecD (NumP becomes an outer Spec of D in a multiple specifier configuration): DP

(44)

�

NumP

�

three

Num

D'

�

N

D'

-------

NP

D

�

�

tNumP

N'

�

X

tN

FF(Num)

D

�

FF(N)

D

The whole process occurs before Spell-Out. After Spell-Out, the structure (44) is subject to the process of Linearization (Demerge and Concatenate) and is linearized into the sequence "three + books + about John" if N books and X about John. On the other hand, Japanese has no N-raising and thus cannot eliminate the feature [nominal] of Num by checking (note that FF(N) can attract FF(Num) only when it is attached to a functional head such as D). Therefore, Japanese invokes the other strategy for eliminating a formal feature proposed by Fukui and Takano ( 1 998), namely, elimination by Spell-Out: the feature [nominal] of Num gets eliminated from the derivation going to A. (a linguistic expression at LF) when Spell-Out strips away phonological features from the structure L. To make this possible, [nominal] of Num must be linked with phonological features, and this is exactly what classifiers are for. Thus, a classifier is a phonological! =

=

245

NONITNAL STRUCTURE

morphological realization of the [nominal] feature of Num. Because of the presence of a classifier, the formal feature [nominal] of Num gets eliminated by Spell-Out from the derivation going to A: (45)

NP

-------

NumP

�

san 'three'

satu 'CL' 'volumes'

N'

�

X

N

I

hon 'book'

With no-insertion, this structure yields the surface form "san-satu-no + X + hon" (X a complement of N). This analysis deduces the presence/absence of classifiers from the existence/ nonexistence of N-raising, much in the same way that the presence/absence of Case-particles are derived from the existence/nonexistence of V-raising (as argued in detail in Fukui & Takano 1 998). Furthermore, the analysis just presented also explains why Japanese allows numerals to "float", while English does not. As is well-known, the distribution of numerals in Japanese is much freer than that in English: numerals in Japanese can appear either inside a noun phrase with the noun it modifies, or outside of the noun phrase, without signifi cantly changing the meaning of a sentence. Thus, along with (46a), (46b) is also grammatical with essentially the same meaning. (46)

a.

b.

[San-nin-no gakusei]-ga sono hon-o katta. three-CL('person')-GEN students-NOM that book-ACC bought 'Three students bought that book.' [Gakusei]-ga san-nin sono hon-o katta. students-NOM three-CL( 'person') that book-ACC bought 'Three students bought that book. '

Obviously, English does not allow its numerals to float in this way. (47)

a. Three students bought that book. b. *Students three bought that book.

Extensive research has been done on the nature and characteristics of this phenomenon in Japanese (called "Quantifier Float", somewhat misleadingly so, because some quantifiers, such as all, do float even in English; it is numerals

246

NAOKI FUKUI & YUn TAKANO

that can never float in English), particularly in connection with its implications for the movement analysis of scrambling (see Kuroda 1 983; Miyagawa 1989; among many others). However, it still remains open why Japanese exhibits this phenomenon while English does not. The obvious intuition is that the existence of overt classifiers in Japanese somehow makes it possible for a numeral to be associated with a noun it modifies, thereby allowing it to float rather freely. 20 Our explanation straightforwardly captures this intuition. Thus, unlike in Japanese where the feature [nominal] gets eliminated by being linked with phonological features (i.e., overt classifiers), the feature [nominal] of Num in English must enter into a checking relation with N attached to D and, therefore, NumP can only appear where it is c-commanded by the N. This is the reason why NumP can never appear outside a DP in English. By contrast, NumP in Japanese does not have such a restriction. The feature [nominal] of Num does not enter into a checking relation at all, so it can appear anywhere in the structure, to the extent that it meets the conditions on its interpretation (which have been extensively investigated in the literature on Japanese syntax). As a result, numerals can freely appear outside a noun phrase in Japanese. In summary, we have shown in this section that given the parametric statement that English has N-raising while Japanese lacks it, the existence of classifiers in Japanese and the lack thereof in English receives a straightforward account. We have also seen that our approach explains why numerals can "float" in Japanese, whereas they are not allowed to do so in English, a problem that has remained unexplained thus far. The reason, again, has to do with the lack of N-raising (hence the lack of feature-checking) in Japanese on the one hand, and the existence of feature-checking (hence the lack of overt classifiers) in English. 5.

Concluding remarks

In this article, we have tried to extend the scope of the Symmetry Principle put forth in our previous work (Fukui & Takano 1 998) to the structure of noun phrases. We focused on the maj or differences between English and Japanese with respect to their nominal structures, and argued that the Symmetry Principle, coupled with the parametric statement that N raises into D in English but not in Japanese, straightforwardly accounts for · the differences. More specifically, we have demonstrated that the following differences fall out rather elegantly under our symmetry approach: (i) Japanese noun phrases are head-last, whereas English noun phrases are head-initial, (li) there is no relative pronoun in Japanese, but

NOMINAL STRUCTURE

247

English has them, (iii) the licensing of relative clauses involves the "aboutness" condition in Japanese, while English licenses its relative clauses via binding (and predication), (iv) the gap in relative clauses in Japanese is pro, in English, it is a trace/copy, (v) island effects are not observed with respect to Japanese relative clauses, whereas they are clearly attested in English, (vi) Japanese exhibits gapless relative clauses, but English does not, (vii) Japanese does not have a "relative complementizer", while English possesses it, and (viii) so-called "internally headed" relative clauses exist in Japanese, but not in English. We then discussed the issue of overt classifiers: Japanese numerals are always accompanied by overt classifiers which "agree with" the kind of nouns that are counted, whereas English does not have such elements. We argued that this difference, too, can be deduced from the lack of N-raising in Japanese as opposed to the existence of such an operation in English. We also claimed that this analysis accounts for the "floatability" of numerals in Japanese. Japanese numerals are always accompanied by classifiers, as an alternative means to eliminate the [nominal] feature of Num, inducing no feature-checking. English numerals, on the other hand, have to be in the c-command domain of an N, since the [nomi nal] feature has to be eliminated via feature-checking. Thus, Japanese numerals freely "float" (under certain conditions on interpretation), occurring outside of a noun phrase, while English numerals can only occur within a noun phrase. All these differences between English and Japanese follow from the hypothesis that N raises into D in English, but not in Japanese (see (36)), which in tum derives from the lack of the functional head D in Japanese (see note 7). This situation is slightly different from the one with respect to verbal/clausal structures. In Fukui & Takano ( 1 998), we argue that a number of differences between English and Japanese in the domain of verbal/clausal structure follow straightforwardly if we assume that "light verb" v attracts V in English, but not in Japanese (see (8)). However, we still assume in Fukui & Takano, op. cit., that v exists in Japanese even though it does not have an ability to induce V-raising. In the case of nominal structures, we claim that D (which roughly corresponds to v in its relevant function in our account) actually does not exist at all in Japanese. The reason for this difference is that while there is some independent evidence for the existence of v in Japanese, there is simply no evidence internal to Japanese grammar for the existence of the functional head D in the language. Thus, guided by minimalist intuitions, we should conclude that there is no such functional head in Japanese (see Chomsky 1 995, 4 . 1 0, and Fukui 1 995 for relevant discussions). One might then wonder how the semantics of nominal expressions might work without postulating the functional head D, which plays a crucial role in the

248

NAOKI FUKUI & YUn TAKANO

semantics of nominal · expressions as a quantificational device. In fact, this has been a maj or objection from semanticists that one of the authors of the present article has been facing ever since he first put forth the hypothesis that Japanese lacks the functional head D (Fukui 1 986). One persistent alternative has been that Japanese does have an "empty D system", even though there is no syntactic evidence for it, because such a D system, either overt or covert, is required by the semantics of nouns, which is presumably universal, not allowing any variation. Recently, however, Gennaro Chierchia has developed an interesting framework of semantics that seems to put an appropriate cross-linguistic perspec tive on this issue (Chierchia 1 998). It is simply impossible for us to go into the details of his proposals here, and we have to refer the reader to his original article for fuller expositions of the theory. In a nutshell, however, Chierchia proposes a system that allows for certain "semantic variation" in the way in which the reference of the syntactic category NP is set. More specifically, he proposes the "Nominal Mapping Parameter", according to which nouns can be characterized in terms of the two primitive features [± arg(ument)] and [± pred(icate)] . The postulation of these features is based on the observation that nouns seem to play a double role: on the one hand, they are restrictors of quantifiers (as in every boy) or predicates (as in John and Mary are students), and, on the other hand, they are devices for kind reference, i.e., arguments (as in Dogs bark). These options seem to be available in one way or another in every language. However, the actual implementation of these two options may be parametrized, i.e., they can be manifested in different ways in different languages. By using the above-mentioned features, Chierchia divides natural languages into three distinct types: (i) [-pred, +arg] , (ii) [+pred, + arg] , and (iii) [+pred, -arg] . (The [-pred, -arg] option is obviously excluded, because such a specification would prevent an NP from having any interpretation at all.) Chierchia offers a rather thorough cross-linguistic study regarding the parametrization of these two features, but let us focus on the type (i) languages, that is, languages where all noun phrases are argumental. Chinese/Japanese belong to this type, according to Chierchia. 2 1 In this type of languages, Chierchia argues, all nouns are, in some sense, mass, and therefore, are allowed to occur freely as bare nouns without a need for D. He then connects this property with the lack of plural morphology and the existence of a classifier system, both of which are attested in, say, Japanese. If this type of "comparative semantics" is on the right track, Japanese is different from, say, English in the way of referring to kinds: all nouns in Japanese are kind denoting, whereas in English, only some nouns are kind denoting, preserving the "mass/count" distinction. Romance languages are of the type (iii) , in which all nouns are predicates . Thus, nouns in Romance always

NOMINAL STRUCTURE

249

require D, those in English sometimes (when they are predicative and not kind denoting), but not always, do, and nouns in Japanese never require D because they are always kind denoting. There is simply no need for D in Japanese as far as the semantics of nominal expressions is concerned, and the "empty D" proposal for the language thus appears to be non sequitur (see also Chomsky 1 998 for a conceptual argument against postulating such an empty D). Theories of (comparative) syntax and semantics have been shaped under the heavy influence of the studies of certain class ( es) of languages (mostly "western" languages) whose properties do not seem to be shared by other types of languag es including East Asian languages. Consequently, comparative studies have been so far carried out either between English and some other language (e.g., Japa nese), or else within a single language family (Romance, Germanic, etc.), also in comparison with English. Given a vast number of accumulated results in both types of comparative studies, as well as the current development of linguistic theory, it seems to us that the time is ripe to make a serious attempt to truly integrate the valuable research results of comparative syntax, which have been scattered over particular circles of different language families and which have not always generated fruitful interactions among linguists working on different types of languages (particularly between linguists working on English and other European languages and those working on, say, East Asian languages.)22 This article can, then, be taken, along with the important work by Chierchia on "comparative semantics", as a small attempt at introducing a more balanced view on comparative syntax/semantics, which incorporates the properties of languages that have not been sufficiently taken into consideration when certain mechanisms of syntax/semantics are to be invented. Whether or not our attempt turns out to be on the right track, of course, remains to be seen in future research.

Acknowledgments Part of the material in this article has been presented by one of the authors (Fukui) at Linguistics and Phonetics Conference 1998 (Ohio State University), a syntax seminar at the University of California, Irvine (Spring 1999), a keynote speech at the 1 1 8th Semi-annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of Japan (Tokyo Metropolitan University, 1999), and at colloquia at Tokyo Metropolitan University, Nanzan University and Sophia University (all in 1999). We would like to thank the audiences of these occasions for their valuable comments and suggestions. We are particularly grateful for their useful comments to Jun Abe, Yasuaki Abe, Hiroshi Aoyagi, Peter Culicover, Osamu Fujimura, Koji Fujita, Koji Hoshi, Brian Joseph, Yasuhiko Kato, Heizo Nakajima, Peter Svenonius, Ken-ichi Takami, Kazue Takeda, and Sze-Wing Tang.

NAOKI FUKUI & YUH TAKANO

250 Notes 1.

By "linear order", we mean "temporal order" throughout the discussion in this article.

2.

There are in fact a few versions of generative grammar (widely construed) in which linear order (precedence) is not postulated as a primitive notion. S aumjan's "applicational grammar" immediately comes to mind as a variant of such a model. Versions of relational grammar and categorial grammar seem to share the same spirit. See also Chomsky (1965: 123-125) for some relevant discussion on this matter.

3.

Watanabe ( 1998) presents interesting additional evidence for the hypothesis based on consider ations of denominal verb formation, while casting some doubts about Fukui and Takano's (1998) uniform treatment of phrasal movement and head movement.

4.

The same claim that (S- )C-W(S- )0-V is "basic" is independently made on quite different grounds by Haider's series of works, dating back to his 1992 paper. See Haider' s article in this volume and the references cited therein.

5.

As we summarized briefly above, in Fukui and Takano's analysis of head movement, head movement is treated as "substitution into Spec" (i.e., a projection-creating operation in the terms of bare phrase structure theory of Chomsky 1995) rather than adjunction to head. See Fukui and Takano (1998) for details.

6.

Throughout this paper, we represent hierarchical structures in terms of tree diagrams. However, the reader should keep in mind that those tree structures are used just for expository reasons and they are by no means intended to imply anything about linear order of the elements.

7.

Here we assume with Fukui (1986, 1 988) that Japanese lacks the functional category D. We also assume, for the sake of simplicity, that there is no functional projection between D and N. Note that the projection of D in the English nominal structure in (11) involves multiple specifiers occupied by the determiner and the raised N. The structure should not be confused with an adjunction structure.

8.

See also Hoshi (1997) for an extension of the basic ideas proposed in Fukui & Takano (1998) to a parametric account of differences between English and Japanese concerning adjectival modification within the nominal structure.

9.

Note that the lower segment is a trace/copy of the raised N. This means that we need to assume, contrary to Kayne (1994) and Chomsky (1995), that a segment can undergo movement. Or we might adopt Chomsky's (1993) claim that adjunction can be noncyclic, which entails that in the derivation, the relative clause adjoins to the trace/copy of the raised nominal head after raising to SpecD.

1 0.

Structures in which an XP is adjoined to an XO have traditionally been excluded, because of the (plausible) morphological requirement that a word-level category consist only of xD-elements. We can maintain this intuition by distinguishing a nonmaximal minimal category (pure Xo) and a maximal minimal category (the case in (14)). In the bare theory, a category is minimal if it is not a projection of anything. Then, traditional intuition states that the following structure, where ZP is a complement of [Xl' Xl], is banned because of the morphological requirement in question:

NOMINAL STRUCTURE

25 1

(i) is crucially different from (14) in the text in that in (i) [Xl' Xd is a nonmaximal minimal category (the maximal category there is XP), whereas in (14) [NI , NI ] is a maximal minimal category.

11.

It is standardly assumed that the relative clause is predicated of the relative head. We take this to be a licensing condition on the relative clause containing a relative pronoun that creates an open proposition. Note that if the condition in (15) is met, the predication condition is automatically satisfied as well with the open position in the relative clause identified with the relative head.

12.

One might wonder how this analysis carries over to cases in which the relative head has a complement, as in (i). (i) a picture of Mary which John saw yesterday The intuition about (i) is that the relative pronoun is identified with picture of Mary, not just picture. We then analyze (i) as follows: DP (ii)

�D'

a

�D'

picture

�D

NPl

�NPl

of Mary

� NPl

CP

�

which

�

tofMary]

tpicture]

Following Takano (1 996, 1 998), we assume that ofMary has scrambled over the relative clause (if this scrambling did not happen, the derivation would crash; see Takano, op. cit. for details). In effect, we claim that picture and ofMary in (i) do not form a constituent (they form a consti tuent only in the "base structure"). However, both c-command the relative pronoun in (ii), which we take to be sufficient to ensure that the relative pronoun is identified with picture ofMary.

13.

Here we are tentatively assuming that the Japanese relative clause is CP. We will recast this assumption in 3 .4.

14.

The "coreference" relation between the object pro and the relative head should be a free option. However, if the object pro is interpreted as referring to something other than the relative head, the relative clause will fail to meet the "aboutness" condition.

15.

Here we are neutral as to whether the overt raising of the relative pronoun is induced by some syntactic feature of C of the relative clause, or whether it is due to some other (possibly, semantic) force.

16.

The claim that CP is lacking in the Japanese relative clause is compatible with Fukui's (1986,

252

NAOKI FUKUI & YUn TAKANO 1988, 1995) theory of parametric variation, which states that the functional categories C and Agr, having no semantic content, can be lacking in some languages.

17.

A variety of analyses have been proposed for the structure of internally headed relative clauses in Japanese. See Kuroda (1998) for a summary of those analyses. Kuroda (1998) proposes an alternative to the analysis in which the internally headed relative has an invisible external head, arguing that what appears in the object position of the matrix verb in (3 1) is a headless relative clause and that the matrix verb directly a-marks the internal head in the headless relative clause.

18.

See Johnson (1 997) for a general review of Kayne's (1994) work.

19.

Feature attraction is in the form of "adjunction to head", not to be confused with movement of a head to another head, which is reanalyzed as "substitution into Spec" in our framework.

20.

The situation is reminiscent of the traditional intuition that the existence of overt Case-particles somehow makes it possible for an argument (e.g., direct object) to show up in a position that is remote from where it is a-marked, i.e., scrambling. See Fukui & Takano (1998) for some relevant discussion.

21.

Slavic/Germanic languages (including English) belong to type (ii), and the Romance languages in general belong to type (iii), according to Chierchia.

22.

Integration of Romance comparative syntax and Japanese syntax seems to be particularly interesting in this light. See Fukui et al. (in preparation) for a rather comprehensive study on "Japanese syntax in a Romance perspective".

References Chierchia, Gennaro. 1998. "Reference to kinds across languages." Natural Language Semantics 6: 339-405. Chao, Wynn and Sells, Peter. 1983. "On the interpretation of resumptive pronouns." In Peter Sells and Charles Jones (eds.), Proceedings ofNorth East Linguistic Society 13. University of Massachusetts, Amherst. 47-61 . Chomsky, No am. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 1 986. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 1993. "A minimalist program for linguistic theory." In Kenneth Hale and Samuel J. Keyser (eds), The View from Building 20. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 1-52. Chomsky, Noam. 1 994. "Bare phrase structure." MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 5, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 1998. "Minimalist inquiries: The framework." MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 15. Cole, Peter. 1987. "The structure of internally headed relative clauses." Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5: 277-302. Diesing, Molly. 1990. "Verb-second in Yiddish and the nature of the subject position." Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8: 4 1-79.

NONITNAL STRUCTURE

253

Fukui, Naoki. 1986. A Theory of Category Projection and its Applications. Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Fukui, Naoki. 1988. "Deriving the differences between English and Japanese: A case study in parametric syntax." English Linguistics 5: 249-270. Fukui, Naoki. 1993. "Parameters and optionality." Linguistic Inquiry 24: 399-420. Fukui, Naoki. 1995. "The principles-and-parameters approach: A comparative syntax of English and Japanese." In Masayoshi Shibatani and Theodora Bynon (eds), Ap proaches to Language Typology. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 327-371. Fukui, Naoki and Saito, Mamoru 1992. "Spec-Head agreement, X'-compatibility, and optionality." Paper presented at MIT Colloquium, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Fukui, Naoki, and Takano, Yuji. 1998. "Symmetry in Syntax: Merge and demerge." Journal of East Asian Linguistics 7: 27-86. Fukui, Naoki, Watanabe, Akira and Zushi, Mihoko. In preparation. Japanese syntax in a Romance perspective. Ms., University of California, Irvine, University of Tokyo, and Aichi Prefectural University. Haider, Hubert. 1992. "Branching and discharge." In Working Papers of the Sonder forschungsbereich 340 23 : 1-3 1 . Universities of Stuttgart and Tlibingen. Hoshi, Koji. 1997. "Deriving the differences of nominal modification: A comparative syntax of English and Japanese." Language, Culture and Communication 19: 92-1 14. Keio University, Tokyo. Ishii, Yasuo. 199 1 . Operators and Empty Categories in Japanese. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs. Johnson, Kyle. 1997. "A Review of The Antisymmetry of Syntax." Lingua 102: 21-53. Kayne, Richard. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Kuno, Susumu. 1973 . The Structure of the Japanese Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Kuroda, S.-Y. 1983. "What can Japanese say about government and binding." In Proceed ings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 2, 153-1 64. Stanford University. Kuroda, S.-Y. 1988. "Whether we agree or not." Linguisticae Investigationes 12: 1-47. Kuroda, S.-Y. 1 998. "Syubu naizai kankei setu." (Head-internal relative clauses). In Hideyuki Hirano and Masaru Nakamura (eds), Gengo-no Naizai to Gaizai (Intentions and Extensions of Language). Faculty of Literature, Tohoku University, Sendai. 1-79. Lasnik, Howard. 1989. Essays on Anaphora. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1 989. Structure and Case Marking in Japanese. San Diego: Academic Press. Murasugi, Keiko. 199 1 . Noun Phrases in Japanese and English: A study in syntax, learnability, and acquisition. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.

254

NAOKI FUKUI & YUn TAKANO

Oka, Toshifusa. 1988. "Abstract Case and empty pronouns." In Toshifusa Oka (ed.), Tsukuba English Studies 7, Institute of Literature and Linguistics, University of Tsukuba. 187-227. Perlmutter, David. M. 1972. "Evidence for shadow pronouns in French relativization." In Paul M. Peranteau et al. (eds), The Chicago Which Hunt. Chicago: Chicago Linguis tic Society. 73-105. Saito, Mamoru. 1985. Some Asymmetries in Japanese and their Theoretical Implications. Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Saito, Mamoru and Fukui, Naoki. 1998. "Order in phrase structure and movement." Linguistic Inquiry 29: 439-474. Sakai, Hiromu. 1994. "Complex NP constraint and Case-conversions in Japanese." In Masaru Nakamura (ed.), Current Topics in English and Japanese. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo. 179-200. Takano, Yuji. 1 996. Movement and Parametric Variation in Syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Irvine. Takano, Yuji. 1 998. "Object shift and scrambling." Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16: 8 1 7-889. Watanabe, Akira. 1998. Remarks on head movement within VP shell. Ms., University of Tokyo.

Quantifier Movement in Icelandic Peter Svenonius University of Troms¢

Abstract Derivational analyses of OV order such as that in Zwart 1 993 involve move ment of VP-internal elements to the left, across the verb. Such movement appears not to be subject to Holmberg's Generalization (Holmberg 1 986), which observes that certain kinds of movement are prohibited from crossing the verb. On one view, an OV language like German differs from a VO language like Icelandic in that German is not subject to Holmberg's General ization, while Icelandic is. Here I show that Quantifier Movement in Icelandic is not subject to Holmberg's Generalization, although similar movements in Norwegian are. Thus the difference between OV and VO languages cannot be reduced to the parametric applicability of Holmberg's Generalization by language.

Background

It has been observed at various times and in various contexts that certain types of movement seem to be inhibited from crossing the verb; for example, accord ing to Steele ( 1 978), OSV is a possible alternative order for most SOY languages (cf. her p. 6 15), while SVO is substantially less commonly possible, and OVS fairly seldom so. Similarly, most VSO languages allow VOS order (and vice versa), while only about half of the VSO languages in Steele's sample permit SVO (cf. her p. 6 1 6) . Ross ( 1 967) observed that a number o f O V languages maintain a rather strict verb-finality; he proposed that languages which are OV in Deep Structure do not have rightward movement rules. Fukui ( 1 993) develops an analysis in which head-final languages allow movements which disturb head-finality, but

256

PETER SVENONIUS

only at a greater cost (in terms of Chomsky's 1 99 1 derivational economy) than orderings which preserve the basic headedness value. His proposal is unlike that of Ross in also maintaining the analogous constraint on head-initial languages, so that they favor reorderings that preserve head-initiality. The best-known example of a movement which respects the verb as a boundary is Object Shift (OS), analyzed in Holmberg 1986 for Mainland Scandinavian (MS) and Icelandic. OS is the leftward movement of a definite noun phrase across adverbial elements (Holmberg 1 986 held that OS was restricted to pronouns in MS , but see Nilsen 1 997 for arguments that this is not necessarily so) . In ( 1 a), the object is in its most neutral position, following the verb but preceding other elements in the verb phrase (I use a particle to indicate the right edge of the verb phrase as it is generally assumed that particles do not move rightward). The verb has moved to second position, across the sentential adverb. In ( lb), the pronominal object appears to the left of the adverb. This is analyzed, following Holmberg 1 986, as involving leftward movement of the pronoun to a position outside (or adjoined to) the VP; as sketched in ( l c) (tv is the trace of the verb, to the trace of the object). (1)

a.

Knut leverte sannsynligvis oppgaven

inn.

(Nor)

the.assignment in Knut handed probably 'Knut probably handed the assignment in. ' b.

Knut leverte den sannsynligvis inn. Knut handed it probably 'Knut probably handed it in. '

c.

in

Knut leverte den sannsynligvis [vp � to inn] . Knut handed it

probably

in

OS is prohibited from crossing overt non-adverbial material; this fact is known as Holmberg 's Generalization (HG; cf. Holmberg 1 986: 1 65). OS is observed in V2 contexts, where the verb has moved to the left, across an adverb. In embed ded clauses in MS, the verb does not move, and OS is impossible. (2)

a.

. . .hvis Knut sannsynligvis leverte den inn if Knut probably handed it in

b.

* . . . hvis Knut den sannsynligvis leverte inn

c.

* . . . . hvis Knut den sannsynligvis [vp leverte to inn]

if if

Knut it Knut it

probably probably

(Nor)

handed in handed

III

OS is also impossible across non-finite verb forms, prepositions, and particles. 1

QUANTIFIER MOVEMENT IN ICELANDIC (3)

a.

Knut har { *den } sannsynligvis levert

{den} inn.

Knut has it probably handed it 'Knut has probably handed it in. ' b.

(Nor)

in

Knut skrev { *den } sannsynligvis pa {den}. Knut wrote it probably ' Knut probably wrote on it. '

c.

257

on it (Swe)

Lars skickade { *den} sannolikt in {den}. Lars handed

it

probably in it

OS is also prohibited across such sentence elements as the subject or indirect object (though see Josefsson 1 992 for examples in which OS crosses the subject, in Swedish). (4)

a.

I dag leverte { *den} Knut {den} sannsynligvis inn. today handed

b.

Knut ga Knut gave

it

Knut it

probably

(Nor)

in

{*den} sannsynligvis Marit {den}. it

probably

Marit it

HG may not have a unified explanation: the different elements may be uncros sable by OS for different reasons. For example, if OS is a type of A movement, as argued in Holmberg 1 986 (cf. Webelhuth 1 992; Vikner 1 994; Holmberg & Platzack 1 995; Holmberg 1 997 for discussion), then the fact that it cannot cros s subjects o r indirect objects i s expected under Relativized Minimality (RM; Rizzi 1 990), but its being unable to cross verbs and prepositions still requires another explanation. Whatever that explanation is (see Holmberg 1 999 for a recent proposal along with discussion of previous ones), OS has seemed to be somewhat of an anomaly in that other movements do not obey HG, nor even the residue of it once RM effects are ignored. For example, A'-movements such as topicalization and wh-movement may freely cross moved and unmoved verbs, as may A 2 movements such as passive and subject raising. Recent proposals regarding the derivation of OV orders from underlying VO orders (e.g. Zwart 1 993) compound the problem in a sense, as they postulate object movements to the left that resemble OS except that they do not obey HG. This raises the possibility that languages are parametrized according to whether they obey HG or not; possibly, OV languages are just those that do not. Howev er, since VO languages have HG-oblivious rules like subject raising and topica lization, even this scenario leaves HG with a very narro w scope of application. Worse yet, according to Diesing 1 997, Yiddish, generally considered a VO language, has something which looks very much like OS but which violates HG.

258

PETER SVENONIUS

Part of the problem in providing an analysis for HG, then, is in finding other examples than OS to which it applies. Here I would like to point out one such example: Negative Movement (NM) in Norwegian. NM has been largely overlooked because unlike OS, it does not cross adverbs. As a result, it is always string-vacuous in languages like Norwegian. However, it can be observed by the fact that it is obligatory: failure to undergo NM results in ungrammaticality. Thus, although the sentence in (5a), with a negative object, is grammatical; this is not so for the sentences in (5b-e), which repeat the contexts from (2) and (3) 3 above in which HG blocks OS. (5)

a.

Knut leverte ingenting inn.

(Nor)

Knut handed nothing in 'Knut didn't hand anything in. ' b. * . . . hvis Knut leverte ingenting inn if Knut handed nothing in c. * Knut har levert ingenting inn. Knut has handed nothing in d. *Knut skrev pa ingenting. Knut wrote on nothing e. *Lars skickade in ingenting. Lars handed in nothing

(Swe)

In addition, NM cannot cross a subject or indirect object. (6)

a.

*1 dag leverte ingenting Knut inn. today handed nothing

(Nor)

Knut in

b. *Knut ga ingenting Marit. Knut gave nothing Marit The contrast between (5a) and (5b) is quite striking. It is explained on the assumption, due to Christensen 1 99 1 , that negative objects must leave VP overtly (cf. also Haegeman' s 1 995 Neg Criterion), given that that movement is subject to HG. Thus (5a-b) are analyzed as in (7). (7)

a.

Knut leverte ingenting [yp � to inn] .

in Knut handed nothing b. * . . . hvis Knut [yp leverte ingenting inn] if Knut handed nothing in (5b) is then bad because the negative object has to move, but cannot cross the verb, which has not left VP.

QUANTIFIER MOVEMENT IN ICELANDIC

259

In Swedish and Danish, sentences like those in (5b-c) can be rescued by non-string-vacuous NM .

(8)

a.

. . . om Lars ingenting inliimnnade. if Lars nothing handed.in ' . . .if Lars didn't hand anything in.'

b.

Lars har ingenting inliimnat.

(Swe)

Lars has nothing handed.in 'Lars hasn't handed anything in. ' Some speakers of Norwegian also accept such sentences, though for most speakers, they are not employed except in idiomatic expressions. Even in Swedish and Danish, non-string-vacuous NM may be restricted in various ways, to different degrees for different speakers. I will not attempt any further analysis here of the Danish and Swedish facts, except to point out the similarity of the French fronting of rien in sentences like that in (9a) (from Obenauer 1 998). (9)

a.

Il n '

a

rien

prepare.

(Fre)

he NEG has nothing prepared 'He hasn't prepared anything. ' b. *Il n ' a prepare rien. he NEG has prepared nothing Cf. Cinque 1 990, Taraldsen 1 99 1 on a different case of single-word operators with special syntactic properties. In the remainder of this paper I tum to Icelandic, a language which exhibits a highly productive rule of NM and a slightly less productive rule of Quantifier Movement (QM), neither of which respects HG. Icelandic and Norwegian can thus clearly be contrasted with respect to whether NM is subject to HG or not (Swedish and Danish I will tacitly take to pattern with Norwegian, assuming the pattern in (8) above to be exceptional). The paper is organized as follows: in § 1 I summarize the essential syntactic properties of QM. Following Jonsson 1 996 I take QM to be, in general, A'-movement, and following Rognvaldsson 1 987 I model it as adjunction to VP. I show that in certain contexts, this leads to QM having properties of A-move ment, rather than A'-movement. In §2 I discuss the semantic effects of the movement and suggest that it represents an overt instance of Quantifier Raising (QR). I take QR to be motivated by rules of semantic interpretation, which build tripartite quantificational structures. QR moves to the left edge of VP, on this view, in order to syntactically demarcate its nuclear scope (as in Diesing 1 992). In §3 I discuss the absence of QM in Norwegian. ,

PETER SVENONIUS

260

1.

The syntactic properties of QM in Icelandic

Icelandic is uncontroversially a VO language, in that complements quite general ly follow their heads. ( l 0)

a.

Strdkamir hojlJu hent

grjoti { baana.

the.boys had thrown rock in the.cars 'The boys had thrown rocks at the cars. ' b. *Strdkamir hojlJu grjoti hent { baana. the.boys had rock thrown in the.cars Icelandic has O S ; as in MS , OS in Icelandic is subject to RO. In ( l l a-b), the main verb has moved to the left across the adverb aldrei 'never ' , and in ( l l b) OS has applied; in ( l l c), there is a participle which has not moved across aldrei, and OS is prohibited. ( 1 1)

a.

Strdkamir hentu aldrei grjotinu { baana. the.boys threw never the.rock in the.cars 'The boys never threw the rocks at the cars. '

b.

Strdkamir hentu grjotinu aldrei { baana. the.boys threw the.rock never in the. cars 'The boys never threw the rocks at the cars . '

c.

*Strdkamir hojlJu grjotinu aldrei hent the.boys

had

{ baana.

the.rock never thrown in the.cars

What I discuss in this paper is another leftward movement process, distinct from OS, which affects negative objects obligatorily, moving them to the left, across an unmoved verb (R6gnvaldsson 1 987). ( 1 2)

a.

*Strdkamir hojlJu hent the.boys

b.

had

engu grjoti { baana.

thrown no

rock in the.cars

Strdkamir hojlJu engu grjoti hent

{ baana.

the.boys had no rock thrown in the.cars 'The boys had thrown no rocks at the cars. ' Jonsson 1 996 calls the movement in ( l 2b) Negative Movement (NM, as above). A similar movement process may affect non-negative quantificational objects, but only optionally, and not necessarily for all speakers; many speakers feel that the order in ( 1 3b) is odd or at least stylistically marked, and many similar examples are adjudged ungrammatical. I indicate the variable status of such examples with a question mark here, though it should be noted that many such examples are perfect for many speakers.

QUANTIFIER MOVEMENT IN ICELANDIC ( 1 3)

a.

Strdkamir h6fou hent

26 1

miklu grjoti ( baana.

the.boys had thrown much rock in the.cars 'The boys have thrown many rocks at the cars.'

b.

?Strdkamir hofou miklu grjoti hent

( baana.

the.boys had much rock thrown in the.cars 'The boys had thrown many rocks at the cars. ' The movement in ( 1 3) is what I have have referred to above as Quantifier Movement (QM), following Christensen 1 99 1 ; assume for the moment that NM is a specific case of QM (I motivate this assumption in §2 below). The basic empirical facts are carefully documented in Rognvaldsson 1987, where QM (including NM) is analyzed in terms of adjunction to VP. Jonsson 1 996 analyzes NM, proposing that negative expressions move to SpecNegP, under Haegeman & Zanuttini' s 1 99 1 Neg Criterion. Here I extend the empirical coverage of the work by Rognvaldsson and Jonsson, and refine the analysis. A note on the data: most of the examples of QM with non-negative quantified DPs are marked or degraded for many speakers, and even those speakers who accept QM generally find the corresponding sentences without it more natural. I have not indicated this in the examples in the sections to follow. Even speakers who are hesitant to accept sentences displaying QM detect a clear contrast between the examples that I give here as good and the starred examples. In addition to speaker variation, the choice of quantifier affects acceptabili ty. Rognvaldsson 1 987: 3 8-42 gives examples with QM with ymislegur 'various ' and ddlitiO ' a little' a s well a s downward entailing quantifiers/adjectives such as fair 'few' and [(tio 'little' as perfect, and marks examples of QM with mikio 'much' and einhverjar ' some' as "71" . Other speakers are not necessarily as strict. Rognvaldsson also notes other factors affecting acceptability, including length. For example, he gives the pair in ( 14a-b) (his p. 40, his judgments, confirmed by other speakers), to which can be added ( 14c-e). (14)

a.

Jon hefur ymislegt jJurft ao jJola. Jon has various had to tolerate 'Jon has had to put up with various things. '

b.

?Jon hefur ymsa

erfiOleika jJurft ao jJola.

Jon has various difficulties had to tolerate 'Jon has had to put up with various difficulties. '

c . ??Jon hefur ymsa ohjakwemilega erfioleika jJurft a o jJola. Jon has various unavoidable difficulties had to tolerate 'Jon has had to put up with various unavoidable difficulties. '

PETER SVENONIUS

262

d. *?J6n hefur ymsa erfiOleika sem voru 6hjdkvcemilegir jJurft Jon has various difficulties as were unavoidable had

ao jJola. to tolerate

e.

?J6n hefur ymsa Jon has

erfioleika jJurft ao jJola

sem voru

various difficulties had to tolerate as

were

6hjdkvcemilegir. unavoidable 'Jon has had to put up with various difficulties that were unavoidable. ' As indicated, full DPs undergo QM with slight reluctance, deviance sometimes increasing with length, witness the contrasts between ( 14b-c) and ( 14c-d). A relative clause can be stranded, as in (14e), which is comparable to ( 1 4b), with no relative clause (I gloss the relative particle sem as 'as ' , cf. Svenonius 1 998). , Henceforth I will omit the , ? before examples with full DPs, taking them to be basically good, in a certain register. Examples which I do mark with a question mark are noticeably worse, for a majority of informants, than examples like (14a-b). 1 . 1 QM moves quantificational DPs As has already been suggested in the examples in the introduction, QM is restricted to quantified elements, specifically quantified DPs . It is impossible with bare indefinites (cf. (10)), including bare plurals, as in ( 1 5a) , and with definites (cf. ( 1 1 )), including possessed DPs and names, as in ( 1 5b-c). ( 15)

a. *Strdkarnir hofIJu steinum hent { baana. the.boys had stones thrown in the. cars b. *Strdkurinn hefur bj6rfioskunni minni hent { bainn. the.boy has the.beer.bottle my thrown in the.car c. *Helgi hefur AtomstOoina lesio. Helgi has The Atom Station read

For some speakers, QM is possible with weak quantifiers (cf. (13) above), including numerals , as well as strong quantifiers (four of six polled accepted both ( 1 6a) and ( 1 6b), and two rej ected both; all found ( 1 6c) more or less acceptable; for those speakers who rejected ( 1 6a), similar examples with bara 'only' before the numeral were substantially improved). Negative polarity items, such as neitt in ( 1 6d), also undergo QM.

QUANTIFIER MOVEMENT IN ICELANDIC ( 1 6)

263

a. %Strakarnir hojou jJremur steinum hent { baana. the.boys had three stones thrown in the.cars 'The boys had thrown three rocks at the cars . ' b. %Strakarnir hojou ollum steinunum hent { baana. the.boys had all the. stones thrown in the.cars 'The boys had thrown all the rocks at the cars.' c. Helgi hefur jiestar bcekur lesio. Helgi has most books read 'Helgi has read most books. ' d . Enginn hefur neitt gert. nobody has anything done 'Nobody has done anything. '

Generally, QM moves DPs of any case (e.g. the object of henta 'throw' in ( 1 0)-( 1 3) is dative, but the object of lesa 'read' in ( 1 6c) above is accusative). Complements of prepositions can be moved in some cases, as seen in (17b). (17)

a.

Hann hefur talao

vio ymsa.

he has spoken with various 'He has spoken with various [people] . ' b.

Hann hefur ymsa

talao

via.

he has various spoken with 'He has spoken with various [people] . '

c. * ?Hann hefur vio ymsa talao. he has with various spoken

Preposition stranding is generally possible under A'-movement in Icelandic. In some cases, preposition stranding under QM is not possible, but PP movement is, at least for some speakers (cf. Jonsson 1 996: 84). ( 1 8)

a.

Hann hefur ekki hlegio

ao neinum.

he has not laughed at anybody 'He hasn't laughed at anybody.'

b. * ?Hann hefur ekki neinum hlegio ao. he has not anybody laughed at c. Hann hefur ekki ao neinum hlegio. he has not at anybody laughed 'He hasn't laughed at anybody.' P stranding and PP movement appear to be in roughly complementary distribu tion, for different verb-preposition combinations, though in some cases both

264

PETER SVENONIUS

options are regarded as dubious (and there is some degree of speaker variation; in particular, some speakers seem to always prefer P stranding). I return to the interaction of PPs with QM in § 1 .5 below. 1 .2 QM is like A ' -movement Jonsson 1 996 shows that NM generally has the characteristics of A'-movement, rather than A-movement, and here I demonstrate the same for QM. Jonsson identifies four factors suggesting an A'-movement analysis for NM: ( 1 9)

A' properties of NM (Jonsson 1 996: 83) a. NM is not Case-driven b. NM licenses parasitic gaps c. NM triggers WCO violations d. NM does not create new binding possibilities for anaphors.

For ( 1 9a), Jonsson points out that NM moves complements of prepositions, as seen above for QM in ( l 7b), and that NM moves PPs, as seen for QM in ( l 8c). An additional argument that QM is not Case-driven is the fact that it crosses clause boundaries. For example, (20b) shows the object of the embedded verb geta 'be able to, solve' moving past the participle in the main clause. (20)

a.

A profinu mun hann synast geta margt. on the.test will he seem solve many 'On the test he will seem to be able to solve many [problems] . '

b.

A profinu mun hann margt synast geta.

on the.test will he many seem solve 'On the test he will seem to be able to solve many [problems] . ' Case i s available in the embedded clause from the transitive verb geta; the main verb in the matrix clause, on the other hand, is the raising verb synast, 'seem' , which is standardly assumed not to assign Case. As for ( l 9b), Jonsson provides examples of QM which are intended to demonstrate that it licenses parasitic gaps, similar to those in (2 1 a-b) ; (2 1 a) shows a good example of QM with a parasitic gap; (21 b) shows that the parasitic gap is bad without QM; and (2 1 c) shows that QM is not necessary if there is no parasitic gap.

QUANTIFIER MOVEMENT IN ICELANDIC (2 1 )

a.

265

Peir hafa morgum sagt upp an.pess ao hrosa fyrir vel unnin they have many

said up without to praise for well done

stoif. work 'They have fired many people without praising [them] for a job well done.' b. *Peir hafa sagt upp morgum an.pess ao hrosa fyrir vel unnin they have said up many without to praise for well done

stoif. work c.

Peir hafa sagt upp morgum an.pess ao hrosa peim fyrir vel they have said up many

without to praise them for well

unnin stoif. done work 'They have fired many people without praising them for a job well done. ' Diagnostic ( 1 9c) is Weak Cross-Over (WCO). (22a) shows that skila 'return' takes two (dative) complements, goal before theme (the opposite order is not possible); (22b) shows that QM of the second complement across the first is possible; and (22c) shows that this is not possible if the crossed complement contains a pronoun coindexed with the complement moved by QM. (22d) shows that A'-movement has the same property. (22)

a.

Eg hef skilao

Joni morgum bokum.

1

have returned Jon many books 'I have returned many books to Jon.'

b.

Eg hef morgum bokum skilao

Joni.

1 have many

books returned Jon 'I have returned many books to Jon.'

c.

*Eg hef morgum bokumi skilao

eigendum peirrai.

1

have many books returned owners their ( 'I have returned many books to their owners. ' )

d. *Hvaoa bokumi hefurou skilao eigendum peirrai ? which books have. you returned owners their Finally, Jonsson shows that NM does not create new opportunities for binding, unlike A-movement (( 19d)). Example (23a) is modelled on his (112), p. 85, and, in conjunc tion with (22c), demonstrates that the same holds for QM: whether the pronoun is reflexive or not, it cannot be bound by the QM-moved expression. (23b) shows that A-movement is different in this respect, as it does not induce WCO.

PETER SVENONIUS

266 (23)

a.

b.

*Eg hef marga bcekuri gefio eigendum s{numi. I have many books given owners REFL ('I have given many books to their owners. ' )

Pessar bcekuri voru gefin eigendum s{numi . these books were given owners REFL 'These books were given to their owners. '

While it may not strictly b e true that A'-movement never creates new opportuni ties for binding, it does not in the usual case, while A-movement generally does, so (23) supports the proposal that QM is A'-movement. However, in § 1 .3-5 below I show the picture is slightly more complicated, and in §2 below I will suggest that QM is actually a case of Quantifier Raising (QR) , a movement more restricted than A'-movement (for example, it cannot cross an indicative clause boundary). 1 .3 QM targets the highest VP QM occurs under a variety of auxiliaries. In Icelandic, auxiliary verbs may take bare infinitives, as in (24a) , to-infinitives (i.e. infinitives with the preposition! complementizer ao), as in (24b), or perfect participles, as in ( 1 3) or (24c). (24)

a.

Porgerour mun [{tio boroa. porgera will little eat 'porgera will eat little. '

b.

Sigrfour cetlar ymislegt ao gagnryna. Signa will various to criticize 'Signa will criticize various [things] . '

c.

Eypor getur ekkert gert. Eyp6r can nothing done 'Eyp6r can't do anything. '

If there are multiple auxiliaries, QM moves the D P to the left o f the highest non-finite verb (in a finite clause) ; given that the finite verb has left the VP it heads, this is consistent with QM targeting the highest VP, as Rognvaldsson ( 1 987) suggests. (25)

a.

Hann mun mikio hafa viljao lesa. he will much have wanted read 'He has wanted to read much. '

b. *Hann mun hafa mikio viljao lesa. he will have much wanted read

QUANTIFIER MOVEMENT IN ICELANDIC c.

267

*Hann mun hafa viljao mikio lesa. he

will have wanted much read

Control verbs generally pattern with auxiliaries in that QM can escape the infinitive clause, as in (26b); testing for QM within the embedded clause is difficult because of the oddness of most instances of auxiliaries embedded under control verbs; but given a suitable context, some marginally acceptable examples can be constructed, as in (26c) (this is discussed further in §2, where the different readings of (26a-b) are also discussed) ((26c) is not terribly good, but whether this is due to semantic or strictly syntactic factors is unclear to me). (26)

a.

Hann hefur lofao

ao lesa margar bcekur.

he has promised to read many books 'He has promised to read many books.' b.

Hann hefur margar bcekur lofao

ao lesa.

he has many books promised to read 'He has .promised to read many books.'

c.

?Eg skipaoi henni ao hafa margar bcekur lesilJ.

1 ordered her

to have many books read 'I ordered her to have read many books [at the time of my return]. '

Subjunctive complements more clearly allow both short QM, and for a subset of speakers, also allow long QM. On the readings, see §2. (27)

a.

Hun hafoi viljao ao hann gceti

keypt margt.

she had wanted that he could.SUB] bought many 'She had wanted him to be able to buy many. ' b.

Hun hafoi viljao

ao hann gceti

margt keypt.

she had wanted that he could.SUB] many bought 'She had wanted him to be able to buy many. ' (i.e. that the number could be high)

c. %Hun hafOi margt viljao ao hann gceti keypt. she had many wanted that he could.SUB] bought 'She had wanted him to be able to buy many. ' (i.e. many particular items) Finally, indicative complements clearly do not allow long QM. (28)

a.

Hun hefur lengi vitao

ao hann getur keypt margt.

she has long known that he can bought many 'She has long known that he could buy many. '

PETER SVENONIUS

268 b.

Hun hefur lengi vitao

ao hann getur margt keypt.

she has long known that he can many bought 'She has long known that he could buy many. ' c.

*Hun hefur lengi margt vitao she has

ao hann getur keypt.

long many known that he

can

bought

OS is diagnosed by the fact that it crosses adverbs (cf. (Ub) above). QM does not; the pattern in (29) is representative and can be repeated with a variety of adverbs and quantificational DPs (though there is speaker variation on whether fa 'few' requires QM or not; the judgments given are for those speakers for whom it is optional) . (29)

a.

Hann getur ennjJa lesio faar bcekur. he can yet read few books 'He can read few books yet.'

b.

Hann getur ennjJafaar bcekur lesio. he can yet few books read 'He can read few books yet.'

c.

*Hann geturfaar bcekur ennjJa lesio. he

d.

can

few books yet

Hann las bokina

read

ennjJa.

he read the.book yet 'He still read the book. ' (29d) shows that in an OS context, a definite DP can cross ennjJa, ' still, yet' . (29c) shows that QM cannot. Floated quantifiers are sometimes used as a diagnostic for the left edge of VP, on the assumption that they can occupy SpecVP. QM cannot cross a floated quantifier. (30)

a.

Pau hafa all ymislegt seo. they have all various seen 'They have all seen various [things] . '

b. *Pau hafa ymislegt all seo. they have various all seen However, it is unclear how much significance to attach to this, since floated quantifiers probably function as scope markers for quantification, and this may block QM across them. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that the floated quantifier in (30a) is in Spec VP.

269

QUANTIFIER MOVEMENT IN ICELANDIC 1 .4 Constraints on QM

QM is at least as constrained as topicalization (in fact, more so) ; it cannot escape adjuncts. This is shown for topicalization in (3 1b), for QM in (3 1 c). (3 1 )

a.

Peir hafa rifio

hus

til jJess ao bua

they have demolished houses to it

til morg

to prepare to many

baastceoi. parking.spaces 'They have demolished houses in order to make many parking spaces. ' b.

*Morg baastceoi

hafa jJeir rifio

hus

til jJess ao

many parking.spaces have they demolished houses to it

bua

to

til.

prepare to c.

*Peir hafa morg baastceoi

rifio

hus

til jJess ao

they have many parking.spaces demolished houses to it

bua

to

til.

prepare to QM can move a subject, for example from the ECM complement of a perception verb, as can topicalization. (32)

a.

Eg hef heyrt marga fara ut ur herberginu. I have heard many go out of the.room 'I have heard many [people] leave the room.'

b.

Marga hef eg heyrt fara ut ur herberginu. many have I heard go out of the.room 'Many [people] , I have heard leave the room.'

c.

Eg hef marga heyrt fara ut ur herberginu.

I have many heard go out of the.room 'I have heard many [people] leave the room.' QM can (marginally) escape an indefinite noun phrase, like topicalization (one speaker of six rejected both of (33b-c); another rejected (33c); three others found (33c) questionable). (33)

a.

Eg hef skrifao skjrslur um margar bcekur. I have written reviews of many books 'I have written reviews of many books . '

270

PETER SVENONIUS b.

Margar bcekur hef eg skrifao skjrslur um. many books have I written reviews of 'Many books, I have written reviews of. '

c.

?Eg hef margar bcekur skrifao skjrslur um. I have many books written reviews of 'I have written reviews of many books.'

QM out of a definite noun phrase is ungrammatical, as with topicalization. (34)

a.

Eg hef skrifao skjrsluna

um margar bcekur.

I have written the.reviews of many books 'I have written the reviews of many books.' b. *Margar bcekur hef eg skrifao skjrsluna many books have I written the.reviews c. *Eg hef margar bcekur skrifao skjrsluna I have many books written the.reviews

um. of

um. of

Whatever the precise characterization of constraints on syntactic movement, QM shows no signs of escaping them. It is actually more constrained. For example, QM cannot move the subject of a finite complement, though A'-movement can (the embedded clause here is subjunctive, which was shown in (27c) above to allow QM from object position, for some speakers). (35)

a.

Hun hafoi viljao ao marga stelpur kcemu { veisluna. she had wanted that many girls came in the.party 'She had wanted many girls to come to the party.'

b.

Hversu marga stelpur hafoi hun viljao ao kcemu { veisluna ? how many girls had she wanted that came in the.party 'How many girls had she wanted to come to the party?'

c.

*Hun hafoi marga stelpur viljao she had many girls

ao kcemu

{ veisluna.

wanted that came.SUB] in the. party

Other restrictions on QM appear in the next subsection. In §2, I resume the discussion of the constraints on QM, after discussing its semantic effects. 1 .5 QM without auxiliaries Taking QM to target the left edge of the highest VP, inside the position of adverb attachment, QM will be string-vacuous in case the main verb moves out of VP. (36a) ambiguously allows a specific or existential reading for the object (cf. §2) ; but so does (36b), in which QM has not taken place. Thus, it is possible

QUANTIFIER MOVEMENT IN ICELANDIC

27 1

that no QM can take place in (36a). Nor does (36c) have any readings that (36a) does not have, so it cannot be used to demonstrate that QM cannot have taken place in (36a) (more on readings in §2; two of six informants rejected all examples of QM with numerals without bara 'only ' , including (36c), but accepted it if bara was inserted before the numeral). (36)

a.

Via buoum tveimur rceoumonnum. we invited two speakers 'We invited two speakers. '

b.

Via getum booia tveimur rceoumonnum. we can invited two speakers 'We can invite two speakers. '

c.

Via getum tveimur rceoumonnum booia. we can two speakers 'We can invite two speakers. '

invited

There i s one indication, however, that Q M can occur string-vacuously. Recall from the introduction that negative DPs obligatorily shift to the left (cf. ( 1 2) above, or (37b-c) below); assuming that NM (negative movement) is an instance of QM, the fact that examples like (37a) are grammatical suggest that QM must have applied there. (37)

a.

Via buoum engum lOgreglujJjonum. we invited no police. officers 'We didn't invite any police officers. '

b. *Vio getum booio engum lOgreglujJjonum. we can invited no police. officers Via getum engum lOgreglujJjonum boDio. c. we can no police.officers invited 'We can't invite any police officers. ' This can also b e seen in embedded clauses. Control infinitives move to lnft in Icelandic (Thnlinsson 1 993), as can be seen from adverb placement, as in (38a). Thus, it can be inferred that the negative object in (38b) has undergone NM .

(38)

a.

Pu lofaDir

ao segja ekki oro.

you promised to say not word 'You promised not to say anything. ' b.

PU lofaoir

ao segja ekkert.

you promised to say nothing 'You promised to say nothing. '

PETER SVENONIUS

272

Compare the to-infinitive complement of an auxiliary, in which there is no verb movement. (39)

a. *Pio jJUrjio ao segja ekki oro. you need to say not word b. *PiG jJUrjio ao segja ekkert. you need to say nothing c. PiG jJurjio ekkert ao segja. you need nothing to say 'You don't need to say anything. '

R6gnvaldsson 1 987 and J6nsson 1 996 argue that the negative object in examples like those in (37a) and (38b) has left VP. Given this assumption, it can be concluded that QM is possible in general when there is no verb in VP, even though it may be string-vacuous in such cases. However, there are certain circumstances in which QM to a headless VP is not possible. First, QM can escape a PP (cf. ( 1 7) above), but is substantially degraded in such cases if there is no verb in VP. Thus, the pattern in (40a-b) is representative (R6gnvaldsson 1 987: 37 gives (40b) without marking it as degraded, but agrees (p.c.) that it is less than perfect; J6nsson 1 996: 93 marks it , , ? and other informants have generally agreed). On the other hand, not moving the DP out of the PP, as in (40c), is substantially worse. (40)

a.

Eg he! engan talao

vio.

I have noone spoken with 'I have spoken to noone. '

b.

?Eg talaoi engan vio.

I spoke nobody with 'I spoke with nobody. '

c. * ?Eg talaoi vio engan. I spoke with nobody

The status of such examples varies with the verb (as R6gnvaldsson notes, op. cit. p. 45) and with speaker. Recall from ( 1 8) above that hlega ao 'laugh at' was a verb-preposition combination that favored pied-piping over preposition strand ing, under QM. The preference is repeated in the simplex verb examples, as seen below. (4 1 )

a.

?Eg hlo

ao engum.

I laughed at nobody 'I didn't laugh at anybody. '

QUANTIFIER MOVEMENT IN ICELANDIC

273

b. *?Eg hlo engum ao. I laughed nobody at Thus we can assume that the whole PP fronts, string-vacuously, in (41 a), perhaps because such PPs are somehow 'DP-like' (e.g. in that their prepositions are relatively semantically vacuous) . The PP in (40), then, is less DP-like in the relevant sense. Why DP extraction is not perfect in (40b) and not allowed in (41b) will become c1ear(er) momentarily. Another instance of contrast between simplex and complex verbs is seen with double object constructions, as demonstrated by R6gnvaldsson 1 987: 46, using the examples in (42). (42)

a.

Jon hefur ekkert sagt Sveini. Jon has nothing said Svein 'Jon has told Svein nothing. '

b. *Jon sagoi ekkert Sveini. Jon said nothing Svein c. Jon sagoi Sveini ekkert. Jon said Svein nothing , Jon told Svein nothing. ' In (42a), it can b e seen that NM allows a D P to cross another D P (the unmarked order of complements for the verb segja 'say, tell' is dative-accusative, as in (42c» . However, when the verb is simplex, as in (42b) , this is impossible. Instead, the order is obligatorily as in (42c). Jonsson 1 996 suggests that the indirect object in (42c) undergoes obligatory OS just in case the direct object is negative (as suggested above, OS must be to a higher position than NM), but does not suggest why this should be the case, since OS is ordinarily optional. In any event, the simplex-complex verb distinction can be observed in examples in which OS cannot be a factor. (43)

a.

Eg he! sett eitur

I

morg g16s.

I have set poison in many glasses 'I have placed poison in many glasses. '

b.

?Eg he! morg g16s

sett eitur

I.

I have many glasses set poison in 'I have placed poison in many glasses. '

c.

Eg setti eitur

I

morg g16s.

I set poison in many glasses 'I placed poison in many glasses. '

PETER SVENONIUS

274

d. *Eg setti morg glOs eitur 1. I set many glasses poison in e. *Eg setti eitur morg glOs 1. I set poison many glasses in Here eitur 'poison' is a bare mass noun, and cannot undergo OS. Furthermore, even if it were to move to the left, the example in (43e) shows that QM cannot target a position to its right. Though QM is less than perfect in examples of this sort, there is a clear contrast between (43b) and (43d-e). A similar example is given below. (44)

a.

?Eg he! ekkert talao via hann um.

I have nothing talked with him about 'I haven't talked with him about anything. '

b. *Eg talaoi ekkert vio hann um. I talked nothing with him about

Here NM is clearly impossible across a PP, unless it is across a verb as well (the pattern is the same for QM generally). OS cannot be a factor, as it does not affect PPs. In all of the good examples of QM so far, the quantified DP has been immediately followed by a non-finite verb or ao, or, if examples like (37a) and (38b) involve string-vacuous QM, then the DP can also be sentence-final. Being sentence-final is not a criterion in itself, as the examples in (45) show. (45)

a.

Vio hofum engan bj6r

1

lsskdpnum.

we have no beer in the.refrigerator 'We have no beer in the refrigerator. ' b.

Vio t6kum engar kartoflur upp. we took no potatoes up 'We dug up no potatoes.'

c.

* Vio t6kum upp engar kartoflur. we took

up no

potatoes

Here, the negative DP appears to the left of PP or a particle. If it were true that there is no QM except to the left of an unmoved verb (or ao; cf. e.g. (24b) above), then the condition on NM which is obligatory if possible, would become mysterious. Note that the ungrammaticality of (45c) strengthens the case that NM is obligatory, since Icelandic allows the order particle-DP with non-negative objects (cf. Svenonius 1 996a) . One last example of the same pattern is seen for QM out of control ,

QUANTIFIER MOVEMENT IN ICELANDIC

275

complements, whether the complement is introduced by a preposition or not: the verb neyoa, 'force' , takes a to-infinitive with the preposition til 'to' , while the verb skipa, 'order ' , takes a simple to-infinitive (for some reason, many infor mants found these particular examples degraded, though similar examples, such as (26b) above, were acceptable; at any rate, the contrasts noted are salient). (46)

a.

?Hann mun marga straka neyoa pig til ao kyssa. he will many boys force you to to kiss 'He will force you to kiss many boys.'

b. *Hann neyddi henni marga straka til ao kyssa. he forced her many boys to to kiss c. ?Hann hefur engum skipao henni ao giftast. he has nobody ordered her to marry 'He hasn't ordered her to marry anybody. ' d. *Hann skipaoi henni engum ao giftast. he ordered her nobody to marry I propose that this peculiar distribution can be explained if it is assumed that when the verb is simplex, QM and Case checking compete for the same position. This is most straightforward if Case is checked in the position adjoined to the main VP, as in Chomsky 1 995, while QM is adjunction to the highest VP, following Rognvaldsson 1 987. When there is no auxiliary, this will be the same landing site (the same result can also be had assuming AgrO, if certain additional assumptions are made: AgrO selects the case-assigning VP, and QM is move ment into the specifier of the lowest functional head above the highest VP; but see below on the non-unifiability of QM and OS). Thus QM will always be possible, subject to constraints on A'-movement, if there is an auxiliary or other non-case-assigning verb, because then the adjunction site on the highest VP is not a Case position. Just in case there is no auxiliary, QM will only be possible for DPs which check Case with that particular verb; generally, this will restrict QM to objects of the verb, as seen above; ECM subjects (for example, in small clauses like that in (32) above) will also be able to undergo QM into an auxiliariless main clause, but again it will be string-vacuous. This means that QM occurs with simplex verbs but only as a kind of A movement. It is predicted, then, that it should show properties of A movement. In particular, it should not license parasitic gaps. In (47) below, the parasitic gap example is repeated with a simplex verb, with a negative object and a non negative; neither one can license a parasitic gap.

PETER SVENONIUS

276 (47)

a.

*Peir sogou engum upp an.pess ao hrosa fyrir vel unnin they said

nobody up without to praise for well done

stoif. work b. *Peir sogou morgum upp an.pess ao hrosa fyrir vel unnin they said many up without to praise for well done

stoif. work c.

Peir sogou engum upp an.pess ao hrosa peim fyrir vel they said

nobody up without to praise them for well

unnin stoif. done work 'They fired nobody without praising them for a job well done. ' Jonsson 1 996: 9 2 , arguing explicitly for string-vacuous A'-movement i n cases like the ones under discussion, gives the example in (48a) (he does not mark it as degraded). However, for other speakers (all five consulted) this example is clearly ungrammatical, just like the parallel one in (48b) with OS. (48)

a.

*Jon les

ekkert an.pess ao gagnryna harolega.

Jon reads nothing without to criticize severely ( 'Jon reads nothing without criticizing [it] severely. ' ) b. *Jon las bokina ekki an.pess a o gagnryna harOlega. Jon read the.book not without to criticize severely ( 'Jon didn't read the book without criticizing [it] severely. ' ) The analysis proposed here explains the possibility of string-vacuous QM, noted above, and excludes all of the examples of QM to a simplex verb out of more deeply embedded positions. It might serve to explain R6gnvaldsson's example of QM failing to cross an indirect object, as well: that might be captured under an account of Relativized Minimality effects, whereby A-movement cannot cross a filled A-position. Still undiscussed are the prepositional examples in (40)-(4 1 ) above and certain examples with adjectival complements noted by Jonsson ( 1 996: 92), whence the examples below. (49)

a.

Jon er engum Ukur. Jon is nobody like 'Jon is like nobody else. '

QUANTIFIER MOVEMENT IN ICELANDIC b.

277

Marfa er engum htio. Maria is nobody dependent 'Maria is dependent on nobody. '

Here, the DP complements of the adjectives are dependent on them for Case; the copula (presumably) has nothing to do with the matter. Yet overt NM is licit, even though the main verb moves out of VP. I assume that in these cases, the VP is a licit target for NM precisely because the verb is not a potential Case assigner, having no external theta-role (cf. Burzio 1 986). This account might be extended to the prepositional examples : it might be that the verbs which (margin ally) allow DP fronting out of a prepositional complement (as in (40b)) are also not Case-assigners. The marginality of such examples might have to do with the fact that they are potential Case-assigners. It may appear at this point that OS feeds QM in the cases at hand, but things are not quite that simple. The problem is that, as noted above, OS crosses all sorts of sentential adverbs, but QM does not cross any. This is seen when the verb is simplex, as below. (50)

a.

Hann les

b6kina

{ennp6Jvfst/sennilega }.

he reads the.book yet/apparently/probably 'He {still/apparently/probably } reads the book.' b. *Hann les ftiar bcekur {ennpti/vfst/sennilega }. he reads few books yet/apparently/probably c. Hann les {ennpti/vfst/sennilega} ftiar bcekur. he reads yet/apparently/probably few books 'He {still/apparently/probably } reads few books. ' Thus, if the O S and QM movements are construed as movements to specifier positions, the OS position is higher than the QM position. If they are construed as adjunction, OS adjoins above adverbs, while QM adjoins below them. A potential explanation for this fact appears in the next section.

2.

Semantic effects of QM

2 . 1 QM is QR As in English, surface order of quantificational elements does not unambiguously determine scope in Icelandic. Below, the translations are intended to suggest the different scopal readings.

PETER SVENONIUS

278 (5 1)

a.

Eg sagai ollum eitthvaa. I said all something 'Everybody is such that I told them something or other.' 'There is something that I told everybody. '

b.

Hann hefur viljaa

lesa margar bcekur.

he has wanted read many books 'He has wanted to be well-read, having read many books. ' 'There are many books that h e has wanted to read. '

c.

islendingur viraist hafa unniO.

Icelander appears have won 'A particular Icelander appears to have won.' 'It appears that some Icelander or other has won. ' Also as in English, various kinds of movements have a scope fixing effect. This is true of Topicalization and of Object Shift (Diesing 1 996) .4 (52)

a.

Hann las ekki jJrjar bcekur. he read not three books 'He didn't read so many as three books . ' 'There are three books that h e didn't read. '

b.

Hann las jJrjar bcekur ekki. he read three books not 'There are three books that he didn't read.'

c.

Margar bcekur hefur hann viljaa

lesa.

many books has he wanted read 'There are many books that he has wanted to read. ' Thus it is not surprising that QM should induce scope fixing. This can be seen when one quantified DP is moved across another, as in (53b) (though (53c) is still ambiguous). (53)

a.

Via hofum synt

hverju vitni

nokkrar myndir.

we have shown every witness some pictures 'Every witness is such that we have shown her some pictures. ' 'Some pictures are such that w e have shown them to every witness.' b.

Via hofum nokkrar myndir synt

hverju vitni.

we have some pictures shown every witness 'Some pictures are such that we have shown them to every witness. '

QUANTIFIER MOVEMENT IN ICELANDIC c.

Vio hofum hverju vitni

synt

279

nokkrar myndir.

we have every witness shown some pictures 'Every witness is such that we have shown her some pictures. ' 'Some pictures are such that we have shown them to every witness.' QM also affects the relative scope of the moved DP and non-DP elements in the clause. This can be seen in (54a) (cf. (5 1b)) and in (54b-c) (repeated from (27b-c) above; the alternative in (27a) there, without QM, is ambiguous). (54)

a.

Hann hefur margar bcekur viljao lesa. he has many books wanted read 'There are many books that he has wanted to read.'

b.

Hun hafoi viljao ao hann gceti margt keypt. she had wanted that he could many bought 'She had wanted him to be able to buy a large quantity. '

c. %Hun hafoi margt viljao ao hann gceti keypt. she had many wanted that he could bought 'There are many that she had wanted him to be able to buy. ' Thus, I suggest that QM is in fact overt QR (Quantifier Raising), a process assumed to apply in all languages, generally covertly. The connection between QM and QR is hinted at in R6gnvaldsson 1 986: 47, but not pursued. The analysis of QM as QR has some immediate consequences. First, it explains at least some cases of optionality for QM: QR has the function of determining scope; when scope is variable, QR must be optional, or at least have a range of targets. Thus QM should in principle be optional, as it appears to be in fact (though the cases of ambiguity above still require discussion). In addition, the analysis of QM as QR puts the question of whether NM is a subcase of QM into a new light. There is a debate in the literature as to whether negative expressions such as nobody and no dogs are quantificational or not. If NM is a subcase of QM, then such expressions must be quantificational, in whatever sense is relevant to QR, under the present hypothesis. The same holds of negative polarity items, since they also undergo QM (cf. Ladusaw 1 992; Giannakidou 1 998 for discussion of the question whether these are properly quantificational). Furthermore, the analysis of QM as QR sheds new light on its clause-boundedness, noted in the previous section. It is well known that QR, unlike typical types of A'-movement, tends to be clause-bounded. The implications of the analysis go further. If QM is overt QR, then it allows us to examine properties of QR which are not subject to scrutiny in languages

280

PETER SVENONIUS

like English. Various accounts have been suggested for variable scope that potentially do away with QR. If QM is QR, then syntactic QR definitely exists. Other questions about QR are also potentially answered. It seems, for example, that quantified expressions need not always move, contra suggestions that QR is obligatory in order to establish a variable-binding relation; QR is apparently to the VP, not to the IP level as is sometimes suggested (or, at least, QR can move to the VP level, and Economy or something else prevents it from moving further in this case; cf. Fox 1 999: 175). QR does not move definites or names, contra some suggestions. 2.2 Why QM is optional The examples in (5 1 ) suggest that Icelandic has covert QR, like English. This is unexpected, given that it also has overt QR, in the form of QM. Given a principle like Procrastinate, covert movement is preferred when possible. The Minimalist account for overt movement is to postulate strong features. But if strong features exist in Icelandic to trigger overt movement, when a quantifier has wide scope, then covert QR should never be possible. One way out of this quandary is to invoke the notion of parallel grammars. This idea has been invoked in other cases of optionality, but should, I feel, always be regarded with skepticism. If a single speaker can control two different grammars which are identical except for a single parameter setting, then optiona lity should be rampant. This type of explanation is only appealing if the two different grammars in question are significantly different. If two different constructions belong to two different grammars, then speakers should sense a difference in register or style when they compare the constructions. However, this is precisely the situation with respect to Icelandic QM. As I mentioned above, many speakers do not use QM at all (though all use NM), and most speakers feel that examples of QM are stylistically marked or formal. Thus it seems reasonable to assume that there is a version of Icelandic which does not have QM at all, requiring covert QR, and another version of Icelandic which has only overt QM, not resorting to covert QR. Then no single register of Icelandic has optional QM, though many speakers accept both the formal and the informal versions. This kind of explanation would be falsified, in my view, by a sentence in which there is both QM and covert QR (such a sentence could only be produced by some kind of code-switching, which should be detectable to informants). An example might be (53c) above, repeated here as (55a).

QUANTIFIER MOVEMENT IN ICELANDIC (55)

a.

Vio hofum hverju vitni

synt

28 1

nokkrar myndir.

we have every witness shown some pictures 'Every witness is such that we have shown her some pictures. ' 'Some pictures are such that w e have shown them to every witness.' b. *ViO hofum hverju vitni nokkrar myndir we have every witness some pictures c. *Vio hofum nokkrar myndir hverju vitni we have some pictures every witness

synt. shown

sYnt. shown

(55a) is ambiguous, as indicated. There are two ways to explain the second reading. One, covert QR moves the weakly quantified DP ' some pictures ' beyond the moved universal quantifier. This contradicts the above explanation based on bidialectalism, unless some factor prevents overt QM of the second quantifier; this might be supported by the badness of examples (55b-c), which suggest that only one DP can be moved at a time; however, good examples can be constructed, as in (56) . (56)

a.

Eg he! ymsum ekkert sagt.

1 have various nothing said 'I have told various [people] nothing. '

b.

Eg he! engum neitt

sagt.

1

have nobody anything said 'I have told nobody anything. '

The second type o f explanation for the ambiguity o f (55a) would b e that the apparent wide scope reading for ' some pictures' there is actually just a non quantificational reading, where a specific set of pictures is named by the expression ' some pictures' (as in Fodor & Sag 1 982; an approach like that of Reinhart 1 997 would serve the same purpose here) . Interesting in this light is sentence (53b) above, repeated here as (57). (57)

Vio hofum nokkrar myndir synt

hverju vitni.

we have some pictures shown every witness 'Some pictures are such that we have shown them to every witness.' As suggested by the translation, this sentence only has the 'wide scope' reading for the existentially quantified object. According to the analysis sketched here, a register with QM has no covert QR. Thus it is impossible for the universally quantified object to move covertly; it must be interpreted in situ. Since universals have no ' specific' reading, the result is unambiguous, contrasting with (55a).

282

PETER SVENONIUS

2.3 The landing site of QM Understanding QM to be QR clears up some questions about constraints dis cussed in § 1 . There, it was noted that QM can cross infinitive and subjunctive clause boundaries, but not indicative ones, and that it always targeted the highest VP in a given sequence of auxiliaries plus main verb. I assume that QR is motivated by the need to create a tripartition for semantic interpretation of quantificational structures, following Partee 1 995. It might be expected, then, that constraints on quantificational tripartition would tum up as constraints on QM. The tighter the correspondence between syntactic structures and semantic interpretations, the more clearly these constraints would show up as syntactic restrictions on QM. As a first approximation, assume that the nuclear scope of a quantificational tripartition must correspond to some kind of quasi-propositional entity, say a state of affairs (SoA), where a SoA might minimally contain a saturated function argument complex and a spatio-temporal value of some kind. Assume that the syntax-semantics interface is such that verbs which move to Inff bear spatiotempo ral variables, and verbs which do not move, such as those which head comple ments to auxiliaries, do not (this is akin to saying that auxiliaries select something smaller than IP, if the spatiotemporal variable is associated with Inff). Assume, finally, that reconstruction allows the spatiotemporal variable to be interpreted in the VP, even if the verb moves overtly, and allows the arguments of the main verb to be interpreted in VP as well. Then the minimum target for QM will be the VP projected by the highest verb in an auxiliary-main verb sequence. This establishes a lower limit on QM (though how the unmoved quantifier in (57) is interpreted remains an issue). As for the higher limit, QM is sensitive to mood, as seen above, which suggests that it has something to do with modal anchoring, in the sense of Farkas 1 992. For example, say that an indicative clause is anchored to the context of utterance (in addition to, or instead of, the embedded context). This means that it is evaluated with respect to the context of the utterance (for example, it is presupposed true). But quantification is about reorganizing the model for evaluation; if a SoA appears in the nuclear scope of a quantifier, then it is evaluated with respect to the quantification, not with respect to the utterance context. It seems likely that this is the reason that QR can never cross the boundary of an indicative CPo An additional condition noted above was that subjects are more resistant to QM than objects; specifically, subjects of SUbjunctive clauses do not undergo QM, though they may undergo A'-movement. In a model like that of Rizzi 1 990, this could suggest that they are not antecedent-governed, perhaps because QR does

QUANTIFIER MOVEMENT IN ICELANDIC

283

not leave a full copy of itself behind. On the other hand, subjects are critical to the anchoring process, so there might be a semantic explanation instead. These remarks have unfortunately been vaguer than 1 would like. These ideas are explored in somewhat more detail in Svenonius 1 994, though not with respect to Icelandic. For example, there 1 discuss the fact, noted by Williams 1 983, that there is an ambiguity in examples like (58a) which is lacking in (58b). (58)

a.

b.

John believes someone to be angry at him. 'John believes that someone or other is angry at him. ' 'There is someone such that John believes that person is angry at him. ' John believes someone angry at him. 'There is someone such that John believes that person is angry at him. '

1 suggest in Svenonius 1 994 that the SC complement to epistemic verbs does not bear a spatiotemporal location variable, though a clausal complement containing a verb always does. This means that the complement in (58a), but not the one in (58b), contains the necessary ingredients for a SoA. On the account being developed here, this would mean that the SC complement cannot serve, by itself, as the nuclear scope for quantification (this is also the idea behind Stowell's 1 99 1 account of such data). A quantified DP will therefore not be interpretable in the SC, inside the scope of the epistemic verb. This narrow scope interpreta tion is possible, however, with the infinitival complement, because the embedded verb provides a spatiotemporal variable, and a SoA can be built there. Since Icelandic has overt QR, the predictions of this account can in principle be tested more clearly than with English; however, the judgments tum out to be exceedingly delicate, and not all speakers report the contrast 1 indicate below. For some speakers, however, the ambiguity exists with infinitival complements, and not with SCs, as with English. (59)

a.

Eg tel

margar neoanmdlsgreinar vera onauosynlegar.

1

consider many footnotes be unnecessary 'I consider it unnecessary to have many footnotes. ' 'Many footnotes are such that 1 consider them unnecessary. '

b.

Eg tel

margar neoanmdlsgreinar onauosynlegar.

1 consider many footnotes unnecessary %('1 consider it unnecessary to have many footnotes. ' ) 'Many footnotes are such that 1 consider them unnecessary. ' Next, consider the pattern for QM.

284

PETER SVENONIUS (60)

a.

Eg he! margar neaanmdlsgreinar talia I

have many

footnotes

vera

considered be

onauasynlegar. unnecessary 'Many footnotes are such that I have considered them unneces sary.'

b. %Eg he! margar neaanmdlsgreinar talia onauasynlegar. I have many footnotes considered unnecessary 'Many footnotes are such that I have considered them unneces sary. ' As expected, QM is possible with the infinitive, and leads to the wide-scope reading. However, for some speakers, QM is seriously degraded with the SC complement. Importantly, exactly the speakers who get the indicated contrast in (59) also consider (60b) ungrammatical. The badness of (60b), for those speak ers, might seem surprising. However, there is a potential explanation consistent with everything I have said here, which builds on the account in Svenonius 1 996b (cf. also Svenonius 1 994, Ch. 2, §3, especially pp. 1 34ff.). In that work, I develop an account of the interpretation of the SC comple ment to an epistemic verb which links it crucially to the interpretation of its subject. Specifically, I draw a connection between those SCs and the categorical judgment of Kuroda 1 972 and related work. If that line of thinking is correct, then the subject must be a sort of topic, and will therefore be referential, not quantificational. The apparent wide-scope reading for the subject of the SC, then, is really a specific reading. If QM is QR, as suggested here, then it would not be expected that that subject should undergo QM in (60b). See the works cited for an explanation of why the same is not true for the infinitival complement (in brief, the contribution of the specific subject is the modal anchoring parameter of Farkas 1 992, while this can be provided by Infl in an infinitival clause). For speakers who do not get the contrasts in (59)-(60), the complement to telja 'consider' may contain a null verb in the apparent SC examples, which would then enable it to bear a spatiotemporal location variable, just like infiniti val complements.

3.

On the lack of QM in Norwegian

Norwegian had, at least as recently as one century ago, something which closely resembles QM in Icelandic (these examples are taken from Knut Hamsun's 1 892

QUANTIFIER MOVEMENT IN ICELANDIC

285

novel Mysterier). NM was frequently employed, as in (6 1 a-d), but examples of non-negative QM are also in evidence, as in (6 1e). (6 1 )

a.

Han hadde ingen bestra:belser gjort.

( 1 892 Nor)

he had no efforts made 'He hadn't made any effort. ' b.

Jeg kan intet

oppdage . . .

1

can nothing discover 'I can't find anything . . . '

c.

. . . skj¢nt

han ingen skyld hadde

although he no blame had ' . . . although he was not to blame' d.

. . . nar

vi na:sten ingen kul far solgt

when we nearly no coal get sold , . . . when we can hardly sell any coal' e.

. . . og jeg matte noget

gj¢re

and 1 must something do ' . . . and 1 had to do something' All of these sentences are ungrammatical in modern Norwegian (most speakers regard them as 'poetic' or 'old-fashioned' at best). Recall from the introduction to this paper that 1 claimed that Modern Norwegian, like Icelandic, actually has obligatory NM, but unlike in Icelandic, NM in Norwegian observes HG (Holmberg's Generalization). This is illustrated in (62) below, where Icelandic sentences exhibiting NM are compared with Norwegian ones on alternate lines; the first pair is good, and 1 claim that they both have undergone NM, although it is string-vacuous here. The Norwegian example (62d) is bad, like its Icelandic counterpart, because the negative DP has not undergone NM; while the example in (62f) is bad because NM violates HG. The only alternative with a complex verb is to avoid a negative DP object, as in (62g). (62)

a. b.

Rdoherrann sendi enganfulltrua d pingio. (Ice) Statsradet sendte ingen befullmektiget til forsamlinga. (Nor) to the. assembly the.minister sent no delegate 'The minister sent no delegate to the assembly. '

c. *Rdoherrann getur sent enganfulltrua d pingio. (Ice) d. *Statsradet kan sende ingen befullmektiget tilforsamlinga. the.minister can sendit no delegate to the.assembly (Nor)

286

PETER SVENONIUS e. f.

Rdoherrann getur enganfulltrua sent d pingiO. (Ice) *Statsradet kan ingen befullmektiget sende til forsamlinga. the.minister can no delegate sendit to the.assembly 'The minister cannot send any delegate to the assembly. ' (Nor)

g.

Statsradet

kan ikke sende noen befullmektiget til forsamlinga.

the.minister can not send any delegate to the.assembly 'The minister cannot send a delegate to the assembly. ' (Nor) The claim being made here is that this pattern can be explained if NM is obligatory in Norwegian, but is subject to HG. If there is no NM in Norwegian, then the contrast between (62b) and (62d) is unexplained. If NM is not subject to HG in Norwegian, then the contrast between (62e) and (62f) is left a puzzle. The parallel between as and Norwegian NM is also replicated in the case of verb topicalization of the sort discussed in Holmberg 1 997, 1 999. (63)

a.

*Jeg har kyssa ingen av demo I

b.

*Jeg har ingen av dem kyssa.

c.

Kyssa har jeg ingen av demo

I

(Nor)

have kissed none of them have none of them kissed

kissed have I none of them 'I haven't KISSED any of them' The examples are exactly parallel to Holmberg's examples showing that although as cannot cross a participle, it can move to the left if the participle is topicalized. If it is correct to interpret these results as meaning that NM is subject to HG in Norwegian, then HG is herewith shown to apply to other movements than simply as . Since as in both Icelandic and Norwegian is subject to HG (whether or not as is held to apply only to pronouns in Norwegian), this also shows that HG cannot be a parameter over languages. Furthermore, even as is not univer sally subject to HG, if the Yiddish cases of leftward movement of definite DPs presented by Diesing ( 1 997), such as that in (64) below, are analyzed as as . (64)

a.

Max hot geleynt a bukh.

(Yid)

Max has read a book 'Max has read a book. ' b.

Max hot dos bukh geleynt. Max has the book read 'Max has read the book. '

Diesing concludes (cf. her pp. 400ff.) that this movement is not as, but one of her primary reasons is precisely the failure of that movement to observe HG; another is

QUANTIFIER MOVEMENT IN ICELANDIC

287

the lack of RM effects, but as noted above this may be a separate issue from HG. Thus, what is needed in order to understand HG is a principled distinction between OS in Scandinavian and NM in Norwegian on the one hand, and most other movements, including OS in Yiddish and NM in Icelandic on the other hand. Here I propose (quite tentatively, it must be admitted) that what distin guishes movements which are subject to HG from those which are not is whether the movement is driven by feature-checking or not. Consider that both OS and NM (and QM more generally) have interpretive effects. OS, as analyzed by Diesing, allows the definite object to escape the nuclear scope of the sentence, that is, it removes definite expressions from the focused part of the clause. QM, as analyzed above, is QR, straightforwardly a function of interpretation. NM is forced, plausibly, because sentential negation is quantificational, following Partee 1 995, and requires semantic tripartion of the clause. n has been proposed that all movement is due to the need to check features. Beghelli & Stowell ( 1 997) develop a proposal whereby QR is feature-driven as well (cf. also Szabolsci 1 997). However, consider the possibility that this is not the case, and that some movements are driven by the need to make certain relations, such as scopal relations, unambiguous. Apparently, such movements, like the feature-driven ones, can be covert. Conceivably, semantically driven movement occurs as soon as possible, in contrast to feature-driven movement, which, by Procrastinate, occurs as late as possible. Then constructions in which non-feature-driven movement occurs covertly are those in which it is prevented from occurring overtly. On this story, HG would be the description for some thing, still unexplained, which prevents non-feature-driven movement from occurring overtly.

4.

Conclusion

In this paper, I have explored one movement in detail, the movement of quanti fiers out of VP in Icelandic. I have argued that QM is a type of A'-movement, following Jonsson 1 996, and that it involves adjunction to VP, following R6gnvaldsson 1 986. I have further suggested that QM is overt QR, something which sheds light on various aspects of QR, if correct. I have furthermore suggested that some of the peculiar traits of QM can be explained on a particular conception of the mechanism of Case-assignment, one which leads to VP-adjoin ed positions being sometimes A-movement, sometimes A'-movement.

288

PETER SVENONIUS

QM is unusual in resulting in OV orders in an otherwise VO language. I have suggested that a similar movement exists in Norwegian, but is hidden by the fact that it obeys HG, a constraint developed on the basis of observations about OS. The fact that QM exists in Norwegian is evident, I claim, from the fact that negative objects (which obligatorily undergo QM in Icelandic) are licit in Norwegian just in those contexts in which QM would obey HG. This has ramifications for HG. HG has been claimed to hold of the leftward movement of objects in Scandinavian but not in West Germanic, something which tempts one to think of it as a constraint which is parametrized by language (though see Haegeman this volume for a way to preserve HG for West Germanic). However, seeing that Icelandic OS obeys HG but Icelandic QM does not, whereas Norwegian OS and QM both do, shows that the parameter must be more finely tuned. This should lead one to explore the possibility that other movements, such as topicalization or wh-movement, might be subject to HG in some languages. I have offered a highly speculative distinction between movements which obey HG and those which do not: feature-driven movements will ignore HG; that is, strong features will attract checking elements regardless of intervening material, while other movements, possibly driven by needs of the interface with the interpretational component, are subject to it. This does not tell us what HG is, but it allows for a reevaluation of it. Movement which is subject to HG is in a sense like the opposite of what is expected under Procrastinate - OS occurs overtly if possible, otherwise covertly (or not at all?) as in Pesetsky's 1 989 Earliness Principle. This would make sense in an Economy framework if covert movement were more costly, rather than less so. Suppose, then, that what distinguishes movements which are subject to Earliness from movements which are subject to Procrastinate is whether what must be checked is strictly formal features or whether contentful features are also forced to move. For interpretive effects such as scope, content must move along with formal features. For feature checking movements, only features need actually move. Procrastinate favors covert movement just when it can move features only. In the case of interpretive movement, Procrastinate does not favor the covert movement, because equally much is moved whether the movement is overt or covert. We can then say that Earliness applies when two movements move equally much material, but Procrastinate (reformulated as 'move as little as possible' ) applies when the different options involve different quantities o f material. Why do Icelandic QM and Yiddish OS violate HG? The answer on this story would have to be that it is because they are feature-driven. That is, Icelandic actually has strong quantificational features, as does presumably Hungarian, and Yiddish (and perhaps Dutch) has strong definiteness features, forcing OS.

QUANTIFIER MOVEMENT IN ICELANDIC

289

Acknowledgments Many thanks to Anders Holmberg, Eirikur Rognvaldsson, Halldor Armann Sigurosson, Johannes Gisli Jonsson, Tarald Taraldsen, Porhallur Ey]:>orsson, and especially porbjorg Hroarsdottir for indispens able discussion.

Notes 1.

In Norwegian, as in English, noun phrases may precede a verbal particle: throw it out; thus a noun phrase may undergo OS in the presence of a particle. In Swedish, however, noun phrases must follow particles, and cannot be moved to the left of them by OS. Thus the example illustrating this is taken from Swedish. Cf. Holmberg 1986 for the OS facts, Taraldsen 1 983, this volume, Svenonius 1994, Haider 1997 for the facts about particles.

2.

Henry 1995 makes the extremely interesting observation that Belfast English has OS (of pronouns) in exactly in those contexts in which there is verb movement (imperatives). The fact that verb movement is restricted to imperative constructions means that evidence for the learner of an OS rule cannot be terribly abundant; OS will only be observed in imperatives with pronominal objects and suitable adverbials. The fact that Belfast English observes HG then suggests that HG is the result of some innate constraints, or at least some which are very easy to learn.

3.

Some speakers get main clause phenomena in certain embedded clauses; those speakers will accept (5b), but the same speakers will accept the order V-Adv in conditional clauses with hvis 'if'.

4.

I follow Diesing in assuming that the leftward movement of the object in (52b), across the negation marker, is not a case of QM, given that QM does not cross adverbial elements cf. (29) above. If in fact (52b) involves QM, then whether OS induces scope fixing is still an open question.

References Beghelli, Filippo, and Stowell, Tim. 1 997. "Distributivity and negation: The syntax of each and every." In Anna Szabo1csi (ed.), Ways oJScope Taking. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 7 1-107. Burzio, Luigi. 1 986. Italian Syntax: A government-binding approach. Dordrecht: ReideL Chomsky, Noam. 1 99 1 . "Some notes on economy of derivation and representation." In Robert Freidin (ed.), Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar. Cam bridge, MA: MIT Press. 417-454. Chomsky, Noam. 1 995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Christensen, Kirsti Koch. 1 99 1 . Quantifier-movement and its syntactic reflexes. Ms. University of Bergen. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1 990. Types ojA ' -dependencies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Diesing, Molly. 1 992. Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

290

PETER SVENONIUS

Diesing, Molly. 1996. "Semantic variables and object shift." In Hoskuldur Thniinsson, Samuel David Epstein, and Steve Peter (eds), Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax, vol. II. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 66-84. Diesing, Molly. 1 997. "Yiddish VP order and the typology of object movement in Germanic." Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15: 369-427. Farkas, Donka. 1992. "On the semantics of subjunctive complements." In Paul Hirsch buhler and Konrad Koerner (eds), Romance Languages and Modern Linguistic Theory. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 91]. 69-104. Fodor, Jerry, and Sag, Ivan. 1982. "Referential and quantificational indefinites." Linguis tics and Philosophy 5: 355-398. Fox, Danny. 1 999. "Reconstruction, binding theory and the interpretation of chains." Linguistic Inquiry 30: 157-1 96. Fukui, Naoki. 1 993. "Parameters and optionality." Linguistic Inquiry 24: 399-420. Giannakidou, Anastasia. 1 998. The Landscape of Polarity Items. Ph.D. dissertation, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. Groningen: Grodil. Haegeman, Liliane. 1 995. The Syntax ofNegation. Cambridge: CUP. Haegeman, Liliane, and Zanuttini, Raffaella. 1 99 1 . "Negative heads and the Neg criteri on." The Linguistic Review 8: 233-25 1 . Haider, Hubert. 1 997. "Precedence among predicates." The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 1 : 3-4 1 . Henry, Alison. 1 995. Belfast English and Standard English. Oxford: OUP. Holmberg, Anders. 1 986. Word order and syntactic features. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Stockholm. Holmberg, Anders. 1 997. "The true nature of Holmberg's Generalization." In Kiyomi Kusumoto (ed.), Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 27. Amherst: GLSA. 203-217. Holmberg, Anders. 1 999. "Remarks on Holmberg's generalization." Studia Linguistica 53: 1-39. Holmberg, Anders and Platzack, Christer 1 995. The Role of Inflection in Scandinavian Syntax. Oxford: OUP. Josefsson, GunlOg. 1992. "Object shift and weak pronominals in Swedish." Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 49: 59-94. J6nsson, J6hannes Gisli. 1 996. Clausal Architecture and Case in Icelandic. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Kuroda, S.-Y. 1 972. "The categorical and the thetic judgment." Foundations ofLanguage 9: 153-185. Ladusaw, William. 1 992. "Expressing negation." In Chris Barker and David Dowty (eds), SALT II: Proceedings of the conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory 2. The Ohio State University. 237-259. Nilsen, 0ystein. 1 997. "Adverbs and A-shift." Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 59: 1-3 1 .

QUANTIFIER MOVEMENT IN ICELANDIC

29 1

Obenauer, Hans-Georg. 1998. Negative movement in French. Handout CNRS, Paris; paper presented at Going Romance, Utrecht University, December 1 998. Partee, Barbara. 1 995. "Quantificational structures and compositionality." In Emmon Bach, Eloise Jelinek, Angelika Kratzer, and Barbara H. Partee (eds.), Quantification in Natural Languages, vol. II. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 541-602. Pesetsky, David. 1989. Language-particular processes and the Earliness Principle. Ms., MIT. Reinhart, Tanya. 1 997. "Quantifier scope: How labor is divided between QR and choice functions." Linguistics & Philosophy 20: 335-397. Rizzi, Luigi. 1 990. Relativized Minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Ross, John Robert. 1 967. Gapping and the order of constituents. Ms. MIT; presented at the 10th International Congress of Linguistics. Published 1970 in Manfred Bierwisch and Karl Erich Heidolph (eds.), Progress in Linguistics. The Hague: Mouton. 247-259. R6gnvaldsson, Eirikur. 1987. "On word order in Icelandic." In Proceedings of the Seventh Biennial Conference of Teachers of Scandinavian Studies in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. London: University College London. 33-49.

Steele, Susan. 1 978. "Word order variation: A typological study." In Joseph Greenberg (ed.), Universals of Human Language, vol. 4: Syntax. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 585-624. Stowell, Tim. 1 99 1 . "Small clause restructuring." In Robert Freidin (ed.), Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 1 82-218. Svenonius, Peter. 1 994. Dependent Nexus: Subordinate Predication Structures in English and the Scandinavian Languages. Ph.D. dissertation, UCSc. Svenonius, Peter. 1 996a. "The optionality of particle shift." Working Papers in Scandina vian Syntax 57: 47-75 . Svenonius, Peter. 1 996b. "Predication and functional heads." In Jose Camacho, Lina Choueiri, and Maki Watanabe (eds), The Proceedings of the Fourteenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Stanford: CSLI. 493-508. Svenonius, Peter. 1 998. "Clefts in Scandinavian: An investigation." In Artemis Alexiadou, Nanna Fuhrhop, Paul Law, and Ursula Kleinhenz (eds), ZAS Papers in Linguistics 10. Berlin: Zentrum fur Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung. 1 63-190. Szabo1csi, Anna. 1997. "Strategies for scope taking." In Anna Szabo1csi (ed.), Ways of Scope Taking. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 109-154. Taraldsen, Knut Tarald. 1 983. Parametric Variation in Phrase Structure: A case study. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Troms¢. Taraldsen, Knut Tarald. 1 99 1 . "A directionality parameter for subject-object linking." In Robert Freidin (ed.), Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar. Cam bridge, MA: MIT Press. 219-268.

292

PETER SVENONIUS

Thnlinsson, Hoskuldur. 1 993. "On the structure of infinitival complements." In Hoskuldur Thrrunsson, Samuel D. Epstein, and Susumu Kuno (eds), Harvard Working Papers in Linguistics, vol. 3. Cambridge, Ma.: Harvard University. 1 8 1-213. Vikner, Sten. 1 995. Verb Movement and Expletive Subjects in the Germanic languages. Oxford: OUP. Webelhuth, Gert. 1 992. Principles and Parameters of Syntactic Saturation. Oxford: OUP. Williams, Edwin. 1 983. "Against small clauses." Linguistic Inquiry 14: 287-308. Zwart, Jan Wouter. 1 993. Dutch Syntax: A minimalist approach. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Groningen. Groningen: Grodil.

Licensing Movement the West

Languages

Roland Hinterh6lzl

Abstract This paper investigates the distribution of syntactic elements in the Mittelfeld and Nachfeld from the point of view of the universal base hypothesis. Two approaches will be compared: Kayne's ( 1994) proposal in terms of licensing leftward movement that may strand syntactic elements in the VP and Haider's (1993, 1 995) account in terms of directionality of licensing. Providing evidence for licensing movement out of the VP, we will argue in favor of the licensing movement and stranding approach. First, we argue that a proper analysis of the syntax of the infinitival marker implies that not only the arguments of the verb but also VP-intemal predicates, including verb-particles, small clause predicates and directional PPs move out of the VP into specific licensing positions in the middle field. Then we show how a particular implementation of the mechanism of feature checking in terms of copy and delete (partial deletion) explains how particular elements can be stranded by licensing movement. Finally, we discuss some of the consequences of this approach for the analysis of verb-preposing (cf. Kayne 1 998) in English.

1.

Introduction

The structure of the German clause has been traditionally described in terms of the three fields in which the clause is partitioned by the complementizer and the verb in its base position, as illustrated in ( I a). Syntactic elements preceding the finite verb in CO occupy the Voifeld (pre-field) or are said to have been topicalized. Elements following the complementizer but preceding the verb in its base position occupy the Mittelfeld (middle field), while elements following the verb in its base

ROLAND HINTERHOLZL

294

posItIOn occupy the Nachfeld (post-field). Within the traditional OV-based approach, it was assumed that elements occurring in the middle field either occupy their base position in the VP or have been scrambled out of the VP to a desig nated position within IP or left-adjoined to IP, while elements in the Nachfeld were assumed to have been extraposed, that is, moved out from their base position preceding the verb to a position that is right-adjoined to either VP or IP. In this paper, we are concerned with the issue of how the distribution of syntactic elements in the Mittelfeld and Nachfeld is to be described in a YO-based approach. More specifically, we want to investigate what factors determine which elements appear in the Mittelfeld and which elements can or must stay in the Nachfeld. Two proposals have been made to account for the distribution of syntactic elements in the Mittelfeld and Nachfeld within the general approach that assumes unidirectionality of branching. Kayne ( 1 994) proposed that elements occupying the Mittelfeld have undergone licensing movement out of the VP to specific functional positions to the left of the verb, while elements occupying the Nachfeld are stranded by this type of licensing movement in the VP, as is illustrated in ( 1b). Haider ( 1 993, 1 995) proposed that elements occupying the Mittelfeld are directly licensed in OV languages, while elements occupying the Nachfeld are indirectly licensed. (1)

a. b. c.

Vorfeld C Topicalization (Kayne 94) (Haider 95)

Mittelfeld V middle field licensing movement direct licensing

Nachfeld Extraposition stranding indirect licensing

Assuming that arguments of the verb are base-generated solely in Specifier positions, Haider (this volume) argues that the order OV is more basic than the order VO and that all arguments of the verb are licensed within the VP in both OV and VO languages with the differences following from the directionality of licensing. Providing evidence for licensing movement out of the VP, we will argue in favor of the licensing movement and stranding approach as outlined in ( 1b) . In Section 2, we argue with the help of the infinitival marker in IPP constructions that not only the arguments of the verb but also VP-internal predicates, including verb-particles, small clause predicates and directional PPs, move out of the VP into specific licensing positions in the middle field. We will thus adopt the approach outlined in ( 1 b) and explore in Section 3 the ways and means by which an element ends up in the Nachfeld. In Section 4, we will discuss some of the consequences of the licensing movement and stranding approach for English. This approach implies that arguments and verb-particles in English, like in

MOVEMENT AND STRANDING IN GERMANIC OV LANGUAGES

295

continental West Gennanic, move into the middle field. The English verb or verb phrase moves in front of its arguments, most likely into T, making the assump tion necessary that negation and frequency adverbs do not occur between the verb and T but higher up in the clause structure.

2.

The syntax of IPP constructions and the structure of the lower middle field in West Germanic

In this section, we investigate the structure of the lower middle field in West Gennanic. The arguments for the particular structure that we propose are in part based on an analysis of the syntax of IPP constructions in West Flemish, Afrikaans and Gennan. We will argue that a YO-based approach (Kayne 1 994) is superior to the traditional OV-based approach in explaining the syntax of IPP complements. We will show that the distribution of verbal elements in the West Gennanic clause cannot be properly accounted for in tenns of rightward head movement of the verb and/or extraposition of verb-projections, and present empirical evidence for leftward V-movement in embedded clauses in West Gennanic. Furthennore, we will demonstrate that not only DP arguments of the verb, but also verb-particles, VP-internal predicates and CP complements have to move out of the VP to be licensed in specific positions in the lower middle field. Since Haider's proposal ( 1 995, this volume) assumes, like the traditional SOY approach, that these elements are licensed in the VP, these facts provide evidence for Kayne's antisymmetry hypothesis and against Haider' s alternative asymmetric approach. In the following discussion of the data, the traditional SOY approach is compared to the antisymmetric SVO approach. 2.1

The verb-final Pattern: aV and va accounts

Besides Haider's proposal, two approaches have been proposed to account for the verb-final embedded pattern in the West Gennanic SOY languages, the tradition al SOY approach and the anti symmetric SVO approach. The traditional approach allows for parametric variation in the head-complement order. For the West Gennanic SOY languages it is assumed that the functional and lexical projections in the IP domain are head-final. In this approach, the embedded verb-final position in (2a) is compatible either with the lack of V-movement (2b) or with rightward V-movement to a functional head within IP (2c). (2)

a.

wei! Hans gestern

das Buch las

since Hans yesterday the book read.pAST

296

ROLAND HINTERHOLZL b. c.

[cp weil [cp weil

[IP Hans gestem [vp das Buch las]]] [IP Hans gestem [vp das Buch ta lasi]]

A slight complication for the traditional approach is posed by the position that the infinitival marker occupies in infinitival clauses, as is illustrated in (3a). The sequence zu lesen (to read) looks very much like a head-initial right-branching structure, in which the infinitival marker heading a functional position takes the infinitival VP as its complement to the right. To accommodate this order with the particular assumptions about the word order in the IP domain within the standard approach, it is either assumed that the infinitival marker in the West Germanic SOY languages is not an independent head but rather a verbal affix (Haider 1 993), as illustrated in (3b), or that the infinitival verb undergoes rightward head movement to (right-)adjoin to the head-final infinitival marker in the IP domain, as illustrated in (3c). (3)

a.

ohne

b. c.

without yesterday the book to read.INF [cp ohne [IP PRO gestem [vp das Buch [y zu-Iesen]]]] [cp ohne [IP PRO gestem [vp das Buch tJ [I zu+lesenJ]]

gestem

das Buch zu lesen

In the antisymmetry approach (Kayne 1 994; Zwart 1 993), it is assumed that all structure is head-initial. In this approach, the embedded verb-final order is derived by some sort of feature driven leftward movement of VP-intemal material. This is illustrated for arguments of the verb in (4a) and for VP-intemal predicates in (4b) . While the movement of DPs into AgrPs is in accordance with recent minimalist assumptions about Case-licensing of arguments, the movement of APs, PPs and other VP-intemal constituents required within the antisymmetry approach appears stipulative in the absence of any empirical evidence. (4)

a.

[wei! Hans gestem

b.

[weil Hans gestem

das Buchi [vp las

since Hans yesterday the book

read.p AST

til ]

kranki [vp war ti]]

since Hans yesterday sick

was

The crucial empirical evidence that supports the assumptions necessary within the anti symmetry approach and at the same time disqualifies assumptions necessary within the traditional approach comes from the position of the infinitival marker in non-finite IPP constructions in West Flemish (Sa), taken from Haegeman ( 1 995), and Afrikaans (5b), taken from Donaldson ( 1 993).

MOVEMENT AND STRANDING IN GERMANIC OV LANGUAGES (5)

a.

297

mee Valere te [willen [dienen boek kuopen]] een with Valere to want that book buy have 'with Valere having wanted to buy that book'

b.

Die banke moes

oop gewees het, om dit gister

the bank should open been

have

te [kan

it yesterday to can

betaal] het. buy have 'The bank should have been open to have been able to buy it yesterday. ' Since material, given in square brackets in (5), can intervene between the infinitival marker and the corresponding infinitival verb, it follows that the infinitival marker in the West Germanic SOY languages cannot be analyzed as a verbal affix, but, like in English, has to be analyzed as occupying a functional position within the IP domain. That this functional position is not head-final and that the sequence te+ V cannot be accounted for by assuming rightward head movement of the verb within the traditional approach, also follows directly from (5a). In (5a), the constituent that has been moved to the right of the infinitival marker cannot possibly be a head since it contains the DP that book. We thus assume that the infinitival marker occupies a functional head to the left of VP, which Haegeman ( 1 995) coined F l . In Section 2.3, we will argue that it can be shown with the help of the infinitival marker that VP-intemal constitu ents, including APs, verb-particles and PPs move out of the VP. But first we want to explain what IPP constructions are. 2.2 The syntax ofIPP constructions The infinitival clauses in (5) involve IPP complements. The Infinitivus Pro Participio (IPP) Effect occurs when a restructuring verb, e.g. a modal verb, selecting an infinitival complement (the dependent infinitive) is used in a perfect tense. In this case, the selecting verb does not show up in its participial form but is realized as a bare infinitive (the IPP infinitive). This is illustrated for Dutch in (6) and German in (7), where the infinitival forms willen/wollen replace the participial forms gewildlgewollt of the modal verb want. (6)

a.

*dat Elsje hem een Brief heeft gewild that Elsje him a

b.

letter has

schrijven

wanted(pp) write dat Elsje hem een Brief heeft willen schrijven that Elsje him a letter has want(INF) write 'that Elsje has wanted to write him a letter'

298

ROLAND HINTERHOLZL (7)

a.

*dass Else ihm einen Brief schreiben gewollt

hat

that Else him a letter write wanted(pp) has 'that Else has wanted to write him a letter' b. *dass Else ihm einen Brief schreiben wollen hat that Else him a letter write want(INF) has dass Else ihm einen Brief hat schreiben wollen c. that Else him a letter has write want(INF) As the contrast between (6b) and (7b) shows, in German, it is not sufficient to simply replace the participle with a bare infinitive, as in Dutch. In order to yield a grammatical sentence in German, the auxiliary has to invert with the cluster comprised of the dependent infinitive and the IPP infinitive (7c). We will give an account of inversion in German in this context when we talk about the internal syntax of IPP complements. The interesting issue that the IPP effect raises is the question of whether IPP infinitives are real infinitives or hidden participles of some sort. Most notoriously, Jakob Grimm ( 1 969/1 898: 1 95) put forth the hypothesis that the IPP infinitive is a prefixless participle. We will adopt the hidden participle account for the following reasons. Based on the distribution of participles, infinitivals and IPP complements in West Flemish and Afrikaans, we will argue in 2.2. 1 that IPP complements behave like participles and unlike infinitives. Secondly, the hidden participle account allows us to assume that for the purpose of checking the subcategorization of the auxiliary (which selects for a participial phrase) and for the purpose of temporal interpretation, the IPP infinitive counts as a participle. 2.2. 1 The external syntax of IPP complements Let us look at the distribution of infinitives, IPP complements and participles in West Flemish first. The following data are taken from Haegeman ( 1 995). In West Flemish, infinitives always follow their selecting verb, while participles always precede the selecting auxiliary. This is illustrated in (8) and (9), respectively. (8)

a.

da Valere dienen boek wilt that Valere that

kuopen

book wants buy

b. *da Valere dienen boek kuopen wilt that Valere that book buy wants 'that Valere wants to buy that book' (9)

a.

da Valere dienen boek gekocht eet that Valere that book bought has 'that Valere has bought that boek'

MOVEMENT AND STRANDING IN GERMANIC OV LANGUAGES

299

b. *da Valere dienen hoek eet gekocht that Valere that book has bought In contrast, IPP complements can both precede and follow the selecting finite verb. In the standard analysis, we may assume that IPP complements can optionally be extraposed (cf. ( l Oa-b)). However, the IPP complement must follow the selecting verb if the negative particle en is to be spelled out on the finite verb. This is illustrated by the contrast in ( l Oc-d). ( l 0)

a.

da Jan ee [willen

[Marie nen hoek geven]]

that Jan has want(IPp) Marie a b.

da Jan [willen

book give

[Marie nen hoek geven]] eet

that Jan want(IPp) Marie a book give 'that Jan has wanted to give Marie a book' c.

da Jan nooit en-eet willen

has

an Valere nen hoek geven

that Jan never en has want(IPp) to Valere a book give 'that Jan has never wanted to give a book to Valere' d.

da Jan nooit willen

an Valere nen hoek geven (*!!!JJ -eet book give en has

that Jan never want(IPp) to Valere a

On the other hand, the IPP complement must precede the selecting verb if the auxiliary is non-finite. In this case the IPP complement must occur between the infinitival marker and the infinitive as we have seen in (5a). Before we provide an analysis of the distribution of IPP complements within the anti symmetry approach, let us see how we would account for these data in the traditional SOY approach. Bringing the facts illustrated in (8)-( 1 0) into a single picture, it is hard to see what rule might govern extraposition in West Flemish. Remember that the regularities are the following. An IPP complement may or may not be extraposed if the selecting verb is finite. However, it must be extraposed if the selecting finite verb incorporates the negative particle en. On the other hand, it may not be extraposed at all when the selecting verb is non-finite. Finally, an infinitival complement must always be extraposed independently of the finiteness of the selecting verb. To capture these regularities in a single rule that follows from other properties of West Flemish or from general principles of grammar seems almost impossible. Hence we will try to give a better explanation of these regularities within the antisymmetry approach. In the antisymmetry approach all complements, that is, infinitives, IPP complements and participles in our case, start out to the right of the selecting verb. All we have to say about infinitival complements is that they stay in their base position, as illustrated in ( l l a).

300

ROLAND HINTERHOLZL (U) a. b. c. d. e.

F1 (verb)

Spec

te

IPP IPP IPP IPP

Auxfin en-Aux

F2 (verb) Aux Auxfin

tauxfin taux

Complement infinitive

tIPp tIPp tIPp tIPp

Remember, as shown in (9) above, that participles as opposed to infinitives have to precede the selecting auxiliary and that the infinitive in an IPP complement stands for a participle. Thus, we would like to propose that IPP complements are Participle Phrases (PartPs) and that they move like participles into a Specifier, say SpecF2P, of the selecting auxiliary to check the auxiliary's subcategorization. Now we would like to adopt the ingenious account by Haegeman ( 1 995), who proposes that the complex pattern illustrated in (10) follows from the availability of leftward head-movement of the selecting verb. If we assume that non-finite verbs as opposed to finite ones cannot move to F 1 , then we derive the fact that an IPP complement may not be extraposed if the selecting verb is non-finite, as noted above (Ub). All we have to say to derive the fact that an IPP complement may or may not be extraposed if the selecting verb is finite (and does not incorporate the negative marker en) is to assume that finite verbs may optionally move to F1 ( 1 1 c-d). Still the question arises why an IPP complement can be extraposed while a simple participle, as is shown in (9b), cannot. The answer is that a participle moves even higher than F l . ( 1 2) shows that a participle cannot intervene between the infinitival marker and the auxiliary but must always precede the infinitival marker. ( 1 2)

a.

mee Valere dienen boek gewild te een with Valere that

book wanted to have

(vu zenen verjoardag) for his birthday 'Valere having wanted that book for his birthday' b. *mee Valere dienen boek te gewild een (vu zenen verjoardag) c. ? *mee Valere dienen boek t' een gewild (vu zenen verjoardag) Finally, if we assume, following Haegeman's ( 1 995) proposal that a) the negative particle en is licensed in F 1 and b) that it has to incorporate into the verb, then we derive the fact that an IPP complement has to be extraposed if the finite verb incorporates en l ( U e). In ( 1 3), we summarize the distribution of participles, infinitives and IPP complements with respect to the selecting verb and infinitival marker te.

MOVEMENT AND STRANDING IN GERMANIC OV LANGUAGES ( 1 3)

301

participle te IPP verb infinitival complement

To minimize the difference between participles and IPP complements (hidden participles) we propose that participles are not moved in one swoop from their base position to the right of the selecting verb to their surface position but that they, like IPP complements, first undergo XP-movement to SpecF2P of the selecting auxiliary (to check its subcategorisation) and subsequently undergo XO-movement to Fl . The latter (additional) movement of participles must be triggered by the participial morphology that IPP infinitives lack. That participles indeed undergo this complex two-step movement in West Flemish and the other West Germanic languages is supported by the behavior of participles in Afrikaans. In this language, the intermediate step of the complex movement of participles, absent in all other West Germanic languages, is evidenced. As is illustrated in ( 14), the participle is spelled out between the infinitival marker and the infinitival verb. ( 14) also provides the ultimate confirmation for our hypothesis that IPP infinitives are hidden participles: in Afrikaans, participles and IPP infinitives have exactly the same distribution (cf. (14) and (5b)). (14)

af � geskagel het. you ought the light off to turned have 'You should have turned the light off. '

Jy behoort die lig

2.2.2 The internal syntax of IPP complements In this section, we provide an account of the IPP effect which we left unex plained so far. We will also explain why participles and IPP infinitives pattern exactly alike in Afrikaans but have a slightly different distribution in the other West Germanic languages, as illustrated above for the case of West Flemish. The IPP effect occurs in restructuring contexts. One important feature of restructuring is the formation of verbal complexes (cf. Haider 1 993; Rutten 1 99 1 ) . In Hinterh61z1 ( 1 999), we argue that in restructuring contexts, due to a defective complementizer, the dependent infinitive moves into SpecF2 of the selecting verb to check its subcategorisation. Following Bech ( 1 955), we assume that a verb selects for the status of its non-finite complement. That is, it deter mines whether the dependent nonfinite verb is a participle, a bare infinitive or a to-infinitive. Thus we will henceforth refer to F2P as Status Phrase (StatP). To explain the IPP effect, we will make use of the particular structure of participle phrases in West Germanic. We note that the languages and dialects in which the participle is formed without the participial prefix ge, namely Frisian and Low German, do not display an IPP effect. In the following we will show

ROLAND HINTERHOLZL

302

how the IPP effect can be reduced to a structural incompatibility between the prefix and the infinitive dependent on the restructuring verb. In the West Germanic languages displaying the IPP effect, the participle is formed by affixation of the prefix ge and the suffix tid. We follow Halle & Marantz ( 1 993) in assuming that inflected forms are (partially) derived in the syntax. More specifically, we propose that the participial prefix ge is inserted in SpecStatPIF2P of the participial phrase. The verb in the participial phrase will then first move to F2, to check its prefix, and then up to Fl to adjoin to its suffix. The prefix will then left-adjoin to the complex of verb and suffix to form the participle before Spell-out. This is illustrated in ( 1 5). (15)

[PIP -t [F2P [ge] F2 [vp V]]]

Gr LLJ

If the verb in the participle phrase is a restructuring verb, then the dependent infinitive will at some point in the derivation (before Spell-out in German, but after Spell-out in Dutch, West Flemish and Afrikaans) move into SpecF2P. It follows that a verb in participial form and a bare infinitive selected by such a verb rule each other out. In this case the participial prefix is blocked by the dependent infinitive, that is to say, it cannot be inserted. We argue that the blocking of the prefix leads to a violation of a morphological constraint at MF, namely, of the requirement that a participle consist of a suffix and a prefix. This violation is avoided in that a) no phonological material is inserted in Fl (that is, the suffix is dropped) and b) the verb remains in F2 and is spelled out with the default morphology of a bare infinitive. This is illustrated in ( 1 6). ( 1 6)

[F IP 0 [F2P [dependent infinitive] IPP infinitivei [vp tiJJ]

The morpheme in Fl in ( 1 6), though not containing any phonological feature (represented as "0" in ( 1 6)), arguably contains the formal feature [+participle] and a semantic feature [+ Past] (or the condition that event time precede reference time in a Reichenbachian system). We propose that the semantic feature of the participle has to move to Fl of the auxiliary (which we now identify as an Aspect-head) to be linked with the matrix tense and argue that it is movement of this feature (after the formal feature of the participle has been checked by XP-movement of the Participle Phrase into StatP of the auxiliary) that pied-pipes a phonetically realized participle but remains invisible in the case of an IPP infinitive. Returning to obligatory inversion with the IPP complement of the auxiliary in German (cf. (7b-c)), we propose that the movement of the semantic feature of

MOVEMENT AND STRANDING IN GERMANIC OV LANGUAGES

303

the participle is in a way made visible by the concomitant movement of the auxiliary, which, like auxiliaries in West Flemish, moves up to F 1 , presumably, in order to help license the empty morpheme, indicated as "0" in ( 17). We assume that the empty morpheme is licensed before Spell-out in German by attaching to the higher head which for this reason needs to be lexicalized by movement of the auxiliary. (17)

daft Else ihm einen Brief [PIP hati [F2P [PIP 0 [[schreiben] wollen]] ti [vP til]] '"

that Else him a

letter

has

/

write

want.!pp

That movement of the auxiliary in ( 17) is obligatory is probably due to the 2 strength of the participial feature. Thus, ( 1 7) provides an example for a case of leftward V-movement in German. Why then do IPP infinitives and participles behave alike in Afrikaans while they differ in their distribution in the other West Germanic languages? Note that verbs in Afrikaans have lost all their endings. In particular, participles, while retaining the ge-prefix, have lost their dlt-suffix. It stands to reason that partici ples in Afrikaans, like IPP infinitives in general, contain an empty morpheme in F 1 , movement of which will fail to pied-pipe the participle in F2P below. Thus, we have assimilated our account of the IPP effect in West Germanic to an independent fact in one of its member languages, namely Afrikaans. In both cases, we find the morphology of the participle to be defective. In the case of IPP infinitives, this is caused by the blocking of the prefixal part of the participi al circumfix in the syntax. In the case of the participle in Afrikaans, this is due to the general loss of verbal endings in this language. We also have now an explanation for why it is that verbal elements in West Germanic do not normally appear between the infinitival marker and the infinitival verb, that is, in German and Dutch. The explanation is that only nonfinite verbs with defective morphology will remain there, while all others will just move through SpecF2P on their way to F1 of the selecting verb. To conclude, the behavior of participles in Afrikaans provides strong, independent evidence for our account of IPP infinitives in West Germanic. 2.3 The structure of the lower middle field in West Germanic In this section, we investigate the structure of the lower middle field in West Germanic from the perspective of the antisymmetric SVO approach. The most important results of this investigation are the following generalisations: a)

304

ROLAND HINTERHOLZL

Nominal complements of the verb always have to leave the VP before Spell-out (independently of whether they are definite or indefinite) and are licensed in functional projections above the position of manner adverbs. b) Also small clauses, idioms and directional PPs have to move out of the VP and are licensed in a position below manner adverbs. c) Full sentential complements are not licensed in their base position within VP either. They undergo short movement and are licensed in a functional projection directly below the position to which the verb in embedded clauses moves. That arguments move out of the VP obligatorily can already be shown with the help of manner adverbs. Adverbs like sorgfiiltig ( 'carefully' ) , genau ( 'pre cisely' , 'exactly'), gut ( 'well'), schlecht (badly) and so forth show that both definite and indefinite NPs have to leave the VP (cf. Haiden 1 995; Brugger & Poletto 1 993; Hinterholzl 1 999). Since manner adverbs are usually analyzed as being adjoined to VP (we will later show that they actually occupy a higher position in the tree), an NP preceding a manner adverb must have moved out of the VP. ( 1 8) and ( 1 9) show that in sentences with neutral intonation, the direct object precedes the manner adverb. a.

( 1 8)

weil Hans das Buchlein Buch sorgfiiltig gelesen hat since Hans the bookJa book carefully read has ' since Hans has read the/a book carefully' b. ??weil Hans sorgfiiltig das Buchlein Buch gelesen hat! since Hans carefully the bookJa book read has

( 1 9)

a.

weil Hans den Planleinen Plan genau ausfohrte

since Hans the plan/a plan exactly executed ' since Hans executed the/a plan exactly' b. ??weil Hans genau den Planleinen Plan ausfohrte since Hans exactly the plan/a plan executed We assume that sentences with neutral intonation correspond to the unmarked or basic word order, from which sentences with marked word order (often accompa nied with a special intonation pattern) are derived by additional movement. These considerations are important since in a scrambling language like German alternative orders are often equally good but can - due to the assumptions above - be treated as marked or secondary. The negative marker nicht ( 'not') obligatorily precedes manner adverbs as is shown in (20). (20)

a.

weil der Hans das Buch nicht sorgfiiltig gelesen hat since the Hans the book not carefully read has ' since Hans has not read the book carefully'

MOVEMENT AND STRANDING IN GERMANIC OV LANGUAGES

305

b. ??wei! der Hans das Buch sorgfaltig nicht gelesen hat since the Hans the book carefully not read has All definite nominal arguments precede the negative marker (2 1). If an indefinite NP precedes the negative marker it is interpreted as specific (22a). If an indefi nite NP follows the negative marker, the reading one gets most easily is the one in which the negative marker is interpreted as negating only the nominal argument that follows it (this holds for definite and indefinite NPs), which receives a (negative) contrastive interpretation. Depending on whether it is the determiner or the noun that receives the non-neutral (contrastive) stress, the negative marker negates the (cardinality of the) determiner or the descriptive content of the NP in (22b). (2 1 )

a.

wei! der Hans das Buch nicht gelesen hat

since the Hans the book not read has ' since Hans did not read the book' b. ??wei! der Hans nicht das Buch gelesen hat4 since the Hans not the book read has (22)

a.

b.

wei! Hans ein Buch nicht gelesen hat since Hans a book not read has 'there is a book that Hans did not read' (only specific interpre tation) wei! Hans nicht ein Buch gelesen hat (sondern zwei; sondern since Hans not a book read has but two but

ein Journal) a j ournal 'Hans did not read ONE book, he read TWO books; Hans did not read a B OOK, he read a JOURNAL. ' It has been argued that in these cases, the negative marker acts as "constituent negation". Because the negative marker can be topicalized together with an argument of the verb, it is assumed that negation in German can be simply adjoined to an XP which it narrowly or exclusively negates (23 a-b). (23)

a.

[?p Nicht der Hans] hat das Buch gelesen. not the Hans has the book read 'It was not Hans that read the book.'

b.

[DP nicht [DP der Hans]]

The nonspecific (existential) interpretation of an indefinite NP in a negated German sentence is expressed with the determiner kein (24a). In this case, the

ROLAND HINTERHOLZL

306

negative marker is non-overt or fused5 (24b) . Thus, we cannot determine in (24) whether a nonspecific indefinite NP has to move across the negative marker. (24)

a.

wei! Hans kein Buch gelesen hat since Hans no book read has 'since its not the case that Hans read a book.'

b.

weil Hans (*nicht) kein Buch (*nicht) gelesen hat since Hans

not

no book

not

read

has

That a nonspecific indefinite NP must at least move up to the negative marker is indicated by the behavior of negative existentials in Upper Austrian. This dialect exhibits, like other B avarian dialects, the phenomenon of negative concord which allows for the Spell-out of the negative marker even in the presence of negative constituents. As (25) shows, the negative existential NP kein Buch ( 'no book' ) has to precede the negative marker net ('not' ) . In the following, we will assume that a negative existential NP with a kein-determiner occupies SpecNegP. (25)

a.

woei da Hans ka Buach net glesn hot since the Hans no book not read has 'since it's not the case that John read a book' b. *woei da Hans net ka Buach glesn hot since the Hans not no book read has

That nonspecific indefinite NPs may not only follow what may be analysed as constituent negation, but may also follow sentential negation, can only be shown with more than one indefinite NP. If a sentence contains more than one indefinite NP, the highest non-specific argument is spelled out with the kein-determiner, i.e., checks the negative marker in SpecNegP. This is shown in (26). (26)

a. b.

c.

wei! ein Mann einer Frau

eine Blume schenkte

since a man a woman.DAT a flower gave weil kein Mann einer Frau eine Blume schenkte since no man a woman.DAT a flower gave ' since it is not the case that some man gave some flower to some woman' wei! ein Mann keiner Frau eine Blume schenkte since a man no woman.DAT a flower gave 'since a (certain) man did not give some flower to some woman'

(26a) is a sentence that contains three indefinites. If all three DPs are interpreted nonspecific ally, the negation of (26a) must be (26b). In (26c), where the indirect object is spelled out with a kein-determiner, the higher subject must be interpreted

MOVEMENT AND STRANDING IN GERMANIC OV LANGUAGES

307

as specific, if we exclude focus-affected and quantificational readings. (26b) in conjunction with (25) and (26c) shows - if we analyze the kein-phrase as occupying SpecNegP - that nonspecific indefinites may follow negation. Also quantified NPs may follow the negative marker without giving rise to a constituent negation-interpretation (27a-b). In (27a-b), the negative marker can act as sentence negation. As (27c) shows, the negative marker can be construed narrowly with the higher subject NP, which is a typical property of sentence negation, but is unexpected of constituent negation. Hence, it follows that quanti fied NPs need not move across negation. (27)

a.

b.

c.

weil der Hans nicht viele Bucher liest since the Hans not many books reads ' since it is not the case that Hans reads many books' wei! der Hans nicht jede Frau anbetet since the Hans not every woman adores ' since it is not the case that Hans adores every woman' Der HANS hat nicht viele Bucher gelesen, der PETER hat the Hans has not many books read the Peter has viele gelesen. many read 'it was not Hans but Peter who read many books.'

To summarize the above discussion, we conclude that all nominal arguments have to leave the VP before Spell-out. It seems that nominal arguments in German have to undergo a type of scrambling that moves them across the position of manner adverbs (short scrambling). This type of scrambling does not affect the interpretation of the moved NP. On the other hand, movement across the negative marker seems to be motivated by semantic features. Specific NPs obligatorily move across the negative marker while nonspecific indefinite NPs, unless they move into SpecNegP to check sentential negation, remain below the negative marker. This is reminiscent of the well-known facts, reported and discussed by Diesing ( 1 992) and Kratzer ( 1 9 89), that indefinite NPs in German differ in their interpretation depending on whether they follow or precede sentential adverbs like oft (often), as illustrated in (28). (28)

a.

wei! Hans ein Buch Qft gelesen hat since Hans a book often read has 'since Hans often read a certain book' (only specific interpreta tion)

308

ROLAND HINTERHOLZL b.

weil Hans qft

ein Buch gelesen hat since Hans often a book read has ' since Hans often read some book or other' (only nonspecific interpretation)

Definite NPs may only then remain below the negative marker if they receive a contrastive interpretation. Along the same lines, nonspecific indefinite NPs may defy movement into SpecNegP only if they receive a contrastive interpretation as illustrated in (22b) above. Finally, quantified NPs depending on their scope may stay below or move across the negative marker. A QP below the negative marker may have a specific or non-specific interpretation. (29a) is an example of a specific, that is, partitive QP that occurs below the negative marker that acts as sentence negation. But if a QP scrambles higher than the negative marker, then it can, like indefinites, only have a specific interpretation as is shown in (29b). (29)

a.

HANS hat nicht viele der Hans has not

viele davon

Bucher gelesen, PETER hat

many of.the books read

Peter

has

gelesen.

many thereof read b.

weil der Hans viele Bucher nicht gelesen hat since the Hans many books not read has ' since for many of the books it holds that Hans did not read them' (only specific interpretation)

So the movement of NPs across manner adverbs (short scrambling) has to be distinguished from the type of scrambling that moves them across the negative marker and other scope-bearing sentential adverbs. While the latter kind of movement is apparently triggered by a semantic feature, namely specificity, the former kind seems to occur for reasons of purely formal licensing. For purposes of reference, we will call the latter kind of movement long scrambling. We like to propose that the Case-licensing positions in German occur between manner adverbs and sentential negation. So short scrambling will be motivated by Case-licensing. Any further movement of an NP (long scrambling) must be motivated with semantic properties of that NP. We classify movement across sentential negation as long scrambling. To account for the fact that DPs that follow sentence negation receive a contrastive interpretation, we will take up a proposal by Richard Kayne (p.c.) and assume that there is a Focus phrase just below negation into which contrastively focussed elements move (cf. also Brody 1 990). The resultant structure is illustrated in (30).

MOVEMENT AND STRANDING IN GERMANIC OV LANGUAGES (30)

309

[CP [TP T [Specifics [oft [Neg [Focus [AgrNom [AgrDat [AgrAcc [Manner [V]]]]]]]]]]]

At this point, we will not provide a formal account of the regularities discussed above but simply restate them as descriptive generalisations. It seems that a strong Focus feature blocks the movement of definite NPs into the licensing positions of specifics as well as the movement of the highest nonspecific indefinite into SpecNegP. A specific QP may stay below negation if it is to be read with narrow scope, while a definite NP must (in the absence of any focus feature) check its specificity feature. It is not clear to me how to properly express these regularities in a system of feature checking. One possibility is to assume that something like (3 1 ) holds. (3 1)

Once Case is checked, only the feature of a DP with the closest licensing head is checked overtly

Given (3 1), a DP with a specificity and a contrastive focus feature will move overtly only to the closest licenser, that is in this case, into SpecFocusP. In a VO-based approach, we have to assume that the non-verbal predicates in (32) have been moved leftward from a position to the right of the verb. We assume that these nonverbal predicates, together with the "direct object" of the verb, form a Small Clause which in tum forms the complement of the verb as is illustrated in (33). (32)

a. b. c.

(33)

a. b. c.

wei! Hans das Haus gelb

farbte

since Hans the house yellow painted wei! Hans ihn einen Idioten nannte since Hans him an idiot called weil Hans Maria intelligent findet since Hans Maria intelligent finds ' since Hans considers Maria intelligent'

wei! Hans wei! Hans wei! Hans

[vp !arbte Esc das Haus gelb]] [vp nannte Esc ihn einen Idioten]] [vp findet Esc Maria intelligent]]

Following Zwart ( 1 993) and Koster ( 1 994), we assume that these small clauses undergo XP movement to check some feature of the verb and are moved into the Specifier of a Predicate Phrase (PredP) that dominates the VP. (34) shows that this Predicate Phrase occupies a position below the position of manner adverbs. (34a) also shows that the subject of the small clause den Zaun is moved out of the domain of the manner adverb. Presumably it moves, like the nominal

310

ROLAND IDNTERHOLZL

arguments of verbs, to its Case-licensing position below the negative marker, and from there, it moves like other specifics (if not contrastively focused) to a licensing position above the negative marker, as is indicated in (34c). (34)

a.

wei! Hans den Zaun sorgfiiltig gelb

angestrichen hat

since Hans the fence carefully yellow up.painted

has b. ??weil Hans den Zaun gelb sorgfiiltig angestrichen hat since Hans the fence yellow carefully up.painted has c. wei! Hans den Zaunj nicht ti [ti gelb] angestrichen hat since Hans the fence not yellow up.painted has That VP-internal predicates (including small clauses, idioms and directional PPs) in fact occupy a position in the middle field, namely PredP, rather than remain within a right-headed VP, can be shown with the help of the infinitival marker. The data in (35) show that an adjectival small clause predicate cannot remain within the VP or for that matter, incorporate into the verb, as is often assumed (cf. Neeleman 1 994), but has to move out of the VP to a licensing position above the infinitival marker. (35) shows that PredP dominates F 1 P in German (cf. (35a-b)) and in West Flemish (cf. (35c-d)) . The contrast in (35c-d) is even more significant since we have seen in (5a) above that the infinitival marker in West Flemish can in principle be separated from the verb. We have argued above that Small Clauses are licensed in PredP. (35) shows that the head of a Small Clause predicate obligatorily precedes the infinitival marker occupying F 1 , hence PredP must dominate F 1 P. (35)

a.

ohne

die Tilr griin zu fiirben

without the door green to paint 'without painting the door green' b.

*ohne

die Tilr zu griln fiirben

without the door to green paint c.

K goan proberen van die deure groen te verwen.

1 go

try of the door green to paint 'I will try to paint the door green. ' (Haegeman 1 995;(23))

d. *K goan proberen van die deure te groen verwen. 1 go try of the door to green paint The test with sentential negation indicates that idiomatic expressions and directional PPs are licensed in PredP too. Since these elements can only occur between the negative marker and the infinitival marker, even if they have a definite reference as the PPs in (36c-d) do, they must occupy PredP in (36) .

MOVEMENT AND STRANDING IN GERMANIC OV LANGUAGES (36)

a.

urn

es ihr nicht zur

311

Verfiigung zu stellen

in. order it her not to.AGR availability to put 'in order to not make it available for her' b. *urn es ihr zur Verfiigung nicht zu stellen in. order it her to.AGR availability not to put urn die Milch nicht in den Kithlschrank zu stellen c. in.order the milk not in the refrigerator to put 'in order not to put the milk into the fridge' d. *urn die Milch in den Kithlschrank nicht zu stellen in.order the milk into the refrigerator not to put So far we have arrived at the following picture of the lower middle field in German. Nominal arguments (including prepositional arguments) are Case licensed in functional positions above the position of manner adverbs. The negative marker dominates Manner adverbs. Small clauses, idiomatic expressions and directional PPs are licensed in PredP directly below the position of VP adverbs. This Predicate Phrase dominates F l , a position which itself immediately dominates VP (37). (37)

[DPs [Neg [DPs [VP-adverbs [PredO [FI [yp]] ]

Let u s now look at the behavior o f sentential complements (CPs) . CPs in German appear invariably to the right of the verb selecting them. Given that it is standardly assumed that the German verb in embedded clauses does not move, the CPs in (38a-b) seem to be in their base position, as is indicated by the analysis of (3 8b) in (3 8c). Although there is clear evidence that the German embedded verb does not move to Tense - as we have seen above it cannot even move across negation or even VP adverbs - it is still possible that it undergoes some type of short local movement that moves it across a sentential complement that has itself moved into the Specifier of a functional projection for purposes of licensing, as is illustrated in (38d) for the sentence in (38b). (3 8)

a.

weil Hans der Maria

b.

ohne

c. d.

without the Maria.DAT to say that Peter sick is ' without telling Maria that Peter is sick' ohne der Maria [F I zu [yp sagen dajJ Peter krank ist]] ohne der Maria [F I zu [F2 sagen [F3 CP [vp tv tcp]]]]

nicht sagte, dajJ Peter krank ist since Hans the Maria.DAT not told that Peter sick is 'since Hans did not tell Maria that Peter is sick'

der Maria

zu sagen, dajJ Peter krank ist

ROLAND HINTERHOLZL

3 12

From the licensing movement of adj ectives (cf. (35) above) an argument can be constructed that CP complements cannot remain within the VP. (39a) shows the only possible order between adj ective and CP complement in an infinitival clause. The adjectival phrase undergoes licensing movement into PredP above the infinitival marker. As (39b) shows, pied-piping of the CP complement leads to ungrammaticality. It follows then that the CP complement has to move out of the VP before the adjectival phrase moves to PredP, in order to derive (39a) from the underlying structure in (39c). (39)

a.

ohne froh zu sein, dajJ der Hans nicht kam without happy to be that the Hans not came 'without being happy that Hans did not come'

b. *ohne rJroh, daft der Hans nicht kam] zu sein without happy that the Hans not came to be [cP ohne . . . [F IP ZU [yp sein [AdjP froh [CP]]]]] c. In the standard theory, cases like (39) have been accounted for by the operation of extraposition that right-adjoins CP complements to the local VP or !P. Since, following Kayne ( 1 994), we want to refrain from positing right-adjunction, we propose that the CP complements are licensed in SpecF3P directly above VP. This entails that the verb in German moves up (at least) to F2, a functional projection dominating the licensing projection for CPs. We thus arrive at the following structure of the German sentence, a structure that we assume also holds for Dutch and West Flemish. In (40), L-NPs stands for "long-scrambled NPs", S-NPs for "short-scrambled NPs" and S-Advs for "sentential adverbs" like "often". For the sake of simplicity, we assume that the domain of L-NPs corresponds to the traditional TP. (40)

3.

[L-NPs [S-Advs [Neg [S-NPs [VP-Advs [Predo [F I P zu [F2P V [F3P CP [yp]]]]]]]]]]

Of what remains in the VP: Stranding as Copy and Delete

In the previous section, we have argued that the arguments of the verb, including sentential complements, and VP-internal predicates all move out of the VP to specific licensing positions in the middle field. In this section, we want to investigate which elements can remain in the VP. The elements that can remain in the VP are essentially CP-adjuncts and PP-adjuncts. As (4 1 ) shows, CP-adjuncts to DPs can follow the verb that has

MOVEMENT AND STRANDING IN GERMANIC OV LANGUAGES

3 13

moved out of the VP into F2 in the middle field. In the absence of rightward movement, the simplest analysis of the position of the relative clause in (41 a) and of the so-called Noun-complement clause in (4 1b), is one in which it is assumed that these clauses remain in the VP stranded by the licensing movement of the DP they modify. -

(4 1 )

a.

Hans hat die Frau

e inge laden, die ich ihm empfohlen

Hans has the woman invited

who I

him recommended

habe. have b.

Hans hat die Behauptung zuritckgewiesen, daft die Erde rund Hans has the claim

refuted

that the earth round

ist. is As (42) shows, also PP-adjuncts to DPs (42a) or the verb (42b) can appear in a position following the verb in F2. Cases like (42a), which we will call PP-out-of NP, have traditionally been analyzed as involving extraction of the PP out of the NP it modifies plus subsequent right-adjunction of the PP to either VP or IP. Cases like (42b) , which we will call PP-extraposition, have traditionally been analyzed as involving right-adjunction of the PP to either VP or IP. This is illustrated in (42c) . (42)

a.

Hans hat ein Buch (itber Chomsky) gekauft (itber Chomsky)

b.

Hans hat (in Wien) ein Buch gekauft (in Wien)

c.

Hans has in Vienna a book bought in Vienna [cp Hans hat [IP PP [vp [NP ein Buch PP] gekauft] hat]] I I

Hans has a

book about Chomsky bought about Chomsky

I

In the following section, we want to investigate in which manner PPs modifying DPs can be stranded in positions following the verb. 6 We will argue against analyses that assume rightward movement. Furthermore, we will argue that PP-out-of-NP cases should not be accounted for in terms of extraction of the PP and subse quent remnant movement of the constituent containing the verb and the NP. 3 . 1 PP-out-of-NP The data and arguments presented in this section are drawn from Brugger & HinterhOlzl ( 1 998). Brugger & Hinterholzl ( 1 998) argue that cases of PP-out-of-

ROLAND HINTERHOLZL

314

NP should not be accounted for in terms of extraction of the PP, be it rightward extraction or leftward extraction plus subsequent remnant movement. Here we will briefly sketch the most important arguments. One important property of cases of PP-out-of-NP is the fact that the PP following the verb can receive nuclear stress and give rise to a wide focus reading, such that (43) is a perfect answer to an out-of-the-blue question "What happened?" (43)

Ich glaube daj3 Hans ein Buch gekauft hat aber CHOMSKY. I

believe that Hans a

book bought has about Chomsky

The fact that the PP in (43) can receive nuclear stress (with the DP ein Buch receiving secondary stress) immediately militates against the assumption that the PP has been right-adj oined to VP or IP, after having been extracted out of the DP ein Buch. If the PP were right-adjoined to VP or IP, nuclear stress should fall on the DP ein Buch, according to standard assumptions about the relation between phrase structure and stress assignment (cf. Cinque 1 993 ; Zubizarreta 1 998). The fact that the PP in (43) can receive nuclear stress and give rise to a wide focus reading can also be taken as an argument against an analysis in which it is assumed that the PP is extracted leftward followed by remnant movement of the constituent ein Buch gekauft hat. In German, elements · that undergo leftward movement out of their licensing positions are either deaccented (long scrambling) or if stressed give only rise to a narrow focus (contrastive focus) reading. Secondly, if sentences like (43) were derived via extraction of the PP out of the DP, then it remains unclear why cases of PP-out-of-NP in German neither violate the Specified Subject Condition nor the Specificity Condition. (44a) shows that a specified subject blocks extraction of DP-intemal material. (44b) shows that cases of PP-out-of-NP are unaffected by a specified subject. (44)

a. *Who did you read Peter's book of? b. Hans hat Peters Buch gelesen aber Chomsky. Hans has Peter's book read about Chomsky

Muller ( 1 995) takes the contrasts between wh-extraction out of a DP and the extraction of a PP out of a DP, exemplified above for the Specified Subject condition, as an argument in favor of a rightward movement analysis of these cases and of extraposition in general. He surmises that leftward subextraction out of a DP must proceed through SpecDP, and will thus be affected by a specified subject, while rightward subextraction out of a DP uses right-adjunction to the DP and is thus unhampered by a specified subject, as is illustrated in (45).

MOVEMENT AND STRANDING IN GERMANIC OV LANGUAGES (45)

315

that [IP [Hans [yp [DP [ a book til ti] bought]] PPJ

The problem with Muller's solution to the extraction paradox, illustrated in (44), is that the resultant structure of rightward movement makes the wrong predic tions about quantifier binding. In cases where more than one PP has been "extrapo sed" , an analysis in terms of right-adjunction predicts for the sequence XP PP I PP2 either that PP2 c-commands PP 1 if adjunction is to different maximal projections or that PP1 and PP2 c-command each other if adjunction is to the same maximal projection. As the pronominal binding facts in (46) indicates an analysis in terms of right-adjunction is untenable. The contrast in (46a-b) requires that PP 1 c-com mands PP2. For cases where only one PP has been extraposed, Muller's account of extraposition fails to explain why pronominal binding out of an extraposed PP is impossible, as is illustrated in (46c). (46)

a.

weil Hans eine Rede since Hans a

gehalten hat [in jeder Stadt] [uber

speech given

has in every city

about

ihre UW-Probleme] its environmental.problems b. ??weil Hans eine Rede gehalten hat [uber ihre Umweltprobleme]

[in jeder St.] ?? c. weil Hans ihren Burgermeister getroffen hat in jeder Stadt since Hans its

mayor

met

has in every city

The binding facts in (46) as well as the prosody and focus properties in (43) follow straightforwardly if we assume that the PPs in (46) and (43) are simply stranded in the VP. Kayne ( 1 994) proposes that a relative clause is stranded in the VP by sub extraction of the DP modified by the relative clause for reasons of case licensing. Since in the structure in (47), D and NP do not form a constituent excluding the PP that could be sub extracted for reasons of Case-licensing, leaving behind the PP within VP, and since subextraction of PPs is excluded also, as we have argued above, we need to look for an alternative means of stranding PPs that modify DPs. (47)

[DP D [NP N [pp P [DP]]]] a book about Chomsky

3 .2 Extraction as partial deletion In the Minimalist Program (Chomsky 1 993, 1 995) movement is viewed as the result of the application of two basic operations, copy and delete. The standard

ROLAND HINTERHOLZL

316

application of copy-and-delete has it that one copy, normally the material that corresponds to the trace in the traditional treatment of movement, is entirely deleted, as illustrated in (48a). In (48a) movement targets the constituent C consisting of the lexical items X and Y, in which process both X and Y are deleted in their pre-movement position. This is the standard case of total deletion of one copy . yielding the traditional pattern of the antecedent-trace relationship of movement. (48)

a. b.

[c X Y] . . . . . . [c X-¥] [c X ¥] . . . . . . [c X YJ

However, total deletion of one copy is not a logical necessity. We can imagine cases of partial deletion. In (48b), movement again targets constituent C consist ing of the lexical items X and Y, but this time X has been affected by forward deletion while Y has been affected by backward deletion. 7 Given the operations of forward and backward deletion, the structure in (49a) can be derived from (49b), where two full sentences have been coordinat ed, by forward deletion of John and backward deletion of the newspaper. (49)

a. b.

John bought and read the newspaper John bought the BewsJ)aper and JeIm read the newspaper

Since in Minimalism, the operation of move alpha is deconstructed into indepen dent copy and deletion processes, Wilder ( 1 995) proposes to investigate whether the operations of FWD and BWD are available in ordinary antecedent-trace relationships and formulates the condition of Chain-Internal Selective Deletion (CISD) given in (50) as a means of constraining partial deletion. The deletion operations illustrated in (48) are two possible outcomes of applying CISD in an antecedent-trace configuration. (50)

Phonological deletion can remove part of the antecedent and the complementary part of the trace (Wilder 1 995; (57))

In the next section, we will argue that the deletion processes operative in antecedent-trace configurations may delete parts of constituents but have different properties from the deletion processes that Wilder ( 1 994) argues occur in contexts of ellipsis. Deletion in ellipsis contexts is deletion of phonological features only, while deletion within antecedent-trace configurations is essentially guided by the deletion of formal features. Only in the cases where deletion of formal features is not at stake, that is in cases of deletion of material that is pied piped by movement operations, does deletion in antecedent-trace configurations obey the same restrictions that are relevant for deletion in cases of ellipsis. In the

MOVEMENT AND STRANDING IN GERMANIC OV LANGUAGES

3 17

following, we will continue to use FWD and BWD as descriptive tenns to refer to deletion operations as illustrated in (48b). 3 .2. 1 Deletion andfeature checking Given (50), a sentence like (5 1 ) could be derived simply by selective deletion operations, that is, without employing any extraction operation. As we have argued in 2.3 above, the direct object in Gennan moves overtly into SpecAgrAccP to check its Case, leaving behind a copy in its base position following the verb. This is illustrated in (52). Under these assumptions (5 1 ) can be derived by forward deleting ein Buch and backward deleting uber Chomsky, as is illustrated in (53a). However, (50) would allow us to derive also (53b-d) which are ungrammatical. (5 1 )

wei! Hans ein Buch liest uber Chomsky since Hans a

(52) (53)

book reads about Chomsky

wei! Hans [AgrAcc [ein Buch] [P2P liest [yp [ein Buch]]]] a. wei! Hans [ein Buch libel' Chemsky] liest [ein Buch Chomsky] b. **weil Hans rein Buch uber Chemsky] liest [ein Buch Chomsky] c. **wei! Hans [ein Buch libel' Chemsky] liest [em- Buch Chomsky] d. *weil Hans [ein Buch libel' Chemsky] liest [ein Buch Chomsky]

uber libel'

uber uber

It is clear from the examples in (53) that CISD is too unconstrained as it stands. Intuitively speaking, what is going on in cases like (53) is the following. The DP ein Buch moves out of its VP-internal base position into AgrAccP in order to check its case. This operation pied-pipes the DP-internal PP. Given this view, (53a) can be derived from the stipulations in (54) (cf. HinterhOlzl 1 997) . (54)

Free Deletion of Pied-piped Material (FDPM) Material that is moved to check a feature is subject to forward a. deletion b. Material that is pied-piped by such movement is subject to optional backward deletion

The FDPM, if correct, should follow from more basic principles in the grammar. We will later argue that clause a) of the FDPM follows from the elementary mechanics of the operation of feature checking in a derivation and that clause b)

ROLAND HINTERHOLZL

318

can be derived from the LCA. Before doing that, we would like to point out that the FDPM raises an interesting question concerning the operation of feature checking. With respect to feature checking, the question arises what the scope of the checked feature is. For example, in order to derive (53a) from (54), we have to assume that "material that is moved to check the Case-feature" comprises the determiner and the head noun but not the rest of the DP (the preposition and the DP within its scope). The traditional assumption has been that Case is a property of the head noun of an NP and that the determiner agrees with its head noun in Case (and possibly other features) . Within the DP-based approach we have to assume that Case is minimally a property of the determiner. In an LGB-framework, we would assume that when a DP is moved to check Case the scope of this operation comprises the head of the DP and all heads governed by it. In the Minimalist Framework, we have to assume that when a D P moves to check Case, Case is checked on the determiner only. Additional movement of the head noun to the determiner is necessary to check Case (and possibly some other features) 8 on the head noun as well. The question then arises how to derive (54a) from more basic principles. The question is relevant since in fact, in Chomsky's ( 1 993, 1 995) execution of the feature checking operation, it has to be stipulated which copy is to be spelled out. There it is assumed that if an element X has to check a feature f and X is copied and merged with the target category containing feature f, feature f is checked in all copies of X. In such a system, it is indeed necessary to stipulate that it is always the highest copy that is spelled out. Nunes ( 1 995) argued that a particular execution of the feature checking mechanism gives us for free the effect that it is always the highest copy that is spelled out. This follows simply from the assumption that only the feature of the copy is checked that merges with the target category containing the relevant feature. This is illustrated in (55), where the DP ein Buch is moved into SpecAgrAccP to check its case. In both (55 a-b) , the Case feature is only checked off in the copy in SpecAgrAccP but left unchecked in the copy in the VP-internal position. The derivation then converges only if, as in (55a), the lower copy is deleted, since deletion of the lower copy also effects deletion of the offending unchecked Case-feature. If, on the other hand, as in (55b), the higher copy is deleted, the copy with the offending unchecked feature remains and causes the derivation to crash. (55)

a. b.

weil Hans [AgrOP [DP ein Buch d [vp kaufte [DP ein Buc.� J *weil Hans [AgrOP [DP ein Buck J [vp kaufte [DP ein Buch d

MOVEMENT AND STRANDING IN GERMANIC OV LANGUAGES

319

So it i s the feature checking mechanism itself that decides which copy i s spelled out and which copy is deleted. This immediately predicts clause b) of (54), namely that the computational system is silent with respect to pied-piped material. Copies of pied-piped material are identical in their feature content and it only follows from the LCA, namely from the fact that two or more identical copies cannot be ordered with respect to third elements in the clause, that only one of the identical copies can be spelled out but it is left to the liberty of the speaker to decide which one. Now let us go back to (53) and see whether we can derive from the specific interpretation of (54) why (53a) is grammatical and (53b-d) are not. Let us start with the easy case (53d) . (53d) is ungrammatical for the very same reason (55b) is ungrammatical: the copy with the offending Case feature remains and causes the derivation to crash. In order to converge, at least the determiner containing the offending Case feature must be spelled out in the higher copy. This is the case of (53c). Why is (53c) still ungrammatical? (53c) is ungrammatical since the head noun still has a Case-feature to check, which it can only do in the higher copy, since in the lower copy the determiner with the relevant feature has been deleted. 9 This leaves us with the choice between (53a-b). Let us look at the Spell-out of the preposition. The preposition being pied-piped by the operation of Case checking of the containing DP is free to be spelled out in the higher or in the lower copy. Note, however, that if the preposition is spelled out in the higher copy its complement must be spelled out in the higher copy as well. And if the preposition is spelled out in the lower copy then its complement must as well. This is so because the preposition, so we assume, checks the Case of its DP argument. If the preposition were to be spelled out in the higher copy and its argument in the lower copy, as in (53b), Case-checking would be impossible due to the deletion of the Case feature of the preposition in the lower copy. In this case, the offensive Case-feature of the DP argument of the preposition remains unchecked and causes the derivation to crash. That it is actually Case-checking that is relevant for distinguishing between the grammatical (53a) and the ungrammatical (53b) can be shown with the following interesting contrast. In German, there are essentially three ways of expressing the possession relation between two DPs. a) The postnominal Possessor can be marked with genitive Case as in (56a). b) The postnominal Possessor, typically a name, is marked with the genitive s-morpheme, as in (56b). Or c) The possessive preposition von is inserted between the head noun and the postnominal Possessor, as in (56c). It is interesting to note that only option c) allows for "extraposition" of the possessor DP, as is shown in (57).

320

ROLAND HINTERHOLZL (56)

a.

wei! Hans das Buch der Maria

gelesen hat

since Hans the book [the Maria] .GEN read ' since Hans has read Maria's book' b.

wei! Hans das Buch Marias gelesen hat since Hans the book Maria's read

c.

has

has

wei! Hans das Buch von der Maria

gelesen hat

since Hans the book of [the Maria] .GEN read (57)

a.

has

*weil Hans das Buch gelesen hat der Maria

since b. *wei! since c. weil since

Hans the book read

has [the Maria] .GEN

Hans das Buch gelesen hat Marias Hans the book read

has Maria's

Hans das Buch gelesen hat von der Maria Hans the book read

has of [the Maria] .GEN

The difference between (57a-b) on the one hand and (57c) on the other hand follows if we assume that in (56a-b)/(57a-b), the Case of the possessor is checked in an Agreement position by the head noun Buch in the case at hand, while in (56c/57c) the inserted preposition von checks the Case of the post nominal possessor. 3 .2.2 Prosodic constraints on partial deletion Partial deletion creates discontinuous relations between (parts of) constituents that seem to be subject to prosodic constraints. In (58a), the PP von Chomsky must be construed with the direct object ein Buch, yielding the reading the student is reading a book by Chomsky. The extraposed PP in (58a) cannot be construed with the subject DP yielding the reading the student of Chomsky 's is reading a book. However, if, as in (58b) the object is scrambled across the subject, the extraposed PP must be construed with the subject and cannot be construed with the direct object, allowing only the reading a student of Chomsky 's is reading the book. (58)

a.

wei! die Studentin ein Buch liest von Chomsky

b.

wei! das Buch eine Studentin liest von Chomsky

since the student since the book a

a

book reads of Chomsky

student

reads of Chomsky

It is clear that the contrast in (58) cannot be easily reduced to a syntactic distinc tion. If one only looks at the contrast in (58a), one may conclude that "extra position" is possible from objects but not from subjects. However, (58b) immediately shows that the restriction at hand cannot be reduced to an instance of the famous subject-object asymmetry.

MOVEMENT AND STRANDING IN GERMANIC OV LANGUAGES

321

Rather what is at stake in (58) is a notion of prosodic distance between the elements of a discontinuous relation. The backward deleted PP in (58) is construed with the DP that is contained within a certain restricted domain of the preceding clause. From (58) it may be concluded that the backward deleted PP is simply construed with the closest DP. That this is not the case is shown by the contrast in (59). In both (59a) and (59b), the direct object is the closest "antecedent" for interpreting the backward deleted PP, but (59b) is considerably worse than (59a). The difference between (59a-b) is that in (59a), the antecedent is contained in the immediately preceding phonological phrase, whereas in (59b), another phonological phrase - constituted by the adjunct - intervenes between the backward deleted PP and its "antecedent". This is illustrated in (60) where constituents belonging to the same phonological phrase are given in round brackets. These observations were first made by Truckenbrodt ( 1 995). The phonological constraint at work in (59) can thus be stated as given in (6 1 ) (adopted from Truckenbrodt 1 995). (59)

a.

wei! der Peter nach Zanger UberZegung das Buch gekauft since the Peter after long

hat I aber Chomsky has

(60)

(6 1 )

consideration the book bought

about Chomsky

b. ??wei! der Peter das Buch nach Zanger UberZegung gekauft hat I aber Chomsky (wei! der Peter) (nach Zanger UberZegung) (das Buch) (gekauft a. hat aber Chomsky) (wei! der Peter) (das Buch) (nach Zanger UberZegung) (gekauft b. hat aber Chomsky) The antecedent o f a backward deleted phrase must b e contained in the immediately preceding phonological phrase

While we agree with most of Truckenbrodt's observations, we do not agree with the conclusion he draws from them, namely, that extraposition is the result of a PF-movement rule (cf. also Rochemont 1 978 ; Chomsky 1 986). Such an approach is untenable in the light of evidence that extraposition has syntactic consequenc es. For instance, as pointed out already by Gueron ( 1 980), extraposition can affect the licensing of (N)Pls, as is illustrated in (62). (62)

a. * [The names of � of these composers] weren't called out b. The names weren't called out [of � of these composers]

322

ROLAND HINTERHOLZL

In our account, "extraposition" is the result of the partial deletion of phonological features, lO guided by checking of the formal features, in the copies created by syntactic movement. Since Spell-out, the deletion or insertion of phonological features, is the last syntactic operation, its result is visible both at PF and at LF. Thus it is to be expected that partial deletion, being an operation of Spell-out, is subject both to prosodic constraints, as sketched above, as well as to interpretive constraints that, as Gueron ( 1 9 80) and Gueron & May ( 19 84) have argued, apply at LF. Syntactic movement is usually not subject to prosodic locality conditions but obeys constraints like the Specified Subject condition, while "extraposition" is subject to the former type of conditions but violates the latter type of conditions. Since extraposition does not display the typical properties of syntactic movement operations and since its effects are visible at LF, we conclude that extraposition must be treated as the result of the Spell-out operation of partial deletion. To summarize, we have provided empirical evidence showing that VP-inter nal elements undergo licensing movement into the middle field and sketched a general mechanism for stranding material in the VP, in terms of partial deletion.

4.

VP-preposing in English

In this section, we will outline some consequences of the account we have argued for in the previous sections for the proper analysis of English. More specifically, we will address the question of whether verb-preposing in English (Kayne 1998; cf. also Hr6arsd6ttir, this volume, for arguments for VP-preposing in Icelandic) made necessary by this account, as we will argue, is to be charac terized as head-movement or XP-movement. Haider (this volume) points out that the stranding approach to Extraposition leads to impossible word orders. If the relative clause were simply stranded in the base position of the DPs that have undergone passive movement, then the sentences in (67) should be grammatical. (67)

a. b. c. d. e.

*A man was awarded [that noone knew] the prize. (DP) *A book was put [that no one knew] on the shelf. (PP) *The barn was painted [that Mary liked so much] red. (AP) * A man came [who noone knew] in. (particle) [came [[a man who . . . ] in]]

A tentative solution to this problem would be to assume that arguments (67a), directional PPs (67b), small clause predicates (67c) and particles (cf. (67d) as

MOVEMENT AND STRANDING IN GERMANIC OV LANGUAGES

323

derived from (67e)), like in West Germanic, move into their licensing positions in the middle field. However, this immediately creates a new problem concerning the position of the verb in English. The English verb too must move into the middle field. Where does the English verb move to? Movement of the English verb must occur for a very general reason, since it occurs in every clause. The most plausible assumption is thus that the English verb (phrase) moves to the local Tense-head. Assuming verb (phrase) movement to Tense has, of course, far-reaching consequences, of which we can only sketch the most important ones in the remainder of this paper. The first problem with the assumption that the English verb moves to Tense concerns the position of Negation. It is standardly assumed that negation, which precedes the main verb in English, occurs between Tense and the verb. Given that we now have to assume that the English verb moves to Tense, negation must occur higher in the tree, presumably between Tense and AgrS . The second problem concerns auxiliaries. If auxiliaries are base-generated in functional projections outside of the VP, including Tense, then we get the wrong word order whether we assume that the verb undergoes head- or XP movement to Tense, as is illustrated in (68). (68)

a. [TP [T' has [AspP been [vp seen]]]] b. * [TP [T' seeI\ has [AspP been [vp ti]]]] V-movement c. * [TP [vp seen] [T' has [AspP been tvp]]] VP-movement

The right word order can only be derived if we assume that auxiliaries are part of the VP. Assuming that auxiliaries head their own VP-shells, verb-movement must affect all VP-shells containing either auxiliaries or the main verb. Thus verb movement in English must be XP movement given these assumptions. The third problem concerns the infinitival marker, which is standardly assumed to be base-generated in Tense in English. Since VP-movement into SpecTP would derive the wrong word order, we would have to assume that the infinitival marker is base-generated somewhere else. One possibility is that the infinitival marker, like in the West Germanic languages, occupies F l . VP-preposing in English would then be akin to movement of F1P that occurs in restructuring contexts in West Germanic (cf. HinterhOlzl 1 999). Another possibility is to assume that the infinitival marker is a prepositional complementizer. If the whole VP undergoes verb-movement in English, then we expect that PPs and clauses that have been stranded in the VP precede the other arguments of the verb, contrary to fact, as is illustrated in (69).

324

ROLAND HINTERHOLZL (69)

a. *10hn [yp bought about Chomsky] a book b. *10hn [yp bought that Peter liked] the book

However, cases like (69) can be excluded if we adopt partial deletion as a mechanism of stranding, since they violate an important constraint on backward deletion (BWD). Wilder ( 1 995) shows with independent evidence from deletion within coordinate structures that a BWD-site must precede its antecedent. To simplify things, this constraint has the effect that BWD-material can only surface in the rightmost copy. In (69), backward deleted material about Chomsky and that Peter liked surfaces in the leftmost copy.

Notes 1.

Haegeman (1 995) also argues that if non-finite verbs cannot move to Fl, as we have assumed, then one can derive the fact that en can only be spelled out on a finite verb.

2.

Note that in German, even non-finite auxiliaries have to invert with IPP complements (i), while the opposite holds in West Flemish (ii). It follows that in West Flemish, due to the inability of non-finite verbs to move to Fl, the empty morpheme may be licensed at LF. Else wird ihm einen Brief haben schreiben wollen (i) a. Else will him a letter have write want(IPp) *Else wird ihm einen Brief schreiben wollen haben b. Else will him a letter write want(IPp) have 'Else will have wanted to write him a letter' (ii) a. dan-ze kosten willen dienen boek kuopen een that-they could want(IPp) that boek buy have b. *dan-ze kosten een willen dienen boek kuopen that-they could have want(IPp) that boek buy 'that they could have wanted to buy that book'

3.

Often, as in (1 8b) the order manner adverb < nominal argument yields a perfect sentence. This is always then the case when the manner adverb is eligible for an alternative interpretation. So, for instance, (1 8b) is perfect under the interpretation "it was careful of Hans to read the book", where the adverb is interpreted as sentential rather than as a VP-adverb. Also (19b) is perfect under the interpretation "Hans executed exactly one/this plan", where the adverb is construed as modifying the DP.

4.

(2lb) is perfect if the negative marker is interpreted as constituent negation (see (22) and (23) below).

5.

The determiner kein has been analyzed as created by fusing a determiner with existential force with negation (cf. Kratzer 1 989).

6.

PP-extraposition has properties that differ considerably from the properties of cases of PP-out of-NP. These issues are discussed in detail in Brugger & Hinterh6lz1 (1998).

7.

The terms forward deletion (FWD) and backward deletion (BWD) are loaned from the literature on coordination (cf. Wilder 1994). The operation of FWD targets left-peripheral material in the first conjunct and deletes this material under identity in all conjuncts following. The operation

MOVEMENT AND STRANDING IN GERMANIC OV LANGUAGES

325

of BWD, in contrast, targets right-peripheral material in the last conjunct and deletes this material under identity in all preceding conjuncts. 8.

In the German DP, determiner, noun and adjectives agree in Case, Number and Gender.

9.

It is thus important to distinguish between feature checking and feature deletion. Feature deletion removes a feature from the computation. Feature checking, so to say, only removes the offensive character of a feature for the rest of the computation (cf. Nunes 1995). Secondly, feature deletion is total, that is to say, it deletes all formal and phonological features. To allow for reconstruction, we have to assume that semantic features are not affected by this deletion operation.

10.

Whether Spell-out is to be described as deletion or insertion of phonological features is immaterial for our purposes here. However, since, in our account of the IPP effect, we treated Spell-out as the insertion of phonological features into a syntactic tree, we have to assume that phonological features are inserted into the one copy in which all strong formal features have been checked.

References Bech, Gunnar. 1 955/1983. Studien Uber das Deutsche Verbum Infinitum. Tlibingen: Niemeyer. Brody, Michael. 1 990. "Some remarks on the focus field in Hungarian." UeL Working Papers in Linguistics 2, University College London. Brugger, Gerhard and Hinterh61zl, Roland 1998. PP-extraposition: Cases of complex inversion and cases of partial deletion. Ms., USC & UCLA. Brugger, Gerhard and Poletto, Cecelia. 1 993 . Negation in Bavarian. Ms. , University of Venice. Chomsky, Noam. 1 986. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 1 993 . "A minimalist program for linguistic theory." In Ken Hale and Jay Keyser (eds.), The View from Building 20. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 1-52. Chomsky, Noam. 1 995. "Bare phrase structure." In Gert Webelhuth (ed.), Government and Binding Theory and the Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. 383-439. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1 993. "A null theory of phrase and compound stress." Linguistic Inquiry 24: 239-298. Diesing, Molly. 1 992. Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 20]. Donaldson, Bruce C. 1 993. A Grammar of Afrikaans. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Grimm, Jakob. 1 898. Deutsche Grammatik. 1 969 edition, Gottingen: Glitersloh. Gueron, Jacqueline. 1 980. "On the syntax and semantics of PP extraposition." Linguistic Inquiry 1 1 : 637-678. Gueron, Jacqueline and Robert May. 1 984. "Extraposition and Logical Form." Linguistic Inquiry 15: 1-3 1 .

326

ROLAND HINTERHOLZL

Haegeman, Liliane. 1 995. Verb projection raising and finite V movement in West Flemish. Ms., University of Geneva. Haiden, Martin. 1 995. On the Semantic Evaluation ofNP-Syntax. Diplomarbeit, University of Vienna. Haider, Hubert. 1 993. Deutsche Syntax, generativ. Vorstudien zur Theone einer projektiven Grammatik. Tubingen: Narr. Haider, Hubert. 1 995. "Downright down to the right." In Uli Lutz & Jtirgen Pafel (eds), On Extraction and Extraposition in German. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins [Linguistics Today 1 1 : 245-27 1]. Halle, Morris and Marantz, Alec. 1 993. "Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection." In Ken Hale & Jay Keyser (eds), The Viewfrom Building 20. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 1 1 1-176. Hinterholzl, Roland. 1 997. CP-licensing, stranded relatives and the nesting requirement on multiple extraposed clauses. Ms., University of Southern California. Hinterholzl, Roland. 1 999. Restructuring Infinitives and the Theory of Complementation. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California. Kayne, Richard S. 1 994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, Ma. : MIT Press [Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 25] . Kayne, Richard S. 1 998. "Overt versus covert movement." Syntax 1 : 1 28-19 1 . Koster, Jan, 1 994. "Predication incorporation and the word order of Dutch." In Cinque et al. Kratzer, Angelika. 1 989. "Stage-level and individual-level predicates." In Gregory N. Carlson & Francis Jeffry Pelletier (eds), The Generic Book. Chicago. 125-175. Muller, Gereon. 1 995. "On extraposition and successive cyclicity." In UIi Lutz & Jtirgen Pafel (eds), On Extraction and Extraposition in German. Amsterdam and Philadel phia: John Benjamins. [Linguistics Today 1 1 : 2 13-243]. Neeleman, Ad. 1 994. Complex Predicates. Ph.D. dissertation, University of UtrechtiOTS. Nunes, Jairo. 1 995. The Copy Theory of Movement and Linearization of Chains in the Minimalist Program. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland. Rochemont, Michael. 1 978. A Theory of Stylistic Rules in English. NY: Garland. Rutten, Jean, 1 99 1 . Infinitival Complements and Auxiliaries. Ph.D. dissertation., Universi ty of Amsterdam. Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 1 995. Phonological Phrases. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Wilder, Christopher. 1 994. "Coordination, ATP and ellipsis." Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik 37: 291-329. Wilder, Christopher. 1 995. "Rightward movement as leftward deletion." In Uli Lutz and Jtirgen Pafel (eds), On Extraction and Extraposition in German. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. [Linguistics Today 1 1 : 273-309] . Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa. 1 998. Prosody, Focus and Word Order. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 33] Zwart, C. Jan-Wouter. 1 993. Dutch Syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Groningen.

Two Types

Languages

Matthew Pearson

Abstract In this paper I argue that VO languages do not form a homogeneous class, as distinct from OV languages. Rather, VO languages fall into two separate types, direct and inverse, with respect to the order of objects and adverbs within the predicate phrase. In direct VO languages, the order of these elements is the same as in OV languages, while in inverse VO languages, they occur in the mirror image of the OV order. I argue that the differences between direct and inverse languages reduce to a difference in how the lexical verb V raises up to substitute into the heads of higher VP shells. In direct languages, this is accomplished by means of successive head movement, while in inverse languages, head movement is unavailable and successive XP-movement is employed instead. In addition to explaining the word order symmetries between the two language types, this analysis also accounts for a number of other facts, including some unexpected differences between English (a direct VO language) and Malagasy (an inverse VO language) with respect to binding and weak crossover effects in double object constructions.

1.

Introduction

In discussions of word order variation, it is generally assumed that the most basic typological split is between languages with O V order, such as Turkish, and those with VO order, such as English. Traditionally, OV and VO languages have been taken to have distinct base structures, reflecting different settings of a fundamen tal 'headedness' parameter (perhaps supplemented by additional parameters relating to directionality of Case- and 6-assignment, as in Travis 1 9 89). More recently, a number of researchers have suggested that OV and VO languages have the same base structure, but differ in terms of movement. For

MATTHEW PEARSON

328

example, Kayne ( 1 994) has suggested that all languages are undedyingly VO, and that OV languages are derived by leftward movement of the object to a specifier position above the highest position of the verb. Some support for this view has been provided by Zwart ( 1 993), Carstens ( 1 997), Hinterh61zl ( 1 997), Koopman and Szabolcsi ( 1 998), Nakajima ( 1 999), and others, who draw on data from a variety of OV languages, including Dutch, German, Japanese, and the West African language Ijo. Taking a different approach, Fukui and Takano ( 1 998) and Haider ( 1 994, this volume), have argued that all languages are undedyingly OV, and that VO languages are derived by leftward movement of the verb over the object. However, these movement-based approaches to word order resemble directionality-based approaches insofar as OV and VO are treated as fundamental word order types. Among languages of a given type, it is commonly assumed that cross-linguistic differences are relatively superficial. VO languages, for example, are generally taken to differ from each other primarily in the position of the verb at spell-out (low in English, somewhat higher in French, higher still in Irish). In this paper I argue for a different view, based on data from languages not considered by the researchers mentioned above. In particular, I claim that VO languages do not form a homogeneous class, but rather fall into two separate types. With respect to a variety of word order phenomena to be considered below, VO languages of the first type, including familiar languages like English and French, exhibit the same word orders as those found in OV languages. Languages of the second VO type, among them the Austronesian language Malagasy, exhibit word orders which are the mirror image of their counterparts in OV languages. In light of this, I will argue that VO languages such as English and French should be grouped together with OV languages like Turkish to form a single word order class, which I will call direct languages. VO languages of the Malagasy type, on the other hand, constitute a separate class which I refer to as inverse languages. This alternative typology is shown schematically in ( 1 ) : (1)

�

direct

�

OV

VO

inverse

I

VO

The structure of this paper is as follows: In Section 2, I present data illustrating the word order differences between direct and inverse languages. In Section 3, I argue against a directionality style analysis, whereby inverse languages are taken to be the literal mirror image of OV languages, and in favor of an

TWO TYPES OF VO LANGUAGES

329

' antisymmetric' analysis, according to which direct and inverse languages differ in terms of the movements involved in constructing a multi-layered VP-what could be thought of as the 'extended projection' of the lexical verb, in a sense (somewhat different from Grimshaw 1 99 1 ) to be made precise below. In Section 4, I apply this movement-based analysis to the constructions discussed in Section 2. Finally, in Section 5, I summarize my analysis.

2.

The data

The phenomena to be considered here involve the order of elements within what could loosely be called the predicate phrase (roughly equivalent to Chomsky' s vP). A s I show in 2. 1-2.3, direct and inverse languages differ with respect to the order of objects in double object constructions, the relative order of certain classes of adverbs, and the (apparent) direction of movement in object shift constructions. 2.1 Double object constructions As Haider ( 1 994) observes, va languages such as English pattern with OV languages such as Dutch with respect to the order of objects in double object 1 constructions. In the unmarked case, the indirect object precedes the direct object in both types of languages, as shown in (2): (2)

a. b.

John will give Mary the book. (dat) lan Mane het boek zal geven. that Jan Marie the book will give ' (that) Jan will give Marie the book. '

(English) (Dutch)

In va languages of the Malagasy type, however, double object constructions exhibit the mirror image of this order: As shown in (3a), the direct object precedes the indirect object in this language. (3b) and (3c) give examples from Palauan (from Polinsky 1 997, who cites Georgopoulos 1 99 1 ) and Quiavini Zapotec, showing that this pattern is not unique to Malagasy: (3)

a.

Nanolotra ny dite ny vahiny ny zazavavy.

b.

PAsT.offer DET tea DET guest DET girl 'The girl offered the guests the tea. ' Ng-mils-terir a buu ' a rngalek a Sabino. 3sG-give-3PL DET betel DET children DET Sabino 'Sabino gave the children some betelnut. '

(Malagasy)

(Palauan)

MATTHEW PEARSON

330 c.

Bdeidy

Gyeeihlly liiebr studiann. PERF.give Miguel book student 'Miguel gave the student the book. '

(Q. Zapotec)

The contrast in (2)-(3) is also attested with 'derived' double object predicates viz. dative and benefactive applicative constructions. (4a) below illustrates a typical applicative construction from Indonesian, a VO language of the English type. Here the indirect (benefactive) object precedes the direct object. This order is replicated in applicative constructions in the OV language Dutch, as shown in 2 (4b). However in Tzotzil, a VO language of the Malagasy type, the indirect (dative) object follows the direct object, as shown in (5) (Haviland 1 9 8 1 ) : (4)

a.

Ali membuka-kan bapak pintu.

b.

Ali open-APPL father door 'Ali opened the door for his father. ' (dat) Jan zijn vrienden uitnodigingen ver-stuurde. that Jan his friends invitations APPL-sent ' (that) Jan sent his friends invitations. '

tak'in Ii Petul e. INcPL- 1 s.ERG-give-APPL money DET Peter PART 'I gave Peter the money. '

(5)

Ch-k-ak' -be

(Indonesian)

(Dutch)

(Tzotzil)

2.2 Adverb order Using data from various languages, Cinque ( 1 999) argues that adverbs can be grouped into a number of classes, each associated with a different functional projection, and that the order in which these projections occur in the tree follows a universal hierarchy. In VO languages such as French, this hierarchy is directly reflected in the surface left-to-right order of adverbs. For example, frequency adverbs such as ' always' precede manner adverbs such as 'well' , over which they take scope, as in (6a). The same order is found in the OV language Dutch, as shown in (6b): (6)

a.

b.

Jean lave

toujours bien ses vetements. Jean washes always well his clothes 'Jean always washes his clothes well.' (dat) Jan altijd zijn kleren goed wast. that Jan always his clothes well washes ' (that) Jan always washes his clothes well. '

(French)

(Dutch)

In Malagasy, however, the relative order of adverbs is reversed, such that

TWO TYPES OF VO LANGUAGES

331

adverbs with wider scope appear t o the right o f adverbs with narrower scope. As shown in (7), the frequency adverb 'always' follows the manner adverb 'well' (Rackowski 1 998; Pearson 1998b; Rackowski and Travis 1 999). Comparing (7) with (6b) above shows that here, as with double object constructions, the Malagasy order is the mirror image of the Dutch. (7)

Manasa tsara ny lambany Joana i

Ketaka.

(Malagasy)

wash well DET clothes.3 always DET Ketaka ' Ketaka always washes his clothes well. ' 2 . 3 Object shift VO languages of the Malagasy sort also mirror OV languages in terms of the (apparent) direction of object shift. Consider the following sentences from Turkish: Here we see that the non-specific direct object in (8a) appears left adjacent to the verb, following the adverb 'immediately' , whereas the specific direct object, marked with morphological accusative case, appears in a displaced position to the left of the adverb (Murat Kural, p.c.; examples based on En9 1 99 1 ): (8)

a.

b.

Ali hemen

bir piyano kiralamak istiyor. Ali immediately one piano rent.INF wants 'Ali wants to rent a piano immediately. ' Ali bir piyanoyu hemen kiralamak istiyor. Ali one piano.Acc immediately rent.INF wants 'Ali wants to rent a (specific) piano immediately.'

(Turkish)

In Malagasy, we find the opposite order: In (9a), the non-specific direct object occurs right-adjacent to the verb, preceding the adverb 'quickly' , while the specific direct object in (9b), marked with the determiner ny, appears in a scram bled position following the adverb (Polinsky 1 994; Pearson 1 998b): (9)

a.

Nijinja vary haingana ny mpamboly.

b.

PAST.cut rice quickly DET farmer 'The farmer harvested rice quickly. ' Nijinja haingana ny vary ny mpamboly. PAST .cut quickly DET rice DET farmer 'The farmer harvested the rice quickly. '

(Malagasy)

VO languages of the English-French type either lack object shift altogether, or show leftward shift of the kind found in OV languages (e.g. object shift in Icelandic; see Bobaljik & Jonas 1 996 and references therein).

332

MATTHEW PEARSON

2.4 Direct and inverse order languages Examining the above data, we see that VO languages can be separated into two groups with respect to the order of objects and predicate-internal adverbs. VO languages of the first group, such as English and French, exhibit the same orders as one finds in OV languages like Dutch and Turkish. In this group, the surface linear order of objects and adverbs appears to correlate directly with their hierarchical relations : In double object constructions, where the indirect object c-commands the direct object (Barss and Lasnik 1 9 86 ; Larson 1 98 8), it also precedes the direct object. Similarly, frequency adverbs like 'always' precede manner adverbs like 'well' , over which they take scope, while shifted objects both precede and c-command their traces. To reflect this correlation between c-command and left-to-right order, I group VO languages of the English-French type together with OV languages like Turkish, and refer to them as direct order predicate languages (or direct languages, for short) . VO languages of the second group, such as Malagasy, exhibit orders which are the mirror image of what one finds in direct languages. Here the surface left to-right order of objects and adverbs appears to be an inverse mapping of their c-command relations. I will thus refer to languages of the Malagasy type as inverse order predicate (or simply inverse) languages. Examples of direct and inverse languages are listed in ( 10), while the table in (i) summarizes the data from 2. 1-2.3 in schematic form. ( 1 0)

Direct: Inverse:

(i)

Double obj. constructions

English, French, Indonesian, Dutch, Turkish, . . . Malagasy, Tzotzil, Q. Zapotec, Palauan, . . .

direct OV

VO

VO

10 DO V

V IO DO

V DO IO

V Adv2 Advl

V Advl Adv2

Adv order (Adv2 » Advl) Adv2 Advl V

inverse

Object shift

3.

Symmetry versus anti-symmetry

3.1

The symmetry hypothesis

What sort of analysis should we give for inverse languages? One obvious approach would be to claim that such languages have a base structure which is

333

TWO TYPES OF VO LANGUAGES

literally the mirror image of the structure found in OV languages. If we adopt the traditional assumption that phrase markers in OV languages have the order specifier-complement-head, as in ( l l a), then we might suppose that phrase markers in inverse languages have the opposite order, head-complement specifier, as in ( l Ib). I will refer to this as the symmetry hypothesis. ( l 1)

a.

b.

CP

�

Spec

C'

�

IP

�

Spec

I'

�

VP

�

Spec

C

I

V'

�

V

CP

�

Spec

C'

�

C

IP

�

Spec

I'

�

I

VP

�

V'

�

Spec

V

Though the symmetry hypothesis appears to offer a straightforward explanation of the word order symmetries discussed above, there are reasons to believe that it is on the wrong track. For example, notice that in ( l Ib) the specifier of IP occurs to the right of VP. Given this, we predict that the subject should follow the direct object in all inverse languages. However, while object-subject order is found in some inverse languages, such as Tzotzil, there are others where the opposite order is required. Quiavini Zapotec, for example, is strictly VSO, as 3 illustrated in ( 1 2): ( 1 2)

Ytaa 'z

Gyeeihlly Lieeb.

(Q. Zapotec)

IRR.beat Miguel Felipe 'Miguel will beat Felipe. ' * 'Felipe will beat Miguel. ' Furthermore, since the specifier of CP occurs to the right of IP in ( l l b), we would expect wh-movement in inverse languages to target the right periphery of the clause. However, in every inverse language that I am familiar with, wh-phrases move to the left periphery, just as in many direct VO languages like English. Examples from Tzotzil and Quiavini Zapotec are given in ( 1 3):

334

MATTHEW PEARSON ( 1 3)

a.

b.

Buch'u i-s-mil Ii Petul e ? who INCPL-3sG.ERG-kill DET Peter PART 'Who killed Peter?' (or 'Who did Peter kill?') Xi rralloh lluuw gauw Gyeeihlly ? what think you FUT.eat Miguel 'What do you think Miguel will eat?'

(Tzotzil)

(Q. Zapotec)

These facts suggest that the specifier of CP and (in at least some inverse languages) the specifier of IP are generated to the left of their heads rather than the right, in which case we must modify the mirror-image structure in ( l Ib), restricting the occurrence of right-specifiers to projections below IP, as in ( 14). Not only does this modification obscure the apparent symmetry between inverse languages and OV languages, but it forces us to ask why inverse ordering should be confined to constituents within VP, a question to which no ready answer suggests itself. (14)

CP

�

Spec

C'

�

C

IP

�

Spec

I'

�

I

VP

�

V'

�

Spec

V

However, even if we accept the modified structure in ( 14), we still encounter empirical problems with the symmetry hypothesis, related to the syntax of double object constructions in languages like Malagasy. Larson ( 1 988) argues that the indirect object in a double object construction occupies a VP-internal specifier position, from which it asymmetrically c-commands the direct object, as schema tized in ( 1 5) (position of the verb irrelevant) :

TWO TYPES OF VO LANGUAGES ( 1 5)

335

VP

�

10

V'

� O D

V

Larson develops this structure in part to explain certain asymmetries between the two objects first noted by B arss and Lasnik ( 1986). For example, as shown in ( 1 6), a quantified indirect object may bind a pronoun within the direct object, but not vice versa. Assuming that a quantifier must c-command a pronoun in order to bind it, these data suggest that the indirect object asymmetrically c-commands the direct object. ( 1 6)

a. John gave every workerj hisj paycheck. b. *John gave itsj owner every paychec�.

Furthermore, Barss and Lasnik: show that A'-movement of a direct object over an indirect object containing a pronoun yields a weak crossover effect, as in (17). Since weak crossover effects only result when the constituent containing the pronoun c-commands the trace of the A'-operator, ( 1 7) provides further evidence that the indirect object c-commands the direct object in double object constructions.4 ( 1 7)

*Which childj did you show hisj mother tj?

If VPs in inverse languages were the mirror image of VPs in OV languages, then double object constructions in a language like Malagasy would have the structure in ( 1 8), where the indirect object asymmetrically c-commands the direct object to its left: ( 1 8)

VP

�

V'

�O

V

10

D

However, when we apply B arss and Lasnik's c-command tests to double object constructions in Malagasy, the results are somewhat surprising. When it comes to pronoun binding, Malagasy behaves just like English, modulo the difference in linear order: A quantified indirect object may bind a pronoun (here, the third person enclitic -ny) within the direct object that precedes it ( 1 9a), but not vice versa ( 1 9b). This is just what we would expect given the structure in ( 1 8).

MATTHEW PEARSON

336 ( 1 9) a.

Nanaseho ny sarinYi

ny ankizy rehetrai Rasoa. (Malagazy)

PAST .show DET picture.3 DET child every Rasoa 'Rasoa showed every chil� his/heri picture. ' b.

*Nanaseho ny ankizy rehetrai ny

reninYi

Rasoa.

PAST.show DET child every DET mother.3 Rasoa 'Rasoa showed his/heri mother every childi.' However, when we look at weak crossover, we get apparently contradictory results. To see this, we must first have a look at some properties of Malagasy phrase structure. As Keenan ( 1 994) and Pearson ( 1 998a, in preparation) show, clauses in Malagasy have the bipartite structure in (20a): Each clause is com posed of two maj or constituents, a verb-initial predicate phrase, and a predicate external constituent which I will loosely call the topic. Frequently the subject raises to the topic position, as shown in (20b) , resulting in the VOS order for which Malagasy is well known (d. footnote 3). However, other arguments and adjuncts may also freely topicalize. Raising of the object, for example, results in the VSO order in (20c): (20) a. b. c.

[PredP V S [PredP V ti [PredP V S

o o ti

(PP)] (PP)] (PP)]

There is evidence from anaphor binding to suggest that the subject asymmetrical ly c-commands the direct object when both are within the predicate phrase. Consider the sentence in (2 1 ) (adapted from Keenan 1 993), where a benefactive argument has been topicalized: As this example shows, a predicate-internal subject may antecede a predicate-internal reflexive object: (2 1 ) [Namonoan ' ny vehivavYi tenaJ ny zanany. PAST. kill DET woman self DET child.3 'The woman killed herself for her child. '

(Malagasy)

In Pearson (in preparation), I argue that topicalization in Malagasy involves movement to an A'-position (contra Guilfoyle et al. 1 992). Evidence for this comes from the fact that when a quantified direct object is topicalized over a subject containing a pronoun, as in (22), a weak crossover effect results. 5

,

(22) * [Novangian ny reninYi ti tamin 'ny zoma] ny ankizy rehetrai. PAST.visit DET mother.3 PAST.on-DET Friday DET child every 'Every chil�, hisi mother visited ti on Friday. ' Turning to double object constructions, we might predict that if the indirect

TWO TYPES OF VO LANGUAGES

337

object c-commands the direct object, as in ( 1 8), then topicalizing a quantified direct object over an indirect object containing a pronoun should yield a weak crossover effect. However, this is not what we find. As (23) shows, no weak crossover effect results : A topicalized direct object may freely bind a pronoun within the indirect object. Thus it seems as though the indirect object asymmetri cally c-commands the direct object for purposes of pronoun binding (cf. (19a-b)), but not for purposes of weak crossover. However, the symmetry hypothesis, as exemplified by the structure in ( 1 8), fails to account for this apparent contradiction. (23)

[Nasehon-dRasoa ti ny reninYi] ny ankizy rehetrai. PAsT.show-Rasoa DET mother.3 DET child every 'Every childi, Rasoa showed hisi mother ti.'

In short, we see that the symmetry hypothesis is inadequate, insofar as it fails to explain why the symmetry between direct and inverse languages is confined to elements within the VP, and fails to predict the differences between English and Malagasy double object constructions with respect to B arss and Lasnik's pronoun binding and weak crossover tests. I now present an alternative to the symmetry hypothesis which does account for these facts. 3 .2 Word order and v- V complex formation Based on various typological considerations - e.g., the cross-linguistic absence of wh-movement to the right periphery - Kayne ( 1994) concludes that all languages order specifiers to the left of heads, a result which is predicted to follow from his linear correspondence axiom (LeA) . Here I will argue for an analysis of inverse languages which is consistent with this position: Rather than appealing to some directionality parameter whereby specifiers may be ordered before or after heads, I will instead assume that phrase markers in all languages conform to a specifier-head-complement order, and account for the symmetry effects discussed above in terms of movement. The basic analysis is as follows: Recall that the kinds of mirror-image effects we find in inverse languages appear to be confined to elements which are arguably within the VP domain of the clause, such as direct and indirect objects, manner adverbs, and so on. When it comes to elements which are arguably higher in the tree, such as subjects and wh-operators, no mirror image effects are observed. Here I will argue that this is non-accidental - that the crucial difference between direct and inverse languages has to do with how verb phrases are put together.

MATTHEW PEARSON

338

Following work of Travis ( 1 99 1) , Sportiche ( 1999), and others, I assume that verb phrases have the basic architecture shown in (24). Rather than consist ing of a single projection, a verb phrase involves two or more VP ' shells ' (Larson 1 98 8), the lowest o f which i s the lexical projection V P (in which the verb is generated), and the highest of which is vP, headed by the phonologically null light verb v, in the specifier of which the verb's external argument is introduced (Chomsky 1 995). Intervening between these shells is a set of func tional projections, notated FP in (24). These projections are associated with various functions: Some introduce adjuncts and secondary predicates into the structure, others participate in feature-checking (e.g. Case licensing) and trigger agreement on the verb, others provide landing sites for 'short movement' scrambling, and so on. (24)

vP

�

v

FP

�

F

VP

�

V

Following Chomsky ( 1 995), I assume that syntactic objects are constructed in 'bottom-up' fashion through successive applications of Merge and Move. Now suppose that, as the structure in (24) is built up, the head of VP must combine with the head of vP (along with the heads of any VP shells intervening between them) to form a single complex predicate head. In order to do this, the lexical verb must raise and substitute into the head of vP, thereby licensing the light verb by providing it with lexical material. I will refer to this process of V-to-v raising and substitution as v-V complex formation. Suppose further that, in order for v-V complex formation to take place, any functional proj ections intervening between the verb and the v head must in some sense be 'invisible' for purposes of substitution. I formulate this idea as a constraint on substitution, given in (25iii): (25)

A head X may substitute for a head Y iff: (i) X and Y are lexical heads with non-conflicting categorial features, (ii) Y is not associated with any phonological features, and (iii) for all heads Z, if Z c-commands X but does not c-command Y, then the projections of Z must be categorially non-distinct from X and Y.

TWO TYPES OF VO LANGUAGES

339

How does a functional projection become categorially non-distinct from the verb? Here I will assume that certain functional projections can acquire a lexical feature from the verb, in effect becoming VPs 'by inheritance' .6 This inheritance takes place just in case a constituent containing the verb's lexical feature raises into the checking domain of the functional projection at some point in the derivation. This idea is formulated in (26a-b): (26)

a. b.

A functional projection FP is categorially non-distinct from a lexical head L iff it has inherited a lexical feature from L. A functional projection FP inherits a feature

Thus, when the verb raises and adjoins to a functional head F, as in (27a), it transmits its V-feature to each of the projections of F (as indicated by a subscript [VD, causing FP to be reanalyzed as a VP. Alternatively, if VP raises to become the specifier of FP, as in (27b), then FP will inherit a V-feature by means of Spec-Head agreement, and will again be reanalyzed as a VP. (27)

a.

FP[V]

�

Spec

�

�

V

F

�

Spec

V'

�

tv

FP[V]

b.

�

VP

�

Spec

V'

F'

�

F

�

tvp

V

Given the structure in (24), and the assumptions in (25)-(26), we can formulate the difference between direct and inverse order languages in terms of how

340

MATTHEW PEARSON

V-feature transmission takes place, as follows: In direct languages like English and Dutch, feature transmission proceeds by means of successive head movement (27a); while in inverse languages like Malagasy, feature transmission proceeds through successive XP-movement (27b). First, consider v-V complex formation in direct languages . Suppose we have the selectional hierarchy shown in (28a) : VP is selected by a functional head F l t o form FP, where XP moves o r merges into the specifier o f FP. FP i s then selected by another functional head F2 to form a larger FP with yP in its specifier. This larger FP is in tum selected by v to form vP. In order to construct a complex predicate head for the structure as a whole, the verb, generated as the head of the lowest VP shell, raises and adjoins to F l , which then raises and adjoins to F2. At each stage, the verb's V-feature is transmitted to the functional projection, rendering it categorially non-distinct from the verb. Finally, the adjunction structure [V+Fl +F2] o substitutes into the head of vP. Thus, the selectional hierarchy shown in (28a) surfaces as the derived structure in (28b) : (28)

a.

vP

�

v

FP

�

yp

F'

�

F2

FP

�

XP

F'

�

Fl

VP

� V

341

TWO TYPES OF VO LANGUAGES

vP

b.

�FP

[v V+Fl+F2]

[V]

�

F

yP

�

FP[VJ

�

F [VJ

XP

�

t

VP

�

Up to this I assume, all direct languages follow more or less the same derivational The differences between direct languages with va order and those with av order result from subsequent movements. There are a number of possible analyses to consider. Here I present one such without argu ment: Suppose that once the complex predicate in (28b) has been constructed, it is selected by tense (29a), after which VO raises to adjoin to TO . Suppose further that T has a strong EPP feature which needs to be checked. In languages lik:e Jl..JH 1SH�H, the subject DP extracts from SpecvP and raises to SpecTP to check this resulting in SVO order (29b). In languages like Turkish, however, the subject does not extract from vP, but instead pied-pipes vP up to SpecTP, resulting in SOY order (29c) (cf. Nakajima 1 999; Haegeman this volume). Other analyses are also possible, but since my principal concern here is with word order inside vP, I will set this issue aside. (29)

a.

TP

�

T

vP

�

Subj

v'

�

V

FP

� Obj

MATTHEW PEARSON

342 b.

TP

�

Subj

T'

�

V+T

vP

�' v

t

�

tv

FP

� Obj

TP

c.

-------

vP

T'

�

�'

Subj

v

�

tv

V+T

tvP

FP

� Obj

Turning to inverse languages such as Malagasy: Suppose that for some reason, adjunction of the verb to a functional head is disallowed in such languages; instead, feature transmission must proceed by means of phrasal movement. To see the consequences of this for word order within the predicate, consider the sample derivation in (30)-(32) below: We begin with the structure in (30a), where VP has merged with Fl to form FP, and XP has moved or merged to become the specifier of FP. In order for FP to acquire a V-feature of the verb, it attracts VP, which raises to become a second, 'outer' specifier of FP, transmit ting its V-feature through Spec-Head agreement. This is shown in (30b):

343

TWO TYPES OF VO LANGUAGES (30)

a.

b.

FP

�

XP

F'

�

VP

�

F1

FP[V]

F'

�

VP

�

V

XP

�

F'

�

V

�

F1

The structure in (30b) then merges with another functional head F2 to form a larger FP, containing YP in its specifier (3 1 a). As before, FP must inherit a V-feature in order to become categorially non-distinct from the verb. The closest projection containing a V-feature is the FP complement of F2-viz., the projection headed by F l . This projection thus raises to become the outer specifier of the larger FP, transmitting its V-feature by Spec-Head agreement (3 1b): (3 1 )

a.

FP

�

yp

F'

�

F2

FP[V]

�

VP

�

V

F'

�

XP

F'

�

F1

tvp

b. F'

�

yp

F'

�

F2

tFP

Finally, (3 1b) is selected by the light verb v, after which the head of VP raises and substitutes for v, producing a complex predicate. This yields the structure in (32) : 7

MATTHEW PEARSON

344 (32)

vP

FP[V]

F'

�

�

VP

�

F'

�

}DP

yp

F'

�

F2

F'

�

Fl

tpp

tvp

If we compare (28b) and (32), we see that the word order differences between direct and inverse languages follow from how transmission of the verb's lexical feature is accomplished. In the case of direct languages, successive head adjunc tion ' skips over' any phrasal elements which may be sitting in intervening specifiers. Hence, when the complex VP is mapped to PF, the underlying hierar chical order of these elements is directly reflected in their precedence relations: The structure in (28b) thus maps onto the linear order V . . YP . . . XP. In the case of inverse languages, the raising of successively larger maximal projections causes certain phrasal elements to be pied-piped over other elements: In (32), XP has been pied-piped over YP; mapping this structure to PF thus yields the string V . . XP . . . YP, the mirror image of the direct order. Notice that by attributing the contrast between direct and inverse order to a difference in how V-feature transmission is accomplished, we explain why the kinds of mirror image orders found in inverse languages are confined to elements within the verb phrase: Once the verb has substituted into v, feature transmission Successive pied-piping of the sort illustrated in (30)-(3 1 ) thus terminates once the verb has reached the highest projection c-commanded by v. .

.

4.

)''''It''lI '11n n a VP-internal symmetries

outlined an analysis of v-V complex formation in direct and inverse languages, I now return to the word order patterns discussed in Section 2, and show how they can be derived with a minimum of additional assumptions. I begin with adverb order and object shift, and then discuss double object con structions, showing how my analysis explains the behavior of Malagasy double object constructions with respect to pronoun binding and weak crossover.

345

TWO TYPES OF VO LANGUAGES

4. 1 Adverb order Cinque ( 1999) argues that adverbs can be grouped into different classes, each associated with a particular functional projection, and that the order of these projections is fixed across languages. (33) gives a selection of adverb classes, with examples from Italian. These classes are numbered to show their relative positions in Cinque's hierarchy. 2

3

4

5

6

generalemente »

gia »

piu »

sempre »

complemente »

bene

generally

already anymore always

completely

well

(33)

In Italian, which is a direct order language, this hierarchy is reflected in the linear order of adverbs at spell-out. Cinque shows that, abstracting away from focus and other effects, class 1 adverbs invariably precede class 2 adverbs, which precede class 3 adverbs, and so on. This ordering can be shown to hold not only for Italian, but also for French, Dutch, and numerous other languages, illustrating the generality of this hierarchy. In Malagasy, however, the facts are somewhat different. Rackowski ( 1 998) shows that whereas in Italian adverbs of classes 1-6 all follow the finite verb, in Malagasy adverbs of classes 1-2 normally precede the verb, while those of classes 3-6 follow the verb. Interestingly, while preverbal adverbs occur in the order predicted by Cinque's hierarchy, postverbal adverbs occur in the opposite order, as schematized in (34). Some examples are given in (35) : 2

(34)

(35)

matetika »

eJa »

generally

already

a.

b.

c.

d.

V«

6

5

4

tsara «

tanteraka «

Joana « intsony

well

completely

always

Manasa lamba tsaraJoana Rakoto. wash clothes well always Rakoto 'Rakoto always washes clothes well. ' Manasa lamba tanteraka Joana Rakoto. wash clothes completely always Rakoto 'Rakoto always washes clothes completely. ' Tsy manasa lamba tsara intsony Rakoto. NEG wash clothes well anymore Rakoto 'Rakoto doesn't wash clothes well any more. ' Tsy manasa lamba Joana intsony Rakoto. NEG wash clothes always anymore Rakoto 'Rakoto doesn't always wash clothes any more.'

3 anymore

(Malagasy)

346

MATTHEW PEARSON

Based on evidence from participial verb movement in Italian, Cinque argues that adverbs are generated in the specifiers of functional projections. I adopt this analysis here, although I remain agnostic on the identity of the functional catego ries in question. For concreteness, I assume that manner adverbs like 'well' are generated in the specifier of a functional projection which I refer to mnemonical ly as Man(ner)P (36a) . Similarly, frequency adverbs like 'always' are in the specifier of an aspect-related projection, which I refer to simply as AspP (36b). (36)

a. b.

O [ManP well [Man' Man VP]] O [AspP always [Asp' Asp VP]]

Suppose that AspP and ManP are introduced into the derivation below the light verb projection, and above the projection where objects are licensed (which I label AgrP). Since AspP and ManP occur between the lexical verb and the light verb, they must inherit a V-feature from the verb in order to be integrated into the complex VP, in accordance with (25) and (26). The word order differences between direct and inverse languages thus come about in the following way: Consider a clause in which both AspP and ManP are projected between vP and AgrP: In direct languages, the verb transmits its V-feature to higher projec tions by means of successive head adjunction, resulting in the structure shown in (37) : (37)

vP

�

[v V+Agr+Man+Asp]

AspP[V]

� Asp' [V] AdvP always � ManP[V]

� AdvP Man' [V] well � t

AgrP[V]

�

DPj

Agr'[V]

�

t

VP

� t

tj

Notice that as this adjunction proceeds through the heads of ManP and AspP, the adverbs in the specifiers of these projections are skipped over. At spell-out, then,

347

TWO TYPES OF VO LANGUAGES

adverbs of the 'always' class will precede adverbs of the 'well' class - and this is the order that we in fact find in languages such as French and Dutch, as shown in (38): (38)

a.

b.

(French)

Jean lave

toujours bien ses vetements. Jean washes always well his clothes 'Jean always washes his clothes well.' (dat) Jan altijd goed kleren wast. that Jan always well clothes washes ' (that) Jan always washes clothes well.'

(Dutch)

In inverse languages like Malagasy, the derivation proceeds differently. Recall that in inverse languages V-feature transmission involves XP-raising. In sentenc es containing multiple adverbs, then, raising of an XP containing a lower adverb will cause that adverb to be pied-piped over a higher adverb, resulting in inverted order at spell-out. A sample derivation is given in (39)-(4 1 ) : AgrP, containing the direct object in its specifier, must inherit a V-feature from the verb in order to be incorporated into the complex VP. Head-movement of VO to AgrO is ruled out by assumption, so Agr instead attracts VP, which raises over the object to become the outer specifier of AgrP, transmitting the verb's lexical feature via Spec-Head agree ment. AgrP is then selected by Man, which projects a ManP with the adverb in its specifier. The resulting structure is shown in (39a) . ManP must then acquire a V-feature of its own, so it attracts the closest maximal projection containing such a feature, namely AgrP. This causes AgrP to raise over the adverb and become the outer specifier of ManP, as in (39b): (39)

a.

ManP

� Man' well �

AdvP

Man

AgrP[V]

�

VP

Agr'

� � V

� DPi

Agr'

�

Agr

tvp

MATTHEW PEARSON

348

ManP[V]

b.

-------

AgrP[V]

Man'

� Agr' � �

� Man' well �

AdvP

VP

V

ti DPi

Agr'

�

Agr

Man

tAgrP

typ

The whole process is then repeated as another layer of functional structure is added. Asp selects the ManP constituent in (39b), and projects an AspP with the adverb 'always' in its specifier, as in (40): (40)

AspP

------Asp' always ------AdvP

Asp

ManP[V]

-------

AgrP[V]

� Agr' � � VP

V

ti DPi

Man'

� Man' well �

AdvP

Agr'

�

Agr

Man

tAgrP

typ

Asp attracts the closest maximal projection containing a [V] feature, namely ManP, causing the latter to raise over 'always' to become an outer specifier of AspP. Finally, AspP is selected by vP, and the verb raises and substitutes into v, producing the complex verb phrase in (41 ) :

349

TWO TYPES OF V O LANGUAGES

(4 1 )

ManP[V]

------Man' � � AgrP[V]

VP

Agr'

6. � tv

ti DPi

AdvP

well

Agr'

�

Agr

Asp'

� Asp' always �

Man'

AdvP

�

Asp

tManP

Man

typ

Notice that the movement of ManP to SpecAspP causes the manner adverb 'well' to be pied-piped over the frequency adverb 'always' . Thus at PF, the structure in (4 1) will be mapped onto the linear order V . . . well . . . always. This is the desired order for inverse languages, as the Malagasy example in (42) illustrates : (42)

Mijinja vary tsarafoana ny mpamboly. cut rice well always DET farmer 'The farmer always harvests rice well. '

(Malagasy)

4 . 2 Object shift Recall that in both Turkish and Malagasy, non-specific direct objects occur adjacent to the verb, while specific direct objects scramble away from the verb, over certain classes of adverbs. However, in Turkish, a direct language, the object appears to move leftward (43), while in Malagasy, an inverse language, it appears to move rightward (44): (43)

a.

b.

(44)

a.

Ali hemen

bir piyano kiralamak istiyor. Ali immediately one piano rent.INF wants 'Ali wants to rent a piano immediately. ' 1j kiralamak istiyor. Ali bir piyanoyui hemen Ali one piano.Acc immediately rent.INF wants 'Ali wants to rent a (specific) piano immediately. '

Nijinja vary haingana ny mpamboly. PAST .cut rice quickly DET farmer 'The farmer harvested rice quickly. '

(Turkish)

(Malagasy)

350

MATTHEW PEARSON

b.

Nijinja

� haingana ny

varyi ny

mpamboly.

PAST. cut quickly DET rice DET farmer 'The farmer harvested the rice quickly. '

Here I will argue that in both direct and inverse languages, object shift is to the left. However, in inverse languages, leftward movement of the object is followed by leftward movement of a phrasal constituent containing the verb, the adverb, and the trace of the object, resulting in the appearance of rightward movement. s The exact identity of the position targeted by the raised object is unclear. For the sake of concreteness, I assume here that object shift involves the movement of a specific direct object from its object-licensing position (SpecAgrP) to an operator position located near the left edge of the complement of vP. This projection I refer to as inner topic phrase (iTopP). Here, the derivations follow much the same pattern as in the multiple adverb case discussed in 4. 1 . In direct languages, the direct object DP raises to SpeciTopP, while the verb's lexical feature is passed up the tree via successive head adjunction, resulting in the structure in (45). When this structure is mapped to PF, the direct object will precede the adverb, as desired. (45)

vP

�

[v V+Agr+Man+iTop]

iTopP

�

DPi

iTop'

�

t

ManP

� Man' quickly � AdvP

t

AgrP

�

ti

Agr'

� ti

(46) and (47) show the derivation of an object shift construction in Malagasy: iTopP selects ManP, containing a V-feature (cf. (39b)), after which the direct object raises from the inner specifier of AgrP to become the inner specifier of iTopP, as shown in (46):

35 1

TWO TYPES OF VO LANGUAGES

(46)

iTopP

-------

DPi

iTop'

-------

iTop

ManP[V]

-------

Man'

AgrP[V]

� Agr' � �

� Man' quickly �

VP

ti

V

4

AdvP

Agr'

�

Agr

Man

tAgrP

typ

ManP then raises to become the outer specifier of iTopP, allowing the verb to substitute into the head of the light verb projection, which yields the structure in (47). Mapping this structure to PF produces a string wherein the raised object follows the adverb. (47)

vP

-------

[v V]

iTopP[V]

-------

ManP[V]

-------

AgrP[V]

� Agr' � � VP

tv

tj

tj

Man'

�

DPi

iTop'

� � Man' iTop tManP quickly � AdvP

Agr'

�

Agr

iTop'

Man

tAgrP

typ

4.3 Double object constructions I now turn to double object constructions. For purposes of this paper, I assume a rather straightforward analysis for double object constructions. However, my account of direct and inverse order is compatible, I think, with more nuanced treatments of dative constructions as well.

352

MATTHEW PEARSON

The basic structure which I will assume for double object predicates is given in (48): Verbs such as 'give' select a small clause complement, here labeled XP. The goal argument is located in the specifier of XP, while the theme argument is the complement of Xo , as in (48a). 9 This is essentially the base structure which Aoun and Li ( 1 9 89) and Mulder ( 1 992) argue for. An alternative structure, in which the theme is in SpecXP and the goal is the complement of Xo , would also yield the correct order, given my assumptions about v-V complex formation. Crucially, however, I must assume that the goal argument raises out of VP to some higher licensing position, most likely SpecAgrP, while the theme argument is licensed VP-internally, perhaps in SpecVP. lO This is shown in (48b) : (48)

a.

VP

�

XP

V

�X' �

DP goal

DP theme

X b.

AgrP

� Agr' �

DPj goal

Agr

VP

� V' �

DPi theme

V

XP

�

tj

X'

�

X

ti

In direct languages, the theme raises leftward to SpecVP, while the goal raises leftward to SpecAgrP. Since transmission of the verb's V-feature proceeds by means of head adjunction, the relative order of theme and goal is not affected by the process of v-V complex formation, as shown in (49), and the resulting structure maps onto a linear order where the goal precedes the theme.

353

TWO TYPES OF VO LANGUAGES

vP

(49)

�

[v V+Agr]

AgrP[V]

� Agr'[V] �

DPj goal

t

VP

� V' �

DPi theme

t

XP

�

X'

tj

�

X

ti

In inverse languages, the derivation proceeds differently: After the theme has raised to SpecVP and the goal has raised to SpecAgrP, the VP must raise to become the outer specifier of AgrP, transmitting its V-feature to that projection. The verb then raises out of VP and substitutes into the head of vP, producing the structure in (50): (50)

vP

-------

[v V]

AgrP[V]

-------

VP

� V' �

DPi theme

tv

Agr'

� Agr' �

DPj goal

XP

�

tj

Agr

tvp

X'

�

X

ti

Since VP-raising pied-pipes the theme over the goal, the theme will precede the goal when the structure in (50) is mapped to PF, as shown in (5 1 ) for Malagasy:

354

MATTHEW PEARSON

(5 1 )

Nanolotra ny dite ny vahiny Rakoto.

(Malagasy)

PAST.offer DET tea DET guest Rakoto 'Rakoto offered the guests the tea. ' Comparing the tree in (50) with the one in (49), we see that direct and inverse languages differ dramatically when it comes to the surface hierarchical relation ship between the two objects. In the direct order structure in (49), the goal asymmetrically c-commands the theme, whereas in the inverse order structure in (50), neither object c-commands the other. This difference allows us to account for the contrast (discussed in Section 3 . 1 ) between double object constructions in English and Malagasy with respect to Barss and Lasnik's ( 1 986) c-command tests. Recall that in Malagasy, just as in English, a quantified goal object may bind a pronoun within the theme object, but not vice versa, suggesting that the goal asymmetrically c-commands the theme. The relevant examples are repeated in (52) and (53): (52 )

a. John gave every workeri hisi paycheck. b. *John gave itsi owner every paychec�.

(53)

a.

Nanaseho ny sarinYi

ny ankizy rehetrai Rasoa.

(English) (Malag.)

PAST. show DET picture.3 DET child every Rasoa 'Rasoa showed every chil� his/heri picture. ' b. *Nanaseho ny ankizy rehetrai ny reninYi Rasoa. PAST .show DET child every DET mother.3 Rasoa 'Rasoa showed his/heri mother every chil�.' However, Malagasy differs from English in that A'-movement of a direct object over a goal containing a bound pronoun does not produce a weak crossover effect, suggesting that the goal does not asymmetrically c-command the theme. Compare the wh-movement example in (54) with the topicalization example in (55). (Recall that in Malagasy, topicalization of the direct object over a subject containing a pronoun does yield a weak crossover effect, showing that such effects are possible in principle with topicalization): (54) (55)

*Which chil� did you show hisi mother ti?

(English)

[Nasehon-dRasoa ti ny reninya ny ankizy rehetrai. (Malagasy) PAST.show-Rasoa DET mother.3 DET child every 'Every chil�, Rasoa showed his/heri mother ti. '

How can w e explain this apparent contradiction within the theory presented here? Let us begin with the weak crossover facts. With regard to the occurrence of weak crossover effects, suppose that the correct descriptive generalization is as

TWO TYPES OF VO LANGUAGES

355

follows: If the constituent containing the pronoun (here, the goal phrase) c-commands the A'-trace of the operator phrase, then a weak crossover effect will result. Otherwise, the operator phrase will be able to bind the pronoun provided it c-commands the pronoun from its moved position. In the direct order structure in (49), the goal phrase c-commands the theme in its A-position (SpecVP). Thus, if the theme were to undergo A'-movement over the goal, then the goal would c-command the trace of the theme, and a weak crossover effect would result. The relevant configuration is shown in (56) (in abbreviated form) :

However, in the inverse structure in (50), the theme is not c-commanded by the goal, since it has been pied-piped over the goal as part of the VP. Thus, if the theme undergoes A'-movement (here, movement to a predicate-external topic position, SpecTopP), the goal will fail to c-command its trace, and no weak crossover effect is expected. This is shown in (57):

356

MATTHEW PEARSON

Of course, a complete explanation of the contrast in (54)-(55) would require a theory of binding which accounts for the existence of weak crossover effects in the first place, something which it is beyond the scope of this paper to provide. The point which I wish to make here is that, if we adopt the structures in (49) and (50), then we are led to expect that A'-extraction from double object constructions might yield different results in direct and inverse languages with respect to weak crossover, given that the goal asymmetrically c-commands the theme in direct languages, but not in inverse languages. The same cannot be said for the symmetry hypothesis discussed in Section 3 . 1 , according to which double object constructions in direct and inverse languages are hierarchically identical, differing only in terms of word order. Under this theory, no differences in extraction are expected, contrary to fact. Turning now to the binding pattern in (53), how do we account for the fact that in Malagasy, a goal QP may bind a pronoun within the theme, even though it fails to c-command it? To answer this question, I appeal to reconstruction (or whatever mechanism in our theory accounts for reconstruction effects): As is well known, a quantifier phrase can bind a pronoun within a constituent which has undergone A'-movement, so long as it c-commands an A'-trace of that constituent. This is illustrated in (58) for wh-movement in English: (58)

[Which of heri poems]j does each poeti like tj the best?

Now consider again the structure in (50), repeated below as (59). Recall that the mirror image order characteristic of inverse languages is derived via movement of the VP to the outer SpecAgrP position. Here we may assume (as seems

357

TWO TYPES OF VO LANGUAGES

reasonable) that this VP-raising is a case of A'-movement. Notice that the goal argument, which occupies the inner SpecAgrP position, c-commands the trace of VP. Given this configuration, we predict that the goal will be able to bind into the VP; the grammaticality of (53a) is thus accounted for. Notice also that the theme argument in Spec VP fails to c-command the goal argument, either before or after movement of the VP. Thus we further predict that a quantifier phrase in the theme position will be unable to bind into the goal phrase. The ungramma ticality of (53b) shows that this prediction is borne out. By appealing to A'-re construction, then, we can explain why the binding asymmetry which Barss and Lasnik observed for double object constructions in English is replicated in Malagasy, despite the fact that the goal fails to c-command the theme in the surface syntax. (59)

vP

VP

Agr'

�

�

DP

�

V'

�

tv

QPi

XP

�

t

Agr'

�

Agr

typ

X'

�

X

t

To summarize: The apparently contradictory behavior of double object construc tions in Malagasy with respect to binding and weak crossover can be explained if we assume that the direct object is contained within a constituent which undergoes A'-movement over the indirect object, as in the structure in (50). Topicalization of a direct object QP over an indirect object containing a pronoun fails to produce a weak crossover effect because the indirect object does not c-command the A'-trace of the direct object. On the other hand, an indirect object QP may bind a pronoun within the direct object (but not vice versa) because the indirect object c-commands the A'-trace of the constituent containing the direct object, namely VP. Notice that my account relies crucially on the assumption that the theme is contained within some larger constituent which has raised over the goal. The

MATTHEW PEARSON

358

binding and weak crossover effects discussed here can thus be viewed as evidence in favor of a movement-based analysis of inverse order, and against a 'symmetry' style analysis, according to which the difference between direct and inverse structures is explained in terms of the left-to-right ordering of specifiers and heads within the base.

5.

Conclusion

In this paper I have showed that languages exhibiting VO order do not constitute a homogeneous word order type, but instead fall into two separate classes, direct and inverse (where the former also includes OV languages). These classes differ with respect to a variety of phenomena, including the relative order of predicate internal adverbs, the (apparent) direction of object shift, and the unmarked order of direct and indirect objects in double object constructions. In each case, direct VO languages display the same orders as one finds in OV languages, while inverse languages display the mirror image of those orders . These word order facts, I have argued, are the by-product of a fundamental difference between direct and inverse languages with respect to how the verb transmits its lexical feature to the functional proj ections intervening between VP and the light verb projection vP, a process which is required in order for those functional projections to be integrated into the v-V complex. In direct languages, V-feature transmission is accomplished through successive head-adjunction. As I observed, this head-adjunction 'skips over' any elements sitting in intervening specifier positions; hence, the underlying order of those elements is preserved when the structure is mapped to PE In inverse languages, by contrast, head adjunction is unavailable, and so V-feature transmission takes place through XP-movement, combined with Spec-Head agreement. The raising of successively larger (derived) VPs causes any elements within those VPs to be pied-piped along with the verb, resulting in an inverted ordering at PE This analysis raises a number of interesting questions for future research. To take one example: One possible implication of the schema presented here is that languages which allow VO to adjoin to functional heads (direct languages) will make exclusive use of head-adjunction in v-V complex formation, while languag es in which VO -adjunction is ruled out (inverse languages) will resort to VP-movement out of necessity - phrasal movement being generally dispreferred over head-movement, perhaps for reasons of economy. l l However, various authors have argued for the existence of VP-movement within vP in what I would classify as direct languages. For instance, Costa ( 1 997) and others have

TWO TYPES OF VO LANGUAGES

359

argued that English has VP-raising over manner adverbs, just as I have argued that VP raises across manner adverbs in Malagasy. This raises the possibility of 'mixed' direct!inverse languages, which employ both head-adjunction and VP-movement in v-V complex formation. But if such languages exist, what factors determine when VP-movement will apply as opposed to head-adjunction? I leave this as an issue for further exploration. Another interesting issue involves an apparent correlation between direct! inverse order and the order of bound morphemes within the verb complex: A cursory examination reveals that in direct languages like Turkish, tense, aspect, and causative morphemes are generally suffixed to the verb; whereas in inverse languages like Malagasy, these same elements invariably show up as prefixes, which attach to the verb stem in the mirror image of the Turkish order. We might ask whether this correlation between word order within the predicate phrase and morpheme order within the verb complex is significant, and if so, how it can be captured within the framework presented here. Again, I leave this as an issue for future research.

Acknowledgments This paper is a substantial reworking of Pearson (1998c). Thanks to Tim Stowell, Peter Svenonius, Anders Holmberg, Hilda Koopman, Marcel den Dikken, Guglielmo Cinque, and the audience at the University of TromsjZS VO and OV Workshop, as well as audiences at UCLA, MIT, and the 1999 GLOW conference, for many useful comments and suggestions. Thanks also to Felicia Lee, for generously allowing me to use her Zapotec data. Finally, a big misoatra tompoko to Noro Ramahata fandry for providing the Malagasy judgments for this paper. All errors and oversights are my own.

Abbreviations The following abbreviations are used in the example sentences: 3 = third person (singular or plural), 3sG = third person singular, ACC = accusative, APPL = applicative morpheme, DET = determiner, ERG = ergative, FUT = future, INCPL = incompletive, INF = infinitive, NEG = negative, NOM = nominative, PART = particle, PERF = perfective, PAST = past.

Notes 1.

By double object constructions I am referring to ditransitive predicates in which both objects are unmarked for morphological case, or are marked with the same case.

2.

The examples in (4) are taken from den Dikken (1995), who provides arguments that Dutch ver- is an applicative morpheme, comparable in distribution to Indonesian -kan.

360

MATTHEW PEARSON

3.

Malagasy, from which the majority of mirror-image order examples in this paper are taken, is another case of an inverse language with subject-object order, at least under certain analyses. Although it is normally classified as VOS, I present evidence in Pearson ( l 998a, in preparation) which strongly suggests that the clause-final ' subject' is really a topic-like constituent, occupying an A'-position, while the immediately postverbal DP constituent, traditionally called the agent phrase, has the properties of a 'true' subject - e.g. it may antecede reflexives, is covert in imperatives and control complements, etc. Under this analysis, then, Malagasy should be regarded as a VSO language with a clause-final topic position (to which the subject typically moves).

4.

For many English speakers, A'-extraction of the direct object in a double object construction is marginal at best. Wbat is crucial here is that (18) is noticeably worse than an analogous sentence with no pronoun binding. Cf.: ?Wbafi did you show your mother tj? a. (i) b. *Wbich chil� did you show hisj mother tj?

5.

As Lasnik and Stowell (1991) observe, topicalization in English fails to produce a weak crossover effect: (i) Joh�, I know his; mother loves tj very much However, there are good reasons to believe that topicalization in Malagasy and topicalization in English are distinct operations. There are a number of differences between the two, among them: (a) every Malagasy clause must include a topic, whereas topicalization is English is optional; (b) Malagasy allows topicalization of quantifier phrases, whereas English does not; (c) fronted topics in English are generally associated with contrastive focus, whereas topics in Malagasy typically express old (given) information.

6.

I leave open the question of whether all functional projections may become lexical projections by inheritance, or only certain ones - e.g. those associated with the verb's event structure, or which introduce elements that modify or delimit the event denoted by the verb phrase (such as adverbial projections). For present purposes, I merely stipulate that all of the functional projections generated within the complement of v qualify for - and hence require inheritance of a lexical feature from the verb.

7.

Notice that the V-to-v substitution in (32) involves extraction of the head of the specifier of the specifier of the complement of vP, a type of head movement which is typically ruled out as a locality violation. However, observe that the functional projections from which the verb extracts - viz., the projections headed by Fl and F2-have both inherited a V-feature. They are thus categorially non-distinct from the verb, and may be regarded as 'derived VPs ' . Given this fact, we could regard the movement in (32) as being equivalent to extraction of the head of the complement of vP, from the point of view of locality.

8.

Cf. Kayne (1998), who proposes a similar 'double movement' analysis to explain certain scope ambiguities involving negative quantifiers and focus particles in English.

9.

I remain agnostic on the question of whether (48a) is a base structure, or is derived from a more basic prepositional dative structure, as in Larson (1 988), den Dikken (1 995), Baker (1996).

10.

Movement of the goal to SpecAgrP is motivated by the fact that it is the goal argument in the double object construction which typically exhibits 'object properties ' - e.g. it is the goal argument which triggers object agreement on the verb, raises in passive constructions, and so on. Movement of the theme argument to SpecVP might be motivated if we assume that this is the position associated with the 'measuring out' property of objects - i.e., the ability of objects to determine the telicity of events (cf. Tenny 1994). Evidence that the theme argument acts as an event measure in double object constructions comes from contrasts like the following:

TWO TYPES OF VO LANGUAGES

361

[telic] Daniel gave Dennis my phone number a. [atelic] Daniel gave Dennis advice (for over an hour) b. In (i), where the theme argument i s specific and denumerable, a telic (accomplishment) reading of the predicate is favored, while in (ii), where the theme is non-specific and/or non-denumer able, an atelic (activity) reading is favored. (i)

11.

Note that this possibility does not entail that VP-movement will be absent from direct languages altogether, but merely that VP-movement will not be involved in V-feature transmission. Operations such as VP-fronting in English and VP-remnant topicalization in German (Muller 1 998) are presumably instances of topic- or focus-fronting, and thus have a different status from the type of predicate-internal VP-movement which I have argued for here for inverse languages.

References Aoun, Joseph and Yen-hui Audrey Li. 1989. "Scope and constituency." Linguistic Inquiry 20: 141-172. Baker, Mark. 1 996. "On the structural positions of themes and goals." In Johan Rooryck and Laurie Zaring (eds), Phrase Structure and the Lexicon. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 7-34. Barss, Andrew and Lasnik, Howard 1 986. "A note on anaphora and double objects." Linguistic Inquiry 17: 347-354. Bobaljik, Jonathan D. and Jonas, Dianne. 1996. "Subject positions and the roles of TP." Linguistic Inquiry 27: 195-236. Carstens, Vicki. 1997. Implications of serial verb constructions for right-headed syntax: An empirical argument for antisymmetry. Ms., Cornell University. To appear in Language.

Chomsky, Noam. 1 995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1 999. Adverbs and Functional Heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford: OUP. Costa, J08.o. 1 997. "On the behavior of adverbs in sentence-final context." The Linguistic Review 14: 43-68. Dikken, Marcel den. 1 995. Particles: On the syntax ofverb-particle, triadic, and causative constructions. Oxford: OUP. Ens;, Miirvet. 1 99 1 . "The semantics of specificity." Linguistic Inquiry 22: 1-25. Fukui, Naoki and Takano, Yuji. 1 998. "Symmetry in syntax: Merge and demerge." Journal of East Asian Linguistics 7: 27-86. Georgopoulos, Carol. 1 99 1 . "On A- and A'-agreement." Lingua 85: 135-1 69. Grimshaw, Jane. 1 99 1 . Extended projection. Ms., Linguistics and Cognitive Science Program and Center for Complex Systems, Brandeis University. Guilfoyle, Eithne, Hung, Henrietta and Travis, Lisa. 1 992. "Spec of IP and Spec of VP: Two subjects in Austronesian languages." Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10: 375-4 14. Haider, Hubert. 1 994. The basic branching conjecture. Ms., University of Stuttgart.

362

MATTHEW PEARSON

Haviland, John B. 1 98 1 . Sk'op Sotz 'leb: El Tzotzil de San Lorenzo Zinacantdn. Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Aut6noma de Mexico. Hinterholzl, Roland. 1 997. "A VO-based approach to verb raising." In Kiyomi Kusumoto (ed.), Proceedings ofNELS 2 7. Amherst, MA: GLSA, University of Massachusetts. 1 87-201 . Kayne, Richard. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Kayne, Richard. 1 998. "Overt versus covert movement." Syntax 1: 128-1 9 1 . Keenan, Edward L . 1993. " VP nominative languages: Th e case o f Malagasy." Paper presented at the 6th Biennial Conference on Grammatical Relations, Vancouver, Canada. Keenan, Edward L. 1994. "Predicate-argument structure in Malagasy." In Clifford Burgess, Katarzyna Dziwirek, and Donna Gerdts (eds.), Grammatical Relations: Theoretical approaches to empirical questions. Stanford: CSLI Publications. 1 7 1-216. Koopman, Hilda and Szabolcsi, Anna. 1998. The Hungarian verb complex: Complex verb formation as XP-movement. Ms., UCLA. Larson, Richard. 1 988. "On the double object construction." Linguistic Inquiry 19: 335-391. Lasnik, Howard and Timothy Stowell. 1 99 1 . "Weakest crossover." Linguistic Inquiry 22: 687-720. Mulder, Rene. 1 992. The Aspectual Nature of Syntactic Complementation. Holland Academic Graphics [HIL Dissertations 3]. Miiller, Gereon. 1 998. Incomplete Category Fronting: A derivational approach to remnant movement in German. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Nakajima, Takashi. 1 999. Word Order in the Minimalist Program: A derivational approach. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University. Pearson, Matthew. 1998a. "Predicate raising and 'VOS ' order in Malagasy." In Ileana Paul (ed.), The Structure of Malagasy, voL ll. Los Angeles: UCLA Department of Linguistics [ UCLA Occasional Papers in Linguistics 20]. 94-1 10. Pearson, Matthew. 1 998b. "Rightward object shift and the syntax of adverbs." In Ileana Paul (ed.), The Structure of Malagasy, voL ll. Los Angeles : UCLA Department of Linguistics. [UCLA Occasional Papers in Linguistics 20]. 34-49. Pearson, Matthew. 1 998c. Deriving word order symmetries within VP. Ms., UCLA. Pearson, Matthew. In preparation. Event Structure, Movement, and the Typology of Word Order: The Case of Malagasy. Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA. Polinsky, Maria. 1 994. The existential construction in Malagasy: An incorporation analysis. Ms., University of Southern Californa. Polinsky, Maria. 1 997. "Dominance in precedence: SO/OS languages." In Kora Singer, Randall Eggert, and Gregory Anderson (eds), Proceedings of CLS 33. Chicago: University of Chicago. 253-269.

TWO TYPES OF VO LANGUAGES

363

Rackowski, Andrea. 1 998. "Malagasy adverbs." In Ileana Paul (ed.), The Structure of Malagasy, vol. IT, Los Angeles: UCLA Department of Linguistics [UCLA Occasion al Papers in Linguistics 20]. 1 1-33. Rackowski, Andrea and Travis, Lisa. 1 999. "V-initial languages: X or XP movement and adverb placement." Ms., to appear in The Syntax of Verb-Initial Languages, Andrew Carnie and Eithne Guilfoyle (eds). Oxford: OUP. Sportiche, Dominique 1 999. "Reconstruction, constituency, and morphology." GLOW Newsletter 42: 56-57. Tenny, Carol L. 1 994. Aspectual Roles and the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Travis, Lisa. 1 989. "Parameters of phrase structure." In Mark Baltin and Anthony Kroch (eds), Alternative Conceptions of Phrase Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 263-279. Travis, Lisa. 1 99 1 . Derived objects, inner aspect, and the structure of VP. Ms., McGill University. Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 1 993. Dutch Syntax: A minimalist approach. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Groningen.

j

j j j j j j j j j

j j j j j j j j j j j j j

j j j j j j j j j j j j

j j j j j j j j j j j j j

j j j j j j j j j j j j

j

Index

A

adjacency: for morphological merger, 1 9, 139; in head-final structures, 140; of Aux and V. See verb cluster: and adjacency; of particle and V, 52, 65 n. 6 adverb: order. See order affix. See morphology, selection antisymmetry. See Linear Correspon dence Axiom applicative, 330, 359 n. 2 Aux V adjacency. See verb cluster: and adjacency B

Backward Deletion (BWD). See partial deletion Basic Branching Condition (BBC). See Branching Constraint Be. See Branching Constraint Branching Constraint (BC), 46, 47-50; vs. LCA, 50-5 1 , 53, 54-57, 62-64, 98 BWD (Backward Deletion). See partial deletion C

Case, 3 1 8. See also licensing:as a trigger for XP movement; and adjunction to VP, 275; and CPs, 1 88; and quantifier movement, 264, 275; licensing, 308; of adjectival complements, 277

clitics, 39 clitic climbing, 3 1-36, 40; licensing, 35 complementizer: as demonstrative, 204, 205; clause-final, 49, 135, 145, 150 n. 17, 205, 242; derived from V, 208; in relative clause, 235-37, 241 ; in restructuring, 34, 36, 90, 301 Concatenate, 225 CP complements: and ellipsis, 1 94; and interpretation, 202-5; and negation, 205-1 1 ; and Principle C, 200; factive, 202-5; position of, 1 9 1-93 ; transparency of, 94 n. 6, 177 n. 2, 188 D

Demerge, 225 Diesing's Generalization, 72, 92; and object shift, 86 directionality. See also headedness parameter; correlation between movement and projection, 2, 223, 255-56; of branching, 64; of Case assignment, 5; of government, 5, 1 88; of licensing, 5, 46, 49, 65 n. 5, 98, 294; of Spec, 333-34; of theta assignment, 5; stated over Merge and Move, 1 8 1 double object construction, 1 1 8 n . 1 , 329-30, 334-37, 351-58, 3 5 9 n . 1 , 360-61 n. 1 0

366 E ergative languages, 5 extraposition, 214 n. 1 1 . See also VP intraposition, partial deletion; and optionality, 1 87; as base-generated position, 1 89; as PF movement, 321 ; as stranding, 3 12-22; as V movement, 65 n. 4; blocked with SC, 1 86; of CP, 203, 3 12; of IPP, 299-300; of PP, 1 85, 1 86, 3 1 3 F

F-features. See feature movement, verb movement: as feature movement feature movement, 89-92, 1 37-41 finite/non-finite asymmetry: with negation. See negation: and infinitives focus, 3 14; and finiteness, 1 3 1 ; and Long Answer Scrambling, 1 96; and overt movement, 106, 308-9; and verb particle constructions, 103 ; as a condition on OV order, 124; as functional head, 42, 143; contrastive, 308 ; in Hungarian, 40-42; new information, 143-45, 1 94; obviates V to I, 1 3 1 ; particles in Dutch, 1 97, 2 1 3 n . 5 Forward Deletion (FWD). See partial deletion FWD (Forward Deletion). See partial deletion G

Greenberg's Universals, 1-6, 1 34; Universal 15, 134; Universal 16. See order: of Aux and V; Universal 2, 4; Universal 20, 15; Universal 3, 2; Universal 4, 2

INDEX H

head chains. See also head movement, verb movement; and licensing, 46, 50, 62; and locality, 42, 43, 1 32, 360 n. 7; corresponding to MW, 30; covert, 3 1 head movement. See also verb movement, N to D movement, complementizer: in restructuring, Verb (Projection) Raising; and affIxation, 1 6-17, 34; and morphology, 137-39, 141-42; in formation of extended projections, 49, 339; in head-initial order, 7, 14, 46, 49-5 1 , 144-45; substitution vs. adjunction, 252 n. 1 9, 338, 340, 344, 346, 358; to a phrasal node, 226; trigger for. See trigger headedness parameter, 3, 221-24, 295, 327-28 Holmberg's Generalization, 74, 87, 92, 1 15, 120 n. 32, 256; and NM, 285-86; and scrambling, 147 I

indefinites. See negation: and NP interpretation infinitival marker: as affIx, 65 n. 6; between C and V, 90; complements of V precede, 7 1 , 102, 103, 3 10; head-initial, 296-97; higher than T, 323 infinitives: and negation. See negation; and object shift, 89; and TECs, 89; and V to I, 72, 77, 79, 83, 89-9 1 , 296-303, 299; coherent vs. incoherent, 1 77 n. 2; restructuring, 33, 36-38

INDEX Infinitivus pro Participio (IPP), 59, 66 n. 13, 296-303, 324 n. 2; and negation, 76-77, 83; and restructuring, 90; and tense, 76 inflection. See morphology IPP. See Infinitivus pro Participio L

LCA. See Linear Correspondence Axiom licensing, 5; as a trigger for head movement, 50, 303, 338; as a trigger for XP movement, 9, 1 12, 1 70, 294, 296, 304, 308-12, 352; directionality. See directionality; of Case. See Case; of clitics. See clitics; of null elements, 35, 120 n. 27, 120 n. 29, 303 ; of phrasal positions, 14, 50, 65 n. 5, 98, 294, 338; of relative pronoun, 23 1 , 25 1 n. 1 1 ; under selection, 1 12 Linear Correspondence Axiom (LCA), 45, 65 n. 1 , 221 , 239. See also trigger: for XP movement; analysis compatible with, 70, 103, 229, 296, 337; applied in PF, 222, 224; invoked, 1 0 1 , 3 1 8-19; vs. Branching Constraint. See Branching Constraint; vs. Symmetry Principle. See Symmetry Principle linearization, 62, 224-27, 225, 23 1 , 244 Long Answer Scrambling, 1 93-98 M

Merge, 222; and linear order, 221-25; directionality of, 1 8 1 ; parametrized, 222 mirror effects, 15-20, 65 n. 3, 333. see also Mirror Principle; in DP, 15; in VP, 328, 332, 337, 344; with

367

adjectives, 15, 1 8 ; with PPs, 15, 18, 214 n. 10 Mirror Principle, 16, 1 7; mirror theory, 1 7, 27-28, 30-3 1 , 35-36 Mittelfeld (middle field), 293-94; order in. See order mixed language types: as a problem for a theory of triggers, 62; Finnish, 124, 147-48; Older Icelandic, 156-57 morphological word (MW), 28, 30-32 morphology, 1 6, 27-29. See also inflectional morphology; and selection, 140; and strength of features, 1 62-63 ; and V to I. See verb movement; by incorporation, 136; participial, 65 n. 6, 302-3 MW. See Morphological Word N

N to D movement, 228 Nachfeld (post-field), 294. See also extraposition negation, 12; and CP (factive vs. propositional), 205-1 1 ; and infinitives, 33, 75, 83, 92; and NP interpretation, 305-8; and verb movement, 8 1 , 304; constituent negation, 305, 324 n. 4; French ne, 78; higher than T, 295, 323 ; in Romance, 33, 77-79; Neg Raising, 207-8; negative adverbials, 80; negative domains, 8 1 ; Negative Movement. See Negative Movement; quantificational, 287; West Flemish -en, 78, 83, 9 1 negative concord, 306 Negative Movement (NM): A' properties of, 264; and Holmberg's Generalization,

368

285-86; and negative quantifiers, 75-77, 83, 93, 279; in French, 259; in Icelandic, 260-61 , 271-73; i n Norwegian, 1 20 n . 30, 258, 284-87; in Swedish and Danish, 259; in West Flemish, 76, 80; interaction with object shift, 273 ; string vacuous, 27 1 negative polarity items: quantificational properties of, 279 negative quantifiers. See Negative Movement nested structures. See successive movement of hosts of movement; roll-up structures null subjects, 35-36, 38 o

object shift, 256, 289 n. 1 , 3 3 1 , 349-5 1 ; and scope fixing, 278; and specificity, 86; and verb movement, 74, 86-87, 289 n. 2; and VP movement, 1 14-15, 120 nn . 3 1-32; as A movement, 257; in infinitivals, 89 opacity (for extraction): of Spec positions, 53-54, 147 optionality: and parallel grammars, 280; and Procrastinate, 1 6 1 ; of quantifier movement, 280; of Spell Out, 1 87 order: as a PF phenomenon, 222, 224. see also Phonetic Form; in the Mittelfeld, 7, 150 n. 15, 1 83-85; in the noun phrase, 15, 21 n. 3, 228-29; mixed. See mixed language types; of adjectives, 18; of adjuncts, 65 n. 3 ; of adverbs, 10-1 1 , 2 1 3-14 n. 9, 330-3 1 , 345-49; o f Aux and V, 2 , 3, 13, 18, 19, 57, 58, 124, 128, 1 34, 1 67, 323; of auxiliaries, 58-60; of C and IP, 205. See also

INDEX

complementizer: clause-final; of morphemes, 28, 30, 359; of N and Genitive, 2, 1 35-36; of N and relative clause, 7, 229-3 1 ; of selected adverbials and secondary predicates, 54; of V and CP complement, 205; role in computation, 22 1-24; same in VO and OV structures. See same order p

parallel grammars, 280 partial deletion, 3 15; prosodic constraints, 320 particle verbs. See verb particles PF movement, 321 Phonetic Form, 5 phonological complements. See quotes phrasal verbs. See verb particles Principle of Semantic Interpretation (PSI), 202 PSI. See Principle of Semantic Interpretation

Q QR. See Quantifier Raising quantifier phrase. See negation: and NP interpretation, Quantifier Raising Quantifier Raising (QR), 279; as A movement, 275-76 quotes: as complements, 1 90-9 1 , 214 R

reconstruction, 356 relative clause, 229-42, 250 n. 9, 25 1 nn. 1 1-16, 252 n. 17; and relative pronouns, 229-32; order relative to N, 7, 229-3 1 ; stranding, 262, 3 13, 3 15, 322 remnant movement. See VP movement restructuring. See infinitives, Infinitivus pro Participio, complementizer: in restructuring, verb movement

INDEX result predicates, 52-53, 55 rightward movement: apparent only, 350; arguments against, 3 1 3-15; disallowed in OV languages, 2, 255-56; implausible, 1 32; ruled out by BC, 48; ruled out by directionality of Move, 1 82 roll-up structures, 1 8-20, 3 1-32, 36-38, 40-43. See also successive movement of hosts of movement S

same order, 6, 7, 328, 332; of adverbs, 213-14; of complements, 98, 1 83 ; of PPs, 1 87 scrambling, 65 n. 4, 25 1 n. 12, 252 n. 20, 304, 3 12; by Merge, 223; long, 90, 308, 3 14; Long Answer. See Long Answer Scrambling; restricted to OV structures, 146-47; short, 307-8, 338 selection, 1 1 1 , 137-42; and licensing, 1 12; and triggers, 62; as feature movement, 138; as head movement, 17, 1 1 1-12, 138-39 ; b y affixes, 140; b y XP movement, 138-42 Sluicing, 1 96 small clause, 1 10, 132, 1 74, 1 82, 1 85, 275, 309, 3 10, 352 state of affairs: as nuclear scope for quantification, 282 stranding. See extraposition:as stranding successive movement of hosts of movement, 1 8, 60, 1 1 6-17, 137, 343 . See also roll-up structures Symmetry Principle, 223-28, 224; vs. LCA, 225, 227 T

TEe. See Transitive Expletive Construction telescope hypothesis, 29

369

topic: aboutness, 232-33; and object shift, 350; Malagasy vs. English, 360 n. 5; old information, 133; subject as, 7, 284, 360 n. 5 topicalization: and weak crossover, 354, 360 n. 5; in Malagasy, 336; of V, 198-200, 286; of VP. See VP topicalization Transitive Expletive Construction (TEC) , 92, 94 n. 4; and verb movement, 74, 87; in infinitivals, 89 trigger: for head movement, 63, 301 ; for QR, 282; for V to I, 13 1 ; for XP movement, 62, 85, 154, 159, 1 60, 1 63, 228; selection as, 62; semantic, 1 85, 202, 308 typology, 1-6, 145; and CP, 205 U

UBH. See Universal Base Hypothesis Universal Base Hypothesis (UBH), 8-1 1 , 5 1 , 70, 293 ; and the LCA, 9 v

V Aux adjacency. See verb cluster: and adjacency V movement. See verb movement V to I movement. See verb movement Verb (Projection) Raising, 121 n. 36, 1 60. See also verb cluster; and language change, 1 66; and the LCA, 59; as VP movement, 1 1 , 87, 105, 107, 109, 1 1 6, 139, 301 ; by head movement, 59, 213 n. 7; in Finnish, 129 verb cluster. See also Verb (Projection) Raising, order: of Aux and V; and adjacency, 9, 1 8, 21 n. 5, 36, 6 1 , 139-40, 1 60, 213 n. 7; i n Finnish, 129, 13 1 ; in Hungarian, 36-38, 40-42

370 verb movement. See also VP movement; and extraposition, 65 n. 4; and morphology, 70, 7 1 , 83, 92; and negation, 81, 304; and object shift, 74; and particles. See verb particles: stranded by verb movement; as feature movement, 89; in infinitives. See infinitives; in IPP, 300; in OV order, 7 1 , 84, 86, 1 84; in restructuring, 3 1 , 33; in V2, 1 75, 1 77 n. 4; in VO order, 1 63-64, 1 82, 1 84, 1 89, 226, 295, 323, 328; obviated by focus, 1 3 1 verb particles, 99-105, 107-17, 1 1 8 nn. 5-6, 1 1 9 nn. 8-10, 174-75, 289 n. 1 , 294. See also verbal modifiers; and incorporation, 100, 109; and weak pronouns, 102, 1 1 3-15, 121 n. 33; in Verb Raising constructions, 105, 1 16; stranded by verb movement, 52-53, 100, 1 75

INDEX verbal modifiers: in Hungarian, 38-39 VP intraposition, 1 82, 2 12, 213 nn. 7-9, 215 n. 20. See also

extraposition VP movement: and language change, 1 65-67; and same-order effects, 10; in OV order, 84-89, 341 ; in VO order, 12, 14, 99, 105-12, 120 n. 2 1 , 1 66-75, 322-24, 339-44, 347, 350, 353, 356-57, 358, 361 n. 1 1 VP preposing: to clause-internal position. See VP movement; to left edge of clause. See VP topicalization VP topicalization, 56, 90 W

weak crossover (WeO), 215 n. 1 7, 335-37, 354-57 weak pronouns. See verb particles

In the series LINGUISTIK AKTUELLfLINGUISTICS TODAY (LA) the following titles have been published thus far, or are scheduled for publication: 1 . KLAPPENBACH, Ruth (1 9 1 1 - 1 977): Studien zur Modernen Deutschen Lexikographie. Auswahl aus den Lexikographischen Arbeiten von Ruth Klappenbach, erweitert um drei Beitriige von Helene Malige-Klappenbach. 1 980. 2. ERLICH, Konrad & Iochen REHBEIN: Augenkommunikation. Methodenreflexion und Beispielanalyse. 1 982. 3. ABRAHAM, Werner (ed.): On the Formal Syntax of the Westgermania. Papers from the 3rd Groningen Grammar Talks (3e Groninger Grammatikgespriiche), Groningen, January 1981. 1 983. 4. ABRAHAM, Werner & Sjaak De MEIJ (eds): Topic, Focus and Configurationality. Papersfrom the 6th Groningen Grammar Talks, Groningen, 1984. 1 986. 5. GREWENDORF, Gunther and Wolfgang STERNEFELD (eds): Scrambling and Barri ers. 1 990. 6. BHATT, Christa, Elisabeth LOBEL and Claudia SCHMIDT (eds): Syntactic Phrase Structure Phenomena in Noun Phrases and Sentences. 1 989. 7. AFARLI, Tor A.: The Syntax ofNorwegian Passive Constructions. 1992. 8. FANSELOW, Gisbert (ed.): The Parametrization of Universal Grammar. 1 993 . 9. GELDEREN, EUy van: The Rise of Functional Categories. 1 993. 10. CINQUE, Guglielmo and Guiliana GIUSTI (eds): Advances in Roumanian Linguistics. 1 995. 1 1 . LUTZ, Uli and Iurgen PAFEL (eds): On Extraction and Extraposition in German. 1 995. 12. ABRAHAM, W., S. EPSTEIN, H. THRAINSSON and C.I.W. ZWART (eds): Minimal Ideas. Linguistic studies in the minimalistframework. 1 996. 13. ALEXIADOU Artemis and T. Alan HALL (eds): Studies on Universal Grammar and Typological Variation. 1 997. 14. ANAGNOSTOPOULOU, Elena, Henk VAN RIEMSDIJK and Frans ZWARTS (eds): Materials on Left Dislocation. 1 997. 15. ROHRBACHER, Bernhard Wolfgang: Morphology-Driven Syntax. A theory of V to I raising and pro-drop. 1 999. 16. LIU, FENG-HSI: Scope and Specificity. 1 997 . 17. BEERMAN, Dorothee, David LEBLANC and Henk van RIEMSDIJK (eds): Rightward Movement. 1 997. 18. ALEXIADOU, Artemis: Adverb Placement. A case study in antisymmetric syntax. 1997. 19. IOSEFSSON, Gun16g: Minimal Words in a Minimal Syntax. Wordformation in Swed ish. 1 998. 20. LAENZLINGER, Christopher: Comparative Studies in Word Order Variation. Ad verbs, pronouns, and clause structure in Romance and Germanic. 1 998. 2 1 . KLEIN, Henny: Adverbs ofDegree in Dutch and Related Languages. 1 998. 22. ALEXIADOU, Artemis and Chris WILDER (eds): Possessors, Predicates and Movement in the Determiner Phrase. 1 998. 23. GIANNAKIDOU, Anastasia: Polarity Sensitivity as (Non) Veridical Dependency. 1 998. 24. REBUSCHI, Georges and Laurice TULLER (eds): The Grammar of Focus. 1 999. 25. FELSER, Claudia: Verbal Complement Clauses. A minimalist study ofdirect perception constructions. 1 999. 26. ACKEMA, Peter: Issues in Morphosyntax. 1 999.

27. RUZICKA, Rudolf: Control in Grammar and Pragmatics. A cross-linguistic study. 1 999. 28. HERMANS, Ben and Marc van OOSTENDORP (eds.): The Derivational Residue in Phonological Optimality Theory. 1 999. 29. MIYAMOTO, Tadao: The Light Verb Construction in Japanese. The role of the verbal noun. 1999. 30. BEUKEMA, Frits and Marcel den DIKKEN (eds.): Clitic Phenomena in European Languages. 2000. 3 1 . SVENONIUS, Peter (ed.): The Derivation of VO and Ov. 2000. 32. ALEXIADOU, Artemis, Paul LAW, Andre MEINUNGER and Chris WILDER (eds.): The Syntax ofRelative Clauses. 2000. 33. pusKAs, Genoveva: Word Order in Hungarian. The syntax ofA-positions. 2000. 34. REULAND, Eric (ed.): Arguments and Case. Explaining Burzio 's Generalization. 2000. 35. HROARSDOTTIR, Thorbjorg. Word Order Change in Icelandic. From OV to VO. 2000. 36. GERLACH, Birgit and Janet GRIJZENHOUT (eds.): Clitics in Phonology, Morphol ogy and Syntax. 2000. 37. LUTZ, Uli, Gereon MULLER and Arnim von STECHOW (eds.): Wh-Scope Marking. 2000. 38. MEINUNGER, Andre: Syntactic Aspects of Topic and Comment. 2000. 39. GELDEREN, EUy van: A History of English Reflexive Pronouns. Person, "Self", and Interpretability. 2000. 40. HOEKSEMA, Jack, Hotze RULLMANN, Victor SANCHEZ-VALENCIA and Ton van der WOUDEN (eds.): Perspectives on Negation and Polarity Items. n.y.p. 4 1 . ZELLER, Jochen : Particle Verbs and Local Domains. n.y.p. 42. ALEXIADOU, Artemis : Functional Structure in Nominals. Nominalization and ergativity. n.y.p.