Verb Movement and Expletive Subjects in the Germanic Languages (Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax)

asdf

Verb Movement and Expletive Subjects in the Germanic Languages

OXFORD STUDIES IN COMPARATIVE SYNTAX Richard Kayne, General Editor Principles and Parameters of Syntactic Saturation Gert Webelhuth Verb Movement and Expletive Subjects in the Germanic Languages Sten Vikner Parameters and Functional Heads: Essays in Comparative Syntax edited by Adriana Belletti and Luigi Rizzi Discourse Configurationql Languages edited by Katalin E. Kiss Clause Structure and Language Change edited by Adrian Battye and Ian Roberts Particles: On the Syntax of Verb-Particle, Triadic and Causative Constructions Marcel den Dikken The Role of Inflection in Scandinavian Syntax Anders Holmberg and Christer Platzack

Verb Movement and Expletive Subjects in the Germanic Languages STEN VIKNER

New York Oxford OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS 1995

Oxford University Press Oxford New York Athens Auckland Bangkok Bombay Calcutta Cape Town Dares Salaam Delhi Florence Hong Kong Istanbul Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madras Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi Paris Singapore Taipei Tokyo Toronto and associated companies in Berlin Ibadan

Copyright © 1995 by Sten Vikner Published by Oxford University Press, Inc. 200 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016 Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Prss, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of Oxford University Press. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Vikner, Sten. Verb movement and expletive subjects in the Gennanic languages / Sten Vikner. p. cm—(Oxford studies in comparative syntax) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-19-508393-8; ISBN 0-19-508394-6 (pbk). 1. Gennanic languages—Verb phrase. 2. Gennanic languages—Syntax. 3. Germanic languages—Subjectless constructions. 4. Generative grammar. 5. Government-binding theory (Linguistics) I. Title. II. Series PD271.V55

1994

435—dc20

93-31873

24689731 Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper

Acknowledgments

This book is based on my 1990 doctoral thesis, submitted to the Faculty of Letters at the University of Geneva. Four linguists have been of extreme importance for this book and for my understanding of linguistics in general. Although it may not always be obvious, I have tried to set my course by their elegant and insightful analyses, their clear and pedagogical explanations, and the inspiration with which they never failed to infect others. They are my two thesis supervisors, Liliane Haegeman and Luigi Rizzi; my first generative syntax teacher, Neil V. Smith; and my father, Carl Vikner. They showed me both how linguistics could be done and how it could be fun. I am also indebted to a number of linguists from the universities in which I studied for their consistent and heroic attempts to teach me linguistics and to increase my understanding and for the interest they took in my projects. These include among my teachers in Copenhagen, Niels Davidsen-Nielsen and Torben Thrane; among my teachers in London, Michael Barnes, Michael Brody, Robyn Carston, Dick Hudson, Ruth Kempson, and Deirdre Wilson; among my teachers and colleagues in Geneva, Adriana Belletti, Giuliana Giusti, Corinne Grange, Maria-Teresa Guasti, Ian Roberts, Bonnie Schwartz, and Alessandra Tomaselli; and among my colleagues in Stuttgart, Ellen Brandner, Hubert Haider, Susan Olsen, and Thilo Tappe. A number of linguists at other universities have also been essential: among those I am particularly grateful to are Gisbert Fanselow, Jane Grimshaw, Teun Hoekstra, Richard Kayne, Christer Platzack, Rex Sprouse, Tarald Taraldsen, and Hoskuldur Prainsson. A large number of linguists have helped me by commenting on and criticising previous versions of the analyses suggested in the following chapters. I want to express my thanks to Tor Afarli, Werner Abraham, Markus Bader, Josef Bayer, Thomas Bader, Hans Bennis, Frank Burchert, Luigi Burzio, Anna Cardinaletti, Harald Clahsen, Noam Chomsky, Kirsti Koch Christensen, Norbert Corver, Kathrin Cooper, Elisabet Engdahl, Cecilia Falk, John Frampton, Werner Prey, Wim de Geest, Carol Georgopoulos, Kjell-Ake Gunnarson, Christine Haag-Merz, Marvin Herzog, Arild Hestvik, Anders Holmberg, Bent Jacobsen, Kyle Johnson, Hans

vi

Acknowledgments

Kamp, Gottfried Kolde, Itziar Laka, David Lightfoot, Luc Moritz, Andrea Moro, Gereon Miiller, Rene Mulder, Ad Neeleman, Kjartan Ottoson, Zvi Penner, Pierre Pica, Cecilia Poletto, Ellen Prince, Jean Rutten, Doug Saddy, Beatrice Santorini, Manuela Schonenberger, Halldor Armann SigurSsson, Sigga Sigurjonsdottir, Tali Siloni, Esther Torrego, Lisa Travis, Juan Uriagereka, Ursula Wegmiiller, Chris Wilder, Guido Vanden Wyngaerd, Raffaella Zanuttini, Heike Zinsmeister, JanWouter Zwart, two anonymous reviewers, and the audiences at the various conferences, talks, and seminars where I had the fortune of being able to present my ideas. A number of non-linguists also have been extremely helpful, by not only patiently tolerating but also carefully answering my often uninformed questions about their native languages. Grazie, thanks, takk, danke, a dank, and tak to Massimo Danzi, Paul Harrison, James Ingram, Joannes Kj01bro, Heflin Meitil, Ramona Romisch-Vikner, Jochen Scholz, Anna Spivak, and Boris Spivak, and Lena Westlund. I am also grateful to the Fonds national suisse de recherche scientifique for awarding me a bourse de releve, which made it possible for me to spend a year at M.I.T., in Lund, and in Troms0; to the University of Geneva for making it financially possible for me to write a dissertation at all by employing me for five years; and to the University of Stuttgart for giving me the opportunity to turn the dissertation into a book by employing me after the end of my contract in Geneva. Dealing with Oxford University Press was a pleasure, thanks to Cynthia A. Read and to the invaluable editorial work of Cynthia Garver. I have been very lucky in having outstanding friends while writing this book, who, among many other things, kept me sane (or at least tried to) by giving sound advice, both of the linguistic and of the non-linguistic kind. To Alessandra, Bonnie, Corinne, Giuliana, Ian, James, Jens, Paul, Raffaella, Rex, Teresa, and Zvi, thanks. To my friends and fellow Stuttgarters, Christine, Ellen, Frank, Gisella, Heike, Hubert, Ina, Markus, and Max, thanks for making Stuttgart such a friendly and (linguistically) inspiring place. Finally, my deep gratitude to the most important persons in my life, for the love, support, and understanding they have always provided: my parents, Carl and Inger Vikner; my wife, Ramona; and our son, Thomas. Stuttgart, Germany January 1994

S.V.

Contents

I. PRELIMINARIES 1. Introduction, 3 1.1 Overview, 3 1.2 The Germanic languages, 3 7.2.7 Scandinavian, 4 1.2.2 West Germanic, 5 1.3 Language acquisition and the theory of UG, 7 7.3.7 Innateness, 7 1.3.2 Universal Grammar, 9 2. Relativised Minimality, 11 2.1 Introduction, 11 2.2 A-bar-movement, 12 2.2.7 Proper head government, 12 2.2.2 wh-Islands, 15 2.2.3 Negative islands, 20 2.3 A-movement, 25 2.4 X°-movement, 28 2.5 Restrictions on movement, 33 II. VERB MOVEMENT 3. Verb Second, 39 3.1 Introduction, 41 3.2 Verb second—movement of the finite verb into C°, 42 3.3 Verb second variations, 46

viii

Contents

3.3.1 Position of medial adverbials and negation in Mainland Scandinavian, 46 3.3.2 Residual V2 in English, 48 3.4 Verb second explanations, 51 3.4.1 C° must acquire the feature [+V\, 51 3.4.2 C° must assign nominative case to IP-spec, 54 3.4.3 C° must license VP, 56 3.4.4 C° has the feature [+F], 57 3.4.5 C° has features of tense and agreement, 59 3.4.6 C° has the feature [+/], 61 3.4.7 Conclusion, 64 3.5 Conclusion, 64 4. Verb Second in Embedded Clauses, 65 4.1 Verb second preceded by a complementiser, 65 4.1.1 Introduction, 65 4.1.2 Expletive subjects in embedded clauses, 69 4.1.3 V2 topicalisations embedded under "non-bridge verbs", 70 4.1.4 V2 topicalisations in embedded questions, 73 4.2 Three alternative analyses of general embedded V2, 80 4.2.1 Embedded V2 in Icelandic and Yiddish, 80 4.2.2 Embedded V2 in German, 84 4.2.3 Embedded V2 in English and Danish, 84 4.2.4 For and against the three analyses: an overview, 86 4.3 VI declaratives, 87 4.4 Relative positions of the subject and the sentential adverbial, 91 4.5 Object shift, 97 4.6 Subject-verb agreement, 100 4.7 Adverbial adjunction to IP but not to CP, 103 4.8 Extraction from the embedded clause, 108 4.8.1 Adjunct extraction, 109 4.8.2 Argument extraction, 114 4.8.3 Topicalisation vs. stylistic fronting in Icelandic, 116 4.9 Embedded clauses introduced by which-that or if-that, 119 4.10 Embedded V2 in Danish: CP-recursion or topicalisation to AgrP-spec?, 124 4.10.1 Embedded V2 less than general in Danish, 124 4.10.2 Subject-verb agreement, 124 4.10.3 Adjunction to AgrP and CP, 127

Contents

4.10.4 Conclusions concerning embedded clauses in Danish, 129 4.11 Conclusion, 129 5. V°-to-I° Movement, 131 5.1 Inflection, 132 5.2 F-VP languages with V°-to-P movement, 136 5.2.7 French, 137 5.2.2 Icelandic and Yiddish, 138 5.3 P-VP languages without V°-to-I° movement, 140 5.3.7 English, 140 5.3.2 Danish, 142 5.3.3 Faroese, 147 5.4 VP-P languages, 152 5.5 Connection between V2 and V°-to-I° movement, 157 5.5.7 I°-VP order and V°-to-I° movement with general embedded V2, 157 5.5.2 The cause of general embedded V2, 159 5.5.3 Losing general embedded V2, 160 5.5.4 Losing V°-to-I° movement, 161 5.5.5 Conclusions concerning the link between V2 and V°-to-I° movement, 163 5.6 Conclusion, 163 III. EXPLETIVE SUBJECTS 6. NP-Positions in Expletive Constructions, 167 6.1 Introduction, 167 6.7.7 Safir(1985, 1987), 169 6.1.2 Belletti( 1988), 171 6.1.3 Licensing requirements: thematic roles, 177 6.1.4 Licensing requirements: case, 178 6.1.5 Licensing requirements: expletive-associate chains, 179 6.1.6 Summary and overview, 183 6.2 Licensing of IP-spec by C° or by 1°, 183 6.2.7 Thematic subjects, 184 6.2.2 Expletive subjects, 184 6.3 Licensing of VP-spec, 186 6J.7 In general, 187 6.3.2 In passive constructions, 192 6.4 Licensing of the complement of V°, 196

ix

x

Contents

6.4.1 Ergatives, 196 6.4.2 Transitives, 197 6.4.3 Passive transitives, 201 6.4.4 Intransitives, 202 6.4.5 Passive intransitives (impersonalpassives), 209 6.4.6 Copulas, 210 6.5 Licensing of IP-spec by a main V°, 213 6.5.7 Exceptional case marking verbs, 213 6.5.2 Raising verbs, 215 6.6 Alternative analyses, 216 6.6.7 Platzack (1983), 216 6.6.2 Reuland(1983, 1985), 216 6.6.3 Mating (1987), 218 6.6.4 Folk (1989a,b), 220 6.7 Conclusion, 222 7. Expletive Subjects and Quasi-Arguments, 224 7.1 Introduction, 224 7.7.7 Different realisations of the distinction between there and it, 224 7.7.2 It is an argument; there is not an argument, 228 7.1.3 Extraction from inside the embedded clause, 228 7.2 It, there, and case assignment, 233 7.2.7 CP neither assigned case nor alternatively licensed, 234 7.2.2 CP alternatively licensed, 242 7.2.3 CP with accusative: P°-CP in Danish, 246 7.2.4 P°-CP in English and in Norwegian and Swedish, 250 7.2.5 P°-CP in Dutch and German, 252 7.3 Raising constructions, 255 7.3.7 Raising predicates with clausal complements, 256 7.3.2 Raising predicates with small clause complements, 262 7.4 Conclusion, 268 8. Conclusion 8.1 Summary, 269 8.2 Last words, 270 References, 273 Language Index, 283 Name Index, 285 Subject Index, 288

I

PRELIMINARIES

Videnskabelig forsken b0r ikke skele hen til hvad nytte der kan komme ud av den.... Overordentlig meget i mine b0ger og artikler—og maske del vaerdifuldeste i og for sig—tar udelukkende sigte pa den rene uinteresserede teori, pa blot del at trange ind i sproget (og sproglydenes) vssen for at udvide vor teoretiske indsigt. Otto Jespersen (1938): En sprogmands levned (The Life of a Linguist). Scientific research should not pay attention to what use it may have. A very large part of my books and articles,—and maybe the most valuable part, as such—is only concerned with pure disinterested theory, with mere intrusion into the nature of language (and language sounds) in order to extend our theoretical insight.

1 Introduction

1.1

Overview

In this book I discuss a set of interrelated phenomena in the Germanic languages: the position of the finite verb, the various factors that determine this position, and some of the consequences that the choice of position has. These consequences are taken from the area of expletive constructions; I argue that it depends on the actual or potential position of the finite verb, whether it is possible for a noun phrase (NP) to appear outside the three following positions: the complement of a transitive verb, the complement of a preposition, and the standard subject position. The book is organised into the following parts: Preliminaries, Verb movement, and Expletive subjects. Part I contains the present introductory chapter and chapter 2, where the focus is on "relativised minimality", a framework which forms the theoretical foundation for the analyses in the following chapters. Part II, chapters 3-5 discusses the two finite verb movements found in the Germanic languages: verb second (V2) and V°-to-P movement. Part III, chapters 6-7, discusses the consequences of the position of the finite verb for expletive constructions. The focus of chapter 6 is the position of the NP which would have been the subject if the expletive had been absent, and the focus of chapter 7 is the difference between the two semantically empty subjects it (Da. det, Du. het, Ge. es) and there (Da. der, Du. er, Ge. no subject at all). In the rest of this introductory chapter, I briefly discuss the Germanic languages (section 1.2) and the role of universal grammar in linguistic theory (section 1.3).

1.2 The Germanic languages Although my discussions in the following chapters focus more on some languages (e.g., Danish, English, German, Icelandic, and Yiddish) than on others, I shall try here to give a brief overview of all the Germanic languages. 3

4

Preliminaries

Traditionally, the Germanic languages are divided into three groups: East, North, and West Germanic. I will not be concerned with the East Germanic languages at all, partially due to the insurmountable difficulties in locating native speakers: The languages in this group, e.g., Burgundian and Gothic, are all extinct. The North Germanic languages on the other hand, which I will be referring to as the Scandinavian languages, still exist.

7.2.7

Scandinavian

The languages in this group were all one language, or could at least be considered to be mutually intelligible dialects of the same language, until around 1100-1200. How one refers to this common ancestor language may depend on whether one wants to emphasise the mutual intelligibility (then "Old Norse" (Norramd)) or the variation (then "Old Icelandic") between these dialects. The reason for the latter term is not that Iceland is the old homeland of the Scandinavians (on the contrary, of all of Scandinavia, Iceland was the last area to be settled by Scandinavian speakers, in the second half of the ninth century), but that almost all of the surviving Old Norse (or Old Icelandic) texts were written in Iceland. (Modern) Icelandic (Islenzka) is the most conservative of the Scandinavian languages, in the sense that it has preserved more of the features of Old Norse than any of the other descendant languages—it retains an elaborate morphological system of case and inflectional endings. Closely related to Icelandic is Faroese (F0royskt), the language of the Faroe Islands in the North Atlantic, roughly halfway between Iceland and Scotland. Like Iceland, the Faroes were settled by immigrant Scandinavians from mainland Scandinavia (maybe via the British Isles), though slightly earlier, in the first half of the ninth century. Both geographically and linguistically, the Faroe Islands are halfway between mainland Scandinavia(n) and Iceland(ic). On a purely synchronic basis, Faroese is often grouped together with Icelandic as "insular Scandinavian", as opposed to "Mainland Scandinavian", but when I use the latter term, I will not always take it to exclude Faroese: As I will try to show in chapter 5, Faroese has more syntactic (as opposed to morphological) features in common with the Mainland Scandinavian languages than with Icelandic. Almost all speakers of Faroese also speak Danish, a fact which may be significant for the position of Faroese halfway between Icelandic and the Mainland Scandinavian languages. Historically, Norwegian (Norsk) was a West Scandinavian language, like Icelandic and Faroese, but due to a prolonged period under Danish rule, 1397-1814, the Danish influence was so strong that a language arose which is a mixture between Danish and the original Norwegian, and the result is thus genetically a mixture between East and West Scandinavian. This is why two competing written standards exist today, Bokmdl (Dano-Norwegian) and Nynorsk (New-Norwegian), the latter being based on a synthesis of western and southwestern dialects of nineteenth-century Norway. These two differ mainly in vocabulary and morphology, as "the syntactic differences between New-Norwegian and Dano-Norwegian are negligible" (Faarlund 1990:12). I will therefore simply be using the term Norwegian, and the majority of the examples will be Bokmdl.

Introduction

5

Swedish (Svenska) is an East Scandinavian language, historically speaking, and like Norwegian and Danish, a mainland Scandinavian language. Swedish is the official language of Sweden, and it is also spoken as a minority language in Finland. The last of the Scandinavian languages, Danish (Dansk), is also historically East Scandinavian. It is the least conservative of the mainland Scandinavian languages; most of the morphological and syntactic changes that occur in both Danish and Swedish affect Danish first (Haugen 1982:103, 136, Christer Platzack, personal communication). Danish is the official language of Denmark, and it is also spoken by a small minority in Schleswig-Holstein, the northernmost federal state of Germany. The three mainland Scandinavian languages, Norwegian, Danish, and Swedish, are mutually intelligible.

7.2.2

West Germanic

Many different subdivisions among the West Germanic languages have been suggested. Historically, the most fundamental difference seems to exist between the Anglo-Frisian (or North Sea Germanic) languages, i.e., English and Frisian, and the other West Germanic languages. This latter group can either be classified as Southern Germanic or again be divided into Low German and High German groups. On a purely synchronic basis, the West Germanic languages are often divided into English and the Continental West Germanic languages. English needs no further introduction. Although it is West Germanic, it has many features otherwise typical of Scandinavian, e.g., verb-object word order. It is undoubtedly the most widely spoken of the Germanic languages, as it is spoken all over the world, including in Australia, Canada, India, the Irish Republic, New Zealand, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The historically closest relative of English, Frisian (Frysk), on the other hand, is rather less well known. Today, its most widespread variant, West Frisian, is spoken in the northwest of the Netherlands, but almost all speakers also speak Dutch. Two more dialects exist, both spoken in Germany: East Frisian in Lower Saxony and North Frisian in Schleswig-Holstein. Dutch (Nederlands) is the standard language of the Netherlands, and one of the two standard languages of Belgium. A historical descendant of Dutch is Afrikaans (Afrikaans), one of the two standard languages of the Republic of South Africa. I will furthermore be referring to West Flemish (West-Vlaams), the dialect of Dutch spoken in the westernmost part of Belgium. Last in the Low German subgroup is Low German itself (Nedderdiiutsch or Plattdiiutsch), which in the space of the last 500 years has gone from being the standard language of northern Germany to being a vanishing local dialect, mainly spoken by the older generation of more rural areas of northern Germany, all of which also speak High (i.e., Standard) German. In the High German group, the dominating language is High German or German itself (Hochdeutsch or Deutsch), the standard language of Austria, Germany, and

6

Preliminaries Table 1.1 The Germanic languages

Language Scandinavian Icelandic Faroese Norwegian Swedish Danish

Speakers* 250,000 40,000 4,5 mill. 9 mill. 5 mill.

Spoken as second language in

Spoken in** Iceland Faroe Islands Norway Sweden, [Finland] Denmark, [Germany]

— — Iceland Finland, Iceland Faroe Islands, Greenland, Iceland

West Germanic

English

Frisian Dutch Afrikaans West Flemish Low German (High) German

Swiss German Yiddish

325 mill. Australia, Canada, India, the Irish Republic, New Zealand, South Africa, United Kingdom, USA, and others 311,000 [Holland, Germany] 20 mill. Holland, Belgium, [France] 5 mill. [South Africa] 7 [Belgium] 7 [Germany] 115 mill. Austria, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Germany, [France, Italy, Switzerland] 4 mill. Switzerland 3 mill. [Canada, Israel, Russia, Ukraine, USA, and others]

Across the world

— Belgium, Germany, Holland, Surinam South Africa

— —

Europe

Switzerland Canada, Israel, Russia, Ukraine, USA, and others

Based on BuBmann (1990), Haugen et al. (1979), Hutterer (1990), and Voegelin & Voegelin (1977). * The figures for German and Yiddish are based on BuBmann (1990) and on Haugen et al. (1979:16). All other figures are from BuBmann (1990). ** Brackets indicate that the language is spoken by less than 50% of the inhabitants.

Table 1.2 Language abbreviations Al. Ba. Da. Du. En. Fa. Fr. Fs. Ge. Hd. Ic. It.

Alvdalsmalet (dialect of Swedish) Bavarian Danish Dutch English Faroese French Frisian German Hallingdalen (dialect of Norwegian) Icelandic Italian

Kb. MD ME NN No. OE ON SG Sw. WF Wp. Yi.

Kronoby (dialect of Swedish, spoken in Finland) Middle Danish Middle English Northern Norwegian (Bod0 dialect) Norwegian Old English Old Norse/Old Icelandic Swiss German Swedish West Flemish Westphalian (dialect of German) Yiddish

Introduction

7

Liechtenstein, dialects of which are also spoken in Luxembourg, Alsace, parts of Switzerland, and South Tyrol (the northernmost province of Italy). Pockets of German also survive throughout Eastern Europe—in Poland, the Czech Republic, Rumania, even as far east as Kazakhstan. One might argue that Swiss German (Schwyzertuutsch), the German dialects spoken in northern, central, and eastern Switzerland, constitutes a separate language. The arbitrariness in such a choice is twofold. First, Swiss German is by no means a unified phenomenon, but rather a group of related dialects, which are not always completely mutually intelligible. Unless otherwise stated, the Swiss German examples in this volume are from the dialect spoken in Berne. Second, as the entire Dutch-German area forms a dialect continuum (excluding the Frisian-speaking areas), any division into languages is arbitrary. The fact that I discuss Swiss German and West Flemish much more than, for example, Bavarian, Alsatian, or Luxemburgish, does not mean that the former are real languages and the others are not; it is simply because I have had more access to analyses and native speakers of Swiss German (i.e., the works and judgments of Thomas Bader, Kathrin Cooper, Zvi Penner, and Ursula Wegmiiller) and West Flemish (the works and judgments of Liliane Haegeman) than with any other Dutch or German dialect. The last of the Germanic languages that I will be concerned with is Yiddish (Yiddish or Yidish), the language of Central European (Ashkenazic) Jews. Historically, Yiddish is a descendant of Middle High German, but especially from the point of view of the vocabulary, the influence of Hebrew and of the Slavic languages is very pronounced. Originally two main variants existed, East and West Yiddish, but West Yiddish (spoken mainly in otherwise German-speaking areas) practically disappeared in the eighteenth century. East Yiddish, which was spoken mainly in otherwise Slavicspeaking areas, is still spoken in many parts of the world, mainly in Canada and the United States, but also in Argentina, Israel, and Russia, to name a few. Today, most of its speakers are 50 or older, and practically all of them also speak the standard language of where they live. Mainly because of the holocaust, (East) Yiddish is all but extinct in the Eastern European areas, where it used to be most widespread—Poland, the Czech Republic, Rumania, Ukraine, Byelorussia, and the Baltic states. The languages and dialects in Table 1.1 are the ones I will mainly be discussing, but they are not the only ones from which my examples have been drawn. Table 1.2 gives a complete list of language abbreviations (as used in the examples in the following chapters).

1.3 Language acquisition and the theory of UG 1.3.1

Innateness

Generative linguists1 take the purpose of linguistics to be to provide an account for the language faculty of human beings. To do this, linguists must try to explain what

1. Cf. Chomsky (1965, 1981, 1986a,b), Fanselow & Felix (1987a), Hyams (1986), Lightfoot (1982, 1991), Rizzi (1989), and many others.

8

Preliminaries

shape the linguistic knowledge (i.e., the grammar) in the brain has (or might have) and also how this knowledge enters the brain. The answer to the latter question sets certain limits for possible answers to the former. There are three logical possibilities: (a) All properties of grammar are innate; (b) No properties of grammar are innate; and (c) Some properties of grammar are innate, and some will have to be acquired. If (a), all properties of grammar were innate, it would be a complete mystery why human beings do not all speak the same language and how languages can change over time. If (b), no properties of grammar were innate, grammar would have to be learned by means of general learning mechanisms, much like anything else is learned, such as mathematics or chess. It would then be a mystery why children between the ages of two and three are so good at learning a language, when their general learning skills are not very good otherwise. It would also be unexplained why human beings always learn their native languages perfectly (with the exception of pathological cases): Danes vary in their abilities to perform complicated mathematical computations or in their abilities to play chess, but they all speak Danish extremely well. Also, the fact that learning a first language is very fast would be mysterious. Every human language is extremely complex: Note, for example, how long linguists have been studying, say, the English language and how far we still are from having a complete description. Yet every single child (still with the exception of pathological cases) who is regularly exposed to English between the ages of one and four will acquire all its intricacies without any particular effort. This is all the more surprising when the degeneracy of the direct linguistic data to which the children are exposed is taken into consideration: The data are degenerate both with respect to quantity (there is a limit to how many sentences a child has time to hear before its grammar is fully developed) and quality (not all of these sentences are well-formed), and also because the child does not have access to negative evidence (it makes no difference whatsoever, at least for the child's linguistic abilities, whether or not she is corrected every time she uses a sentence that is not well-formed according to the adult grammar). The final phenomenon which would be left unaccounted for if no property of grammar were innate is language universals. Although there is an immense amount of variation between human languages, there is also a number of properties common to all of them. The existence of language universals would be a complete coincidence, if all properties of grammar had to be learned. Generative linguists therefore believe (c), that part of the grammar of a native speaker is derived from innate knowledge and part is derived from the language spoken in the immediate environment of the child. This means that language acquisition is different from other learning processes, and it is therefore not surprising that it has different properties, for example, the 100 percent success rate or the low age of its performers. The speed of language acquisition (especially in the face of the irrelevance of negative input and the degeneracy of the data) is now easier to understand, as the child does not have to start from scratch, but already possesses some parts of the (adult) grammar.

Introduction

1.3,2

9

Universal Grammar

The details of the account of language and of language acquisition just outlined make crucial use of a set of principles and parameters called Universal Grammar (UG). The theory of UG must be two things at once: (a) UG is a theory of grammar across all natural languages, and (b) UG is a theory of innate linguistic endowment—that is, the ability to acquire linguistic skills, which humans but no other beings are born with. Only by trying to be both at the same time, does the theory of UG hold any interest: The amazing speed and ease with which children acquire their mother tongue is only really amazing when the immense number of different possible mother tongues is kept in mind. As it has to reconcile these two aspects, UG is placed under heavy constraints. Given (a), UG should be highly comprehensive to provide accounts of all kinds of grammatical properties of the world's languages, but given (b), UG should be restrained to allow the child to construct a grammar from less than very extensive evidence, given the degeneracy of data to which the child is exposed. UG is taken to be based on a limited set of basic principles, limiting the number of possible grammars, but containing a number of variables and parameters which are not fixed in the initial pre-linguistic state. These variables and parameters only become fixed through the linguistic experience of the child, leaving open the way for considerable variation between the grammars constructed. The principles are the part of linguistic knowledge that the child is assumed to possess already at birth. If part of linguistic knowledge is innate, we have the beginning of an account for both why language acquisition can go so fast and why language universals exist. This innate part of linguistic knowledge is obviously the same for all human beings, as it is assumed that all human beings are alike with respect to their linguistic capabilities, an assumption which is supported by the fact that all human beings are able to acquire language. A parameter determines a set of related properties, related in such a way that choosing one particular parametric setting entails determining a number of surface properties of the language. The idea is thus to derive a number of surface properties (or surface differences between languages) from a smaller number of underlying properties (or underlying differences between languages). This is desirable not only for the inherent theoretical elegance in being able to unite separate surface phenomena under one generalisation, but also because it may provide the other half of the account of firstlanguage acquisition. The fewer (underlying) differences there are between languages, the less data the child will have to encounter in order to be able to choose between alternative possible grammars, and the fewer data that have to be encountered to acquire any given language, the better is our account for the speed of first language acquisition. Linguists should therefore try to account for as many surface differences by positing as few underlying ones as possible. The work presented here is an attempt at doing this. By studying the relations between verb movements and NP positions, and more precisely by showing how various NP positions depend on certain choices within the verb movement system, it is also shown how the child may deduce which NP positions are (or are not) possible in her or his language from primary evidence concerning only the position of the finite verb.

10

Preliminaries

The area of finite verb movement in the Germanic languages would seem to be well suited as a testing ground for this kind of theory, because already at the surface the differences are not so many and relatively well understood (or at least described in great detail), which would lead us to expect that it should not be completely impossible to uncover the underlying differences.

2 Relativised Minimality

2.1 Introduction For reasons of space, it is not possible to include a general introduction to the linguistic theory that I presuppose in the following chapters, the so-called principles and parameters model (also known as the theory of government and binding). For readers who would like such an introduction, I recommend the consultation of an introductory textbook such as Haegeman (1991), or alternatively Cook (1988), Fanselow & Felix (1987a,b), Lasnik & Uriagereka (1988), or Radford (1988). In this chapter, I provide a short introduction to "relativised minimality", one of the competing analyses of empty categories. In spite of its name, the empty category principle (ECP) is not a constraint on all empty categories, but only on those which are the results of movement, i.e., on traces. The two most important constraints on movement are the ECP and the subjacency constraint. While there seems to be little actual disagreement as to subjacency,1 there are serious divergences in the literature when it comes to the ECP. Two of the major approaches to the ECP are the "relativised minimality" framework of Rizzi (1990a) and the "barriers" framework of Chomsky (1986a), much of which in turn is based on the "gammamarking" analysis of Lasnik & Saito (1984). As I will be assuming the relativised minimality framework and applying it to the Germanic languages in the following chapters, this chapter contains a short introduction which pays special attention to the consequences for the analysis of English, Danish, and German. In section 2.2, A-bar-movement (movement to a 1. The widely accepted version of subjacency from Chomsky (1986a:30-37), rests on the notion of barrier. An XP can qualify as a barrier in two ways: either if it is not L-marked (i.e., if it is not both governed and theta-marked by the same category), or if it immediately dominates another XP which is not L-marked. The former is called being an "inherent barrier", the latter being a "barrier by inheritance". IP is exceptional in this system, because it can only be a "barrier by inheritance". The subjacency constraint itself then says that the more barriers are crossed by a given movement, the less well-formed the resulting structure is. 11

12

Preliminaries

non-argument position) is discussed; in 2.3 A-movement (movement to an argument position), and in 2.4 X°-movement (movement to a head position). Section 2.5 summarises the restrictions on movement that follow from the relativised minimality framework.

2.2 A-bar-movement 2.2. 1 Proper head government The first examples of A-bar-movement are the classic "mat-trace" cases. They are relevant for the proper head government requirement: (1)

ECP: (Rizzi 1990a:87, (30) ) A non-pronominal empty category must be properly head governed

(2)

Proper head government : (Rizzi 1990a : 6 , ( 13 ) , 31-32)

"X properly head governs Y iff (i) X 6 (A, N, P, V, Agr, T) , (ii) X c-commands Y (inside X')/ (iii) no barrier intervenes, (iv) relativized minimality is respected."

For the following discussion, clause (2i) is the relevant one. As for clause (2iv), section 2.2.2 discusses the condition on antecedent government. The "thai-trace" examples are

The impossible extractions in (3b) and (4b) seem to be blocked by that/at, as the extractions in (3a) and (4a) are well-formed. The blocking effect of that/at is of a very local nature, as can be seen from the fact that that/at only blocks subject extractions like the above, and not adverbial extractions:

According to Rizzi (1990a), the difference between the well-formed subject extractions, (3a) and (4a), and the ill-formed ones, (3b) and (4b), is that the trace in the subject position is not properly governed in the latter. In the well-formed subject extractions, (3a) and (4a), the empty C° (complementiser) properly governs IP-spec (specifies of inflection phrase), because it counts as an instantiation of

Relativised Minimality

13

Agr(eement), one of the options in (2i). C° agrees with IP-spec, because C° agrees with CP-spec (this is specifier-head agreement); and CP-spec and IP-spec agree, because the extracted subject has been moved via CP spec, and they are thus coindexed. In the ill-formed subject extractions, (3b) and (4b), the empty C° does not count as an instantiation of Agr, as it is assumed that that/at are incompatible with agreement (cf. also the discussion of agreeing complementisers in French, West Flemish, and Danish in Vikner 1991). In German the data are less clear, as, for many speakers, the subject can be extracted even when daft is present:

Rizzi (1990a:119, fn. 10) suggests that daft is compatible with agreement in the (southern) variants of German which allow (7b). From subject extractions from embedded clauses, I will now turn to subject extractions from main clauses, i.e., subject questions. Rizzi (1990a:40, 1991b:4-7) points to the following difference between English on one hand and Danish and German on the other: Although the verb moves to C° in object questions, (8), in all three languages (this takes the form of insertion of unstressed do in English sentences like those below, where the finite verb is not an auxiliary),2 this verb movement to C° also takes place in subject questions in Danish and German, (9b,c), but it is not possible in English, (9a):

2. An emphatic version of (9a) is possible, with stress on the verb in C°: (i)

En.

Who DOES always talk about chocolate?

but what is important here is that subject questions, (9a)/(i), are different from object questions, (ii), where both an emphatic and a non-emphatic version are possible: (ii)

En. a. b.

Who did you see? Who DID you see?

The difference is that non-emphatic do ("do") is only possible when the content of I" (the inflectional ending of the finite verb) cannot be lowered into V. In questions, this is not possible, because 1° must move to C° (because of the wA-criterion, cf. Rizzi 1991b:4—7) and thus cannot also move to V. Emphatic do ("DO"), however, can always be inserted into 1°, as in (i) and (iib), irrespective of whether I" could have been moved to V" or not.

14

Preliminaries

Rizzi (1990a:53), following Rizzi & Roberts (1989:19), suggests that the movement of the finite verb to C° (and in fact any other movement that ends in a head position) is only possible under two sets of circumstances: C° must either be completely empty, or have a special slot available for 1° (Inflection) to move into. If neither of these are the case, the arrival of 1° will erase the content of C°, which is not allowed (it violates the projection principle, as something will be present before the movement into C° but not present afterwards). Rizzi (1990a:121) furthermore suggests that in Danish and German, C° has a special slot available for 1° to move into (i.e., C° is subcategorised for 1°). This is also what forces the finite verb to move into C° in all main clauses (it is the verb second (V2) property; see chapter 3). As English is not a V2 language, it is assumed that C° does not have a special slot available for 1°, and therefore C° must be radically empty when 1° moves there. Radically empty however means that C° cannot contain agreement. Thus, in the cases where 1° moves to C°, C° cannot properly govern IP-spec, because it cannot contain agreement (otherwise 1° could not have moved into C°). That an empty C° may contain agreement and thus be a proper governor of a trace in the subject position, provided C° and IP-spec agree (via CP-spec, cf. the discussion of (3) and (4)), is shown by (3a) and (4a) and (lOa):

Examples (10b,c) are presumably ungrammatical for independent reasons: Main clauses in Danish and German must be V2 (see chapter 3). So far I have only been discussing one way of extracting a subject: by making C° able to properly head govern IP-spec. There are two other possibilities: having a resumptive pronoun and extracting the subject from a position different from IP-spec. IP-spec may in some languages be filled by a resumptive pronoun, in which case there is no trace in IP-spec, which therefore does not need to be properly head

15

Re l at ivi s e dMinim al it y

governed. An example is the following sentence in Swedish (where "OP" means an empty operator, the empty alternative version of a relative pronoun like which):

(fromEngdahl 1985:98,(58a))

Finally, the subject could be extracted from a position which is not IP-spec. This strategy is exploited in the "pro-drop" languages, where the subject may appear sentence finally (maybe this position is adjoined to the verb phrase (VP)), with a pro in IP-spec:

Rizzi (1990a:62-65) suggests that the postverbal subject position may be properly head governed by 1° (or by tense (T°), cf. footnote 12), which would allow a subject to be extracted from there:

There is no requirement that pro be properly head governed. It does not fall under the ECP, (1), as it is pronominal—it does not need an antecedent: (14)

It .

2.2.2

non ha telefonato oggi (He/She) not has called today

pro j

"wh"-Islands

Let us turn to the other restriction on movement, the obligatory link with the antecedent: (15)

A trace must be connected to its antecedent. This connection can either be established through binding or through antecedent government. (Rizzi 1990a:87)

Every trace has to satisfy both requirements: It must be both properly head governed and connected to its antecedent. In the examples discussed in the previous section, where the focus was on proper head government, all extractions satisfied the trace-antecedent connection requirement, as well (the adverbial extractions only satisfied it by antecedent government, the subject- and object extractions satisfied it both by antecedent government and by binding). A number of additional definitions are necessary to see just how the traceantecedent connection requirement works. One way of establishing the link between the trace and its antecedent is by means of binding: (16) Binding; (Rizzi 1990a:87,(29)) "X binds Y iff (i) X c-commands Y, and (ii) X and Y have the same referential index."

16

Preliminaries

To have a referential index, the moved element must have a referential theta-role. Rizzi (1990a:86) takes all participants in the event described by the verb to have a referential theta-role (e.g., agent, theme/patient, experiencer, goal). Examples of nonreferential theta-roles are manner, measure, atmospheric role (It is raining), idiosyncratic roles in idioms, etc. (Rizzi 1990a:77-80, 86). The other way for a trace to establish a link with its antecedent is by antecedent government: (17) Antecedent government: (Rizzi 1990a:92,(40)) "X antecedent governs Y iff (i) X and Y are non-distinct, (i.e. if they do not have different indices) (ii) X c-commands Y, (iii) no barrier intervenes, (iv) relativized minimality is respected."

The crucial condition is the last one. Relativised minimality is defined in (18), and typical potential a-governor in (19): (18) Relativised minimality: (Rizzi 1990a:7,(15)) "X a-governs Y only if there is no Z such that (i) Z is a typical potential a-governor for Y, and (ii) Z c-commands Y and does not c-command X." (19) Typical potential g-governors: a. Z is a typical potential m-commanding Y. b. Z is a typical potential (i) Y in an A'-chain (ii) Y in an A-chain (iii) Y in a x°-chain

(Rizzi 1990a:7, (16),(17)) head governor for Y iff Z is a head antecedent governor for Y, ... iff Z is an A'-specifier c commanding Y. iff Z is an A-specifier c commanding Y. iff Z is a head c-commanding Y.

Two basic intuitions lie behind the definitions in (18) and (19). One is that only base-generated positions may interfere with or block movement (hence the explicit reference to specifier positions, excluding elements in adjoined positions, cf. Rizzi 1990a:27). The other intuition is that different kinds of movements and elements cannot interfere with each other. The difference between A-positions and A-barpositions is that A-positions are those positions in which an argument may be basegenerated, e.g., the object position (complement of V°) or the subject position (IPspec). In Rizzi (1991a:46), this definition is reformulated, so that all positions which either receive a theta-role or which are specifiers of an XP (i.e., any maximal projection) with an agreeing X° are A-positions. This avoids the question of whether IP-spec receives a theta-role, as it qualifies as an A-position under any circumstances, being the specifier of IP, as 1° agrees. Let us start with extractions from embedded declarative clauses:

First let us discuss the proper head government restriction. In the subject extraction, (20a), the rightmost trace is properly head governed by the empty C° (cf. the preceding discussion of (3a) above). In the object extraction, (20b), the

Relativised Minimality

17

rightmost trace is properly head governed by the verb cook. In the adverbial extraction, (20c), the rightmost trace must also be properly head governed, as the extraction is well-formed. The proper head governor of the adverbial (or in this case its trace) could be 1° or T°, as the adverbial is adjoined to VP, according to Rizzi's (1990a:50) suggestion. As for the leftmost trace, the intermediate trace, which is in CP-spec in all three cases in (20), it is properly head governed by the verb of the matrix sentence, think. Let us now turn to the antecedent-trace connection. In the subject extraction, (20a), which cook binds the leftmost trace, which again binds the rightmost trace. Binding is possible because which cook is the subject of the embedded clause, which receives the referential theta-role AGENT. The object, which vegetables, also receives a referential theta-role, THEME, and therefore it can bind the leftmost trace in the object extraction, (20b), which again binds the rightmost trace. In the adverbial extraction, (20c), however, the extracted element is an adverbial, which does not receive a referential theta-role, and hence there is no binding available as a link between the traces and their antecedents. That (20c) nevertheless is wellformed is due to the fact that the connection trace-antecedent can also be established by means of antecedent government, which does not require a referential theta-role. Antecedent government actually holds between all traces and their antecedents in (20). The antecedent of the rightmost trace is the leftmost trace, and the antecedent of the leftmost trace is the extracted element which cook/which vegetables/how long. In every case, the antecedent is coindexed with its trace, it c-commands its trace, and it is not separated from its trace by any barrier or by any typical potential antecedent governor of the same kind (i.e., in an A'-position). The conditions work the same way in the other Germanic languages. Consider Danish and German:

18

Preliminaries

Examples (21) and (22) are completely parallel to (20), and the same analyses thus apply, with one minor exception: The rightmost trace in (22a) is not properly head governed by an empty C° but by the finite verb in C°. In the above examples it was not really possible to separate the effects of the two different ways of connecting the trace with its antecedent, as both were possible (except for the adverbial extractions, as mentioned earlier). Let us therefore consider examples where antecedent government is ruled out, the "w/i-island" cases:

In each example two extractions from the embedded clause have been made— one into CP-spec of the matrix clause and one into CP-spec of the embedded clause. This means that the movement into CP-spec of the matrix clause cannot take place via the embedded CP-spec. Again we start with proper head government: The subject trace in the long subject extraction, (23a), is not properly head governed by the empty C°, as C° does not agree with it, since CP-spec (containing how) and IP-spec (containing the trace of which cook) are not coindexed (see the preceding discussion). The adverbial trace in (23a), on the other hand, is properly head governed (by 1° or T°). The same goes for the adverbial traces in (23b,c), and also the object traces in (23b,c) are properly head governed (by the verb cook). Summing up: By means of the proper head government requirement, we can account for the ungrammaticality of (23a), whereas (23b,c) do not violate the proper head government requirement. Now for the trace-antecedent connection. We would expect binding to be possible in the subject extraction in (23a) and in the object extractions in (23b,c), but not in the adverbial extractions that also take place in (23a,b,c). This does not mean that we would expect them all to be ungrammatical, as there is still an alternative possibility for getting a trace linked up with its antecedent: antecedent government. The traces of the elements in the embedded CP-spec (how/how/what) are all antecedent governed, as the antecedent is coindexed with its trace, it c-commands its trace, and it is not separated from its trace by any barrier or by any typical potential antecedent governor of the same kind (i.e., in an A'-position). This is not the case for the traces of the elements in the matrix CP-spec (which cook/which vegetables/how long). Although the antecedent is coindexed with its trace, and it c-commands its trace, it is actually separated from its trace by a typical potential antecedent governor of the same kind (i.e. in an A'-position): in each case the element in the embedded CP-spec. This means that the traces of the elements in the matrix CP-spec must be linked to their antecedents by binding, and, as we just saw, this is only possible in case the antecedent is the subject or the object, but not the adverbial, as an adverbial does not have a referential theta-role, and thus no referen-

Relativised Minimality

19

tial index, either. Summing up: The traces of the elements in the embedded CP-spec are all well-formed, as they can be linked to their antecedents by antecedent government. The traces of the elements in the matrix CP-spec cannot be connected to their antecedents by antecedent government, and they must therefore be linked by binding. This is only possible in (23a,b) but not in (23c). We can thus account for the ungrammatically of (23c) as the absence of the obligatory trace-antecedent link, and for the ungrammatically of (23 a) as a violation of the proper head government requirement. This means that we would expect (23b) to be well-formed. The fact that it is not completely acceptable is not related to anything particular to the relativised minimality framework, but, according to Rizzi (1990a:75), it should be attributed to subjacency. The movement of which vegetables crosses both the embedded CP and the embedded IP in one step, which, in the analysis of Chomsky (1986a:36), makes the embedded CP into a "barrier by inheritance", as it immediately dominates an XP which is not L(exically)-marked—viz., the embedded IP. The IP itself, although not L-marked, is explicitly excluded from qualifying as a barrier in this way ("inherent barrier"). The result is that (23b) is a rather weak violation of subjacency. Chomsky (1986a:37) further suggests that, as (23b) would be much worse, maybe as much as "??", if the embedded question was finite (Which vegetables do you wonder how Peter would cook?), the lowest IP counts as an additional barrier for subjacency if it is tensed. (For a discussion of the link between subjacency barriers and tensed IPs, see Coopmans & Stevenson 1991.) This last point should be kept in mind as we now turn to the same constructions in the other Germanic languages. The reason is that in the Germanic languages (with the exception of English and Yiddish), infinitival embedded questions are not possible (cf. Haider 1986a:60, 1986b:69, Wilder 1988, Giusti 1989). Consequently, the object extractions in (24b) and (25b) will cross two subjacency barriers—the embedded CP and the tensed embedded IP. Nevertheless, the sentences are not all that bad, but maybe this is what lies behind the words "possibly weak" in Chomsky's formulation (1986a:37) of the suggestion: "Suppose, then, that tensed IP is an inherent barrier (possibly weak) for w/z-movement" (emphasis mine). In other words, the object extractions in (24b) and (25b) will cross "one and a half subjacency barriers. After this somewhat premature discussion, let us look at the examples:

20

Preliminaries

As for the proper head government requirement, the examples are parallel to the English ones above: The long subject extractions, (24a) and (25a)3, are ruled out, like (la), because the traces in subject position are not properly head governed. The empty embedded C° is not a possible proper head governor, as it does not agree with IP-spec, due to the fact that IP-spec and CP-spec are not coindexed, see the discussion of (23a). Also with respect to the connection antecedent-trace, the examples are parallel to the English ones above: The long adverbial extractions, (24c) and (25c), are ruled out, like (23c), because the traces of the extracted adverbials hvor Icenge/wie lange, "how long", cannot be linked to their antecedents; binding is excluded, as they have no referential index, and antecedent government is excluded as well, as there is an intervening A'-specifier, viz. the extracted object hvilke gr0nsager/ welches Gemiise, "which vegetable(s)". In this section, we have seen how movements have to be compatible with three different requirements: The trace must be properly head governed; the trace must be connected with its antecedent (either by binding or by antecedent government); and finally, the individual steps of the movement may not be too long (subjacency).

2.2.3 Negative islands The previous section has shown that it is much more difficult to extract something from an embedded question than from an embedded declarative clause. This observation is originally due to Ross (1967), who also coined the term w/z-islands, for the embedded questions, from which it is so difficult to escape. The examples to be considered in this section are a different type of islands: Instead of being triggered by a w/i-element, they are triggered by a negation. These islands were also first discussed by John R. Ross (1984), but he called them "inner islands", as they occurred inside the clause and did not coincide with the (embedded) clause boundary. I will follow Cinque (1990b:7), however, and refer to them as "negative islands". The following is a typical example of a negative island:

Extracting the referential element, i.e., the object, does not cause any problems, whereas it is impossible to extract the adverbial. Both the object and the adverbial are properly head governed, the object by V° 3. For more discussion of examples of this type, cf. Fanselow (1987:58, (41b), (42b), (43c)).

Relativised Minimality

21

and the adverbial by T° (see the discussion in the previous section), as witnessed by the fact that both (26a,b) are well-formed without the negation. This means that the difference in grammaticality between (26a) and (26b) must be related to the obligatory connection trace-antecedent. Furthermore, the fact that extracting the object is possible but extracting the adverbial is not possible is reminiscent of w/t-islands in the previous section. There such a situation arose through the unavailability of antecedent government as a means of linking the trace with its antecedent; this left only binding as a way of establishing such a link, but binding is only available to elements with a referential theta-role, for example, to the trace of an extracted object (as in (26a)) but not to the trace of an extracted adverbial (as in (26b)). The question is how to derive the result that antecedent government is excluded by the presence of negation, so that both (26a,b) are well-formed without the negation. Rizzi (1990a:18) suggests that the position of the negation is the specifier of tense phrase (TP). If TP-spec is an A-bar-position, this would give us the desired result: By relativised minimality, it would block A-bar-movement across TP spec. This works exactly the same way in the other Germanic languages. All four sentences in (27) and (28) would be well-formed if the negation was absent:

The immediate reactions of some informants when presented with examples like those above is that these facts cannot possibly have anything to do with syntax, but must be semantic: The impossible adverbial extractions are completely uninterpretable.4 In the relativised minimality framework, these data do not receive a semantic, but a syntactic account. For a semantic account, see, e.g., Szabolcsi & Zwarts (1991).

4. The opposite reaction also occurs: After first finding the sentences uninterpretable, the informant realises what they (would) mean, and then proceeds to find them acceptable. It is my interpretation of such informants (who constitute a minority) that the first moment of complete confusion makes them mistake interpretability for acceptability. Also, examples may be constructed which only very few informants accept: (i)

a. En. b. Da. c. Ge.

It is terrible how stupid you always are £ Det er frygteligt hvor dum du altid er £ Es ist schrecklich, wie dumm du immer £ bist

(ii) a. En. b. Da. c. Ge.

*It is terrible how clever you aren't £ *Det er frygteligt hvor klog du ikke er i *Es ist schrecklich, wie kluo du nicht £ bist

22

Preliminaries

The negative island examples to be considered below are interesting in that the difference in meaning between the grammatical and the ungrammatical versions is absolutely minimal (which I will take to point in the direction of a syntactic rather than a semantic account for this kind of facts). The sentences are examples of the "what far-split" (cf., e.g., Corver 1991 and references there) which is found in most of the Germanic languages except English. As we already saw in (27a), what for an egg in Danish has the same meaning as which egg, the main differences between the two being that the latter is more formal than the former. The interesting property of w/z-phrases of the what for an egg-type is that there are two ways of moving the w/z-element to CP-spec: Either the whole phrase is moved, as in (29a), or only what is moved leaving for an egg behind, as in (29b) (hence the name "what far-split"):

The meaning of the two is roughly the same, and they are both more or less acceptable. The only difference is that (29b) is even more colloquial than (29a). Consider now the same two sentences with a negation added:

Although it may not be completely clear how the trace in (30b) would be properly head governed (by V°?), it is clear that it is properly head governed, because (29b) is well-formed. Again, binding and its dependence on referential indices gives us a distinction between (30a) and (30b). The trace in (30a) has a referential index: It is the object and receives a referential theta-role. The trace of what in (30b), on the other hand, presumably does not receive a theta-role at all, and thus cannot have a referential index (it is not the object, but only part of the object). Therefore it cannot be bound, which means that it must be connected to its antecedent through antecedent government. Given the assumptions from the discussion above, that the negation is an A-bar-element in TP spec, we would predict this to fail when there is a negation in the sentence. This is supported by the contrast (29b) vs. (30b). The situation would seem to be the same in German: If the whole phrase is extracted across a negation, the result is well-formed, and if only what is extracted, the sentence is ill-formed:

Relativised Minimality

23

This is exactly like Danish, but a complication arises in that the following is much less severely ill-formed than (31b):

Assuming the existence of scrambling (cf., e.g., Grewendorf & Sternefeld 1990, Vikner forthcoming, and references cited there), one would expect two things to have taken place here: First the whole phrase must have scrambled out of the VP and adjoined to TP. Then what must have moved on from there to CP-spec.5 The extraction of what thus does not have to cross the negation, hence it is not severely ill-formed. The relative ill-formedness could then be due to something entirely different—namely, a prohibition on scrambling w/i-phrases.6 After the what far-split, which behaved as expected, given the framework as outlined, let us now consider some possible modifications of the framework. Cinque (1990b:8-20), adapting the suggestions of Pesetsky (1987) about D(iscourse)-linking, suggests that receiving a referential theta-role does not guarantee that the moved element has a referential interpretation ("is discourse-linked", in Pesetsky's terms). Thus certain w/z-elements, e.g., "bare w/z-operators like who, what, or how many N' can do so only quite marginally" (Cinque 1990b: 16). In other words, Cinque (1990b) would predict that if we replace hvadfor et teg/welches Ei 'which egg' in (27a) and (28a) by hvad/was 'what' or by hvor mange ceglwie viele Eier 'how many eggs' we should get a serious degradation: The latter w/j-elements are not referential, and thus should not be able to make use of binding as a means of establishing the link between the trace and the antecedent. This would leave only antecedent government, which is impossible in (27) and (28). It is important to note that though these replacements do have a certain decrease in acceptability as a result, they are still far better than the impossible adverbial extractions, (27b) and (28b). In fact, I find much more striking the differences obtained in what might be con-

5. One might ask how the trace would be properly head governed in (32). Although I cannot answer this satisfactorily, it is clear from the well-formedness of (i) that the "?" status of (32) is not related to proper head government:

6. See, for example, Grewendorf & Sternefeld (1990:14), and for an analysis of this fact compatible with relativised minimality, cf. Rizzi (1991b:10). It has to be admitted that, whereas (32) is merely scrambling past a VP-adjoined adverbial, their examples, along with most other examples that I know of which are cited in support of the assumption that w/i-phrases cannot be scrambled, are examples of scrambling past the subject.

24

Preliminaries

sidered the reverse of the case discussed by Cinque (1990b) and Pesetsky (1987): Whereas they were concerned with elements which should be referential but actually behaved as if they were not, the following examples are concerned with extraction of adverbials, which should not be referential (as their theta-role is not referential; see the discussion in 2.2.2), but which behave as if they were referential. Consider the following examples, and their multiple readings:7 (33) Da. a.

b.

c.

Marie blev ikke fyret af den grund Marie was not fired for this reason

(ambiguous)

Hvorfor blev Marie ikke fyret? Why was Marie not fired?

(unambiguous)

Derfor blev Marie ikke fyret Therefore was Marie not fired

(ambiguous)

Example (33a) has two readings: therefore may either refer to the reason for Marie's not being fired (e.g., she was not fired because she is related to the managing director) or to a reason which was not the reason for Marie's being fired (e.g., she was not fired for always being late but perhaps for leaking information to the media). Rizzi (1990a:16) suggests that the two readings correspond to two different structures, one in which therefore is not c-commanded by the negation (the reason for Marie's not being fired) and one in which it is c-commanded by the negation (the invalid reason for Marie's being fired). Example (33b) then theoretically has two derivations, too: Either the trace of why is c-commanded by the negation or it is not. If the trace is c-commanded by negation, the question would be for a reason which is not the reason for Marie's firing, and if the trace is not c-ommanded by negation, the question is for the reason why the firing did not take place. The first of these two readings is not possible; example (33b) can only be a question for the reason why the firing did not take place. In other words, the trace of why is not c-commanded by the negation. This is exactly what we would expect: If it were c-commanded by negation, negation would block antecedent government of the trace, thus forcing the trace-antecedent link to take place via binding. Binding, however, is not possible, as the adverbial does not receive a referential theta-role, and so this reading is excluded. The other reading is not affected by this, as in this reading the negation does not c-command the trace, and thus cannot interfere with the antecedent government of the trace by why. The problem only arises when considering (33c). Here both readings are possible, even though the reading where the question is for an invalid reason for the firing should be excluded, as it requires the trace to be c-commanded by the negation. This again would exclude antecedent government of the trace by therefore, leaving only binding as a means of establishing the link trace-antecedent. As the link clearly is established (the example does have both readings), binding must be possi-

7. The relevant facts are parallel in German: ) Ge. a. b.

Warum wurde Maria nicht gekiindigt? Why was Maria not fired ?

(unambiguous)

Deshalb wurde Maria nicht gekiindigt Therefore was Maria not fired

(ambiguous}

Relativised Minimality

25

ble. This would fit in with the contrast with (33b): Why is less referential than therefore. It remains an open question how referentiality can play a role in the absence of a referential theta-role.8 In this section, we have seen how two constraints on movement work: The trace must be properly head governed, and the trace must be connected with its antecedent (eig or by antecedent government). The third constraint discussed in section 2.2.2, subjacency, was not relevant here, as all the examples were movements within the same clause.

2.3 A-movement Now we turn to A-movement and to the interaction (or rather lack of interaction) between the two kinds of movements, A-bar- and A-. Consider first the following two examples of A-movement. Sentence (34b) is an example of what Chomsky (1986a:18) calls "super-raising":9

8. Rizzi (1990a:127, n. 10) discusses a related case, brought up by Peter Coopmans:
En.

(ii) En.

why do you wonder whether he was fired t? For what reasons do you wonder whether he was fired t?

Rizzi (1990a:127, n. 10): "For some speakers (ii) in the relevant interpretation is somewhat less deviant than (i)". The relevant interpretation in both cases is the one as a question for a reason of the firing (the alternative reading is of course possible in both: As a question for the reason of the wondering). Rizzi then goes on to notice that inside the extracted element in (ii),for what reason, a referential theta-role (theme) is assigned to the NP what reason, which thus may also have a referential index; and he suggests that this referential index may percolate from the NP to the prepositional phrase (PP). Rizzi (1990a:127, n. 10): "This can marginally allow a binding connection to be established". There are three reasons why I do not find this satisfactory w.r.t. the Danish and German facts in (33c) and the related footnote: One is that, unlike (ii) above, the relevant interpretation of (33c) and the corresponding example in German are not just "somewhat less deviant", but perfectly acceptable. Second, as opposed to the judgments on English, these judgments are the same for all speakers consulted, not just some of them. The third reason is that it is far from obvious that theta-role assignment takes place inside derforldeshalb, "therefore". Furthermore, if it did, then one would also assume theta-role assignment to take place inside the wA-versions of these expressions, hvorforlwarum, "wherefore", which have a parallel morphological construction. 9. The facts are parallel in English:

and presumably they would be the same in German, too, only it is difficult to find any raising predicates different from scheinen, 'seem' and sentences like Peter seems to seem to win or Who did it seem that it seemed that the committee had chosen would be ill-formed in any language for pragmatic reasons.

26 (34) Da.

Preliminaries Marie forstod

ikke hvorfor ...

1

In (34a), both traces are properly head governed from outside their own IP, by, respectively, the preposition (P°) til 'to' and the verb (V°) vise 'show'. As for the connection trace-antecedent, both traces may be connected to their antecedent by binding (they receive a referential theta-role) and also by antecedent government (neither trace is separated from its antecedent by an A element in a specifier position). In (34b), the trace is properly head governed, by vise in the matrix clause, just like the rightmost trace in (34a). One would also expect the trace in (34b) to be connected to its antecedent: Even if it is not antecedent governed (it is separated from its antecedent by an A-element in a specifier position—viz., det 'it'), it should be possible to establish the connection via binding, as the trace receives a referential theta-role. Nevertheless, the sentence is completely unacceptable.10 Rizzi (1990a:93) accounts for this by suggesting a modification of the theta-criterion, which will only affect A-movement: It is written into the theta-criterion that each theta-role must be assigned not to a position but to a chain, as in (35), and in a chain each link must antecedent govern the next link, as in (36): (35) Theta-criterion: (Rizzi (1990a:93, ( 4 3 ) ) (i) Each Theta-position belongs to a chain which contains exactly one argument, (ii) Each argument belongs to a chain which contains exactly one Theta-position. (36) Cbainj. Rizzi (1990a: 92, (39)) "(a-p . , an) is a chain only if, for 1 £ i < n, a^ antecedent governs a^+ ^ "

The reason this applies to A-movement but not to A-bar-movement is that A-movement relates arguments to thematic positions, whereas A-bar-movement relates operators to thematic positions. Note that A-movement is motivated by case (both in raising and in passivisation, the NP moves to get case), whereas the XP in wh10. Example (34b) is different from the following, which is an A-bar-movement all the way through:

Relativised Minimality

27

movement moves for a completely different reason (in Rizzi 1991b the motivation is the w/i-criterion, which is a constraint on operators). Thus antecedent government is required of chains, and chains are necessary for elements that have undergone A-movement (but not A-bar-movement), and so the binding option for connecting a trace with its antecedent is no longer sufficient. The result is that antecedent government is always required of traces of Amovement, whether or not the moved element has a referential index. Definitions (35) and (36) may thus be seen as a motivation of Chomsky's (1986a:77) suggestion that A-traces must be antecedent governed. The most generally accepted A-specifier is IP-spec, and thus we now have an account for why raising and passivisation cannot take place across a subject.11 After discussing the mechanics of A-movement, let us now turn to the possible influence that A-elements can have on A-bar-movement or that A-bar-elements can have on A-movement. What makes relativised minimality "relativised" is that it depends on the kind of movement which elements can induce minimality effects: Only A-elements can interfere with A-movement, and only A-bar-elements can interfere with A-bar-movement. It is clear that even the w/i-movements which require antecedent government (the ones for which binding is not available as a means for connecting a trace with its antecedent, i.e., adverbial extractions) are not blocked by an intervening subject. Consider any well-formed adverbial extraction in sections 2.2.2 or 2.2.3. In every case, the extracted adverbial c-commands the subject, and the subject c-commands the trace, and yet the extraction is well-formed. The same of course goes for the well-formed instances of subject or object extraction, but this is less relevant, as binding is a possibility for the connection trace-antecedent, and antecedent government is not necessary (relativised minimality is a constraint on antecedent government, and on proper head government, not on binding). It cannot be shown that an A-movement can cross a w/z-element in CP-spec, as the construction would be ruled out for independent reasons: If the w/i-element is in CP-spec of the clause of the extracted subject, then the trace in IP-spec will not be properly head governed (but see the discussion of (25a) in section 2.2.2): (37) En. a. *Marie was wondered when t to leave

If the wft-element is in CP-spec of a different clause from the one of the extracted subject, then the subject of the clause introduced by the w/z-element will block antecedent government of the trace by its antecedent (this is an A-element, and so it is expected to interfere with A-movement): (38) En. a. *Marie was wondered when Peter thought t to leave

11. Another possible A-specifier is the indirect object, and the possibility of A-movement across an indirect object is discussed in Vikner (1989).

28

Preliminaries

Furthermore, (37b) and (38b) are ruled out for case reasons, as Marie would get more than one case. In Danish, and German, the w/z-infinitive as in (37a) and (38a) are ruled out independently (cf. the references mentioned in section 2.2.2), and the translations of (37b) and (38b) have exactly the same problems as their English counterparts. More interestingly, it can be shown that A-movement can take place out of a negative island. Consider first the following negative island (see also section 2.2.3):

Example (39b) clearly shows it to be an island. Consider now the same construction, but instead of having an A bar-movement across the negation, the movement is now into an A position:

Even though both the trace in (39b) and the one in (40b) have to be antecedent governed, this only has fatal consequences in (39b), where the negation blocks an Abar-movement, and not in (40b), where the negation cannot block an A-movement. In this section, I have tried to illustrate that A-movement requires antecedent government of all the traces it leaves behind, and also that A-movement and A-barmovement cannot interfere with each other, as predicted by the "relativised" part of relativised minimality.

2.4

X°-movement

The third kind of syntactic movement discussed by relativised minimality (and by generative syntax in general) is of a rather different kind: X°-movement (head movement). In the following chapters, the only moving X°s that I will be concerned with are V° and 1° (or V° and T° and Agr°), as these are the main X°s that may be moved in the Germanic languages. For a discussion of head movement in general, including movements of nouns and prepositions, I refer the reader to Baker (1988). Consider the following examples of movements of a verb to 1° (see also chapter 5):

Relativised Minimality

29

In (41a), the verb that moves into 1° is the auxiliary verb have, whereas in (41b), it is the main verb sleep, which must have moved across have on its way to 1°. All traces are properly head governed, by 1° (or rather by T°) in (4la), and by the V° of have in (41b): According to (2), proper head governors include V°, Agr°, and T°.12 The differences in grarnmaticality must therefore be related to the obligatory connection between the trace and its antecedent. As heads never have theta-roles, and therefore cannot have referential indices, the only means for establishing the connection between the trace and the antecedent is antecedent government. The trace in (4la) is antecedent governed: The antecedent is coindexed with its trace, it c-commands its trace, and it is not separated from its trace by any barrier or by any typical potential antecedent governor of the same kind (i.e., in an X° position). The trace in (41b), on the other hand, is separated from its antecedent by a typical potential antecedent governor in an X° position: the auxiliary verb have. In this way, the relativised minimality framework captures the insight otherwise known as the head movement constraint, first formulated by Travis (1984): (42) The Head Movement Constraint: An X° may only move into the Y° which properly governs it (Travis 1984:131, cited from Baker 1988:53)

As X°s cannot have referential indices, traces of X°s must be linked to their antecedents by antecedent government, and by the reference to relativised minimality in the antecedent government definition, the antecedent cannot be further away than the first c-commanding X°. For independent reasons, only auxiliary verbs, including do, may move to 1° (Agr°) in English (cf. Pollock 1989, Chomsky 1991, and section 5.4 this volume). In Danish, movement to 1° (Agr°) is even more restricted, but in a different way: No verbs ever actually occur in 1° (Agr° or T°), but all verbs on the other hand may move through 1° (Agr° and T°) on their way to C°. This means that the evidence from English as discussed earlier may be replicated for Danish, but only in a sentence where the verb has moved on to C° (as in all main clauses; see chapter 3):13

12. The movements in (41) would have the following form if translated into a model where I" is split up into Agr° and T°, see Pollock (1989), Belletti (1990), and Chomsky (1991):

13. Again, the movements in (43) are only illustrated as V°-to-I°-to-C°, rather than V°-to-T°-toAgr°-to-C°. They should have been illustrated as follows, except that (43b) only contains one VP, not two:

30

Preliminaries

As in (41), all traces are properly head governed, by 1° (i.e., by T°) in (43a,b), and by the V° of have in (43c). Furthermore, the only means for establishing the connection between the trace and the antecedent is antecedent government. The traces in (43a,b) are antecedent governed: The antecedent is coindexed with its trace, it c-commands its trace, and it is not separated from its trace by any barrier or by any typical potential antecedent governor of the same kind (i.e., in an X°-position). The trace in (43c), on the other hand, is separated from its antecedent by a typical potential antecedent governor in an X°-position: the auxiliary verb have. As for German, it is not obvious whether there is V°-to-I° movement in the cases where the verb does not move to C° (see section 5.2). In the cases where the verb does move to C°, the evidence is exactly parallel to the Danish (43), modulo the final heads in VP and IP:

In (44c), the trace in V° is not antecedent governed by its antecedent (the trace in 1°), as the auxiliary haben is blocking this. We now turn to I°-to-C° movement (or Agr°-to-C° movement). As already mentioned, this movement takes place in all main clauses in Danish and German— this is what is called verb second (see chapter 3). In English, this movement takes place in all main questions, as well as in negative topicalisations (see section 3.4).

Relativised Minimality

31

Consider first Danish:

In (45a), there is I°-to-C° movement, as V° has moved to 1° and then on to C°. In (45b,c,d), even though there is movement to C°, there is no I°-to-C° movement: In (45b,c) V° moves directly to C° without moving through 1°, and in 45d) the lower V° moves directly to C°, across both the higher V° and 1°. Notice that in (43) the focus was on the movement into 1°, and 1° itself always moved to C°, and therefore the verb in C° was always finite. In (45), 1° is skipped on the way to C°, and this can be seen from the fact that the verb in C° is not finite in (45b,c,d).14 As discussed earlier, all traces are properly head governed by the appropriate next higher X° (but see Rizzi 1990a:118, fn 8 on the fact that C° properly head governs a trace in 1°). Also as discussed, the only means for establishing the connection between the trace and the antecedent is antecedent government. The traces in (45a) are antecedent governed: The antecedent is coindexed with its trace, it c-commands its trace, and it is not separated from its trace by any barrier or by any typical potential antecedent governor of the same kind (i.e., in an X°position). The traces in (45b,c,d), on the other hand, are all separated from their antecedent by a typical potential antecedent governor in an X°-position: in (45b,c) 1°, and in (45d) both 1° and the higher V0.15

14. In (45), three different things happen to the inflectional ending in 1°: It is picked up by the verb which is on its way to C°, (45a), or it is left in 1°, (45b), or it is moved downwards to V, (45c,d). This downwards movement, which allows the tensed verb in Danish to stay in V° unless it moves to C°, is discussed in sections 3.5 and 5.4. 15. Again, the movements in (45) are only illustrated as V°-to-I°-to-C°, rather than V°-to-T°-toAgr°-to-C°. Possible analyses of) are given below:

32

Preliminaries

Again, the evidence from German is exactly parallel to the Danish (45) modulo the final heads in VP and IP and the assumption that German has V°-to-I° movement:

In (46b,c,d), 1° is blocking the antecedent government of the trace in V° from C°. In (46d) this is furthermore blocked by the higher V°. Let us finally turn to English, which is complicated in that it makes a difference whether the finite verb is an auxiliary. Consider first an example with the auxiliary has:

Assuming, as I have been doing so far, that C° may properly head govern 1° (see Rizzi 1990a:118, fn 8), all traces are properly head governed. As binding is excluded, the trace must be connected to its antecedent by antecedent government. Only in (47a) is this not blocked. In (47b,c,d) 1° blocks antecedent government of V° by C°, and in (47d) the higher V° also blocks antecedent government of the lower V° by C°. The data with a lexical verb as the finite verb are pretty parallel, except that, as mentioned, finite verbs may not move to 1°, and do must therefore be inserted in 1°:

Relativised Minimality

33

These examples thus demonstrate the need for two additional independent requirements: that a lexical verb cannot move to 1° (nor through 1° to C°), ruling out (48a), and that the inflectional ending in 1° must merge with something else, ruling out (48b). The formal requirements on proper head government and the trace-antecedent connection only rule out (48d,e): All traces in (48) are properly head governed. The traces must furthermore be connected to their antecedents by antecedent government. This is blocked in (48d,e) by 1°, but not in (48a,b,c). In this section I have tried to show how the relativised minimality framework both captures the constraints on X°-movement and subsumes the head movement constraint. X°-movement, i.e., V°- and I°-movement, and the language particular variations within the Germanic languages are the main topics of chapters 3-5. As in section 2.3,1 conclude this section by showing the (almost trivial) independence between X°-movement and the other kinds of movement predicted by the framework. X°-movement can freely take place across A-bar-elements (e.g., across a negation) and A-elements (e.g., across a subject):

A-bar-movement and A-movement can also freely take place across any kind of X°. In (50) both XP-movements cross V° and 1° of the main clause, and the A-barmovement also crosses the main C° and the embedded V°:

2.5

Restrictions on movement

This section summarises the effects of the constraints of the relativised minimality framework for the individual types of movements, as discussed in 2.2-2.4:

34

Preliminaries

Moving an object Moving an XP which has a referential index and which is properly head governed: A'-movement: (Rizzi 1990a:87) extraction: possible, as it is properly head governed. connection antecedent-trace: through binding or through antecedent government. A-movement: (Rizzi 1990a:93-94) extraction: possible, as it is properly head governed, connection antecedent-trace: only through antecedent government, as the theta-role must be assigned to a chain which contains the argument, and chains must have antecedent government from link to link. X°-movement: not applicable.

Moving a subject Moving an XP which has a referential index but which is not properly head governed (because it is not c-commanded by a proper head governor): A'-movement: (Rizzi 1990a:60-61, 88) extraction: not possible, as it is not properly head governed. This can be circumvented in at least three ways: 1. If something properly governs IP-spec, e.g., if C° contains agreement. (Rizzi 1990a:51-61) 2. If there is no trace left because of a resumptive pronoun. (Rizzi 1990a:61-62) 3. If the subject is extracted from a different position (which is properly head governed, e.g., VP-adjoined), and the IP spec position contains a small pro. (Rizzi 1990a:62-65, 88) connection antecedent-trace: through binding or through antecedent government. (Rizzi 1990a:87) A-movement: (Rizzi 1990a:60-61, 88) extraction: not possible, as it is not properly head governed. This can be circumvented in at least three ways: 1. If something properly governs IP-spec, e.g., if IP is selected as in raising constructions, or if C° contains agreement. (Rizzi 1990a:51-61) 2. If there is no trace left because of a resumptive pronoun. (Rizzi 1990a:61-62) 3. If the subject is extracted from a different position (which is properly head governed, e.g., VP-adjoined), and the IP spec position contains a small pro. (Rizzi 1990a:62-65, 88) connection antecedent-trace: only through antecedent government, as the theta-role must be assigned to a chain which contains the argument,

Relativised Minimality

35

and chains must have antecedent government from link to link. (Rizzi 1990a:93-94) X°-movement: not applicable. Moving an adjunct Moving an XP which has no referential index (because it has no referential thematic role) and which is properly head governed. (Rizzi 1990a:46-51): A'-movement: (Rizzi 1990a:86-92) extraction: possible, as it is properly head governed. connection antecedent-trace: only through antecedent government, as it has no index, so binding cannot take place. A-movement: not applicable. X°-movement: not applicable. Moving a head Moving an X° element which has no referential index and which is properly head governed: A'-movement: not applicable. A-movement: not applicable. X°-movement: (Rizzi 1990a:ll) extraction: possible, as it is properly head governed. (Rizzi 1990a:38) connection antecedent-trace: only through antecedent government, as it has no indices, so binding cannot take place. (Rizzi 1990a:86-92)

This page intentionally left blank

II VERB MOVEMENT

This page intentionally left blank

3 Verb Second

In this and the following two chapters, two types of finite verb movements are discussed: verb second and V°-to-I° movement. Verb second (V2) is the movement of the finite verb to the second position of the clause, as seen, for example, in questions in all the Germanic languages, (1), and in other main clauses in all the Germanic languages except English, (2) and (3). The finite verb follows the first constituent, whatever this constituent is:

All of the Germanic languages, except English, are V2 languages. English and also French are what Rizzi (1990b, 1991b) calls "residual V2 languages," as they have V2 in questions, (la) (see section 3.3.2). I will take V2 to be movement from V° through F to C° (see section 3.2 and references cited there):1

1. The tree in (4) would have to undergo two changes to illustrate the sentence structure in SOV (subject-object-verb) languages such as Afrikaans, Dutch, Frisian, and German: VP should precede 1° rather than follow it, and the complement of V° should precede V° rather than follow it. As it stands, the tree is only adequate for SVO (subject-verb-object) languages—that is, the other Germanic languages (English, Yiddish, and the Scandinavian languages) and the Romance languages.

39

40

Verb Movement

Whereas V2 is movement of the verb to a position immediately left of the canonical position of the subject (thus in many cases movement across the subject), V°-to F-movement is the movement of the finite verb to a position immediately right of the canonical position of the subject. This position is 1°, that is, the position where the verbal inflection is base generated:2

As V2 is V°-to-P-to-C° movement, it will disguise or hide the effects of V°-to-P movement; that is, it is impossible to tell if the verb would have moved from V° to 1° and stayed there if V2 had not applied. To establish whether a language has V°to-I° movement, it is therefore necessary to examine clauses without V2; thus, in the V2 languages we have to consider particular kinds of embedded clauses. Descriptively, the two possibilities here are that the finite verb either precedes or follows a sentence-medial adverbial or negation (i.e., an adverbial or negation which follows the subject but precedes the complement of the verb), as demonstrated for French and English by Emonds (1978) and Pollock (1989). Taking the adverbial or the negation to be left-adjoined to VP, the order finite verb-adverbial indicates that V°-to-P movement has taken place, as in (6), and the order adverbial-verb indicates that V°-to-I° movement has not taken place, as in (7):

2. In an analysis where Agr° and T° has replaced 1° (cf. the footnotes in section 2.4), what I here refer to as "V°-to-P movement" should be interpreted as V°-to-T°-to-Agr° movement. The replacement of one node (1°) by two nodes (Agr° and T°) yields another possible landing site for verb movement: It is now possible that V° moves to T° and no further (which may be the case in English or Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish). This however will not be relevant in the rest of the discussion here. What is called V°-to-I° movement in the text would be V°-to-T°-to-Agr° movement in a framework with T° and Agr°.

Verb Second

41

(7) a. En. I do not think that Peter often eats tomatoes b. Da. Jeg tror ikke at Peter ofte sniser tomater c. Fr. *Je ne crois pas que Pierre souvent mange des tomates

Danish, English, Faroese, Norwegian, and Swedish do not have V°-to-I° movement. Icelandic and Yiddish have V°-to-F movement, but they also have V2 in all embedded clauses (except embedded questions; see sections 4.1.4 and 5.2), and it is therefore not easy to find an example with the verb in 1° (see chapter 4). It is difficult to determine whether German, Dutch, and Frisian have V°-to-I° movement (see section 5.5), as it depends on whether 1° in those languages precedes or follows VP (I will assume the latter, as can be seen, for example, in the tree in (9c)). Therefore French, even though it is not a V2 language, is the only example here of a language with V°-to-I° movement. Chapter 3 discusses the standard cases of V2—i.e., V2 in main clauses. Chapter 4 extends this analysis to cases of V2 in embedded clauses, including V2 in embedded clauses with a complementiser. Chapter 5 deals with V°-to-I° movement and also contains some general reflections on the interaction of the two kinds of finite verb movement and on the historical transition from one system to another.

3.1

Introduction

As further illustrations of the difference between the two kinds of finite verb movement (V2 and V°-to-I° movement), consider the following examples. Though they may seem to have exactly the same structure, this is merely a phonetic illusion: (8)

Sub-iect a. En. The children b. Da. B0rnene c. Ge. Die Kinder

Verb saw sa sahen

Object the film filmen den Film

I shall argue that the three examples have three different analyses, as illustrated by the following structures:

42

Verb Movement

The differences are verb-object order vs. object-verb order, F-VP vs. VP-F order, and V2 vs. absence of V2. English and Danish are verb-object (and F-VP), whereas German is objectverb (and VP-F). Consider the relative position of the object and the main verb: (10) a. En. b. Da. c. Ge.

... that ... at ... dafi

the children have b0rnene har die Kinder

seen set

the film filmen den Film

aesehen haben

Danish and German have V2, as opposed to English, where topicalisation does not cause the verb to move to the left of the subject: (11) a. b. c. d.

En. This En. *This Da. Denne Ge. Diesen

film film have film har Film haben

(12) a. b. c. d.

En. Yesterday En. 'Yesterday saw Da. I gar sA Ge. Gestern sahen

the children have seen the children seen barnene set die Kinder gesehen

the children saw the film the children the film b0rnene filmen die Kinder den Film

This is not to say that English has no V2 at all. The difference is rather that all the other Germanic languages have "general V2", whereas English has "residual V2". Residual V2 is a restricted kind of V2 that occurs only in questions and in constructions with topicalised negative elements, as discussed in section 3.3.2.

3.2

Verb second—movement of the finite verb into C°

I follow most of the generative literature on V2, going back to den Besten (1977) and Thiersch (1978), and including, e.g., Holmberg (1986), Platzack (1986a,b), Taraldsen (1986), and Tomaselli (1990a,c) in assuming that the finite verb (in sentences with no complementiser) occurs in the position, C°, in which the complementiser would otherwise have occurred. If one assumes Chomsky's (1986a) extension of the X-bar system to include the heads C° and 1° and their maximal projections complementiser phrase (CP) and inflection phrase (IP), it is possible to account for at least some of the properties of V2. These include that there are only two positions (a maximal projection and the finite verb) in front of the subject, that these two elements differ in projection level, and that their order is the XP before the X° rather than the other way around. These properties follow from the structure of CP, which again follows the X-bar schema:

43

Verb Second

[CP Specifier [c. C° Complement]]. The very straightforward explanation that these properties receive thus turn into one kind of a supporting argument for this analysis ofV2. The basic assumption that V2 is movement of the finite verb into the position, C°, otherwise occupied by the complementiser is based on various kinds of evidence. One kind consists of examples which simply show that both the verb (in verb second position) and the complementiser (in most embedded clauses) occupy the position immediately left of the subject: (13) Ge. a. b.

Er sagt, He says

(14) Da. a. b.

Han siger He

(15) En. a. b.

da& Diesen Film haben that This film have

says

at Denne film har that This film have

He says Only this film

that have

die die the the

Kinder diesen Film gesehen haben Kinder gesehen children this film seen have children seen

b0rnene har barnene children-the have children-the

set denne film set seen this film seen

the children have not seen this film before the children not seen before

Another kind of supporting evidence comes from conditional clauses, where two versions are in free variation, one with a complementiser, (16), and one with a verb in front of the subject, (17): (16) a. Ge. b. Da. c. En.

Wenn Hvis If

ich mehr Zeit gehabt hatte, ... jeg havde haft mere tid, ... I had had more time, . , .

(17) a. Ge. b. Da. c. En.

Hatte ich Havde jeg Had I

mehr Zeit gehabt, ... haft mere tid, ... had more time, ...

. . . hatte ich mehr Bucher gelesen . . . villa jeg have Isest flere bsger ... I would have read more books

Furthermore, if the position of the complementiser in (16) and the position of the finite verb in (17) are the same, i.e., C°, we can explain why the complementiser and the finite verb cannot both precede the subject: There is simply not room for more than one element. (18) a. Ge. *Wenn hatte ich mehr Zeit gehabt, b. Da. *Hvis havde jeg haft mere tid, ... c. En. *If had I had more time, ...

...

(19) a. Ge. * Hatte wenn ich mehr Zeit gehabt, ... b. Da. * Havde tais. jeg haft mere tid, . . . c. En. »Had if I had more time, ...

The same point can be illustrated by means of embedded clauses of the as iftype. The complementiser has the same position, (20a) and (21a), as the finite verb does when the complementiser is absent, (20b) and (21b):

44

Verb Movement

(20) Ge.

Sie schaute ihn an, ... She looked him at ... a. b.

(21) Da.

... als ob er ein groSes Verbrechen begangen ... als hatte er ein groSes Verbrechen begangen ... as if/had he a biff crime committed

hatte (had)

Hun sa pa ham, ... She looked at him a. b.

... som om nan havde begaet ... som havde nan begaet ... as if/had he (had) committed

en stor forbrydelse en stor forbrydelse a big crime

Also here the assumption that the position of the complementiser in (20a) and (21a) and the position of the finite verb in (20b) and (21b) are the same, i.e., C°, enables us to explain why the complementiser and the finite verb cannot both precede the subject: (22) Ge. a. *... als ob hatte er ein groEes Verbrechen begangen b. *... als hatte ob er ein groSes Verbrechen begangen ... as if/had had/if he a big crime committed (23) Da. a. *... som om havde han begaet en stor forbrydelse b. *... som havde om han begaet en stor forbrydelse ... as if/had had/if he committted a big crime

Another set of data which has been claimed (e.g., by den Besten 1977, by Platzack 1986a:200, and by Holmberg 1986:97-98) to support the above analysis (of verb second as movement of the finite verb to C°) is one that shows that the distribution of pronominal subjects in Dutch or in Swedish, for example, is more limited than the distribution of full NP subjects. Whereas with full NP subjects, both the sequence complementiser-subject-adverbial and the sequence complementiser-adverbial-subject are possible, only the former is possible if the subject is a pronoun: (24) Du. a. ... dat ze gisteren ziek was b. *. . . dat aisteren ze ziek was . . . that (yesterday) she (yesterday) sick was c. d.

... dat Lise gisteren ziek was ... dat aisteren Lise ziek was that (yesterday) Lise (yesterday) sick was (from Platzack 1986a:200, (40), (41b))

An exactly parallel distribution is found when we examine main clauses, as exemplified here by yes/no-questions. When the subject is a full NP, both the sequence verb-subject-adverbial and the sequence verb-adverbial-subject are possible, but when the subject is a pronoun, only the former occurs: (25) Du. a. Was ze gisteren ziek? b. *Was aisteren ze ziek? Mas (yesterday) she (yesterday) sick? c. d.

Was Lise gisteren ziek? Was aisteren Lise ziek? Was (yesterday) Lise (yesterday) sick? (from Platzack 1986a:200, (39), (41a))

45

Verb Second

Assuming that both the complementiser in (24) and the finite verb in (25) are in C°, we can now make one generalisation cover both (24) and (25): An adjacency requirement holds between C° and pronominal subjects in Dutch. That this is true not just for Dutch but also for other V2 languages is shown by the fact that exactly parallel data are found in Swedish. In embedded clauses, (26), only non-pronominal subjects may be separated from the complementiser on their left, and in V2 structures, (27), only non-pronominal subjects may be separated from the verb on their left: (26) Sw. a. ... att han verkligen bar gjort det har b. *... att verkliaen han har gjort det har . . . that (really) he (really) has done this c. d.

... att Kalle verkligen har gjort det har ... att verkliaen Kalle har gjort det har . . . that (really) Kalle (really) has done this

(27) Sw. a. Har han verkligen gjort det har? b. *Har verkliaen han gjort det har? Has (really) he (really) done this ? c. d.

Har Kalle verkligen gjort det har? Har verkliaen Kalle gjort det har? Has (really) Kalle (really) done this ? (adapted from Platzack 1986b:45,(44a))

Finite verbs and complementisers are not the only elements that may occur in C° in main clauses (i.e., left of the subject). This is also possible for the Swedish adverbial kanske 'maybe' (cf. Platzack 1986a:200, and Holmberg 1986:100) and the Danish adverbial man, which roughly means "I wonder".3 When these elements occur, the finite verb is not able to precede the subject, (28d) and (29d), as C° is already filled. This is thus parallel to the situation just discussed where the verb could not precede the subject when the complementiser if was present, and it supports the analysis that when the finite verb precedes the subject, it occurs in the same position as the one otherwise occupied by wenn/hvis/if, ob/om, kanske, or man. The relevant examples are: (28) Sw. a.

Lena Lena

kanske maybe

b.

Igar kanske Yesterday maybe

c.

Kanske Maybe

kopte en ny bok igar bought a new book yesterday Lena k6pte en ny bok Lena bought a new book Lena k6pte en ny bok igar Lena bought a new book yesterday

d. *Igar kanske kopte Lena Yesterday maybe bought Lena (29) Da. a. b.

Hvem Who

mon I-wonder

Hvilken film mon Which film I-wonder

en ny bok a new book har set filmen ? have seen film-the?

bffrnene har set ? children-the have seen?

3. As for the status of Danish mon, see also Vikner (1991:118-119) and references cited there; see Holmberg (1986:98-100) for the corresponding construction in Swedish.

46

Verb Movement c.

Mon I-wonder

barnene har set filmen ? children-the have seen film-the?

d. *Hvilken film mon har b0rnene Which film I-wonder have children-the

set ? seen?

In this section we saw a number of related phenomena, which all receive a unified explanation if it is assumed the position of the finite verb in a V2 clause is the same position as that normally occupied in embedded clauses by various types of complementisers.

3.3 3.3.1

Verb second variations

Position of medial adverbials and negation in Mainland Scandinavian

Consider (28c) and (29c) again, where the order is fawsfce/mon-subject-verb. How can we tell that kanskelmon are not adjoined to CP? To phrase this question more generally, when the subject immediately precedes the finite verb, how can we tell whether the subject is in CP-spec and the verb in C° (which would be a case of V2), or the subject in IP-spec and the verb in 1° or V° (which would not be V2)? In Danish, Faroese, Norwegian, and Swedish, these two situations can be told apart if we observe the positions of the negation and of medial adverbials (adverbials which occur neither sentence-initially nor sentence-finally, but between the subject and the verb complement—e.g., sentence adverbs), which all occur left of VP. In the Scandinavian languages, where there is no V°-to-I° movement (except in Icelandic) (see chapter 5), medial adverbials and negation occur after the subject (IPspec) but before the verb (V°): (30) Sw. a. Kanske Lena inte b. *Kanske Lena kopte inte Maybe Lena (bought) not

kopte

en ny bok igar en ny bok igar (bought) a new book yesterday

(31) Da. a. Mon barnene ikke har set filmen ? b. *Mon barnene har ikke set filmen ? I-wonder children-the (have) not (have) seen film-the?

In other words, in Danish, Faroese, Norwegian, and Swedish, one can always tell whether verb second (i.e., V°-to-P-to-C° movement) has taken place if there is a medial adverbial or a negation. Compare normal embedded order, (32a) and (33a) to subject initial V2, (32c) and (33c). The only difference is the presence of the complementiser and the relative position of the adverbial and the finite verb. In cases of embedded V2,4 the presence of the complementiser may not be any indication, and the relative position of the adverbial and the finite verb is then the only difference between V2 and non-V2, compare (32f) and (33f) to (32g) and (33g): 4. Embedded V2 will be discussed in more detail in chapter 4. Suffice it to say here that (with the exception of Icelandic and Yiddish) it only occurs with certain verbs ("bridge verbs"), e.g., know, say, believe, think (see section 4.1.3).

Verb Second CPsp (32) Da. a. b. c. d. e.

f. g. h.

£° at Har Peter har Kaffe har Om morgenen har — —

Vi Vi Vi We

(C°) ved ved at ved at know that

IPsp Adv VI Peter ofte har Peter ofte ofte Peter ofte Peter ofte Peter often has

CPBP Peter om morgenen —

CPsp

(33) Da. a. b. c. d. e.

f. g. h.

C± at Drikker Peter drikker Kaffe drikker Om morgenen drikker — —

Vi Vi Vi We

(C°) ved ved at ved at know that

£1 at har har has

47

yi drukket drukket drukket drukket drukket drunk

Peter om morgenen -

£1 at drikker drikker —

om om om om

morgenen morgenen? morgenen morgenen

kaffe coffee in morning-the

IPBP Adv 3CL Peter ofte har ofte Peter ofte Peter often —

IPap Adv y± Peter ofte drikker Peter ofte ofte Peter ofte Peter ofte Peter often drinks

CPBP

HP kaffe kaffe kaffe

jj£ kaffe kaffe kaffe

VI drukket drukket drukket drunk

om om om om

HPkaffe ... kaffe ... kaffe coffee

morgenen morgenen? morgenen morgenen

kaffe coffee in morning-the

IPBP Adv yi Peter ofte drikker ofte Peter ofte Peter often

HE kaffe ... kaffe . . . kaffe coffee

Of course, in the case of embedded V2 where CP-spec is filled not by the subject but by something else, the position of the subject itself is also an indication of V2. Compare (32f) and (33f) to (32h) and (33h), where it is clear that only (32h) and (33h) are cases of V2 even if the adverbial is absent. This is not the case when (32f) and (33f) are compared to (32g) and (33g). In cases of embedded V2, the position of the negation or adverbial may be used, for example, to establish the position of the prepositional phrase (PP) which might appear to be a subject:5 (34) Da. a. *Vi ved at i den sena ikke har sovet nogen siden 1967 b. Vi ved at i den sena har ikke sovet nogen siden 1967 We know that in that bed (has) not (has) slept anyone since 1967

We can thus tell that the PP cannot appear in IP-spec, (34a), but only in CP-spec, (34b), as the verb must precede the negation. We know from this (and chapter 5) that the verb only precedes the negation or medial adverbial when it moves to C°. IP-spec must therefore be empty in (34), and could be analysed as containing either a trace of the PP (as argued by Falk 1987) or a non-referential pro. In Icelandic (and in Yiddish), there is no such indication whether V2 has taken place. The negation and the medial adverbials always follow the finite verb (which could be explained by V°-to-I° movement; see chapter 5): ( 3 5 ) Ic. a. Helgi hefur b. *Helgi Helgi (has)

truleaa keypt b6kina trulecra hefur keypt bokina probably (has) bought book-the

5. For the position of nogen 'somebody' in (34), see section 6.4.4.

48

Verb Movement c. J6n segir afl Helgi lieim. truleaa keypt b6kina d. *J6n segir afl Helgi truleaa Jiejur. keypt b6kina J6n says that Helgi (has) probably (has) bought book-the (based on Thriinsson 1986:171)

However, as it is impossible to find any situations (with the exception of embedded questions) where the embedded clause cannot have its CP-spec filled by something that is not the subject (a clear indication that V2 has taken place), it would appear that all embedded clauses (with the exception of embedded questions) in Icelandic and Yiddish are V2. In German, Afrikaans, Dutch, and Frisian, there is abundant indication as to whether or not V2 has taken place. As 1° and V° are both final, any content of VP makes it possible to distinguish between the two cases. If V2 has taken place, the finite verb precedes any other VP-material; if there is no V2, the verb comes at the end: (36) Ge. a. Die Kinder hafcfin diesen Film gesehen b. *Die Kinder diesen Film gesehen haben The children (have) this film seen (have) c. *Er sagt, daE d. Er sagt, da£ He says that

die Kinder listen diesen Film gesehen die Kinder diesen Film gesehen haben the children (have) this film seen (have)

In this section, it was shown that not only in the SOV V2 languages (Afrikaans, Dutch, Frisian, and German), but also in four of the SVO V2 languages (Danish, Faroese, Norwegian, and Swedish), it is possible to tell if V2 has taken place in a subject-initial sentence.

3.3.2

Residual V2 in English

As mentioned, it would be an overstatement to say that English has no V2 at all. Following Rizzi (1990b, 199Ib), one can distinguish between "residual V2", as in English (and in French), and "general V2", as in the rest of the Germanic languages. As we just saw, (11) and (12) in section 3.1, English does not have V2 in topicalisations in general, but V2 does exist in English in questions and in constructions with topicalised negative elements (the underlined verbs below occur in C°): (37) a. b. c. d.

En. *What En. What haY£ Da. Hvad iiaji Ge. Was haben

the children have seen ? the children seen ? b0rnene set ? die Kinder gesehen?

(38) a. b. c. d.

En. *Why En. Why tiaste Da. Hvorfor har. Ge. Warum haben

(39) a. b. c. d.

En. *Never En. Never hay£ Da. Aldrig har Ge. Nie haben gesehen

(40) a. b. c. d.

En. *Only in Switzerland En. Only in Switzerland could Da. Kun i Svejts kunne Ge. Nur in der Schweiz konnte

the children have seen the film ? the children seen the film ? b^rnene set filmen ? die Kinder den Film gesehen? the children have seen such a the children seen such a barnene set sadan en die Kinder so einen such such sadan so

bad bad darlig schlechten

a thing could happen a thing happen noget ske etwas geschehen

film film film Film

49

Verb Second

Rizzi (1990b) suggests that the cases of V2 which occur in residual V2 languages are caused by a different requirement from that which causes all main (and some embedded) clauses to have V2 in general V2 languages. To Rizzi, the reason for residual V2 is his adaptation of the w/z-criterion of May (1985:17): (41) The «h-erit«riBni (fromRizzi 1990b:378,(9), 1991b:2, (6)) i. Each [+wh] Xfe must be in a spec-X° agreement relation with a whoperator ii. Each wh operator must be in a spec-X° agreement relation with a [+wh] X°

Mi-operators are all w/i-elements in A-bar-positions. X°s with the feature [+wh] include 1°, note that in various languages the finite verb has special forms in questions different from the form in normal declarative sentences. Ha'ik (1990) cites examples from Kikuyu, Hausa, Moore, and Palauan. With these additional remarks, we can now see how (41i,ii) account for V2 in questions like (37) and (38): Not only is the w/j-phrase forced to move to CP-spec, but also C° has to acquire the feature [+wh]. This is achieved through V2, provided that V2, as discussed in section 3.2, is the movement of the finite verb into C°. As for the proposed negative elements in (39) and (40), Rizzi (1991b:ll) assumes a similar analysis—viz., that a negative element must be in a spec-X° agreement relation with an X° with a negative feature, [+neg]. The only way C° can acquire the feature [+neg] is through V2. Rizzi (1991b) thus assumes with Pollock (1989) that the finite verb moves through Neg° on its way to 1° (and to C°), and that it acquires the feature [+neg] in this way. In both residual and general V2 languages yes/no-questions are V2 structures:6 (42) a. En. b. Da. c. Ge.

Have you ever seen such a bad film ? Har du nogensinde set sadan en darlig film ? Hast du jemals so einen schlechten Film gesehen?

If these structures are taken to contain an empty initial w/i-element—a so-called "empty operator", an idea that goes back to Chomsky (1977; see also Chomsky 1986a:27 and Browning 1987)—they will be accounted for in a way completely parallel to that of constituent questions like (37) and (38). The [+wh] feature also plays an important part in explaining why there is no V2 (i.e., why C° cannot be filled by a lexical element) in embedded questions: (43) a. En. b. Da. c. Ge.

I don't know which film Jeg ved ikke hvilken film Ich weife nicht, welchen Film

(44) a. En. *I don't know b. Da. *Jeg ved ikke

ci

which film have hvilken film har

the children have seen barnene har set die Kinder gesehen haben the children bornene

c. Ge. *Ich weifi nicht, welchen Film haben die Kinder

seen set gesehen

6. These examples are V2 structures in the sense that the verb occurs in C°. Notice that I am using "V2" in this sense throughout: "V2" thus means that the verb occurs in C°. Hence there may be V2 constructions in which the finite verb is not the second element (e.g. yes/no-questions), and there may also be constructions in which the finite verb is the second element and which are nevertheless not V2 (e.g., most main and embedded clauses in English and French).

50

Verb Movement

In the system advocated in Rizzi (1990a,b, 1991b) and in Rizzi & Roberts (1989:18-20), V2 is excluded, because the embedded CP (and thus also C°) is selected by the matrix verb, know in (43) and (44). In other words, the embedded C° must contain the feature [+w/t]. The projection principle (see also section 6.4.4) then requires that this [+wh] feature be present at all syntactic levels (i.e., D(eep) structure, S(urface) structure, and LF). This would exclude the situation in (44), where C° is empty at one level and filled at another one (like all syntactic movements, V2 takes place after D-structure and before S-structure): At D-structure the subcategorisation requirement of the matrix verb would be satisfied by a [+wh] feature of the empty C°, and at S-structure it would be satisfied by a [+wh] feature of the finite verb in C°. In other words, the [+wh] feature of the empty C° would have been deleted between D-structure and S-structure, something which is not allowed.7 Notice that this account does not exclude the case in which C° is filled at all levels in an embedded question, because in this case nothing is deleted. In (45), the subcategorisation requirement of the matrix verb, know, is satisfied by the [+wh] feature of omlob 'if at all levels: (45) a. En. b. Da. c. Ge.

£1

I don't know if the children have seen this film Jeg ved ikke om bprnene har set denne film Ich weis nicht, ab. die Kinder diesen Film gesehen haben

The same analysis can be extended to those embedded questions which contain both a w/!-element in CP-spec and something in C°: ( 4 6 ) Du. Ik weet nie wat I

of

ze

meebrengen

know not what whether they along-bring

At no point in the derivation is anything moved into C°, and thus the feature specification of C° is the same at all levels, as opposed to (44) above. The content of C° in (46), of, is furthermore one which is normally taken to have a [+wh] feature, as it only occurs in embedded questions. This is far from always the case: In most examples of this type in the literature, the element in C° is that. These cases will be discussed in section 4.9. 7. It is not obvious how this could be extended to those relative clauses in which the first element is a w/i-element and where the facts are completely parallel —i.e., C° must be empty: £0

(i)

a. En. The man whose brother _ b. Da. Manden, hvis bror _ c. Ge . Der Mann, dessen Bruder _

I have just met jeg lige har truffet ich gerade getroffen habe

(ii)

a. *En. The man whose brother haire. I _ b. *Da. Manden, hvis bror liar. jeg c. *Ge. Der Mann, dessen Bruder Jiafefi ich

just lige _ gerade

met truffet getroffen

_

Here there is no reason why C° has to remain empty: In (43), movement into C° was impossible, because C° had to contain the [+wh] feature at D-structure, in order to satisfy the subcategorisation requirements of the matrix verb. In (i) however, the relative clause is not selected, and so C° will not have to contain the [+wh) feature at D-structure, but only at S-structure, where it must license whose brother, which moves into CP-spec (from the object position).

Verb Second

51

In this section we saw that V2 occurs in English under two specific circumstances: In questions (including yes/no-questions) and when a negative element is topicalised. We furthermore saw that these facts could be explained in terms of the wfc-criterion, which presupposes that C° may be able to acquire the feature [+w/i]. Finally, it was also shown that this feature makes an account possible of the impossibility of V2 in embedded questions.

3.4 Verb second explanations Now let us discuss six different analyses of (general) V2, which are all based on assumptions about the nature of the C° position: C° must acquire the feature [+V] (3.4.1), C° is the assignor of nominative case (3.4.2), C° must license VP (3.4.3), and in the last three, C° has some features which in non-V2 languages are only found in 1°—the feature [+F], finiteness (3.4.4), features of tense and agreement (3.4.5), or the feature [+1] (3.4.6). In 3.4.7,1 draw the conclusion that C° in the V2languages possesses a feature that causes V2.1 further argue that, although it would be preferable to pin down exactly which kind of C°-feature causes V2, this weaker conclusion is not uninteresting, because it still enables us to make a number of predictions. Furthermore, such a weak conclusion is more likely to be compatible with the results of future research than any strong conclusion made on insufficient grounds.8

3.4.1

C° must acquire the feature [+ V]

The following is mainly based on Holmberg (1986), but also on Taraldsen (1986), both of which make extensive use of suggestions made in Kayne (1982). In Holmberg (1986:141), the following "functional principles" are assumed:9 (47) a. The Predicate Principle: A predicate must be [+VJ b. The Argument Principle: An argument must be [-V] c. The Modifier Principle: A modifier must be [%V] ([%V] means neutral, neither [+V] nor [-V])

It is also assumed that the inherent [±V] specifications of lexical items have the following distributions (Holmberg 1986:70-71): (48) a. b. c.

[+V]: verbs (transitive, intransitive, and auxiliary verbs) [-V]: determiners, proper nouns, and complementisers [%V]: nouns, adjectives, adverbials, prepositions

Holmberg (1986:60) assumes that it is (the lexical content of) X° which determines the features of XP, with the addition that if X° is specified [%¥], the feature [+F] or [-F] may percolate up to XP from the complement of X°. The features of a 8. As for arguments against the so-called "ECP-approach" of Travis (1984,1991) and also against the related analysis in Zwart (1991) the reader is referred to Schwartz & Vikner (1989) and Vikner & Schwartz (forthcoming) and references cited there. 9. "The predicate principle" of Holmberg (1986:135-145) should not be confused with "the predicate principle" of Safir (1987:87), which is discussed in section 6.1.1.

52

Verb Movement

CP thus depend on what is in C° (though Holmberg considers S-bar rather than CP). There are three possibilities (see Holmberg 1986:136-137): I. CPs may be arguments, and then C° must be [-V]. Complementisers like that are [-V], just like the head of an NP, the determiner (the NP is thus really a DP, determiner-phrase, in this analysis): (49) a. b.

John remembered John remembered

fthat he had to leave! [the birthday of his youngest daughter]

II. CPs may modify arguments or predicates. All the heads below are [%V]: (50) a. b.

a book (which I have read] a Every interesting] book

(51) a. b.

It has not snowed (since you left] It has not snowed (since the 15th of December]

III. CPs may be predicates, they may resemble VPs in having a "predicate subject", and so an "aboutness relation" (Holmberg 1986:137) holds between this predicate subject and the CP. The heads below are verbs, i.e. [+V]: (52) Sw. a. [s. Johan Johan

[s. aillar jag]] like I

b, ... att [s Johan [T. ar trevlig] ] . . . that Johan is nice (from Holmberg 1986:137, (9), (10))

I find it a little problematic that the bracketed constituent in (52a) is not a CP (S" in Holmberg's terms), but a C-bar (S' in Holmberg's terms). This is precisely where the change from the S/S-bar system to Chomsky's (1986a) C°/C-bar/CP systems makes a difference. The problem with (52a) is that what is supposed to be a predicate, S-bar/C-bar, is not a maximal projection. I am here assuming that the structure preserving hypothesis of Emonds (1976) (see also Chomsky 1986a:4-5) says that maximal projections may only be related to or construed with other maximal projections, irrespective of whether this relation/construal is movement, adjunction, or coreference indices as in binding or predication. Holmberg's argument would hold, however, with respect to left dislocations— i.e., the VP in (52b) is about Johan in the same way that the CP in (53) is about supermarkedets billigste kaffe: (53) Da.

Supermarkedets billigste kaffe, [den drikker Peter ikke] Supermarket-the's cheapest coffee, that drinks Peter not

But this would then only motivate V2 in left dislocations and not in normal topicalisations, insofar as in constructions without dislocations, such as (52a), it is difficult to see with what a CP may enter into an "aboutness relation". In (52a), no part of the example is outside the CP, as opposed to (53), where supermarkedets billigste kaffe is outside the CP. Disregarding this last objection for the moment, it can now be stated that V2 (or V°-to-I°-to-C°) takes place because main clause CPs are predicates, and predicates must be [+V], and therefore they need a [+V] element in their head. This is exactly what the finite verb provides by moving to C°.

53

Verb Second

The CP in (54) is a predicate, and needs a [+V] head; therefore, the verb must move to C°, and a complementiser (which does not have the feature [+V]) may not be inserted.

The embedded CP in (55) is an argument, and needs a [-V] head, hence the presence of the complementiser. If CP-spec is empty, main clause CPs do not have to be [+V], because then the CP (or rather the C-bar) has no 'predicate subject' (Holmberg 1986:144), i.e., nothing with which it may have an "aboutness relation". As examples, consider these exclamations: (56) a. Da.

At

du

ikke kan holde din

mund!

[-V]

b. Ge.

Dafi er immer so spat kommen muB! That he always so late come must

[-V]

c. Ge.

Ob er verschlafen hat? [-V] If he overslept has (= I wonder if he overslept

That you not

can hold

your mouth (= Why can't you keep quiet)

Taraldsen (1986:20) further claims that in Northern Norwegian dialects, short w/z-phrases are "bare operators" and thus do not "count as" predicate subjects. Therefore sentences with these w/i-phrases in CP-spec do not need V°-to-C° because C-bar is not about anything, and therefore not a predicate. (Similar data are attested in Falk & Torp 1900:289). (57) NN. a.

Kor

b. *Kor

ska

studentan

studentan

ska

Where (shall) student-the (shall)

bu

?

bu ?

live? (from Taraldsen 1986:21-22,(58), (67))

Longer wft-phrases are not bare operators, so they do "count as" predicate subjects when they are in CP-spec, making C-bar a predicate, making it necessary for C° to contain a [+V] element: the finite verb. (58) NN. a. *Kor i byen studentan ska bu ? b. Kor i byen ska studentan bu ? Where in town-the (shall) student-the (shall) live? (from Taraldsen (1986:21, (61), (64)))

Apart from the above-mentioned problem with C-bar being a predicate though not a maximal projection, my main reason for not adopting this analysis of V2 is that it considers the specifications of complementisers in C° and of finite verbs in C° to be different. This is problematic for the cross-Germanic variation with respect to embedded V2. Embedded V2 clauses cannot have the complementiser daft in German, but they must have the complementiser at in Danish or att in Swedish:

54

Verb Movement

The problem is the following: The CP-complement of Ge. sagen 'say' is either [-V], when there is no embedded V2 and C° is daft, as in (59a), or [+V], when there is embedded V2 and C° is sollten, as in (59b). The CP-complement of Da. sige 'say', on the other hand, is [-V] under any circumstances, both when there is no embedded V2, as in (60a), and when there is embedded V2, as in (60c). In all three embedded clauses, C° is an overt complementiser, at, which is [-V]. What we might expect to find is a difference between the complements of say in both languages and the complements of, e.g., regret in both languages (see section 4.1.3), but not that the complements of Danish sige 'say' are a homogeneous class, whereas the complement of German sagen 'say' are a heterogeneous group. These data are discussed further in section 3.4.6. Thus in my view, Holmberg's (1986) analysis makes a C° filled by a complementiser too different in nature from a C° filled by a finite verb, given how many properties these two have in common, not only in the examples here, but also in the adjacency restriction on C° and pronominal subjects exemplified in section 3.2. The following analyses do not have this problem, as they all give C° the same status with respect to the V2 triggering property, irrespective of whether it contains a complementiser or a finite verb.

3.4.2

C° must assign nominative case to IP-spec

The basic ideas of this analysis were suggested independently by Koopman (1984) and Platzack (1986a,b). Both assume that nominative case is assigned from C°, and that to assign this case C° must be lexical. In embedded clauses, nominative is

55

Verb Second

assigned by the complementiser in C°. In main clauses, there is no complementiser, and therefore something else must move into C°: the finite verb (the only X° which can move into C° without violating the head movement constraint, cf. section 2.4). Pronominal subjects must be adjacentto C°, in both embedded and main clauses, as seen in (25)-(26). This could be caused by an adjacency condition on case assignment, as suggested in Stowell (1981:110), or by the pronominal subjects having to cliticise, assuming that clitics cliticise to their case assignors, as suggested, though in a slightly different form, by, e.g., Borer (1984:37,252) and Holmberg (1989). C° sometimes shows person and number agreement, for instance, in Bavarian (see Bayer 1984a,b) and in West Flemish. This is a sign that in these languages, C° contains inflectional features, which normally are associated with the assignment of nominative case. (61) WF. a.

... da

Pol zat

is

b. *... dan Pol zat is ... that Pol drunk is c. *. . . da Pol en Valere zat zijn d. ... dan Pol en Valere zat zijn . . . that Pol and Valere drunk are (from Bennis & Haegeman 1984:39, (17), (18))

These data are even more straightforwardly accounted for in some of the following analyses (sections 3.4.4-3.4.6), which make more explicit assumptions about the character of these inflectional features in C°. Tomaselli (1990c:203) asks why C° should have to be lexical in order to assign nominative case, given that 1° can assign nominative in English without being lexical (see (9a)), and that V° can assign accusative in Danish and German, for example, without being lexical (see (9b,c)). In both these cases, however, 1° and V° contain a trace, whereas C° would not contain anything at all in main clauses if the verb did not move there. This leaves open the question of why C° does not have to be lexical in embedded questions, as in (43) and (44) from section 3.3.2, which are repeated here: £1 (62) a. En. b. Da. c. Ge.

I don't know which film Jeg ved ikke hvilken film Ich weiS nicht, welchen Film

the children have seen b0rnene har set die Kinder gesehen haben

(63) a. En. *I don't know which film have the children b. Da. *Jeg ved ikke hvilken film har b0rnene c. Ge. *Ich weiS nicht, welchen Film haben die Kinder

seen set gesehen

As discussed in section 3.3.2, V2 is excluded, as the CP (and thus also C°) is selected (by know). This means that C° contains the feature [+wh], which cannot be deleted (in accordance with the projection principle), and movement of the verb into C° would amount to such a deletion. The question is whether the presence of this feature is enough to enable C° to assign nominative, and the answer would have to be yes. Another question is raised by the so-called quirky case subjects in Faroese and in Icelandic. Why should the finite verb have to move to C° in the cases where IPspec does not contain a nominative NP? (64) Fa.

Sum oviti damdi mar ost As child liked me(dat) cheese(ace)

(=As a child, I liked cheese}

56 (65) Ic.

Verb Movement Hefur l>6r nokkurn tima leiOst Haraldur ? Have you(dat) any time bored Haraldur (nom) ? =Were you ever bored by Harald?

Example (64) is from Barnes (1986:22 (31)) and example (65) is from Sigur9sson (1989:205, (3c)), who both (following Thrainsson 1979, Cole et al. 1980, and many others) have many different tests to show that the dative NP is the subject—these include reflexivisation, control, cliticisation, impossibility of stylistic fronting, and others. I want to suggest that the answer must be that assignment of nominative case is not motivating V2, it is an effect of V2. This is what is suggested by the three analyses discussed in 3.4.4-3.4.6.

3.4.3

C° must license VP

Weerman (1989) suggests that V2 is a result of a conspiracy—that is, the accidental interaction between a number of processes, only one of which is V°-to-C° movement. V°-to-C° movement is motivated by the verbal analogue to case theory, a "theory on Conjugation", according to which the VP must be licensed at S-structure ("S-identified" or "assigned conjugation"). As also assumed in the previous subsection, the element assigning case (or its verbal counterpart, "conjugation") cannot be an empty element but must be lexical. Consequently, if C° does not contain a complementiser, another element must move there: the finite verb. Although Weerman's analysis is an interesting and novel approach to the V2 phenomenon, it has a number of properties and makes a number of predictions that makes it incompatible with the general framework that I employ here. One problem is that VP also has to be assigned the verbal counterpart of a thematic role, "a modal role". The assignor of the "modal role" is also C°, even in the cases where C° is empty, i.e., at D-structure of main clauses. This is a major difference from thematic role assignors, which must be lexical; in fact, it is part of the lexical properties of a theta-assigner which thematic roles it assigns (and to which arguments, internal or external). In other words, the parallelism between theta theory (and case theory) on one hand and Weerman's counterpart(s) for the verbal system breaks down here. Another problem is that the I°/IP level is eliminated (hence the licensing of VP by C° rather than by 1°). As Tomaselli (1990b:522-523) points out, this has a number of unwanted consequences. One such is that if 1° is done away with, it will no longer be possible to draw any parallels between the analyses of the different verb positions in English and French by Emonds (1978) and by Pollock (1989) and the differences between the verb positions in, for example, Danish and Icelandic. In chapter 5,1 argue that the parallelisms possible here are central to an understanding of the differences between Icelandic (and Yiddish) on one hand and the other Scandinavian languages on the other. Weerman (1989:242) says in his summary that "most of the V2 effects are in some way or other directly or indirectly related to the process of deflexion"—that is, to the gradual loss of distinctions in the inflectional system (with respect to per-

57

Verb Second

son and number agreement), as well as to mood distinctions (Weerman 1989:188). Deflexion has been extremely successful in Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish, and rather unsuccessful in Icelandic (as will be shown with respect to person and number agreement in chapter 5). Given that all the Scandinavian languages are V2 languages, I find it highly problematic to try to link V2 to deflexion. On the other hand, there is a phenomenon with which deflexion most definitely seems to covary: The possibility of having the following order: (66)

a.

... complementiser - subject - adverbial - finite verb -...

£1 Da. b. Jan siger at Ic. c. *J6n segir a<3 J6n says that

Subject Helge Helgi Helgi

Adverbial sikkert trulega probably

Finite verb har kabt bogen hefur keypt bokina has bought book-the

This is only possible in languages with poor inflection (see chapter 5); and frequently this is analysed in terms of V°-to-I° movement. Since only languages with poor inflection do not have V°-to-I° movement, therefore only in such languages will we find a finite verb following a medial adverbial. This of course presupposes that we have the means to distinguish between (absence of) V°-to-I° movement on one hand (which co-varies with deflexion) and V2 on the other hand (which does not co-vary with deflexion), but as the 1° level has been abandoned, this distinction cannot be made in the framework of Weerman (1989), as far as I can tell.

3.4.4

C° has the feature [+F]

Holmberg & Platzack (1988, 1990, forthcoming) and Platzack & Holmberg (1989) suggest that V2 languages have a finiteness operator, [+F], in C°. But [+F] is only licensed if the X° which bears this feature governs an element with nominative case. Nominative case must be licensed in the following way: The nominative NP must either be adjacent to and head governed by an X° with lexical content hosting [+F], or it must be part of a chain where the highest link is adjacent to and X° governed by an X° with lexical content hosting [+F]. The difference between V2 and non-V2 languages is then a question of whether [+F] is located in C° (V2) or not (non-V2). Platzack & Holmberg derive a number of properties of the Scandinavian languages from the interaction between the above licensing conditions on [+F] and the assumption that 1° in Icelandic has the feature [+Agr], as finite verbs show person and number agreement in Icelandic, but not in Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish (see chapter 5). Following Rizzi (1982), Holmberg & Platzack assume that when 1° contains [+Agr], it is pronominal, and it receives nominative case. In Icelandic, nominative can thus be assigned to either 1° or to IP-spec. Consequently, it is possible in Icelandic for IP-spec to be filled by a non-nominative element, as in (65), the example with quirky case in section 3.4.2, as nominative is assigned to 1°, which suffices for the purposes of licensing [+F]. This option is not open in Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish, and so nominative must be assigned to IP-spec. Another consequence has to do with null subjects—that is, with whether it is possible for IP-spec not to contain any lexical material. This is excluded in Danish,

58

Verb Movement

Norwegian, and Swedish, as then the [+F] feature in C° would not govern a nominative element: (67) Da. a. Hvorfor er der kommet et brev b. *Hvorfor er pro kommet et brev Why is (there) come a letter?

In Icelandic, as described above, [+Agr] in 1° receives nominative, leaving IP-spec free to contain non-nominative elements or null subjects (i.e., pro): (68) Ic.

Af hverju hefur pro komiS bref ]? Why has come fa) letter?

German is assumed to be like Icelandic, and so, presumably, are the Romance nullsubject languages, such as Italian and Spanish, with the difference that [+F] here is in 1°. A problem then arises when considering French, as French does have [+Agr] in 1° (accounting for why French has V°-to-I° movement; see (6) above and section 5.2), but still seems to require the presence of a nominative element in IP-spec, as null subjects are not possible (with the exception of so-called "stylistic inversion" (see, e.g. Kayne & Pollock 1978)). Within the languages that allow null subjects, another distinction needs to be made: one between referential and non-referential null subjects. Where Icelandic only allows non-referential null subjects (which may be translated by English there, (69)), Italian also allows referential null subjects (corresponding to English he, she, it, they, etc., (70)): (69) a. Ic. b. It.

Af hverju hefur pro komifl bref ? Perche e pro venuta una lettera? Why has/is come (a) letter ?

(70) a. Ic. *pro Dansar b. It. pro Balla Dances

The null subject, pro, is licensed ("formally licensed") by the nominative assignor—that is, by C° in V2 languages and by 1° in other languages. The content of pro is also licensed ("identified"), by the same X° which formally licenses pro, in such a way that pro has the same features as its licensing head. Therefore Italian pro always has number and person features, as it is licensed by 1°. In the V2 languages, on the other hand, it is not obvious whether C° has person and number features, and so among the V2 languages, we may find languages in which pro may be formally licensed, but its content cannot be identified, that is languages in which only nonreferential pro is possible, and Icelandic is such a language. Platzack & Holmberg go on to suggest that C° has more number features in Icelandic than in German, to account for why pro may be a quasi-argument (see section 7.1) in Icelandic, but not in German: (71) a. Ic. I gaer rigndi pro b. Ge. *Gestern regnete pro yesterday rained

In Old Norse referential null subjects were possible, and Platzack & Holmberg suggest that these were licensed by 1° moving to C°, as suggested by Adams (1987) and Roberts (1993:123) for Old French. As support for this assumption, they claim

59

Verb Second

that Old Norse like Old French only had null subjects in V2 clauses. Although this would seem to hold for, say, thirteenth-century Danish (cf. Diderichsen 1941:22), Old Norse also allowed null subjects in contexts that could not possibly be interpreted as V2 contexts: (72) ON. a.

b.

Ok tok hverr slikt, er pro fekk And took each so-much that (he) grasp (=And each took as much as he could get hold of) Engi er svci fr6<5r, at pro telja kunni oil st6rvirki nans No one is so learned that (he) count could all great-deeds his (from Nygaard 1906:11 and Mikkelsen 1911:720)

Consequently also referential pro may be licensed by C° itself, at least in Old Norse. Another and more serious problem for this and most other analyses of these facts is posed by Faroese. It does not seem to have [+Agr] in 1°, because it does not have V°-to-P movement (see section 5.4) and it does not allow a non-referential null subject: ( 7 3 ) Fa. a. Eg veit ikki hvi ta<5 b. *Eg veit ikki hvi pro I

know not

ikki er komifl nakao braev ikki er komid nakafi braev

why (there) not

is come

any

letter

This can be explained in Platzack & Holmberg's analysis by [+F] in C° requiring IP-spec to contain a nominative element, as 1° in the absence of [+Agr] does not count. But it is rather surprising that Faroese allows quasi-argumentpro: (74) Fa. a. b.

3.4.5

I gjar regnaSi ta« I gjar regnaoi pro Yesterday rained (it)

C° has features offense and agreement

The idea that V2 is caused by C° having features of tense and/or agreement has been suggested by many different authors, among others deHaan & Weerman (1986) and Tomaselli (1990a,c). In the version of this idea put forward by Tomaselli (1990c), C° contains the features of tense and agreement. The finite verb moves into C° because of the subcategorisation features of C°, as agreement supposedly morphologically subcategorises for a verbal element. When C° shows person and number agreement (e.g., in Bavarian and in West Flemish, as discussed in 3.4.2 in connection with (61)), this can be taken to be a direct manifestation of agreement in C°. The adjacency restriction on C° and pronominal subjects (see (25)-(26)), is explained by the pronominal subjects being clitics, as clitics supposedly must cliticise to the highest X° with agreement (note that Romance clitics cliticise to 1°). Tomaselli (1990c:231) further suggests that constructions like the following in Danish and Norwegian support the idea that C° has tense and agreement, as C° may license subject extractions: (75) a. Da.

Dette tasppe ved jeg ikke om £ har kostet mange penge This carpet know I not if has cost much money

60

Verb Movement b.No. Desse konstruksjonar trur eg at t er meir naturlege uttryksmatar These constructions think I that are more natural expressions (from Engdahl 1984:12, (29))

As discussed in section 2.2.1, I agree that the trace in IP-spec (left behind by the extracted subject) is licensed by C° agreeing with IP-spec. I will follow Rizzi (1990a:51), however, in assuming that this process takes place both in V2 and in non V2-languages.10 Therefore subject extraction cannot be related to the tense and agreement feature in C° under discussion, as this feature is supposed to be a property unique to V2 languages. Tomaselli (1990c:219) also suggests that C° in V2 languages may license null subjects (see the previous subsection), and that this ability is another effect of the tense and agreement features in C°, thus drawing a parallel between C° in V2 languages and 1° in 'real' null subject languages like Italian. In Tomaselli's account, the licensing of non-referential pro is connected with the assignment of the external theta-role (i.e., the theta-role assigned to the subject) in the following way: The external theta-role is assigned by 1°, and this assignment requires that IP-spec is governed by 1°, whereas licensing of pro takes place from C° and also requires government (by C°). Given that IP-spec cannot be governed both by 1° and by C°, licensing of pro is incompatible with the assignment of an external theta-role, and we thus have an explanation why only non-referential (i.e., non-theta marked) pro is allowed in the V2 languages. This claim is too strong when considering Germanic and Romance V2: Languages that have both V2 and referential null subjects include at least Old French (cf. Adams 1987, Roberts 1993, and references cited there) and Old Norse and thirteenth-century Danish (cf. the discussion of (72) in 3.4.4). It is an open question what change occurred between Old Norse and Icelandic which restricted null subjects to non-referential ones (a change with similar effect presumably has taken place somewhere between Old High German or maybe Primitive Germanic, and Modern German and Modern Yiddish). Furthermore, I do not agree that assignment of the external theta-role takes place from 1° and requires government. I will take it that the external theta-role is assigned to the base-generated position of the subject, i.e., VP-spec, under spec-X° agreement. Even if it were assigned directly to IP-spec by 1°, this could not take place under government, as a head cannot govern its own specifier.11 10. Rizzi (1990a:51-60) argues that in some languages this process requires a "change" of complementiser—e.g., En. that —» 0, Fr. que —» qui, WF. da —> die (cf. Bennis & Haegeman 1984)—and that other languages possess complementisers that have this agreement ability—e.g., that in certain American English dialects (Sobin 1987), she in Hebrew (Shlonsky 1988), and also complementisers in Kinyande, and in Irish (Chung & McCloskey 1987). In Vikner (1991), I argued that the difference between the Danish complementisers som and der may be analysed along similar lines. For further discussion of (75a), which contrasts with an embedded declarative clause ((75b) would not be acceptable in Danish), see section 4.9. 11. This represents a further restriction, compared to Rizzi (1990a:31), where this constraint only concerns proper (head) government. The way it is applied here will also account for why accusative (and alternative licensing; see chapter 6) cannot be assigned to VP-spec and why nominative in V2 languages cannot be assigned to CP-spec, as these cases must be assigned under government.

Verb Second

61

This restriction also avoids the arbitrariness inherent in Tomaselli's suggestion: Instead of IP-spec being governed by one X° in one case, and by another X° in another case, IP-spec is now always governed by C°. This also holds for the assignment of nominative case: Tomaselli (1990c) has to assume that nominative is assigned from 1° if the subject has a theta role, and from C° if subject is non-referential pro. I will assume (and this will be particularly relevant in chapters 6 and 7) that nominative in the V2 languages is always assigned under government from C°.

3.4.6

C° has the feature [+/]

This analysis, which is put forward in Rizzi (1990b), has in common with the four previous ones that it assumes all C°s in the V2 languages are of such a nature that they attract the finite verb when not filled by something else. Within the analysis discussed in 3.4.2, this special nature manifests itself in that C° is the assignor of nominative case; in the analysis of 3.4.3, C° is the licenser of VP; within the analyses of 3.4.4 and 3.4.5, C° contains a finiteness or an agreement feature; and within the analysis to be discussed in this section, this special nature is that C° has the feature [+1]. The [+V] analysis discussed in section 3.4.1 takes a rather different approach in that V2 is here caused by C° having to obtain the feature [+V], which C° does not have to have in non-V2 clauses (e.g., when filled by the complementiser, as non V2 clauses are not predicates). In Rizzi (1990b) the existence of the two following features is suggested: [±C] and [±I]. An X° with the feature [+C] is the head of a proposition, whereas an X° with [+1] is the head of a predication (or an event/eventuality (Rizzi 1990b:382)). This gives the following four combinatorial possibilities, with the possible instantiations given: (76) [-C, [+C, [-C, [+C,

-I] -I] +1] +1]

= = = =

D°/DP C°/CP (in non-V2 languages), irrespective of content I°/IP C°/CP (in V2 languages), irrespective of content (i.e., realised as verb or as complementiser or left empty)

In other words, the differences between V2 and non-V2 languages is that CP in the former is a predication as well as a proposition, whereas in the latter, it is only a proposition. This analysis thus offers accounts of overtly agreeing complementisers and of the adjacency restriction on C° and a pronominal subject, which are very reminiscent of the account offered by the agreement feature analysis of section 3.4.5. The adjacency restriction on C° and pronominal subjects (see (25)-(26)) could be explained by the pronominal subjects being clitics, as clitics supposedly must cliticise to the highest X° with the feature [+1] (note that Romance clitics cliticise to 1°). As for the licensing of non-referential pro, this analysis is compatible both with licensing from C° and with licensing from 1°: pro is licensed by the feature [+1], irrespective of whether it is the [+1] feature in C° which does it or the [+1] feature in 1°. From what has been said so far, this analysis is compatible with nominative assignment to IP-spec either from C° or from 1°. In Rizzi & Roberts (1989:25, fn 3),

62

Verb Movement

however, reasons are given to assume that nominative would be assigned under government from C°. It is argued that the reason English (and German and Danish) allows V2 with an overt subject in IP-spec, whereas French and Italian do not, is because English allows nominative to be assigned from C° under government, whereas in French and Italian nominative is only assigned from 1° under spec-X° agreement: (77) a. b. c. d. e.

En. Which Da. Hvilken Ge. Welchen Fr. *Quel It. *Quale

film film Film film film

has har hat a ha

Paul Poul Paul Paul Paolo

seen set gesehen vu visto

There may be a problem hidden here. The analysis of Rizzi & Roberts (1989) is thus that when nominative is assigned via spec-X° agreement, movement of the case-assigning X° will prevent case assignment, and the NP will have to get case in some other way. In English, French, and Italian, nominative is normally assigned by spec-X° agreement with 1° (none of these are V2 languages), and in all three, the NP will have to get case in another way. This happens in three different ways (in English, nominative may also be assigned under government from C°, see (77a); in French, complex inversion solves the problem: Quel film Paul a-t-il vu?', and in Italian, the answer is having the subject at the end: Qualefilm ha visto Paolo?). The problem is that Rizzi & Roberts (1989) are predicting that assignment of nominative case under spec-X° agreement requires the assigning X° to be lexically present, and not to be a trace. A normal English sentence would seem to be a counterexample, as 1° contains nothing (except maybe a trace of the inflectional material)(see section 5.3): (78) [ I P Peter [ t . t j often smoke-Sj this brand of cigars] (nominative case)

I would like to take a slightly different approach from Rizzi & Roberts (1989): Where they see the difference between the grammatical English (77a) on one hand and the ungrammatical French and Italian (77d,e) on the other as a difference between whether nominative may be assigned from C° or not, I will take the difference to depend on whether nominative may be assigned from an empty category in 1° or not. I take (78) to be further evidence that nominative may be assigned by an empty category in 1° in English. As for French and Italian, I agree with Rizzi & Roberts (1989) that (77d,e) show that nominative assignment by an empty category in 1° is not possible. This approach makes it possible to limit to V2 languages the possibility of nominative assignment under government from C° (which will be relevant for chapters 6 and 7 on expletive constructions). All instances of nominative case in V2-structures (possibly not including residual V2 in English and definitely not including V2 in French and Italian questions) must thus be assigned under government from C°. Given that the features of a C° containing the finite verb and a C° containing a complementiser are the same, viz. [+C, +1], we would expect either of them to be a nominative case assigner if the other one is.

Verb Second

63

In this connection it should be noted that Rizzi (1990b:383) assumed that the C° containing the German complementiser daft is [+C, -I]. The assumption that C° in the V2 languages is [+C, +1] irrespective of its content is thus a revision. This revision is supported by facts like the following (see section 3.4.1): In some cases there seems to be "free variation" between a verb and a complementiser in C°, e.g., in exclamations: (79) Da. a.

At du da ikke kan holde din mund! That you (emphasis) not can hold your mouth

b.

Kan du da ikke holde din mund? Can you (emphasis) not hold your mouth

c.

Du kan da heller ikke holde din mund! You can (emphasis) either not hold your mouth (a.-c. = I wish you hadn't said that)

Also relevant are the cases mentioned in section 3.4.1, (59) and (60), where C° in German embedded V2 clauses, (80b,c), may not contain daft, and thus differ both from German embedded non-V2 clauses, (80a), from Danish embedded non-V2 clauses, (81a), and also from Danish embedded V2 clauses, (81b,c):

Rather than saying that the verb say in German sometimes selects a C° which is [+1], (80c), and sometimes one which is [-1], (80a), and thus differs from say in Danish, which always selects the same kind of C°, i.e., at, we can now say that in all cases in both languages, the matrix verb say selects a C° which is [+C, +1]. Summing up: The [+1] analysis has much in common with the tense/agreement feature analysis discussed in the previous subsection, though it avoids some of the disadvantages of the latter. Its main shortcoming would seem to be the counterintu-

64

Verb Movement

itive that the properties prepositional and predicational are completely independent of each other.

3.4.7 Conclusion Following the assumptions made by the analyses discussed in section 3.4.2 (the case assignment analysis), in 3.4.4 (the [+F] analysis), and in 3.4.6 (the [+1] analysis), I will assume that nominative case is assigned (under government) from C°. This is particularly supported by the argument from Rizzi & Roberts (1989) discussed in connection with (77), even if I differ from their analysis of the English case. In my view, nominative case is only assigned from C° in general V2 languages (excluding languages such as English with residual V2). If clitics must cliticise to a case assigner (as mentioned above, this is assumed in, e.g., Borer (1984:37, 252) and Holmberg (1989)), and if pronominal subjects for some reasons must cliticise, then the adjacency condition on C° and a pronominal subject may be accounted for in this way. Nominative being assigned from C° is not necessarily the reason for V2, however. It is perfectly possible that there is another reason and that these conditions on nominative assignment are only "side effects" of the "real" V2 reason. This is what is assumed in Rizzi & Roberts' (1989) and Rizzi's (1991b) analysis of (77), as the reason for the verb moving to C° here is the w/z-criterion (as discussed in section 3.3.2). The real V2 reason could thus very well be that there is a particular feature in C°, which forces C° to be filled (where possible fillers include both the feature [+wh] and overt lexical material, e.g., a comlementiser or a finite verb). This feature could be agreement, [+F], or [+1]. Either of these would be compatible with the various phenomena discussed above. I would of course prefer to be able to pin down exactly which kind of C°-feature causes V2, but in the absence of such certainty, I would like to stress that a weaker conclusion is not necessarily uninteresting, as it still enables us to make a number of predictions (which will be crucial in the chapters that follow). Furthermore, such a weak conclusion is more likely to be compatible with the results of future research than any strong conclusion drawn on insufficient grounds.

3.5

Conclusion

In this chapter, I have tried to illustrate how V2 works in main clauses across the different languages (i.e., the finite verb moves to C°), how it can be identified, and what the empirical and theoretical differences are between general V2 and residual V2.1 also evaluated a number of motivations for V2 from the literature, but had to conclude that at present there does not seem to me to be enough reasons to prefer one over all of the others, even if some approaches appeared to be less satisfactory than others.

4 Verb Second in Embedded Clauses

In the previous chapter on V2, only main clauses were discussed; in this chapter I turn to V2 in embedded clauses. Below we see first that across the Germanic languages V2 may be found not only in embedded clauses without a complementiser but also in embedded clauses introduced by a complementiser. This chapter focuses on embedded V2 preceded by a complementiser, in particular on the difference between the situation in Icelandic and Yiddish, which I call "general embedded V2", and the one in most of the other languages, which I refer to as "limited embedded V2". The purpose of this discussion is to see whether the existence of general embedded V2 should lead us to revise the unitary analysis of V2 given in chapter 3, as has often been claimed in the literature (see section 4.2 for references). I will conclude that this is not the case, and that the analysis that V2 is movement of the finite verb to C° can be retained for all cases, even if it means that embedded V2 clauses may often consist of two CPs (so-called CP recursion).1 Section 4.1 contains an overview of the various cases of embedded V2, in particular, of the empirical basis for the distinction between general and limited embedded V2. Section 4.2 discusses the different analyses suggested in the literature, and sections 4.3—4.10 deal with potential arguments in favour of one or the other of these analyses. For a detailed overview, see section 4.2.4. Section 4.11 contains the conclusion.

4.1 4.1.1

Verb second preceded by a complementiser

Introduction

The analysis that V2 is the movement of the finite verb into C° as discussed in the previous chapter might at first glance seem to predict that V2 only occurs in main

1. An anonymous reviewer points out that, given that "having V2 has been taken to be one of the quintessential Germanic characteristics that unites the [Germanic language] family", it could be claimed that only an analysis like the one defended in this and the previous chapter where all cases of V2 are analysed as movement of the finite verb to C°, "provides a united Germanic feature as the source of V2". 65

66

Verb Movement

clauses, as C° in embedded clauses already is filled, by a complementiser.2 This adequately describes the situation in German, where C° is either filled by daft, (la), or by the finite verb, (lb,c): £0

(1)

Ge. a.

Er sagt, He says

dafi that

die Kinder the children

b.

Er sagt, die Kinder hab_ea He says the children have

c.

Er sagt, diesen Film He says this film

diesen Film gesehen haben this film seen have diesen Film gesehen this film seen

haben die Kinder have the children

gesehen seen

The complementiser dafl never co-occurs with V2: c± c± (2)

a. *Er sagt, daB die Kinder haben He says that the children have b. *Er sagt, daS diesen Film He says that this film

haben die Kinder have the children

diesen Film gesehen this film seen gesehen seen

The various possibilities and impossibilities with respect to embedded clauses in German are thus accounted for by means of two assumptions: One is that V2 is movement of the finite verb to C°, and the other is that no more than one C° position is found in each embedded clause. When it comes to embedded clauses in most of the other Germanic languages, one of these two assumptions will have to be given up. The reason is that V2 is possible even in embedded clauses that contain a complementiser. Two groups of languages are relevant here: Icelandic and Yiddish on one hand (languages which have the P before VP and which also have V°-to-I° movement), and Danish, Faroese, Norwegian, Swedish, English, and Frisian,3 on the other hand. In both groups, embedded V2 seems to require the presence of a complementiser (cf. see example (3) and the examples in section 3.3.1), but this may not always hold (e.g., for Yiddish, see the examples in 4.8.1). The difference between the two groups is that in Icelandic and Yiddish V2 occurs in all embedded clauses, 2. The inverse case, embedded clauses where C° is empty, and where V2 nevertheless is impossible (e.g., embedded questions), was discussed in section 3.3.2. The analysis was that because the embedded CP (and thus also C°) is selected by the matrix verb, the embedded C° must contain the feature [+wh], in order to satisfy the subcategorisation requirements of the matrix verb. The projection principle then requires that this [+wh] feature be present at all syntactic levels (i.e., D-structure, S-structure, and LF). 3. For some reason, embedded V2 seems not to be possible in Dutch, though it may be slightly less unacceptable if extraction has taken place from the lower clause (Jean Rutten, personal communication, Liliane Haegeman, personal communication). Hoekstra (1993:168-169) cites examples from northern Dutch dialects, where embedded V2 is possible, preceded by a complementiser. In Frisian, embedded V2 is possible preceded by a complementiser. DeHaan & Weerman (1986:83-87) argue that such constructions are cases of S'-recursion, which corresponds to CP-recursion in the framework used here, which is the analysis I will be defending later for all cases of embedded V2 preceded by a complementiser. One of deHaan & Weerman's arguments is that the Frisian clitic subject er 'he' is allowed after dot 'that' in a non-V2 embedded sentence, but not in a V2 one. Given that er is not possible as the first element in a V2 main clause, but (presumably) possible after the finite verb in a main clause topicalisation, this points to a similarity between (the position of) the finite verb in main clauses, the finite verb in embedded V2 clauses, and the complementiser in embedded non-V2 clauses. This is captured if there is CP-recursion: All three positions are C°.

Verb Second in Embedded Clauses

67

with the exception of some embedded questions and related constructions (see sections 4.1.4 and 5.2), whereas in Danish, Faroese, Norwegian, Swedish, English, and Frisian (see latridou & Kroch 1992:4-6), embedded clauses may only be V2 if they are embedded under certain matrix verbs. This in fact also holds for embedded V2 clauses in German, even though here the additional condition applies that no complementiser may be present. I will follow the analysis suggested by deHaan & Weerman (1986:86), by Holmberg (1986:110), by Platzack (1986a:225), and recently also advocated by Authier (1992), and take embedded V2 after a complementiser to be an instance of CP-recursion, i.e. of the occurrence of more than one CP between the matrix verb (know in (3)) and the embedded IP. The difference between embedded V2 with a complementiser, (3a,b), and an embedded non-V2 clause, (3c), will thus be analysed as follows, with underlining of the elements in C°:

Let us now turn to embedded V2 clauses in Yiddish and Icelandic. As in the other languages, embedded V2 clauses can be divided into subject-initial and nonsubject-initial ones. In non-subject-initial embedded V2 clauses, the finite verb precedes the subject, and there can therefore be no doubt that these clauses are instances of V2—see examples (4a), (5a), and (6a). As for subject-initial embedded clauses in Yiddish and Icelandic, however, it is impossible to tell whether V2 has applied or not: The subject precedes the finite verb, which again precedes a sentence adverbial, as in examples (4b), (5b), and (6b). This order could be derived in (at least) two different ways. It could be a result of V2 (in which case the subject would be in CP-spec and the finite verb in C°), but it could also occur inside IP (in which case the subject would be in IP-spec and the finite verb in 1°), given that Yiddish and Icelandic have V°-to-I° movement (see section 5.2) and that 1° precedes VP in both languages. Recall that it is precisely because one or the other of these two conditions (V°to-P movement and I°-VP order) does not hold that we can tell whether a subjectinitial embedded clause in the other Germanic languages is or is not V2. In Danish, Faroese, Norwegian, or Swedish, non-V2 subject-initial embedded clauses would have the form of examples (4c), (5c), and (6c); that is, the sentence adverbial would precede the finite verb because of the lack of V°-to-I° movement (see 3.3.1). The same holds for English provided that the finite verb is not an auxiliary. In Frisian or German, non-V2 subject-initial embedded clauses would have the form of exam-

68

Verb Movement

pies (4d), (5d), and (6d) (without the complementiser in German)—the VP would precede the finite verb due to the VP-I° order (see also section 5.5).4 (4) a. b. c. d.

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

(5) Yi. a.

that that that that

topic subject subject subject

... az

morgn

y££b_fin subject y_er£tln

vet

adverbial adverbial adverbial adverbial

dos yingl oyfn

. . . that tomorrow will the boy b. ... az c. *... az d. *... az ... that

dos dos dos the

yingl vet yingl yingl boy (will)

oyfn oyfn oyfn on-the

y££b_fin

VP VP VP VP

3£££b_£in

veg zen a kats

on-the way see a cat veg veg vet veg way (will)

zen zen zen see

a a a a

kats kats kats vet cat (will)

(

(example (5b) from Santorini 1989:50, (25a))(25a))

(6)

Ic. a.

. . . aS Mariu hefur Helgi aldrei kysst . . . that Maria has Helgi never kissed

b. ... a<3 c. *... a<3 d. *... aO ... that

Helgi hefur aldrei Helgi aldrei hefur Helgi aldrei Helgi (has) never (has)

kysst kysst kysst kissed

Mariu Mariu Mariu hefur Maria (has)

In other words, the word order of any given subject-initial embedded clause in Yiddish or Icelandic is compatible both with general embedded V2 or with Yiddish and Icelandic having both V°-to-P movement and F-VP order. As elaborated later in section 5.6,1 assume the main problem for the child in acquiring Yiddish or Icelandic is that there are no differences between embedded and main clauses. Consequently, the child will analyse subject-initial embedded clauses as V2 (i.e., she takes the subject to be in CP-spec and the finite verb to be in C°), as this is what she does for main clauses. Main clause topicalisations give sufficient evidence that the V2 mechanism is warranted, as here V°-to-I° movement and F-VP order will not suffice.5 In the following subsections, three differences between embedded V2 clauses in Yiddish and Icelandic and embedded V2 clauses in the other V2 languages are discussed; in 4.1.2, the expletive subject constructions; in 4.1.3, topicalisations 4. Unless otherwise indicated, the Yiddish examples are from Marvin Herzog, Ellen Prince, and Beatrice Santorini, and most of the Icelandic ones are from Hoskuldur ThrSinsson and Halld(5r Sigur5sson. The invaluable help and patience of these five linguists is hereby gratefully acknowledged. 5. As GeilfuB (1991:3, fn 1) points out, most of the literature on Yiddish implicitly presupposes a basic V°-NP structure. Anthony Kroch and Beatrice Santorini (personal communication), have pointed out to me that three sets of data would seem to point to the order inside the Yiddish VP being NP-V° (with the NP often being extraposed unless it is a pronoun) rather than V°-NP: that particles always precede their verbs, that Yiddish has scrambling rather than object shift, and that the participle of the main verb may precede the participle of the passive auxiliary: ... gegesn gevorn '... eaten been'. Hall (1979) and GeilfuB (1991) reach the same conclusion—that Yiddish is NP-V°. This assumption allows the data from Yiddish to be derived using processes already known from the Germanic languages most closely related to Yiddish: German, Swiss German, and Dutch. Although I have no reason to disagree with this more or less controversial reanalysis, the discussion in this section nevertheless implicitly assumes the traditional view (that the verb precedes the object), as this question has no consequences for the analysis of Yiddish in this and the following chapters. What matters to my analysis is that Yiddish has V°-to-I° movement (as opposed to, e.g., Danish) and that 1° precedes VP (as opposed to, e.g., German).

Verb Second in Embedded Clauses

69

under non-bridge verbs; and in 4.1.4, topicalisations in embedded questions and similar contexts. That embedded V2 clauses are indeed possible in more contexts in Yiddish and Icelandic than in other Germanic languages can of course only be shown with respect to those embedded clauses which necessarily are V2: embedded non-subject-initial clauses, or as I refer to them, embedded topicalisations. Section 4.1.3. gives examples of V2 that are possible in Yiddish and Icelandic but not in the other Germanic languages. 4.1.4, on the other hand, shows that contexts exist, which for other reasons (in this case relativised minimality) exclude at least some kinds of embedded V2, even in Yiddish and Icelandic.

4.7.2

Expletive subjects in embedded clauses

The expletive subject, es in Yiddish and pad in Icelandic, behaves much like the expletive subject es in German (see also section 7.1.1): It may occur in the topic position (CP-spec), as in (7a), (8a), and (9a), but it may not occur in the subject position (IP-spec), as in (7c,e), (8c,e), and (9c,e):6 (7) Ge. a. b.

Es 1st ein Junge gekommen *pro ist ein Junge gekommen (There) is a boy come

c. d.

*Gestern ist es ein Junge gekommen Gestern ist pro ein Junge gekommen yesterday is {there) a boy come

e. f.

*Warum ist es ein Junge gekommen? Warum ist pro ein Junge gekommen? Why is (there) a boy come ?

(8) Yi. a. b.

Es iz gekumen a yingl *pro iz gekumen a yingl (There) is come a boy

c. d.

*Nekhtn iz es gekumen a yingl Nekhtn iz pro gekumen a yingl yesterday is (there) come a boy

e. f.

*Far vos iz es gekumen a yingl? Far vos iz pro gekumen a yingl? Why is (there) come a jboy ?

6. The options below without the null subject pro instead of an overt expletive have already been mentioned in sections 3.4.4-3.4.6. I take the versions with pro in CP-spec, (7b), (8b), and (9b), to be impossible, even though corresponding yes/no questions and also corresponding "VI declarative" structures (at least in Yiddish and Icelandic) are actually possible. As discussed in 4.3 below, rather than assume an expletive subject (i.e. pro) in CP-spec, I take both yes/no questions and VI declaratives to have an empty operator in CP-spec, which would mean that examples (7b), (8b), and (9b) as questions would have an empty operator in CP-spec and an expletive pro in IP-spec. In other words, they would be parallel to the cases with pro in IP-spec in examples (7d,f), (8d,f), and (9d,f). It should also be pointed out that any utterance that may be analysed as (7d,f)—i.e., Gestern ist ein Junge gekommen and Warum ist ein Junge gekommen?—also will have an alternative analysis: Instead of pro in IP-spec and ein Junge in object position, ein Junge could be in IP-spec. This alternative is a consequence of the object always preceding the verb in German, and it does therefore not apply in examples (8d,f) and (9d,f), where the postverbal position of a yingl/strdkur makes it impossible to interpret it as being in IP-spec.

70

Verb Movement

(9)

Ic. a. b.

J>a<3 hefur komiS strakur *pro hefur komifl strakur (There) has come la) boy

c. d.

*I gaer hefur bao komi<3 strakur i gsr hefur pro komiS strakur Yesterday has (there) come (a) boy

e. f.

*Af hverju hefur ba6 komid strakur? Af hverju hefur pro komid strakur? Why has (there) come (a) boy ?

The situation in Yiddish and Icelandic may thus be taken to be completely parallel to the one in German: esfyad is impossible in IP-spec, but possible in CP-spec. However, Yiddish and Icelandic differ from German when it comes to embedded clauses. Here es/frad are not only possible after the complementiser, they are obligatory: (10) Ge. a. *Ich weifi, dafi es ein Junge gekommen 1st b. Ich weiS, daE pro ein Junge gekommen 1st I know that (there) a boy come is (11) Yi. a. Ikh veys az es iz gekumen a yingl b. *Ikh veys az pro iz gekumen a yingl J know that (there) is come a boy (12) Ic. a. Eg veit afl bao hefur komid b. *Eg veit aS pro hefur komia I know that (there) has come

strakur strakur (a) boy

This is a clear indication of a fundamental difference between German embedded clauses with dafl and Yiddish and Icelandic ones with az/ad: V2 is only possible in the latter. This supports the initial difference discussed in the previous subsection: German does not allow embedded V2 after a complementiser, whereas most of the other V2 languages do. Although compatible with Yiddish and Icelandic having general embedded V2, the data from these two languages would actually be compatible with both general and limited embedded V2. In the following subsection, I will turn to a clear indication that Yiddish and Icelandic have general embedded V2. It should be pointed out that there are no similar constraints in any of the other V2 languages, where the expletive subjects may freely occur in either IP-spec or CP-spec; compare the examples discussed in section 7.1.1.

4.1.3

V2 topicalisations embedded under "non-bridge verbs"

In German and Danish, embedded V2 occurs only when the embedded clause is the complement of a certain kind of verb. These verbs are, somewhat confusingly, often referred to as "bridge verbs" in the literature.7 7. "Bridge verbs" was originally the name for the class of verbs that allow extraction from their sentential complement. Thus say is a bridge verb, and whisper is not: (i)

a. What did Sally say that she had secretly read? b. *What did Sally whisper that she had secretly read?

(cf. van Riemsdijk & Williams 1986:294, from where (ib) is taken.) It should be noted that there are many bridge verbs in this sense that do not allow sentential complements with V2, so that the two sets do not coincide. In Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish it is even more difficult to find a verb that takes a sentential complement and which is not a bridge verb in the original sense (i.e., with respect to extraction), as most verbs seem to allow extraction very liberally (compare the various papers in Engdahl & Ejerhed 1982).

71

Verb Second in Embedded Clauses

In (17) and (18), you will find two brief and non-exhaustive lists of German and Danish verbs that do and do not allow V2 in their sentential complements.These lists are based on the much longer and more detailed lists for Swiss German in Penner & Bader (1990).8 First, I will give an example of what the lists are supposed to illustrate. The verbs in (17) allow embedded clauses both without V2, as in (13), and with V2, as in (14): (13) a. Da.

Watson pastod at Moriarty kun havde stjalet pengene Watson claimed that Moriarty only had stolen money-the

b. Ge.

Watson behauptete, da6 Moriarty nur das Geld gestohlen hatte Watson claimed that Moriarty only the money stolen had

(14) a. Da. b. Ge.

Watson pastod at disse penge havde Moriarty stjalet Watson behauptete, dieses Geld hatte Moriarty gestohlen Watson claimed (that) this money had Moriarty stolen

The verbs in (18) only allow embedded clauses without V2, as in (15) and not with V2, as in (16): (15) a, Da.

b, Ge.

Holmes beviste at Moriarty kun havde stjalet pengene Holmes proved that Moriarty only had stolen money-the Holmes bewies, dafi Moriarty nur das Geld gestohlen hatte Holmes proved that Moriarty only the money stolen had

(16) a. Da. ??Holmes beviste at disse penge havde Moriarty stjalet b. Ge. *Holmes bewies, dieses Geld hatte Moriarty gestohlen Holmes proved (that) this money had Moriarty stolen (17) verbs which allow sentential complements with and without Ge. andeuten, angeben, antworten, behaupten, berichten, Da. antyde, angive, svare, past&, berette, hint, indicate, answer, claim, report,

V2 betonen, betone, emphasise,

entscheiden, erfahren, sich erinnern, feststellen, finden, glauben, beslutte, erfare, huske, sla fast, synes, tro, decide, learn, remember, ascertain think, think, ho f fen, me inen, sagen, sehen, spiiren, vermuten, wi s sen. habe, mene, sige, se, f 01e, formode, vide. hope, mean, say, see, feel, assume, know. (18) Verbs which allow sentential complements, but only without V2 Ge. bedauern, bestatigen, bereuen, beweisen, bezweiflen, Da. beklage, bekraef te, fortryde, bevise, tvivle pa, be sorry, confirm, regret, prove, doubt, darum bitten, daran denken, erlauben, geheim halten, gern haben, bede om, taenke pa, til lade, holde hemmeligt, vaere glad for, ask for, think of, permit, keep secret, be happy.

8. Similar lists, non-exhaustive and also not mutually compatible, may also be found in, e.g., Grewendorf (1988:82), Haider (1986b:53), Helbig & Buscha (1986:646-647), and Reinholtz (1989:104, fn 7). The claims of Reinholtz (1989) will be discussed in section 4.10.

72

Verb Movement hassen, (ibersehen, uberzeugen, vergeben, verlangen, verschweigen, hade, overse, overbevise om, tilgive, forlange, fortie, hate, overlook, convince, forgive, demand, conceal, zeigen, zugeben. vise, indrcmme. show, admi t.

It seems to me to be difficult, if not impossible, to find any properties that all the verbs on one of the lists have and all the verbs on the other lack. Such properties have been suggested in the literature, however, for example, by Reinholtz (1989) (see section 4.10.1 below), Rizzi & Roberts (1989:22), Authier (1992), and latridou & Kroch (1992). In addition to the difficulties with finding defining properties for the two lists in (17) and (18), it should be noticed that the set of verbs that allows embedded V2 seems to vary from language to language. The list in (17) can therefore only be taken to indicate that there is a certain amount of overlap. It also has to be admitted that there seems to be a lot of individual variation with respect to exactly which matrix verbs allow embedded V2. Let us now return to the differences between Yiddish and Icelandic on one hand and the other V2 languages on the other. It is now possible to see the difference between embedded V2 in the two groups. In Icelandic and Yiddish, topicalisation (with V2) may take place in clauses embedded under any verb that allows a sentential complement, including the verbs in (18), as opposed to the situation in the other V2 languages. Consider as examples doubt (on) and regret, as given for Icelandic by Rognvaldsson & Thrainsson (1990:23, (32)): (19) a. b. c. d. e.

Ic. J6n Fa. Mon Da. Mohan Yi. Jonas Ge. *Johan John

efast um a<3 a morgun fari Maria ivast i um i morgin fer Maria tvivler p£ at i morgen star Maria tsveyfelt az morgen vet Miriam bezweifelt, morgen wird Maria doubts Ion) (that) tomorrow will Mary

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

Ic. Jon Fa. *Jon Da. Mohan Yi. Jonas Ge. Mohan John

harmar aS er keddur av at beklager at bedoyert az bedauert, regrets (that)

pessa hesa denne dos dieses this

bok bok bog bukh Buch book

skuli havi har hob habe have

snemma a fastur tiaiiga a fatur tidligt op fri oy£shteyn friih aufstehen get up early

eg eg jeg ikh ich I

hafa lesiS lisid l»st geleyent gelesen read

In other words, embedded V2 exists in Danish, Faroese, and German, as well as in Icelandic and Yiddish. In Danish, Faroese, and German, however, embedded V2 depends on the main clause verb, as it only occurs with a certain number of different main clause verbs—that is, in only a subset of those taking sentential complements—hence the term "limited embedded V2". In Icelandic and Yiddish, on the other hand, embedded V2 does not appear to be selected by the main clause verb, as it may occur with all verbs that take sentential complements—hence the term "general embedded V2".

Verb Second in Embedded Clauses

4.1.4

73

V2 topicalisations in embedded questions

In the previous subsection, we saw a clear indication that V2 is far more widespread in embedded sentences in Yiddish and Icelandic than in the other Germanic languages: Topicalisation, which is movement into CP-spec, is possible in embedded clauses under all sorts of matrix verbs in Yiddish and Icelandic, unlike in the other Germanic languages. Another construction often discussed in this connection is embedded w/z-questions. The situation here is very complex, and although it is possible to give a somewhat coherent analysis of parts of the data, it has to be admitted in the end that these analyses are not entirely satisfactory and that the available data simply cannot be explained in a non-contradictory fashion. But let us begin with the parts of the data that might at first glance seem to lend themselves to some kind of explanation, viz. embedded questions with why, embedded questions in which the V2 construction inside is an expletive subject construction, and finally embedded questions in which arguments are extracted. Consider first embedded questions with the subject immediately following the w/z-element. These are possible in all the languages under consideration, but they are not necessarily V2 constructions: sit a. Yi. b. Ge. c . Ic. d. Fa. e. Da. f . En.

Ikh Ich Eg Eg Jeg

veys weifi veit veit

nit

nicht ekki ikki ved ikke I d Dn1 1 )enow

aabl

di ku far vos warum die Kuh af hverju kyrin hvi kugvin hvorfor koen why the cow

iz he fur hevur

har has

geshtanen

n tsimer

m Zimmer gestanden 1st herberginu stac-icruminum staflia vasrelset staet n the room stood (Example (21a) based on Diesing 1990:66, (41a))

The non-V2 nature of (21) can only be clearly shown for German, Faroese, Danish, and English—i.e., those languages that either do not have F-VP order (German) or do not have V°-to-P movement (Faroese, Danish, and English) (see chapter 5): In German, the non-V2 nature of (21b) is clear from the fact that the finite verb is in final position in the embedded question. For Danish and Faroese, it can be shown that (21d,e) are not V2 clauses by adding a sentence adverb. In embedded clauses, such an adverbial can only occur in front of the finite verb, whereas in a V2 structure it would appear after the finite verb (cf. section 3.3.1): (22) Da.

Jeg ved ikke ... J know not . . . a. ... hvorfor keen altid star inde i huset b. *... hvorfor koen star altid inde i huset . . . why cow-the (stands) always (stands) inside in house-the

(23) Fa.

Eg veit ikki ... I know not a. ... hvi kugvin altifl stendur inni i husinum b. *... hvi kugvin stendur altiS inni i husinum ... why cow-the (stands) always (stands) inside in houses-the

In English it is clear from the fact that even in simple present or simple past, (21f) would not necessitate rfo-support, whereas V2 always does (cf. section 1.3.3):

74

Verb Movement

(24) En. a. I don't know why the cow lived in the house b. *Why lived the cow in the house? c. Why did the cow live in the house?

Whereas embedded subject-initial questions thus are allowed in all five languages, embedded non-subject-initial questions (i.e., with a topicalised element immediately after the w/z-element), would seem to only be possible in Yiddish:

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

Yi. Ge. Ic. Fa. Da. En.

Ikh veys *Ich weiS *Eg veit *Eg veit *Jeg ved *I don't

nit nicht ekki ikki ikke know

whCP-gpec far vos warum af hverju hvi hvorfor why

tonic CP-spac in tsimer im Zinuner i herberginu i ruminum i vaerelset in the room

vb C° iz ist hefur hevur har has

subi IP-spec di ku die Kuh kyrin kugvin koen the cow

geshtanen gestanden staSiS static staet stood

On closer scrutiny, however, it would seem that this type of embedded question with topicalisation is only possible if the w/z-element immediately following the complementiser az is far vos 'why'. Consider the following two examples with when and where, which are ungrammatical in all six languages: (26) a. b. c. d. e. f.

Yi. Ge. Ic. Pa. Da. En.

*Ikh veys nit *Ich weiS nicht *Eg veit ekki *Eg veit ikki *Jeg ved ikke *I don't know

CP-spec ven warm hvenaer nsr hvornar when

CP-spec in tsimer im Zimmer i herberginu i ruminum i varelset in the room

c° iz ist hefur hevur har has

IP-spec di ku die Kuh kyrin kugvin koen the cow

geshtanen gestanden staSid stadiiS staet stood

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

Yi. Ge. Ic. Fa. Da. En.

*Ikh veys nit *Ich weiS nicht *Eg veit ekki *Eg veit ikki *Jeg ved ikke *I don't know

vu wo hvar hvar hvor where

nekhtn gestern i gaer i gjir i gar yesterday

iz ist hefur hevur har has

di ku die Kuh kyrin kugvin koen the cow

geshtanen gestanden staoi6 staoio staet stood

Given this general ungrammaticality, also in Yiddish, we can (at least for the moment) conclude that in general, topicalisation is not possible in embedded questions in the Germanic languages, with the exception of Yiddish embedded questions with why.9 9. At least one apparently well-formed Icelandic example parallel to examples (26c) and (27c) may be found in the literature, however: (i)

CP-gpae CP-gpae C° IP-gpac Ic . Eg spurdi hvar henni hefdu flestir a<9daendur gefifl blom I asked where her(dat) hadlpl) most admirers (nom) given flowers (from Thrfinsson 1986:186. (28b)>

I have no explanation to offer for the difference between (i) on one hand and (26c), (27c), and (ii) on the other. They are all embedded questions, the wft-elements are all adverbial (i.e., they have to antecedent govern their traces inside IP, see section 2.2.2), and they even all come from the same source: examples (27c) and (ii) are from Hd'skuldur Thramsson, personal communication. (ii)

Ic.

CP-gpae Eg veit ekki [af hverju ... I know not why CP-gpae c° IP-gpae a. *. . . Mariu hefur 6lavur eiginlega lofafl fessum bring ] ... Maria (dat) has 6lavur actually promised this ring(acc)

cp-«pac

c°

bessum hring this ring(acc)

hefur 6lavur eiginlega lofafi Mariu ] has 6lavur actually promised Maria(dat)

Verb Second in Embedded Clauses

75

The fact that Yiddish allows any topicalisation inside an embedded question at all is problematic for the relativised minimality framework: Two A-bar-movements seem to be crossing each other, something that should be impossible. The A-barelement in tsimer 'in the room' should block the antecedent government between far vos 'why' and its trace (which should be somewhere inside the IP) in (25a) (cf. sections 2.2 and 4.8). I will however argue that the Yiddish case in (25a), the only possible topicalisation in an embedded clause, is not a case of movement at all, and therefore it does not violate relativised minimality: Far vos does not have a trace inside IP, and hence antecedent government across in tsimer is not required. Luigi Rizzi has pointed out (class lectures, March 1990)10 that in some languages, there are reasons to assume that why may be base-generated in CP-spec rather than moved into this position. This is the case in Italian, where perche 'why' but not come 'how' may occur without the verb moving into C°: (28) It. a. Perche Gianni ha dormito? b. *Come Gianni ha dormito? Why/How Gianni has slept ?

Given the w/z-criterion (see section 3.3.2), we would expect that the movement of perchelcome into CP-spec would necessitate the movement of the finite verb into C° (to make sure there is spec-X° agreement with respect to the feature [+wh] in CP). This is not the case for perche, however, and Rizzi suggested that perche (as opposed to come) may be base-generated in CP-spec. This would presuppose that it is possible for a C° in Italian to acquire the feature [+wh] from CP-spec if and only if this happens at D-structure (otherwise it should be possible with any w/i-expression).11 Of course, both perche and come may be moved into CP-spec, in which case the verb is also moved to C° and the subject for case reasons cannot occur in IP-spec (see section 3.4.6): (29) It. a. b.

Perche ha dormito Gianni? Come ha dormito Gianni? Why/How has slept Gianni?

The assumption that perche may be base-generated in CP-spec is further supported by the following data from long extractions: (30) It. a. b.

Perche credi che Paolo sia andato a Parigi? Why think-you that Paolo is gone to Paris Perche Gianni crede che Paolo sia andato a Parigi? Why Gianni thinks that Paolo is gone to Paris

Example (30a) is ambiguous: Perche may either be related to the reason for Paolo's going to Paris ("to see his friends"), which would be extraction from the 10. But see also Rizzi (1991b:24, fn 16) for an alternative analysis of the same kind of data, viz. that perche 'why' is in C° rather than in CP-spec. I find this suggestion problematic insofar as perche may be readily identifiable as a PP. This holds to an even greater extent for Yiddish far vos 'why', where both the first part and the second part are productively used:/ar 'before, for' is a preposition (as is Italian per), and vos 'what' is an NP (as opposed to Italian che). 11. This mechanism for acquiring the feature [+w/t] is suggested for French in Rizzi (1991b:13, (41)). It is of course also possible for C° both in Italian and in French to acquire the feature [+w/i] in the "normal" fashion—i.e., through I°-to-C° movement.

76

Verb Movement

embedded clause, or to the reason for someone's belief that Paolo has gone to Paris ("because I saw him get on the train"), which would only be extraction from the higher clause. Example (30b) is not ambiguous, but can only be a question as to the reason for Gianni's belief that Paolo has gone to Paris (the other reading, "to see his friends" receives at least "??" as judgment). If the above assumption is correct—that is, that the order percfte-subject-verb arises only through perche being base-generated in CPspec— we have an explanation for the unambiguity of (30b): It could not possibly have a trace in the lower clause, which is why it must have wide scope. We have thus seen that in Italian there is reason to believe that why, as opposed to other w/z-elements, may be base- generated in CP-spec. If there were a similar distinction between why and other w/z-elements in Yiddish, it would explain why (25a) is not ruled out by relativised minimality, whereas (26) and (27) are. If the empty operator in embedded yes/no-questions (see also 3.3.2) is taken to be an empty version of why, the above analysis might be extended to the following type of examples: (31) Yi . a. Ikh veys nit [OP b. ?Ikh veys nit [OP I know not

± CP-spec £f. IP8P tsi ot dos bukh hot er geleyent] tsi dos bukh hot er geleyent] whether PRT the book has he read (from Diesing 1990:66, (40))

The above is not the whole story concerning topicalisations in embedded questions in Yiddish and Icelandic. Another type possible in both languages is embedded questions with an expletive subject immediately right of the wA-element. As we saw in section 4. 1 .2, the expletive es/frad cannot appear in IP-spec. It is nevertheless possible to have es/frad after a w/i-element in both Icelandic and Yiddish, as opposed to in German and Danish: (32) Ic.

(33) Yi .

CP-apec CP-BP El J6n vissi ekki hvernig bafl hef<5u komist svona margir i mark J6n knew not how there had come so many in goal (from Rognvaldsson & Thrainsson 1990:31, (49)) cpsd cpsd c Ikh freg zikh vos es hot emitser gekoyft I ask myself what there has someone bought

(from Diesing 1990:68, (43a))

CEaa (34) Yi .

CESB Cl

Er zol im gebn tsu farshteyn, viazoy ££ vert gefirt a milkhome He shall him give to understand how there is led a war (from Prince 1988:181, (35) & Santorini 1989:54, (33b))

The German examples corresponding to (32)-(34) are given in two versions. Examples (35a), (36a), and (37a) are V2 (finite verb in C°, es in CP-spec) and they are excluded because German does not allow embedded V2 inside an embedded question. Examples (35b), (36b) and (37b) are not V2 (finite verb in 1°, es in IP-spec), and they are excluded because German does not allow es in IP-spec. (35) Ge . a. *Er wuEte nicht, wie es waren so viele ins Ziel gekommen b. *Er wuEte nicht, wie es so viele ins Ziel gekommen waren He knew not how there (were) so many in goal come (were)

Verb Second in Embedded Clauses

77

(36) Ge. a. *Ich frage mich was es hat jemand gekauft b. *Ich frage mich was es jemand gekauft hat I ssk myself what there (has) someone bought (has) (31) Ge. a. *Er soil ihm erklaren, wie es wird ein Krieg gefiihrt b. *Er soil ihm erklaren, wie es ein Krieg gefiihrt wird He shall to-him explain how there (is) a war led (is)

The Danish examples corresponding to (32) and (34) are also given in two versions. Examples (38a) and (39a) are V2 (der in CP-spec, finite verb in C° and therefore preceding the adverbial) and they are excluded because Danish does not allow embedded V2 inside an embedded question. Examples (38b) and (39b) are not V2 (der in IP-spec, finite verb in V° and therefore following the adverbial), and they are well-formed, as Danish does not have a ban against der in IP-spec: (38) Da.

Han vidste ikke He knew not ... a. *... hvordan der var pludselig kommet sa mange i mal b. ... hvordan der pludselig var kommet sa mange i mal . . . how there (were) suddenly (were) come so many in goal

(39) Da.

Han skal forklare ham ... He shall explain (to) him .,. a. *. . . hvordan der blev faktisk f0rt krig i Vietnam b. ... hvordan der faktisk blev fsrt krig i Vietnam ... how there (was) actually (was) lead war in Vietnam

There is no Danish version of (33), as for independent reasons, Danish has no transitive expletives (see section 6.4.2). In other words, whereas German and Danish behave as would be expected, Icelandic and Yiddish go against the predictions. Coming back to the Icelandic and Yiddish (32)-(34), the question still is how the wfc-elements move across the expletives. As the w/z-elements are not limited to why, we cannot claim that they do not move. If they do move, and if the expletive has undergone A-bar-movement from IP-spec to CP-spec, the movement of the whelement must cross an A-bar-specifier. This would prevent the wA-element from antecedent governing its trace, which should rule out those cases in which the whelement is not an argument, (32) and (34), as its trace could not be linked to its antecedent (the binding option for this connection being only available to extractions of arguments; see section 2.2.2). A way out of this dilemma could be to assume that the movement of the expletive is not A-bar-movement (the intuition being that one cannot topicalise anything so non-topical as an expletive), but rather A-movement. In that case, the position of the expletive would not be an A-bar- but an A-position, and it would not interfere with the movement of the w/i-element. Rizzi (199 la) suggests that a position qualifies as an A-position if it is assigned a thematic role or if it is the specifier of an agreeing X°. Agreement in this sense is restricted to phi-features (e.g., person and number), which means that agreeing X°s include Agr°, but not, e.g., V° or T°. The consequences for CP-spec in V2 constructions is that it may count as an A-position when filled by a subject, but not when filled by something else. The reason is that in a V2 structure, the verb in 1° (or Agr°) has moved into C°, and so if CP-spec is filled by the subject, there will be agreement (with respect to phi-features) between CP-spec and (the verb in 1° inside) C°. Hence a CP-spec filled by an expletive sub-

78

Verb Movement

ject is an A-position, and as such does not interfere with the antecedent government relations between a w/i-element above it and a w/i-trace below it. This however would lead us to expect this kind of example (embedded questions containing V2 structures with an expletive subject in CP-spec) to be possible in all the V2 languages, which is just as inaccurate as the assumption that these examples are ruled out in all the V2 languages. There is also another well-formed kind of topicalisation in embedded questions involving a subject, which is not straightforwardly explained by the above assumptions. These are cases in which the subject is the extracted w/z-element. They seem to be well-formed both in Icelandic and in Yiddish:12 CPso £1 (40)

Ic.

Flokkur OP

sem

CP-spae

El

Fum f-iocrurra ara

skeifl

hefur verifl

i stjirn ] tapaSi kosningunum years' course have been in government lost election-the (=A party wich had been in government for four years lost the election) (from Rognvaldsson 1984:6, (12)) A party

(41) Yi.

(42) Yi.

that

in four

CPsp CP-spac C° . . . nokh epes, [vos ovfn hitl iz geven] . . . . . . still something which on-the little-hat is given (= something else that was on the little hat) (from Santorini 1989:56, (36a)) CPSP CP«p £1 Kent ir mir nit zogn ver do iz a guter dokter Can you me not say who there is a good doctor (from Santorini 1989:53, (31b)) CPBP CPSP

(43) Yi.

Zi iz gekumen zen ver She is come see who

El

frier vet kontshen earlier will finish (from Diesing 1990:65, (38))

12. Actually the examples in question are not embedded questions as such but relative clauses. Relative clauses are assumed to involve extractions in the same way as embedded questions (and also main clause questions): In both either a w/i-element or an empty operator is extracted, leaving a trace behind. The empty operator is written OP in the following three examples. Notice that it is only in relative clauses that OP may correspond to an argument of the clause. In questions, OP only has the interpretation of a truth value operator, and the question therefore has to be a yes/no-question (see also section 3.3.2 about yes/no-questions being V2 structures).

Example (40) is a relative clause involving an empty operator, and examples (41)-(44) are relative clauses involving movement. For more discussion of Scandinavian relative clauses with empty operators, see Vikner (1991).

79

Verb Second in Embedded Clauses (44) Yi.

CPBP CPSP C" Yeder mentsh tut vos far im iz beser Every human does what for him is better

Examples (40)-(44) are impossible in the other Germanic languages because the embedded clauses are not embedded under bridge verbs (see section 4.1.3). In (40)-(44), the w/z-movement definitely crosses an A-bar-element: look at the underlined elements. How is this possible, given that antecedent government is not possible between the w/i-element and the wfc-trace? The answer is that as the wft-element in these cases is the subject; it is an argument and may thus have a referential index (section 1.3.4). This again means that the link between the w/z-element and the w/z-trace can be established via binding. However, this would predict that also embedded object w/i-questions should be able to contain topicalisations. This is only partly true, as it seems to require a contrastive context: CPBP CPBP

£1

IPBP

(45) Yi. *Der yid [vos in Boston hobn mir The man that in Boston have we (46) Yi. Der yid vos

gezen] iz a groyser lamdn seen is a great scholar (from Lowenstamm 1977:212, (34d))

mir hobn gezen in Niu-York iz an amorets ,

CPBP CPBP

d

IESJZ

ober

der yid [vos in Boston hobn mir gezen] iz a groyser lamdn The man whom we have seen in New York is an ignorant but the man whom in Boston have we seen is a great scholar (from Santorini 1989:57, (38))

Corresponding to these examples, we find the following in Icelandic: CPsp c° CP-spec C° IPap (47) Ic. *Helgi hefur keypt bok, [OP sem truleaa hefur Jon ekki lesifl] Helgi has bought a book that probably has J6n not read

Summing up this subsection, 4.1.4, on topicalisations in embedded w/z-questions: They are possible under certain conditions in Yiddish and Icelandic, but never possible in the other Germanic languages. Even with the assumption that embedded V2 is an option in all embedded clauses in Yiddish and Icelandic (but not in the other V2 languages), the data cannot be completely accounted for. Nevertheless, this assumption does seem to be warranted, but only as a first step toward a full account. As for the actual rather confusing state of affairs in Yiddish and Icelandic, the following has been argued: a. If the topicalised element right after the w/z-element is an expletive subject, the result is well-formed. Although this can be accounted for under an analysis like Rizzi (199la), which would take the expletives to occupy Apositions, such an analysis moves the problem rather than answers it, now the unanswered question is why not all V2 languages allow this construction—i.e., the order...w/i-element—expletive—finite verb—sentence adverbial... b. If the first element after the wfc-element is not a subject, it will prevent the w/i-element from antecedent governing the wh-trace. Result: If the w/z-ele-

80

Verb Movement

ment is not an argument, the result is not well-formed, with two exceptions: far vos in Yiddish, which may turn out not be moved at all, and the contradictory Icelandic data discussed with example (27). c. Finally, if the wfc-element is an argument, the result may be well-formed, with certain exceptions concerning objects, which would seem to need some amount of extra emphasis. This introductory section contained an overview of the various cases of embedded V2. In 4.1.1 the basis for the distinction between general and limited embedded V2 was discussed. In the next three subsections, three empirical differences between embedded V2 clauses in Yiddish and Icelandic and embedded V2 clauses in the other V2 languages were discussed: In 4.1.2 the expletive subject constructions, in 4.1.3 topicalisations under non-bridge verbs, and in 4.1.4 topicalisations in embedded questions and related contexts.

4.2 4.2.1

Three alternative analyses of general embedded V2

Embedded V2 in Icelandic and Yiddish

In chapter 3, it was assumed that V2 is a result of movement of the finite verb to C°. When embedded V2 after a complementiser was discussed in section 4.1, it was consequently suggested that each clause which contains both a complementiser and V2 must include two CPs: The complementiser is in the higher C°, and the finite verb is in the lower C°. In this chapter, this analysis, "the CP-recursion analysis", will be compared to two alternative ones. The CP-recursion analysis has been advocated for Frisian by deHaan & Weerman (1986:86), for Swedish by Holmberg (1986:110) and Platzack (1986a:225), for English by Rizzi & Roberts (1989:22) and Authier (1992), and recently for Danish and Frisian by latridou & Kroch (1992). The most diverging of the two alternatives to be discussed is the suggestion that V2 may arise in embedded clauses through movement of non-subjects to IPspec rather than to CP-spec. This has been suggested for Yiddish by Diesing (1988, 1990), Santorini (1988a,b, 1989), Heycock & Santorini (1992), and latridou & Kroch (1992), among others. It was also suggested for Icelandic by Rognvaldsson & Thrainsson (1990) and latridou & Kroch (1992) and for Old English by Pintzuk (1991); something very similar was suggested for Danish by Reinholtz (1989). According to this alternative analysis, which I shall refer to as the "topicalisation to IP-spec analysis", what I assumed earlier in this chapter to take place at the CPlevel (V2: the finite verb in C°, the preverbal XP in CP-spec) is seen as taking place at the IP-level (V2: the finite verb in 1°, the preverbal XP in IP-spec). A third possible analysis, which is closer to the CP-recursion analysis than to the topicalisation to IP-spec analysis, is what I call the "ZP analysis," where ZP indicates a maximal projection different from both IP and CP. According to analyses of this type, there is a projection level, ZP, between CP and IP (V2: the finite verb in Z°, the preverbal XP in ZP-spec). This approach, example (49), avoids the disadvantages

81

Verb Second in Embedded Clauses

of the other two—recursion of CP is avoided and IP-spec is retained as reserved for the subject (i.e., as an A-position)—but it introduces a new and hitherto unknown projection level, ZP. Z° corresponds to what Roberts (1993) and Cardinaletti & Roberts (forthcoming) call Agrl°, Tsimpli (1990) calls F° (for focus), Muller & Sternefeld (1993:485) call T° (for topic), and Shlonsky (1992a,b) calls AgrC°. These three alternative analyses can be illustrated as follows: (48) The CP recursion C° a. ... — that — b. ... — that —

analysis. CP anae C° IP-spec subject — finite verb — topic — finite verb — subject

—

adverbial . . . adverbial . . .

(49) The ZP analysis. SL ZP-anac af. IP-anec a. ... — that — subject — finite verb — b. ... — that — topic — finite verb — subject —

adverbial . . . adverbial . . .

(50) The topicalisation to IP-spec analysis. £i IP-lmec If. TPsn/VPBP a. ... — that — subject — finite verb — b. ... — that — topic — finite verb — subject —

adverbial . . . adverbial . . .

In the terminology of Vikner & Schwartz (forthcoming), these three analyses are all "symmetrical", as they ascribe the same position in the tree to the finite verb, irrespective of whether the embedded V2 clause is subject-initial or not. Several other analyses of V2 exist which are not symmetrical in this sense, but I will not go into the details of these analyses here. Travis (1984, 1986, 1991) is discussed in Schwartz & Vikner (1989) and also, together with Zwart (1991), in Vikner & Schwartz (forthcoming). In the analyses of Travis and Zwart, the finite verb is taken to be in 1° in (embedded) subject-initial V2 clauses, but in C° in (embedded) non-subject-initial V2 clauses. An analysis which is asymmetrical in a rather different sense is advocated in Gawlitzek-Maiwald, Tracy, & Fritzenschaft (1992): According to them, the finite verb in embedded V2 is always in 1°, and the asymmetry is found when comparing the position of 1° in embedded V2 clauses to the position of 1° in embedded non-V2 clauses. This means that V2 can no longer have a unitary explanation: In German the difference between embedded V2 clauses and embedded non-V2 clauses is that in the former the order is I°-VP, in the latter it is VP-I°. In Scandinavian the difference between embedded V2 clauses and embedded non-V2 clauses cannot be explained in the same way because in both embedded V2 and embedded non-V2, the finite verb appears left of the VP (see section 4.1.1). Thus German V2 would be the position of 1° to the left of VP rather than to the right, whereas Scandinavian V2 would be a question of the finite verb moving into 1° or staying in V°. V2 would thus be an accident rather than a unitary phenomenon. Let us return to the symmetrical analyses in examples (48)-(50). It has been used as an argument (e.g., by Cardinaletti & Roberts forthcoming) against the CPrecursion analysis that it is not possible to prevent recursion from happening more than once: If (51a) and (51b) are possible, why not (51c)? (51) a. b. c.

. . . [ cp Spec C° [ I P Spec 1° . . . ]] . . . [ cp Spec C° [ cp Spec C° [ I p Spec 1° . . . ]]] . . . [ cp Spec C° [ cp Spec C° [ cp Spec C° [ I p Spec 1° . . . ] ] ] ]

82

Verb Movement

latridou & Kroch (1992:20) appeal to "some independent factor" to rule out CPrecursion that involves repetition of the same complementiser: "Perhaps what is involved is some sort of morpho-syntactic constraint against repetition of the same element". This would rule out structures like (5 Ic) provided that at least two consecutive C°s contain the same complementiser (e.g., if the upper C° and the middle C° are both that and the lower C° contains a finite verb). Not ruled out are structures like (51c) if the C°s contains different complementisers, but ruling out such examples might actually not be desirable. Although examples rarely occur in the literature that would require such an analysis, it is not obvious that they do not exist. Potential examples of this type are discussed in Vikner (1991:123, (59a)), where the three consecutive C°s are filled by the three different Danish relative complementisers . . . som at der..., and in Hoekstra (1993), where the three consecutive C°s are filled by the three different Dutch complementisers... als ofdat The various versions of the topicalisation to IP-spec analysis differ with respect to the status of IP-spec. Whereas Santorini (1988a,b, 1989) and Reinholtz (1989) assume that IP-spec is always the topic position—that is, it is always an Abar-position—Diesing (1988, 1990) takes IP-spec to be an A-position when filled by the subject and an A-bar-position when filled by a non-subject. Santorini (forthcoming) suggests that the difference between Yiddish and Icelandic is linked to this issue: that IP-spec is always an A-bar-position in Yiddish, but it may be an A-position in Icelandic. In her terms, the feature [+1] (see section 3.4.6) may be in C° in Icelandic but must be in 1° in Yiddish. The data she discusses could be analysed as optional CP-recursion or ZP-insertion in Icelandic and obligatory CP-recursion or ZP-insertion in Yiddish. To complete the picture, it should be mentioned that neither Rognvaldsson & Thrainsson (1990) nor latridou & Kroch (1992:7-11) actually commit themselves to the A- or A-bar-status of IP-spec. Later in this chapter I will mainly treat these various versions of the topicalisation to IP-spec analysis as one, as they all crucially differ from both the CP-recursion approach and the ZP approach in allowing IP-spec to be the landing site for topicalisation, and in taking 1° to be the position of the finite verb in a V2 structure. Some of the arguments against this approach may not apply to Santorini (1988a,b, 1989) or Reinholtz (1989), however, as in some respects these analyses may be considered a notational variant of the CP-recursion one: It could be argued that what to me is the lower CP has merely been re-labelled IP, and what to me is IP is re-labelled either VP or TP. One could take the varying status of IP-spec to be a conceptual disadvantage of the topicalisation to IP-spec analysis: I find it more elegant to assume IP-spec to have one and the same status universally (i.e., to be an A-position) than to assume it to vary between languages (for example, Yiddish/Icelandic - A-bar-position vs. other V2 languages - A-position), as do Santorini (1988a,b, 1989) or even to vary within one language, as does Diesing (1988, 1990) for Yiddish, for example. At least in theory, all three analyses in examples (48)-(50) are compatible with a CP analysis of V2 in main clauses, though the advocates of (50) all seem to assume that main clause V2 in Yiddish and Icelandic have the same analysis as embedded V2: that is, in both main and embedded clauses, topicalisation is amove-

Verb Second in Embedded Clauses

83

ment to IP-spec (Diesing 1988:127, Santorini 1988b:167, Rognvaldsson & Thrainsson 1990:10, (10)). Notice, though, that Heycock & Santorini (1992:9) make a distinction between main clause questions (where the finite verb is in C°) and main clause topicalisations (where the finite verb is in 1°). At this point one might reject the topicalisation to CP-spec analysis for all the V2 languages—i.e., say that the topic moves to IP-spec in all V2 languages—which would keep the parallelism between all the languages intact. Alternatively, one could assume that there is a difference, similar to the one seen above for embedded clauses, between main clauses in Icelandic/Yiddish (excluding or including questions) and main clauses in the other V2 languages. If we assume that topicalisation is movement to IP-spec in all V2 languages, it seems to me that this would mean not only rejecting all the argumentation in chapter 3 but also losing the explanation for the main/embedded asymmetry in the majority of V2 languages (i.e., all except from Icelandic and Yiddish and from German and Dutch). Presumably for these reasons, none of the analyses of Icelandic/ Yiddish cited here entertain this possibility; in fact, latridou & Kroch (1992) explicitly assume topicalisation to be movement to IP-spec in Yiddish and Icelandic and to CP-spec in the other languages. If, on the other hand, main clause V2 is topicalisation to IP-spec in Icelandic/ Yiddish but to CP-spec in the other V2 languages, the question is whether such a difference is motivated, given that there would seem to be no relevant structural differences between the two groups at all with respect to main clauses (as opposed to embedded clauses in the two groups, see section 4.1). In other words, although it is true that the topicalisation to IP-spec analysis avoids postulating a difference that is not motivated by the evidence (i.e., between main and embedded clauses in Icelandic and Yiddish), as claimed for example, by Rognvaldsson & Thrainsson (1990:4), the topicalisation to IP-spec analysis on the other hand necessitates postulating another difference which is not motivated by the evidence, either—namely, one between main clauses in Icelandic and Yiddish and main clauses in the other V2 languages. In other words, the difference between accepting or rejecting the topicalisation to IP-spec analysis (for Yiddish and Icelandic only) is not so much a question of avoiding a disadvantage (e.g., having to claim the existence of an asymmetry that is not supported by the data), but merely a question of where to situate such a disadvantage. This can also be formulated in a different manner: Whereas rejecting the topicalisation to IP-spec analysis (for Yiddish and Icelandic only) leaves us with the difficulty of explaining why these two languages allow CP-recursion (or insertion of ZP) everywhere (given that this is not so in the other V2 languages), accepting the topicalisation to IP-spec analysis (for Yiddish and Icelandic only) merely exchanges this difficulty for another one: the difficulty of explaining why these two languages allow IP-spec to be an A-bar-position (given that this is not so in the other V2 languages). One final remark, on the existence of CPs in Yiddish and Icelandic from the point of view of the topicalisation to IP-spec analysis: Rognvaldsson & Thrainsson (1990:9) do assume the existence of CP-spec in main clauses in Icelandic, but claim that it is only filled by left dislocated elements. However, this is merely another dif-

84

Verb Movement

ference in structure between Icelandic and, for example, Danish, which cannot be supported by empirical evidence (in Danish topicalisation is to CP-spec, so left dislocation would have to be to a position outside CP), as there seems to be no difference between left dislocation structures in the two languages. In this section we saw that at least three different approaches exist to the analysis of V2 in Yiddish and Icelandic and that, from a theoretical point of view, none of them has any obvious advantages over the other two. Below I will briefly discuss the merits of the three alternative analyses—for German in 4.2.2, and for English and Danish in 4.2.3.

4.2.2 Embedded V2 in German As stated in section 4.1.1, there is no reason to assume that embedded V2 clauses in German involve either CP-recursion or a ZP or the subject occurring anywhere but IP-spec, as embedded V2 is only grammatical if there is no daft:

This is supported by the findings of the rest of section 4.1: Embedded V2 with a complementiser and an overt expletive is impossible: embedded V2 is only possible (and only without a complementiser) with a subgroup of the verbs that take sentential complements. V2 is impossible in embedded questions.

4.2.3 Embedded V2 in English and Danish In English and Danish (two of the languages which have limited embedded V2 after a complementiser, this group also including Faroese, Frisian, Norwegian, and Swedish), there are empirical reasons for assuming that embedded V2 clauses involve either CP-recursion, or a ZP, or topicalisation to IP-spec: Embedded V2 is only grammatical if that/at is present, as in examples (53a) and (54a) vs. (53b) and (54b). If there were neither CP-recursion, nor a ZP, nor topicalisation to IP-spec, that/at should not be possible with embedded V2 (much less obligatory), as the presence of that/at in C° would prevent V2, as was the case in German in the previous subsection. Notice furthermore that that/at is optional if there is no V2 in the embedded sentence, as in examples (53c) and (54c) vs. (53d) and (54d):

Verb Second in Embedded Clauses

85

Apart from the rather striking fact (see section 3.3.2) that English has embedded V2 only with proposed negative elements, there are two phenomena which clearly show that embedded V2 in English and Danish is less general than in Yiddish and Icelandic. One is that embedded V2 is totally excluded in embedded questions (see section 4.1.4). The other is that embedded V2 is only possible with a subgroup of the verbs that take sentential complements (see section 4.1.3 for Danish, as well as the corresponding examples in English): (55) En. a. *John doubts that under no circumstances will Mary get up early b. *John is sorry that under no circumstances will I read this book

As embedded V2 only occurs with a subset of the verbs that take a sentential complement, it amounts to what might be called "selection by remote control"— that is, C° filled by at/that is only able to select another C° (or a Z°), when it is itself selected by a particular kind of matrix verb (i.e., the subset of verbs that take a sentential complement referred to above; see also the list of "bridge verbs" in section 4.1.3). Otherwise, as far as all C°s in main clauses and the lower C° in embedded clauses are concerned, C° selects 1°. In other words, within the CP-recursion analysis (as well as within the ZP analysis), there are two kinds of at/that. (56) 1. one selects CP (or ZP)—only selected by a subset of verbs taking complement clauses 2. one selects IP—selected by all verbs taking complement clauses

The topicalisation to IP-spec analysis is no more attractive for languages with limited embedded V2 like Danish and English, as it also would presuppose two kinds of at/that: (57) 1. one selects an IP with an A-bar-spec—only selected by a subset of verbs taking complement clauses 2. one selects an IP with an A-spec—selected by all verbs taking complement clauses

Neither of these disadvantages applied when we considered Yiddish and Icelandic. Both the CP-recursion analysis (or the ZP-selection one) and the topicalisation to

86

Verb Movement

IP-spec analysis are actually less unattractive than they are for English and Danish. With respect to the CP-recursion analysis (or the ZP-selection one), C° may always select CP (or ZP) when realised as az/ad, but only select IP when realised as a finite verb. With respect to the topicalisation to IP-spec analysis, C° may always select an IP with an A-bar-specifier. In this section, we saw that at least as far as the languages with limited embedded V2 are concerned, there seems to be no reason to reject the CP-recursion analysis (or the ZP-selection one)(but see section 4.10). A final word on the difference between the CP-recursion analysis and the ZPanalysis, which may not be particularly large (see also section 4.9). If we accept the ZP-analysis, we would have to add another functional category to our inventory, and we would have no account for its properties, as it would be different from any (well) known non lexical projection (i.e., DP, IP, and CP, or even AgrP and TP). Thus we would have no account of the similarities with CP, as discussed in section 4.7 an adverbial can adjoin to neither CP nor ZP.'3 This does not apply to the ZP-analysis of Tsimpli (1990), insofar as she is correct that F° (which is her term for what I call Z°) is required for other purposes as well, e.g., focus constructions in Hungarian.

4.2.4

For and against the three analyses: an overview

The introductory section, 4.1, contained an overview of the various cases of embedded V2, focusing on the distinction between general and limited embedded V2. The present section, 4.2, discussed the different approaches suggested in the literature, and their consequences for the analysis of the data in the three different groups of languages: the ones with general embedded V2 (after a complementiser) in 4.2.1 (i.e.: Yiddish and Icelandic), the ones which do not allow embedded V2 after a complementiser at all in 4.2.2 (example language: German), and finally the ones which have limited embedded V2 (after a complementiser) in 4.2.3 (example languages: Danish and English). We have thus set the stage for the rest of this chapter, which discusses various kinds of evidence that either have been or can be taken to favour one of these three analyses over the other two. Section 4.3 discusses an alleged argument in favour of topicalisation to IPspec, the existence of so-called VI declarative structures. Then I argue that even in embedded topicalisations where the subject follows the finite verb, the subject cannot be lower than IP-spec, due to facts concerning the relative positions of the subject and the sentential adverbial (section 4.4), object shift in Icelandic (4.5), subject-verb agreement (4.6), and adjunction of adverbials to IP and CP (4.7). It follows that if the subject is in IP-spec (as I take it to be), the preceding topicalised element must be in a CP-spec (or maybe in ZP-spec), and not in IP-spec, and thus these different types of evidence may all be used as arguments against the topicalisation to IP-spec analysis. In section 4.8, on the other hand, we shall see that the 13. In the analysis of Roberts (1993) and Cardinaletti & Roberts (forthcoming), where the Z° here corresponds to their Agrl 0 , this fact is somewhat hidden by the use of the terms Agrl and Agr2. I find this use confusing as it is crucial to their analysis that Agrl 0 and Agr2° are different (e.g., nominative may be assigned to Agr2P-spec, but not to AgrlP-spec).

Verb Second in Embedded Clauses

87

evidence concerning extraction from embedded V2 clauses would seem to give no clear indications one way or the other. In section 4.9, I argue that the CP-recursion analysis (or the ZP one) is also required to account for phenomena connected to non-V2 embedded clauses, which could not be accounted for otherwise, notably embedded questions in which the embedded w/i-element is followed by that. In section 4.10,1 consider embedded V2 in Danish, which has also been claimed (by Reinholtz 1989) to require an analysis of the "topicalisation to IP-spec"-type. I will disagree with this claim. Finally, section 4.11 contains the conclusion, which is that, if anything, the CP recursion analysis is favoured by the evidence, and there is thus no reason to revise the analysis (or analyses) of V2 suggested in chapter 3: V2 is the movement of the finite verb to C° and of some XP into CP-spec.

4.3 VI declaratives Santorini (1989:98) takes the following observation to be a reason to assume that topicalisation in main clauses is movement to IP-spec in Yiddish (and presumably also Icelandic), but not in the other V2 languages. Her observation is that Yiddish, like Icelandic, and supposedly unlike the other V2 languages allows so called VI declaratives (also called "narrative VI" in the literature); these are main clauses that begin with the finite verb without being ves/no-questions: (58) Yi.

Hot men geheysn shisn.

Hot der yidisher zelner oyfgehobn dem biks un hot geshosn in himl arayn. Has one ordered to shoot. Has the Jewish soldier up-taken the gun and has shot in heaven therein. (=So the order was given to shoot. So the Jewish soldier took his gun and shot up at the sky.) (from Santorini 1989:61, (44c))

(59) Ic.

Kom 6lafur seint heim Came dlafur late home

(=6lafur

came home late ) (from SigurBsson 1990:41, (1))

Before turning to Santorini's analysis, a few words on the occurrence of VI declarative clauses. According to Santorini (1989:60), the use of VI clauses in Yiddish "generally implies some relation of the verb-first clause to the prior discourse. Therefore, verb-first declarative clauses do not occur discourse-initially, and they are particularly frequent in narrative, though not restricted to it." The same situation seems to hold in Icelandic, according to SigurSsson (1990:45): "Declarative VI orders in main clauses are, in general, prompted by strong discourse cohesion. Accordingly, they cannot initiate the discourse and are most common in particularly cohesive texts, such as modern memoirs of various sorts, narrative letters and diaries, some argumentative texts, many folktales, and most of the Old Icelandic sagas." Santorini's (1989:98-99) analysis goes as follows: There is a requirement that the topic position be filled in the V2 languages. If the topic position is IP-spec in Yiddish and Icelandic, then this requirement does not affect CP-spec, as opposed to the other V2 languages, where CP-spec is the topic position, and thus is forced to

88

Verb Movement

have lexical content by this requirement. CP-spec may thus remain empty in main clauses in just those languages where IP-spec is the topic position. VI declaratives may then be analysed as V°-movement to C°, with CP-spec left empty, in Icelandic and Yiddish. There are two problems with this approach, one related to Yiddish and Icelandic, and one to do with the general distribution of VI declaratives across the Germanic languages. The problem related to Yiddish and Icelandic is as follows: Santorini (1989:98) claims to be following Sigur9sson's (1989:13) analysis that VI declaratives involve the finite verb moving to C°; however, for Sigurdsson (1989:11, 1990:42), this means that VI declaratives have the same structure as V2 main clauses (the finite verb is always in C°), whereas for Santorini, this means that the two are different: "Normal" V2 main clauses have the finite verb in 1°, VI declaratives have the verb in Cc. Because of this, Santorini's analysis predicts that VI declaratives should occur in two variations (see section 4.2.1 on the topicalisation to IP-spec analysis): (60) a. b.

CP spec £1 IP-spec (empty) — finite verb •—• subject — (empty) — finite verb — topic —

If. (empty) — (empty) —

TPan/VPsp (empty) subject

This prediction is not borne out: VI declaratives only show the word order where the subject immediately follows the finite verb, (60a), not the one where the finite verb is followed by a topic different from the topic, (60b) (cf. also Sigurflsson 1985, 1990): (61) Ic. a. Haffli Petur bci ekki enn lesiS bokina b. *Haf8i bdkina Petur b£ ekki enn lesiS Had (book-the) Petur then not yet read (book-the) (example (61a) based on Sigurdsson 1990:50, (21a)) (62) Yi. a.

Hot

der yid nekhtn

gegebn dem yingl dos dozike bukh

b. *Hot dos dozike bukh der yid nekhtn gegebn dem yingl Has (this book) the man yesterday given the boy (this

book)

The verb-subject order is of course not ruled out by Santorini's (1989:98) analysis, as it is an example of the option where the subject is the topic. It is rather striking, however, that the option where the topic is a non-subject, (60b), cannot occur. In Sigur3sson's (1989:11, 1990) analysis, this fact is accounted for, as IP-spec to him is the position in which the subject is assigned case, and thus cannot be filled by anything but the subject (i.e., IP-spec is not a topic-position). This also follows from the analysis advocated in chapter 3. Independently, Heycock & Santorini (1992) have raised essentially the same objection to Diesing's (1990:54, (20)) analysis of extraction from embedded clauses, which assumes topicalisation inside an embedded question to involve whmovement into CP-spec and topicalisation into IP-spec. As Heycock & Santorini (1992:section 2.2) point out, such an analysis makes the following prediction: In an extraction from an embedded clause, it should not matter whether IP-spec contains a subject or a non-subject—that is, the verb should be able to precede either a sub-

Verb Second in Embedded Clauses

89

ject or a topicalised element, since both should be able to occur in IP-spec. This prediction is not borne out, however:

Heycock & Santorini (1992) suggest an analysis, which will explain why, when the verb is in C°, the sole element that may immediately follow the verb is the subject. They suggest that XP-positions can be licensed in three ways: theta-assignment, predication, and case assignment. Licensing via theta-assignment occurs only at D-structure, whereas predication and case assignment can license new positions only at S-structure. For example, the direct object position is licensed under thetaassignment at D-structure, whereas IP-spec—not being a theta-position—can be licensed only at S-structure in one of two ways, depending on the final landing site of the verb (and note that IP-spec must be licensed (Heycock & Santorini 1992:section 3.1)): As the landing site for topicalisation (as well as for clause-initial subjects), IP-spec is licensed via predication; however, in w/i-questions, for example, where the verb moves to C°, a different way of licensing IP-spec is needed, namely nominative case assignment. It is worth pointing out that Heycock & Santorini (1992) explicitly rule out the possibility of IP-spec being licensed via predication in this configuration (i.e., when the verb precedes the subject) by proposing that "the relationship between licensing mechanisms and the positions licensed by them is a one-to-one relationship" (Heycock & Santorini 1992:section 3.1). The net result of this system is that while thematic positions are licensed at D-structure, the licensing of non-thematic positions depends on the final landing site of the finite verb (and hence that verb traces are insufficient for this kind of licensing). Within this approach, the examples with the verb in C° and a non-subject in IP-spec, (60b) and (63b), are ruled out because the finite verb in C° can only license IP-spec through nominative case assignment, and therefore the object ot di bikher 'just these books', like any other non-subject topic, cannot occur there. Nevertheless, it seems that this approach leads to some unwanted predictions. Consider the following two cases of exceptional case marking (see also section 6.5.1): (64) a. Ic. b. Yi.

Ser maourinn skyndilega nagrannann koma t? Zet der yid plutsling dem shokhn kumen t? Sees the man(nom) suddenly the neighbour(ace) come ?

(65) a. Ic. b. Yi.

Laetur ma<5urinn skyndilega vindilinn detta t? Lozt der yid plutsling dem tsigar fain t? Lets the man(nom) suddenly the cigar (ace) fall ?

(These examples are given as yes/no-questions, but could also be VI declaratives.) In (64a,b) and (65a,b), the NP with accusative case is no longer in its base-generated position, which follows the embedded (infinitival) verb come/fall (in fact, the accusative NP could only be licensed in its base-generated position if it was indefi-

90

Verb Movement

nite; see chapter 6). As the accusative NP is not in its base-generated position anymore, the question is how (in Heycock & Santorini's 1992 analysis) the position it occupies is licensed at S-structure. This licensing cannot be via predication, as the accusative NP is not in a spec-X° agreement relationship with the verb; the only other possibility is via case assignment. But this in turn cannot be possible either: The finite verb is licensing (through nominative case assignment) the subject in IPspec and cannot also be licensing the surface position of the accusative NP, both because of the "one-to-one relationship" and because there is no position for the accusative NP to occupy such that it is head-governed by C° and not by 1°. Thus, it seems that under the approach of Heycock & Santorini (1992) there is no way to license the neighbour in (64a,b) and the cigar in (65a,b). In the analysis advocated here, the accusative NP in (64a,b) and (65a,b) is licensed (i.e., assigned accusative case) in the specifier of the embedded VP, but there is no prohibition against this licensing being carried out by a trace. As for the problematic examples, (61), (62) and (63), they would be accounted for by the general assumptions: IP-spec is only an A-position, and therefore only the subject may occur there. Returning to the VI declaratives, the rejection of Santorini's (1989:98-99) analysis means that we have no explanation why an empty CP-spec in some languages must be interpreted as containing a yes/no-queslion operator, and in some cases it does not. In other words, we have no account for why VI declaratives only occur in the languages that allow general embedded V2—-Yiddish and Icelandic. However, this may not be a problem, as the account might have been too strong: VI declaratives are also possible in colloquial Dutch (den Besten 1977:62), colloquial German (Paul 1919:72-73), and the Swedish dialect of Malmo (Dahlback & Vamling 1983, cited in Platzack 1987a), none of which allow general embedded V2 in the fashion that Icelandic and Yiddish do. It would thus seem that the possibility of VI declaratives is determined by some property, maybe a lexical one, which is entirely unrelated to other differences between V2 languages. It is hard to see what Yiddish, Icelandic, colloquial Dutch, colloquial German, and Malmo Swedish would have in common that is not found in, for example, Danish, standard German, and standard Swedish. This is compatible with the account in Diesing (1990:56, fn 14), where the determining factor is the existence of "an empty element with the meaning of therefore".14 In this section I have tried to argue against Santorini's (1989:98-99) claim that the occurrence of VI declaratives in Yiddish (and Icelandic) is an indication that topicalisation is a movement to IP-spec rather than to CP spec. I furthermore tried to show that the alternative analysis of the data suggested in Heycock & Santorini (1992) entails a general theory of licensing which can not be maintained in the light of exceptional case-marking data.

14. Platzack (1987a) links the possibility of having VI declaratives to whether the language in question has agreement in 1° or not (i.e., whether a language has V°-to-F movement; see chapter 5 this volume). The general distribution of this phenomenon across the V2 languages described here, along with the fact that it exists in a dialect of Swedish, is a problem for this approach.

91

Verb Second in Embedded Clauses

4.4 Relative positions of the subject and the sentential adverbial In this section I show how the data concerning adverbials which occur to the right of the subject in embedded V2 clauses in Icelandic and Yiddish provide an argument against the claim of the topicalisation to IP-spec analysis that in non-subjectinitial V2 clauses, the subject is in VP-spec. The data argue only against the subject being in VP-spec in such clauses, and argue only indirectly against the initial element (i.e., the topic) being in IP-spec, as this presupposes that there is only one functional head between C° and V°—namely 1°. I will start with Icelandic where the data are clearest. In Icelandic embedded non-subject-initial V2 clauses, the subject always precedes the sentential adverbial: (66) Ic. a. Hann veit ao kannski las Jon aldrei b<5kina b. *Hann veit a<5 kannski las aldrei J6n b6kina He knows that maybe read (J6n) never <J6n) book-the c. Hann veit ao kannski hefur Jon ekki lesifl b6kina d. *Hann veit a6 kannski hefur ekki J6n lesiS bokina He knows that maybe has (J6n) not (Jon) read book-the

Following the logic of the topicalisation to IP-spec analysis (which I am trying to argue against), if the finite verb is in 1° and there is no IP-recursion, then the subject must either be in VP-spec or in the specifier of some intermediate projection— e.g., TP-spec. Both Diesing (1988, 1990:47) and Rognvaldsson & Thrainsson (1990:10) explicitly take the subject to be in VP-spec, and I will mainly argue against this position. The first argument against the subjects in (66a,c) being in VP-spec is based on the fact that it is possible to have a subject between the negation and the participle—that is, as in the ungrammatical (66d)—provided the subject is an indefinite NP in a construction with the expletive subject pad (for further discussion, see chapter 6): (67) Ic. a. *£g tel b. ^g tel I think 1=1 think

aO a<5 that that

bao bad there there

hafi ekki bessir studentar hafi ekki margir studentar have not these/many students are not many students who have

Iesi6 bokina lesid b6kina read book-the read this book)

I suggest that (67b) may be a case in which we see an Icelandic subject in VP-spec. Consequently the subjects in (67a) and (66a,c) cannot be in VP-spec, but must occur higher in the tree, as they have to precede negation. The second argument is an argument both against the subject being in VP-spec and against the subject being in TP-spec in embedded topicalisations: The adverbial between the subject and the participle (the negative sentence adverb aldrei 'never' in (66a) or the negation ekki 'not' in (66c)), like other sentential adverbials, should only occur adjoined to, or in the specifier position of, an XP relatively high in the tree, for reasons of scope, and the subject would then have to be situated even higher. The question is where the negative elements occur exactly. The fact that both induce negative islands points toward their position in TP-spec (as suggested

92

Verb Movement

by Rizzi 1990a:18); cf. the following data which are parallel to the Danish hvad-for split cases as discussed in section 2.2.5:15 ( 6 8 ) Ic. a. b. ( 6 9 ) Ic. a.

Hversu marcrar baekur hefur Jon lesifl t? How many books has J6n read ? Hversu marcrar baekur hefur J6n ekki lesiS t? How many books has J6n not read ? Hvac- hefur Jon lesifl [t margar baekur] ? What has J6n read many books ? f=How many books has J6n react?)

b. *HvaO hefur J6n ekki lesi<3 [t margar baekur]? What has J6n not read many books ?

Asking for the number of books that Jon has read can take two forms, either How many books..., (68a) or What... many books, (69a). If you want to know the number of books that Jon has not read, however, only the former strategy works, (68b), not the latter, (69b). This may be accounted for by assuming the negation to be in TPspec, blocking the A-bar-movement of non-arguments across it (i.e., of elements that do not have a referential index): The whole object can be moved to CP-spec, (68b), but not just part of the object, (69b), as it does not have a referential index, and the negation blocks antecedent government of the trace, which leaves the trace without any link to its antecedent. If the negation in (66a,c) is in TP-spec, then the subject, which is to the left of the negation, can neither be in VP-spec nor in TP-spec. The third argument is only an argument against the subject occurring in VPspec. The adverbial drugglega 'surely', like its English counterpart, has two different interpretations, which depend on its position in the following sentence (where Jon is trying his luck in the role of William Tell): (70) Ic. a. b.

J6n mun Qruqgleaa hitta eplicJ6n mun hitta epli8 oruaaleaa Jon will (surely! hit apple-the (surely!

In (70a) drugglega is a sentence-adverbial, with the meaning 'definitely / certainly / absolutely'. In (70b) drugglega is a VP-adverbial, with the meaning 'in a sure manner' (e.g., right in the middle). Let us now consider what happens in embedded clauses:

15. I have no explanation for the fact that Yiddish seems to differ from Icelandic, Danish, etc. in this respect, as (iib) apparently is as acceptable as (iia) and (ia,b): (i)

Yi. a. b.

Vos far a bikher hot Avrom gekoyft? Vos far a bikher hot Avrom nisht gekoyft? What for books has Avrom {not) bought ?

(Li)

Yi. a. b.

Vos hot Avrom gekoyft far a bikher? Vos hot Avrom nisht gekoyft far a bikher? What has Avrom (not) bought for books ?

Verb Second in Embedded Clauses (71) Ic.

93

Jjg held aO i gar hafi ... I believe that yesterday has a. ??... b'ruaaleaa J6n hitt epliS b. ... J6n Qruggleaa hitt epli<5 c. ... Jon hitt eplid" oruaaleaa . . . (surely.) J6n (surely) hit apple-the (surely)

The subject cannot occur to the right of the adverbial, (7la), parallel to (66b) and (66d) (insofar as (7la) is interpretable, the adverbial would not be a sentence adverbial, but only modify Jon, "at least J6n" or "certainly Jon", as opposed to anybody else). If the subject is in VP-spec, as claimed by Rognvaldsson & Thrainsson (1990), the adverbial in (71b), which only has the sentence-adverbial interpretation, must be adjoined to V-bar, but this would make undesirable predictions for the interpretation. The adverbial in (71c), which only has the VP-adverbial interpretation, can either be adjoined to V-bar or to some larger constituent, e.g., VP or TP. If the adverbial in (7 Ic) is adjoined to V-bar, then the adverbial in (7 Ib) and the one in (71c) are adjoined to the same constituent—i.e., they have the same scope—and we would also expect them to have the same interpretation, which is not borne out. If the adverbial in (71c) is adj oined to VP or higher, we would expect it to have wider scope than the onein(71b), which is not borne out either. Consequently the adverb in (7 Ib) cannot be adjoined to V-bar, but must be adjoined higher in the tree, and then the embedded subject cannot be in VP-spec but must also occur higher in the tree. Another possibility exists, given that (71) contains two verbs, hafi 'has' and hitt 'hit': The final adverbial (i.e., the VP-adverbial, as in (71c)) could be be adjoined to the V-bar of hitt and the medial adverbial (i.e., the sentence adverbial, as in (71b)) could be adjoined to the VP of hitt or to the V-bar of the base-generated position of hafi, leaving open the possibility that the subject occurs in the VPspec of the base-generated position of hafi. However, the judgments would be the same if there was only one verb in the structure: If the finite verb was the main verb, and therefore such an analysis could not go through, the subject could not possibly be in VP-spec of the main verb. The version with just one verb is made more complicated by the fact that object shift may apply (whereas object shift cannot apply in (71)). For further discussion of such a construction, see section 4.5. On the other hand, if the subject is in IP-spec, then the adverbial in (71b) can be adjoined to TP, and the one in (71c) to VP. Furthermore, if we assume that the negation is in TP-spec, following the argumentation concerning (68)-(69) and section 2.2.3, then the following data support the analysis that when orugglega occurs right of the subject and left of the non-finite main verb, it is adjoined to TP: (72) Ic.

£g held aS a morgun muni Jon ... I believe that tomorrow will Jon ... a. ... oruaaleaa ekki hitta eplia b. *... ekki Sruggleaa hitta epliS ... (surely) not (surely) hit apple~the

A closely related argument concerns the scope interaction between adverbials and quantified objects (pointed out by Halldor Armann Sigurdsson, personal communication):

94

Verb Movement

(73) Ic.

6lafur sagoi ... 6lafur said

a. b.

...

. . . afl fess vegna . . . aS bess vegna . . . that therefore

haf<5i J6n oft hafSi Jon has Jon (often)

lesi<5 margar bcekur lesia margar baskur oft read many books (often)

The interpretations of (73a,b) differ in exactly the same way as those of their English counterparts: (73a) means that Jon often reads many books (for some particular reason), whereas (73b) means that there are many books which (for some particular reason) Jon often reads. This again clearly shows that when the adverbial occurs between the subject and the participle it has higher scope than when it occurs sentence-finally. As the sentence-final adverbial in (73b) cannot possibly have a position in the tree lower than adjoined to V-bar (as it is preceded by the object), the adverbial in (73a) must occur in a higher position, which means that it in turn cannot be lower than in VP-spec or adjoined to VP. Both of these in turn exclude the subject being in VP-spec in (73a). A conceptual argument against the subject being in VP-spec can be made, based on X-bar-theory. If the subject is in VP-spec in (66a,c), then the fact that the adverbial would have to occur between VP-spec and the complement of V° implies a particular D-structure representation. This structure (before the verb leaves VP) would have to be the following, as is in fact assumed by Rognvaldsson & Thrainsson (1990:10, (10), (11)):

I take a structure like (74) to be explicitly ruled out in the X'-system of Chomsky (1986a), as adjunction to an X-bar is impossible.16 16. Versions of X-bar-theory exist in which a VP-internal subject may precede a VP-adjoined adverbial. In Koopman & Sportiche (1991:212) and Sportiche (1988b:425), a VP-structure is suggested which would allow an adverbial to occur between the subject and V° without necessitating adjunction to Vbar:

According to Koopman & Sportiche (1991:212), V", which is "a small clause whose predicate is VP", is "the maximal projection" of V°, whereas VP is "the phrasal projection" of V. This gives two possibilities for the position of the adverbial, neither of which presupposes adjunction to V-bar: Either the adverbial is in VP-spec (as opposed to V"-spec which is occupied by the subject) or it is adjoined to VP. Notice that though VP-adjunction is adopted by Sportiche (1988b:432), it is only suggested for a manner adverbial like French (Fr.) soigneusement 'carefully'. In fact, Sportiche (1988b:432) assumes that a sentential adverbial would have to be "adjacent (adjoined) to I" and thus to the left of V". The option of using Sportiche's and Koopman & Sportiche's analysis in (i) for (66a,c) is thus unavailable, as the position of the adverbial in (i) is feasible only for non-sentential adverbials.

95

Verb Second in Embedded Clauses

So far we have seen five reasons why the subject in (66a,c) cannot be in VPspec, only one of which also argue against it being in TP-spec. Another argument may be made against the subject being in TP-spec: TP-spec is an A-bar-position. This assumption is made, e.g., by Roberts (1993:22), and it is supported by the relativised minimality analysis of negative islands (see section 2.2.3 and (68)-(69)) and of the so called pseudo-opacity phenomena (see Rizzi 1990a: 12-15, which is based on Obenauer 1976, 1984). Summing up: If the subject in (66a,c) can neither occur in TP-spec nor in VPspec, as has been argued here, then it is not possible to analyse these well-formed examples as having the finite verb in 1°. If the finite verb is in C°, however, then a third possibility of the position of the subject in (66a,c) may be taken into consideration: The subject could be in IP-spec. This analysis suffers from none of the defaults discussed, and as the subject being in IP-spec excludes IP-spec as the landing site of topicalisation, I shall take this to be an argument against the topicalisation to IP-spec analysis. Let us finally briefly turn to Yiddish, which is different from Icelandic in that it allows both the order subject-adverbial (which is also possible in Icelandic) and the order adverbial-subject (which is not possible in Icelandic): (75) Yi. a.

b.

. . . az haynt heybn di kinder in eraesn on zeyer heymarbet . . . that today start the children in truth on their homework . . . az haynt heybn in emesn di kinder on zeyer heymarbet . . . that today start in truth the children on their homework

(76) Yi. a.

. . . az morgn vet dos yingl oyfn veg zen a kats . . . that tomorrow will the boy on-the way see a cat

b.

. . . az morgn vet oyfn veg dos yingl zen a kats . . . that tomorrow will on-the way the boy see a cat

What is important here is that (75a) and (76a) are possible at all. Following the argumentation above, the adverbials in emesn 'in truth, really' and oyfn veg 'on the way' in (75a) and (76a) must be adjoined to VP (if not higher), for reasons to do with both scope and X-bar-theory, and then the subject must be outside the VP. Yiddish presents the interesting complication that it seems to be possible for the subject to occur in VP-spec as well, as in (75b) and (76b), but this does not detract from the value of the argumentation based on (75a) and (76a). In the embedded V2 topicalisations (75a) and (76a), the subject cannot occur in VP-spec, and so it must be in TP-spec or IP-spec.17 The earlier argument concerning scope interaction between adverbial and quantified objects also holds for Yiddish: 17. Notice that it cannot be the case that the subjects in (75b) and (76b) are extraposed (with subsequent extraposition of the object in (75b) or the infinitival VP in (76b)): In (75b), the subject clearly occurs before V°, the base position of the verb, as the particle on is adjacent to V°: (i)

Yi. a. b.

Di The Di The

kinder children kinder children

heybn £n £ zeyer heymarbet start on their homework musn onhevbn zeyer heymarbet must on-start their homework

(from Travis 1991:358, (38a.b))

96 (77)

Verb Movement Yi.

Miriam hot gezogt ... Miriam has said a. b.

. . . az tsulib dem hot Avrom oft mol geleyent a sakh bikher . . . az tsulib dem hot Avrom geleyent a sakh bikher oft mol . . . that therefore has Avrom (often) read many books (often)

The interpretations of (77a,b) differ in exactly the same way as those of their Icelandic counterparts in (73a,b): (77a) only means that Avrom often reads many books (for some particular reason), whereas (77b) only means that there are many books which (for some particular reason) Avrom often reads. This again clearly shows that when the adverbial occurs between the subject and the participle it has higher scope than when it occurs sentence-finally. As the sentence-final adverbial in (77b) cannot possibly have a position in the tree lower than adjoined to V-bar (as it is preceded by the object), the adverbial in (77a) must occur in a higher position, which means that it in turn cannot be lower than in VP-spec or adjoined to VP. Both of these, in turn, exclude the subject being in VP-spec in (77a). In this section we saw how the data concerning adverbials occurring to the right of the subject in embedded V2 topicalisations in Icelandic and Yiddish provided us with an argument against those versions of the topicalisation to IP-spec analysis that assume that the subject occurs in VP-spec unless it is topicalised. First we saw that one kind of subject may occur between negation and the nonfinite main verb: indefinite subjects in expletive constructions. This was taken as an indication that all other subjects, which must precede negation, may not occur in their base-generated position—i.e., in VP-spec. Then we saw that negation blocks extraction of non-arguments, which was taken to be an indication that negation occurs in a specifier position above VP, e.g., in TP-spec. The fact that Icelandic subjects must occur to the left of this negation is then an indication that the subject cannot occur in VP-spec or in TP-spec. The position of sentential adverbials was also discussed, and, based on different scopal interpretations, it was argued that such adverbials must occur in VP-spec or be adjoined to VP (or higher). The fact that Icelandic subjects must occur to the left of such adverbials is then an indication that the subject cannot occur in VP-spec. It was further argued that it is not desirable from a theoretical point of view to allow adjunction of maximal projections to X-bar, which is not a maximal projection level. This supports the contention that negation and adverbials must be adjoined to VP (or adjoined to even higher XPs), which again entails that Icelandic subjects, which must occur left of negation and sentential adverbials, must occur outside VP. As for Yiddish, the subject in embedded V2 topicalisations may occur left of sentential adverbials, which also indicates that the subject in such clauses does not have to occur inside VP. As for the possibility that the subject in embedded V2 topicalisations occurs in TP-spec (or some other specifier-position higher than VP-spec but lower than IP-spec), the evidence was rather theory-internal, as it crucially involved one of two assumptions: either that negation occurs in TP-spec or that TP-spec is an Abar-position.

Verb Second in Embedded Clauses

97

4.5 Object shift On the basis of Icelandic object shift data, another set of arguments, related to the ones in the previous section, can be made against the claim that the subject in embedded V2 topicalisations occurs in VP-spec. As stated in the previous section, such a view is held by some, though not all, of the proponents of the topicalisation to IP-spec approach, including both Diesing (1988, 1990:47) and Rognvaldsson & Thrainsson (1990:10). However, as we shall see, the argumentation can also be extended to cover TP-spec—that is, to also argue against the possibility that the subject in embedded V2 topicalisations occurs in TP-spec. Object shift, which is found in all the Scandinavian languages, is a leftward movement of the object out of the VP, and it requires that the VP only contain a trace of the verb (see, among others, Holmberg 1986:165-240 and Vikner forthcoming). In Icelandic, all objects may undergo object shift, whereas in the other Scandinavian languages, only pronominal objects may. Before turning to the evidence from object shift, consider the possible position of negation in Icelandic: (78) Ic. a. Kannski hefur b. *Kannski hefur c. *Kannski hefur Maybe has

Jon ejiki J6n J6n J6n (not)

lesia bokina lesifl ejjjii b6kina lesiS b6kina read (not) book-the (not)

Ekki 'not' cannot occur inside V-bar— i.e., between the verb and the object, (78b)— nor can it occur on the right edge of VP, (78c). Given that ekki must occur to the left of VP, it is clear that object shift, which moves the object to the left of negation (or medial adverbials), is movement out of V-bar: ( 7 9 ) Ic.

Hann veit He knows . . . a. . . . aO bess vegna las v J6n bokina i ekki t v t 4 b. « . . . aS bess vegna lasv b6kina t J6n ekki t v t± . . . that therefore read (J6n) book-the (Jon) not

We know that because bokina 'the book' precedes the negation, it has left its base position (which is to the right of the verb trace, which again is to the right of the negation). The question is now what position the object has moved to in (79a). If the subject NP Jon were in VP-spec, then the moved object NP bokina must have adjoined to V-bar. This must however be taken to be excluded by the structure preserving hypothesis of Emonds (1976)(cf. also Chomsky 1986a:4-5), which says that maximal projections may only be related to other maximal projections. In other words, an XP may move into an XP-position (e.g., a specifier position) or it may adjoin to an XP, but it may not adjoin to an X-bar. Therefore bokina must at least be in VP-spec (or adjoined to VP or occur even higher), and then the subject Jon cannot possibly be in VP-spec in (79a). If on the other hand Jon in (79a) is in IP-spec, then it is possible that bokina has adjoined to VP, which is perfectly compatible with X' -theory.18 The same holds for the situation in (79a) where Jon is in TP-spec (or in any other specifier position

98

Verb Movement

outside VP). Against the TP-spec possibility, it could be objected that the negation itself may be in TP-spec, as suggested by Rizzi (1990a:18), based on evidence concerning negative islands, which also holds for Icelandic (see sections 4.4 and 2.2.3), in which case Jon would have to occur adjoined to TP or higher. A similar argument may be derived from object shift across a sentential adverbial. Recall from the previous section that the adverb druggiega may be either a sentence-adverbial meaning 'definitely / certainly / absolutely' or a VP-adverbial meaning 'in a sure manner'. When it occurs left of the VP, it has only the first interpretation, (80a); when right of the VP, it has only the second, (80b): (80) Ic. a, b.

Sent-adv. VP-ndv. E»ess vegna mun Jon orugglega hitta epli<5 Pass vegna mun J6n hitta epli<3 Srugglega Therefore will J6n (surely) hit apple-the (surely)

No other orders are possible (for glosses, see (80)): (81) Ic. a. b. c. d.

*£ess *I>ess *Pess *E>ess

vegna vegna vegna vegna

mun mun mun mun

J6n Jon Jon J6n

hitta orugglega orugglega epliS epliO hitta eplifl orugglega

epliflo hitta orugglega hitta

Example (8la) is ruled out because the adverbial occurs inside V-bar, and example (81b-d) are ruled out because object shift cannot apply across a verb, but only across a verb trace, as stated earlier. Turning now to the versions with object shift, we find that whereas the order adverbial-object is unambiguous (it can only mean that Jon definitely hit the apple), the order object-adverbial is ambiguous (it can both mean that Jon definitely hit the apple and that Jon hit the apple in a sure manner, e.g., right in the middle). This difference is a further indication of the existence of object shift: With the unambiguous order adverbial-object, the adverbial must be left-adjoined to VP (or higher), giving it its sentential interpretation, and the object must be in its base position inside VP, (82a). With the ambiguous order object-adverbial, two adverbial positions are possible: Either the adverbial is left-adjoined to VP (or higher), giving it its sentential interpretation, and the object must have undergone object shift, (82b), or the adverbial is right-adjoined to VP (or lower), giving it its interpretation as a 18. A similar argument can be made for Yiddish, on the basis of scrambling data like the following: (i)

Yi.

Miriam hot gezogt az dos dozike Bukh hot ... Miriam has said that this here book has ... a. b. c.

... ... ... dem yingl ... I the boy(dat)}

der der der the

shokhn shokhn dem yingl shokhn neighbour (the boy(datj)

gegebn dem yingl gegebn gegebn given (the boyfdat}}

In an embedded topicalisation, the subject cannot be taken to have to occur in VP-spec, as the scrambled dative object may occur between the subject and the verb. If the subject were in VP-spec, then the dative object in (ib) would have to have adjoined to V-bar, which I take to be impossible—cf. the discussion of Icelandic (79a). The embedded subject in (i) can be taken to be either in TP-spec or in IPspec, however.

Verb Second in Embedded Clauses

99

VP-adverbial, in both (82c,d). It is of no consequence whether the object then remains in its base position inside VP, (82c), or undergoes object shift, (82d): (82)

Ic. a. b. c. d.

tess vegna S-ess vegna Pess vegna tess vegna Therefore

hittiv hittiv hittiv hittiv hit

Sant-adv. VP-adv. Jon orugglega tv epli<3 Jon eplio^ orugglega tv ti Jon tv epli6 orugglega Jon eplifli tv t± orugglega J6n (apple-the) (surely) (apple.-the) (surely)

We know that because eplid precedes the sentential adverbial negation in (82b), it has left its base position (which is to the right of the verb trace, which again is to the right of the sentential adverbial). As was argued in the previous section, the VPadverbial (i.e., in (80b) and (82c,d)) must be adjoined to V-bar (or higher). If the VP-adverbial is adjoined to V-bar, then the sentential adverbial (i.e., in (80a) and (82a,b)) must at least be adjoined to VP (or higher), given that it has larger scope. This again means that the object-shifted object in (82b) and (82d) must at least be adjoined to VP. If a moved object is adjoined to VP, we should expect it to be able to precede the subject, if the subject (in an embedded V2 topicalisation) may occur in VP-spec. This is not borne out, however; see (83c,d): (83) Ic.

tg veit ad I know that ... a. b.

Sant-adv. VP-adv. ... ]?ess vegna hittiv J6n eplidi orugglega tv tt ... bess vegna hittiv J6n epliS^ tv tj Srugglega . . . therefore hit J6n apple-the (surely) (surely)

Sent-adv. VP-adv. c. *... bess vegna hittiv eplioj J6n Srugglega tv ti A. *... bess vegna hittiv epllOj J6n tv t4 Srugglega . . . therefore hit apple-the J6n (surely) (surely)

Consequently, the subject in (83a,b) must be outside VP. Furthermore, there may be a reason to assume that the VP-adverbial in (80b), (82c,d), and (83b) must be right-adjoined to VP, and cannot be right-adjoined to Vbar, given the structure-preserving hypothesis of Emonds (1976): The adverbial is a maximal projection and should thus only be able to adjoin to other maximal projections. This would force the sentential adverbial in (80a), (82a,b), and (83a) to be adjoined to a maximal projection higher than VP—e.g., TP—and this again would exclude the subject in (83a,b) not only from being in VP-spec or adjoined to VP but also from being in TP-spec, as it must be right of the shifted object, which again is right of the sentential adverb, which is adjoined to TP. If the subject were in IP-spec or adjoined to TP, but no lower, these data would be straightforwardly accounted for. It is furthermore possible to argue that the subject must be in the specifier position of or adjoined to an XP different from and higher than the one in the specifier position of which or adjoined to which the shifted object occurs. Consider the following data with more than one adverbial: (84) Ic.

Jon vissi aS i gar ... J6n knew that yesterday .. .

100

Verb Movement a. . . . lasv Petur bokinaj SreiSanlega ekki t v t j b. * . . . lasv Petur ireiflanlega bikinaj ekki tv t j c. . . . lasv Petur areiSanlega ekki t v bokina . . . r e a d Petur (book-the)certainly Ibook-the) not (book-the) (adapted from Vikner, forthcoming (14))

Vikner (forthcoming) argues that data like (84a,b) show both that object-shifted objects are assigned case in their position after object shift, not before, and that case assignment requires head government and adjacency. Following this line of argumentation, the object-shifted object in (84a) must be head governed and adjacent to a case-assigning head, which again means that the subject must be to the left of this empty head, otherwise the head and the object would not be adjacent. That is, the object must be in the specifier of or adjoined to an XP higher than the one in the specifier of which or adjoined to which the object-shifted object occurs. Applying the conclusion from the discussion concerning (83a) above, the object-shifted object must at least be adjoined to an XP containing VP (e.g., TP) if not higher, which would then mean that the subject must occur in the specifier of or adjoined to an XP that contains not only VP but also an XP (e.g., TP), which again contains VP; for example, the subject must occur in the specifier of or adjoined to IP. In this section we have seen that the data concerning object shift in Icelandic may provide an argument for the subject in embedded V2 topicalisations to occur neither in VP-spec nor in TP-spec. The object in object-shift cases occurs to the left of negation or of sentential adverbials, and as the subject must occur to the left of the object-shifted object, it must be higher in the tree than either of these two. It was furthermore argued that the sentential adverbial must be adjoined to an XP higher than (i.e., containing) VP, and that the subject must occur in the specifier of or adjoined to an XP higher than (i.e., containing) the XP in the specifier of which or adjoined to which the object-shifted object occurs. As the object-shifted object is to the left of a sentential adverb—that is, it must at least be adjoined to TP (if not higher), it follows that the subject must be inside or adjoined to an XP one step higher—e.g., IP, but not TP (if T° is the head that selects VP).

4.6 Subject-verb agreement In Yiddish and Icelandic the finite verb agrees in number and person with the subject. This is a realisation of spec-X° agreement inside IP (or inside AgrP, if IP is replaced by AgrP and TP). If topicalisation was to IP-spec (or to AgrP-spec), we would expect the finite verb to agree with the topic. Two paradigms follow that show that the finite verb in Icelandic and Yiddish always agrees with the subject, and never with the topicalised element. In (85) and (86), the topicalised element is the object, which is singular in all cases. It is clear from the grammaticality of (85a) and (86a) and the ungrammaticality of (85b) and (86b) that agreement is with the subject: (85) Yi. a.

. . . az dos bukh liobja di kinder geleyent nekhtn . . . that the book have the children read yesterday b. « . . . az dos bukh hot di kinder geleyent nekhtn . . . that the book has the children read yesterday

Verb Second in Embedded c. *. . . ... d. . . . ... (86)

az that az that

dos the dos the

... ... b. *, . . ...

aS that ao" that

b6kina book-the bdkina book-the

ha fa have hefur has

bornin children-the bornin children-the

c. * . . . ... d. . . . . ..

aS that aS that

bdkina book-the bdkina book-the

hafa have hj=f_ur_ has

stra"kurinn boy-the strakurinn boy-the

Ic. a.

bukh book bukh book

hobn have hot has

dos the dos the

yingl boy yingl boy

101

Clauses

geleyent read geleyent read

nekhtn yesterday nekhtn yesterday

lesio" read lesi<5 read

lesiS read lesiS read

i gaer yesterday i g&r yesterday

i gaer yesterday £ gaer yesterday

In (87) and (88) the topicalised element is the temporal adverbial yesterday. Also here it is clear from the way the number of the verb must vary with the number of the subject that agreement is with the subject: ( 8 7 ) Yi. a.

. . . az

nekhtn

iiQbn di

kinder

geleyent dos bukh

. . . that yesterday have the children read the book b. * . . . az nekhtn hot di kinder geleyent dos bukh . . . that yesterday has the children read the book c. * . . . . .. d. . . . . ..

( 8 8 ) Ic. a.

az that az that

. . . aC

nekhtn yesterday nekhtn yesterday

hobn have hot has

i gaer

hafa

dos the dos the

yingl boy yingl boy

geleyent read geleyent read

bornin

dos the dos the

bukh book bukh book

lesifl bdkina

. . . that yesterday have children-the read book-the b. * . . . afi i gar h e f u r bornin lesio" bdkina . . . that yesterday has children-the read book-the c. * . . . ... d. . . . . ..

ao that ao" that

i gaer yesterday i gaer yesterday

hafa have hefur has

strakurinn boy-the strakurinn boy-the

lesio" read lesifl read

bdkina book-the bdkina book-the

In the following diagramme, I have pointed out which position the elements in (85a,b) and (86a,b) are claimed to occupy, according to both CP-recursion analysis and topicalisation to IP-spec analysis:

In the CP-recursion analysis, the subject-verb agreement is a realisation of spec-X° agreement inside IP: The subject in IP-spec agrees with the verbal inflection generated in 1°. That the verbal inflection then has to move to C° along with the verb stem does not make any difference. In the topicalisation to IP-spec analysis, subject-verb agreement seems to be more difficult to account for. (To my knowledge, this issue has not yet been

102

Verb Movement

addressed by any proponents of this analysis.) If the subject is in VP-spec, we would expect that the only head which could show agreement with the subject would be the verb stem, which is generated in V°. This may not be a problem, as the verb stem does not show any agreement at all, and so the idea of agreement between subject and verb stem cannot be empirically rejected. However, if the object is in IP-spec, we would expect the verbal inflection, which is generated in 1° (note that I in I°/IP stands for "inflection"), to show agreement with the object and not with the subject. This is clearly not the case, as it would predict that (89a,b) were ungrammatical and that (89c,d) were grammatical, which is exactly the wrong prediction. The only way for the topicalisation to IP-spec analysis to avoid this problem would seem to be to give up the idea that morphological agreement is a manifestation of a head-specifier relationship, something that can be retained in CP-recursion analysis.19 A potential problem for this analysis is that Icelandic has agreement between finite verbs and nominative objects, which might be taken to show that it is impossible anyway to analyse agreement with the finite verb as spec-X° agreement inside IP. This however, presupposes that the two kinds of agreement—finite verb-nominative subject and finite verb-nominative object—are the same kind of process. I will argue that this is not the case, as agreement with nominative objects never takes place outside the third person, and also, at least in many cases, seems to be optional—two properties, neither of which ever hold for agreement with nominative subjects. For an argumentation along similar lines, see Jonsson (1991:24-26). (90) Ic. a. b.

Her bykir beir skemmtilegir Mer bvkna beir skemmtilegir Me(D) think!3sg/3pl) they(N) amusing IN.pl.M.)

(91) Ic. a. Per b. *Per c. ??S>er YoulD.sgi (92) Ic. a. Mer b. *Mer c. ??Mer Me(D)

bykir bvkium bykja think(3sg/lpl/3pl)

bykir bvkia bykja think(3sg/2pl/3pl)

via via via we(N>

skemmtilegir skemmtilegir skemmtilegir amusing (N.pl.M.)

bia skemmtilegir bia skemmtilegir bia skemmtilegir you(N.pl) amusing (N.pl.M.)

Summing up: If we want to retain the idea that agreement between the subject and the finite verb is a manifestation of spec-X° agreement, and if we want to keep either the structure [ IP VP] or the structure [RorP [TP VP]], the subject will have either to be in IP-spec (or AgrP) or at least to have passed through this position. Given the findings of this section and the assumption (from chapter 3) that nominative case is assigned under government from C°, the analysis of agreement and nominative assignment in embedded clauses in Yiddish and Icelandic may be illustrated as in the following diagramme: 19. Raffaella Zanuttini (personal communication) points out that if this argument is translated into a framework with AgrP and TP, it becomes crucial that Agr° selects TP, as is the case in the analyses suggested by Belletti (1990) or by Chomsky (1991). If T° would select AgrP (as is suggested by Pollock 1989), the subject could be in spec of AgrP, and topicalisation could be to spec of TP, and recursion of CP would not be called for.

Verb Second in Embedded Clauses

103

4.7 Adverbial adjunction to IP but not to CP In this section I will review the data concerning possible adjunction of adverbials to IP and CP and show how they may constitute another argument against the topicalisation to IP-spec analysis. As argued in Schwartz & Vikner (1989:45) and Vikner & Schwartz (forthcoming), nothing in general rules out an adverbial adjoining to IP. As discussed in sections 3.2 and 3.4.2, I assume that the obligatory adjacency between C° and a pronominal subject may result from an adjacency requirement on case assignment—in this case, assignment of nominative from C° to IP-spec. For some reason, this would have no consequences for subjects that are full NPs. I furthermore follow Chomsky's (1986a:6, 15) suggestion that adjunction to CP is excluded in general, because CP (like NP) is an argument. Below, each language (German, Swedish, Yiddish) will be discussed in turn, showing how the above assumptions can account for the data, provided the embedded V2 structures with complementisers in Swedish and Yiddish are taken to be CP-recursions. Consider first German: (94) Ge. a. *Tatsachlich dieses Buch hat er gelesen b. * Dieses Buch hat tatsachlich er gelesen (Actually) this book has (actually) he read c. 'Tatsachlich dieses Buch hat der Junge gelesen d. Dieses Buch hat tatsachlich der Junge gelesen (Actually! this book has (actually) the boy read (95) Ge.

Sie hat gesagt, ... She has said a. *. . . tatsachlich dieses Buch hat er gelesen b. *... dieses Buch hat tatsachlich er gelesen . . . (actually) this book has (actually) he read c. «... tatsachlich dieses Buch hat der Junge gelesen d. ... dieses Buch hat tatsachlich der Junge gelesen . . . (actually) this book has (actually) the boy read

(96) Ge.

Sie hat gesagt, ... She has said a. *... tatsachlich er hat dieses Buch gelesen b. . . . er hat tatsachlich dieses Buch gelesen ...(actually) he has (actually) this book read c. * . . . tatsachlich der Junge hat dieses Buch gelesen d. ... der Junge hat tatsachlich dieses Buch gelesen ... (actually) the boy has (actually) this book read

104

Verb Movement

(97) Ge. b. *Sie hat gesagt, dafi tatsachlich er dieses Buch gelesen hat She has said that (actually) he this book read has d.

Sie hat gesagt, dafi tatsachlich der Junge dieses Buch gelesen hat She has said that (actually) the boy this book read has

The data in (94)-(97) may be summarised as in (98). Note that "*" indicates an adverbial is impossible in the position in question; "V" indicates an adverbial is possible; and "*/V" indicates an adverbial is possible, but only if the subject is not an unstressed pronoun: (98) Ge.

a. b. c. d.

... said ... said ... said

* * *

CPap obj obj subj

*

C" vb vb

vb that

*/V */V V */V

IPap subj subj subj

obj obj

participle participle participle participle

vb

= (94) = (95) = (96) = (97)

Adjunction to CP is ruled out, following Chomsky (1986a:6, 15). This holds both for CPs in main clauses, (94a,c), and embedded CPs, (95a,c) and (96a,c). Adjunction to IP is only impossible if IP-spec is a pronominal: hence the differences between (94b), (95b), and (97b) on one hand and (94d), (95d), and (97d) on the other. I take the impossibility of (94b), (95b), and (97b) to be a result of case assignment from C° (the finite verb hat or the complementiser dafi) to IP-spec. Example (96b) is possible, but it is not a counterexample to the assumption that adjunction to IP requires IP-spec to be non-pronominal: It has an interpretation in which the adverbial does not occur between C° and IP-spec. Consider now Swedish, where the facts are very similar: (99) Sw. a. * Twarr denna boken har han inte last b. * Denna boken har tyyarr han inte last (Unfortunately) this book has (unfortunately) he not read c. *Tyvarr denna boken har Johan inte last d. Denna boken har tyvarr Johan inte last (Unfortunately) this book has (unfortunately) Johan not read (100) Sw.

Hon sa att She said that ...

a. * ... tyvarr denna boken har han inte last b. *. . . denna boken har twarr han inte last ... (unfortunately) this book has (unfortunately) he not read c. *. . . twarr denna boken har Johan inte last d. ... denna boken har tyvarr Johan inte last . . . (unfortunately; this book has (unfortunately) Johan not read (101) Sw.

Hon sa att She said that ...

a. *... tyvarr han har inte last denna boken b. ... han har tyvarc inte last denna boken . . . C unfortunately^ he has (unfortunately,) not read this book c. *... tyvarr Johan har inte last denna boken d. ... Johan har twarr inte last denna boken . . . (unfortunately; Johan has (unfortunately) not read this book (102) Sw. b. *Hon sa att twarr han inte har last denna boken She said that unfortunately he not has read this book d. ?Hon sa att twarr Johan inte har last denna boken She said that unfortunately Johan not has read this book

105

Verb Second in Embedded Clauses

Again I summarise the data, with "*" indicating that an adverbial is impossible in the position in question, "V" that an adverbial is possible, and "*/V" that an adverbial is possible, but only if the subject is not an unstressed prounon: (103)Sw. a. b. c. d.

... that ... that ... said

* * * *

CPSP obj obj subj

Si vb vb vb that

*/V */V V */>/

IPan subj subj subj

neg neg neg neg

vb

participle participle participle participle

=(99) =(100) obj = (101) obj = (102)

Adjunction to CP is ruled out, as is clear from (99a,c). If embedded V2 in Swedish (where the embedded clause is preceded by alt 'that') is CP-recursion, then (100a,c) and (101a,c) are also attempts at adjoining the adverbial to a CP, which explains their ungrammaticality. If embedded V2 on the other hand is topicalisation to IP-spec, then (100a,c) and (101a,c) would be attempts at adjoining the adverbial to IP, and they should thus be parallel to (99b,d) and (102b,d)—that is, we would expect (100a,c) and (101 c) to be possible, or at least only "?", contrary to fact. If embedded V2 involves a ZP, (100a,c) and (101a,c) show that adjunction to ZP is impossible, though it remains to be explained exactly why. These data thus provide an argument against the topicalisation to IP-spec analysis, and to some extent also against the ZP analysis. Notice, though, that none of the proponents of the topicalisation to IP-spec analysis have suggested that it should be valid for embedded V2 in Swedish. In fact, latridou & Kroch (1992) explicitly suggest that the topicalisation to IP-spec analysis is valid only for Yiddish and Icelandic and not for Swedish and the others. However, as I want to argue in favour of CP-recursion in all languages where embedded V2 may be preceded by a complementiser (irrespective of whether they have limited embedded V2 as does Swedish, for example, or general embedded V2 as do Yiddish and Icelandic), it is crucial that the argumentation made for Swedish can also be made for Yiddish, and this is what I will try to argue further, in connection with (109)-(112). As for the other data in (99)-( 102), they can be accounted for in a way parallel to the German cases: Adjunction to IP is only impossible if IP-spec is a pronominal; hence the differences between (99b), (lOOb), and (102b) on one hand and (99d), (lOOd), and (102d) on the other. Example (lOlb) is possible, but it is not a counterexample to the assumption that adjunction to IP requires IP-spec to be non-pronominal: It has an interpretation in which the adverbial does not occur between C° and IP-spec. Platzack (1986b:44) suggests that in constructions like (99d), (lOOd), and (102d), the adverbial is not adjoined to IP but is incorporated into C°. He argues that this is shown by the fact that an adverbial can only immediately precede the subject if there is a complementiser present: (104)Sw.

Han fragade ... He asked a. *. . . om verklicren Eva skulle komma och inte Maria skulle aka . . . whether really Eva would come and not Maria would go b.

. . . om verkliaen Eva skulle komma och Maria inte skulle aka . . . whether really Eva would come and Maria not would go (from Platzack 1986b:44)

Although example (104) may be difficult to account for if the adverbial preceding

106

Verb Movement

the subject is adjoined to IP, it could also be due to some independent asymmetry in coordination of embedded clauses (see also Hohle 1990). There are at least two reasons to assume that C°-incorporation is not the right analysis. One is that the adverbial preceding the subject may be stressed, which is "untypical" of incorporated elements. (105) Sw.

Nu barfiflkerlicreneller atminstone troliaen Johan atervant Now has surely or at least probably Johan returned (quote, argument, and example from Holmberg 1986:134, (3))

Another is that the elements possible between C° and IP include constituents which undoubtedly are XPs—e.g., PP in Swedish and PP or NP in German: (106) Sw.

De bar bOkerna vill ££B_ts alii Johan lasa These here books will inspite-of everything Johan read

(107) Ge.

Morgen wird nach drei Wochen Urlaub sein Freund zurilckkommen Tomorrow will after three weeks holiday his friend back-come

(108)Ge.

Hoffentlich hat digse Sache letzte Woche Peter erledigt Hopefully has this matter last week Peter taken-care-of

I therefore conclude that sufficient reasons do not exist to reject the analysis assumed earlier, that adverbials between C° and IP, like (99d), (lOOd), and (102d), are adjoined to IP. Let us now turn to the general embedded V2 languages, Yiddish and Icelandic. In Icelandic, it is never possible to have an adverbial preceding the subject, and the predictions of the different analyses are therefore not testable. In Yiddish, on the other hand, adverbials may precede the subject under certain circumstances, and the predictions may thus be tested. I will try to show below how the following data in fact argue against the topicalisation to IP-spec analysis:20 (109) Yi. a. * Levder dos bukh hot er geleyent b. * Dos bukh hot levder er geleyent (Unfortunately) this book has (unfortunately) he read c. *Levder dos bukh hot dos yingl geleyent d. Dos bukh hot levder dos yingl geleyent (Unfortunately) this book has (unfortunately) the boy read (110)Yi.

Zi hot gezogt ... She has said a. «... az levder dos bukh hot er geleyent b. *... az dos bukh hot levder er geleyent ... that (unfortunately; this book has (unfortunately) he read c. *... az levder dos bukh hot dos yingl geleyent d. ... az dos bukh hot leyder dos yingl geleyent .. . that (unfortunately) this book has (unfort'y) the boy read

(lll)Yi.

Zi hot gezogt ... She has said a. *... az levder er hot dos bukh geleyent b. ... az er hot levder dos bukh geleyent . . . that (unfortunately^ he has (unfortunately; this book read

20. It is crucial that the subject, the object, the adverbial leyder 'unfortunately' and the complementiser az are all unstressed. The stress in these examples is on the matrix subject ti 'she' and the embedded main verb geleyent 'read'.

1 07

Verb Second in Embedded Clauses

c. *... az levder dos yingl hot dos bukh geleyent d d. . . . az dos yingl hot levder dos bukh geleyent ... that (unfortunately) the boy has (unfort'y) this book read

As above, I summarise the data, "*" indicating that an adverbial is impossible in the position in question, "V" that an adverbial is possible, and "*/V" that an adverbial is possible, but only if the subject is not an unstressed pronoun: a. b. c.

... Chat ... that

* * *

obj obj subj

£1 vb vb vb

*/V */V V

IESE subj subj obj

participle participle participle

=(109) =(110) =(111)

Consider first (109b,d) and (110b,d): In the topicalisation to IP-spec analysis, the adverbial must be adjoined to VP or TP here. That it is only possible when the NP following the adverbial is not a pronoun could be explained by case adjacency also in this analysis, as the subject in VP-spec or TP-spec presumably would be assigned case from 1°. In the CP-recursion analysis, (109b,d) and (1 10b,d) are completely parallel to the German (94b,d), (95b,d), and (97b,d) and the Swedish (99b,d), (100b,d), and (102b,d). Adjunction to IP is only possible when IP-spec is not a pronoun, due to case assignment taking place from C° to IP-spec. Consider now (1 10a,c) and (11 la,c). According to the topicalisation to IP-spec analysis, the position between az 'that' and hot 'has' is IP-spec. As adjunction to IP is possible in both German and Swedish (both under the topicalisation to IP-spec analysis and under the CP-recursion analysis, provided IP-spec is not a pronoun), we would expect such an adjunction to be possible in Yiddish as well. This amounts to the prediction that it is possible to have an adverbial to the immediate right of az in (HOa) and (llla,c), a prediction which is not supported by the facts. The topicalisation to IP-spec analysis would therefore have to make the stipulation that the IP in (1 lOa) and (11 la,c) is of a particular kind that does not allow adjunction, and it would be forced to treat the striking parallelisms just discussed between German, Swedish, and Yiddish as mere coincidence. Summing up: Under the topicalisation to IP-spec analysis, Yiddish IPs have more in common with German and Swedish CPs (no adjunction) than with German and Swedish IPs (adjunction if spec not a pronoun). Furthermore, Yiddish VPs (or TPs) would have more in common with German and Swedish IPs (adjunction if spec not a pronoun) than with German and Swedish VPs/TPs (free adjunction). The more straightforward parallelisms would be kept under the CP recursion analysis: Yiddish IPs would be like German and Swedish IPs (adjunction if spec not a pronoun), and Yiddish CPs would be like German and Swedish CPs (no adjunction).21 21. As discussed in sections 3.4.5 and 3.4.6, Alessandra Tomaselli (personal communication) and Luigi Rizzi (personal communication) have suggested that the pronominal subject cliticises to the highest tense/highest X° with [+1], and, given that nothing ever intervenes between a clitic and the X° it cliticises to, this explains the obligatory adjacency. It would lead us to expect, however, that the pronominal subject would cliticise to the complementiser in embedded V2 constructions, which is the highest C° in 1° VP languages (Yiddish az and Swedish an). This prediction is not borne out; cf. (100b,d) and (110b,d), which show that the cliticisation is to the finite verb even when there is a higher C°. Even if one could say that the C° with Yiddish az always is [-1], this could not be maintained for Swedish att, because cliticisation to att takes place in embedded non-V2 constructions, as in (102b,d), just like in German. It would thus still be a problem that in embedded V2 in Swedish, where att is obligatorily present, the adjacency requirement is between the finite verb and the pronominal subject, as in (100b,d).

108

Verb Movement

4.8 Extraction from the embedded clause In this section I discuss extractions from embedded V2 clauses, because it has been claimed in the literature (e.g., Diesing 1990:71-75 for Yiddish) that only the topicalisation to IP-spec analysis can account for the data. I hope to show that at least two potential problems exist for such a conclusion: The data in Yiddish are different from the data in Icelandic, and relativised minimality will have to be rejected. Before turning to the data, a few remarks on the different theoretical analyses of extraction. In the relativised minimality framework, the following distinction is made between object extraction and adjunct extraction (cf. section 2.2 and Rizzi 1990a:85-95): When an object is extracted, the extraction is subject only to subjacency. This is because the extracted element may be linked to its trace through binding, as an object has a referential index. Extraction of an adjunct, on the other hand, is subject to antecedent government (as well as to subjacency), as the extracted element may not be linked to its trace through binding, an adjunct having no referential index. As examples of this difference, Rizzi (1990a:73, (lb,c)) gives the following:

In either case, the embedded CP-spec cannot be part of the chain between the whelement at the head of the main clause and its trace inside the embedded clause. Example (113a) is not as unacceptable as (113b) because the long extraction is an object extraction and therefore is not subject to the antecedent government requirement. Chomsky (1986a:17-18) gives a different account: He assumes that both extractions must leave an intermediate trace adjoined to the embedded IP, and this intermediate trace can properly govern the lowest trace. The question then becomes whether the intermediate trace itself violates the ECP. According to Lasnik & Saito (1984), a chain ending in an argument position must be licensed with respect to the ECP (through "gamma-marking") at S-structure, whereas chains ending in nonargument positions must be licensed at LF. At LF, all empty categories must be or have been licensed. This means that the intermediate trace t' properly governing the trace t in an argument position may do so at S-structure and then disappear at LF (Lasnik & Saito 1984:258). In contrast, the intermediate trace t' properly governing the trace t in the base-generated position of the adverbial must do so at LF; hence, t' must exist at LF and will itself have to be properly governed. Thus in an argument chain, it is only the trace in the base position that must observe the ECP by being properly governed; in non-argument chains, on the other hand, all traces, including the intermediate ones, must observe the ECP by being properly governed. The result is that only non-argument movements have to observe antecedent government all the way from the extracted element to the lowest trace.

109

Verb Second in Embedded Clauses

4.8.1 Adjunct extraction Adjunct extraction depends on antecedent government, and antecedent government requires that all A-bar-specifiers between the extracted adjunct and the trace be part of the chain. Below I discuss the languages in turn: first German and Yiddish; then Danish, Faroese, and Icelandic; and finally English. I should emphasise that I am only discussing the interpretations in which how is extracted from the embedded clause ("How did the children learn history? By reading books and watching films."), and not the one where it is extracted from the matrix clause ("How did she say X? In a very loud voice.").22 In (115)-(121), the underlined constituents in the embedded clauses are either in the lower CP-spec (or in ZP-spec or A-bar-position IP-spec) or in the higher CP-spec—that is, in one of the two A-bar-positions. The only traces shown are the ones of how and of the underlined elements. The only subject trace shown is the trace in IP-spec (or TP-spec/VP-spec, i.e., in the position in which the subject is assigned case). The four parts of each of examples (115)-(121) are arranged in the following order: (114)a-examples: b-examples: c-examples: d-examples:

(115)Ge.

embedded embedded embedded embedded

V2 with V2 with V2 with clauses

a PP preceding the finite verb the subject preceding the finite verb a trace preceding the finite verb 'without V2' (i.e., without topicalisation)

Wie hat sie gesagt How has she said

a. *. . . in der Schule haben die Kinder Geschichte t t gelernt? ... in the school have the children history learned? b. *... die Kinder haben t . . . the children have

Geschichte t history

haben die Kinder Geschichte t have the children history

gelernt? learned?

c.

... t

gelernt? learned?

d.

. . . t daS die Kinder Geschichte t gelernt haben? that the children history learned have ?

Examples (115a,b) are ruled out because the lowest trace of wie 'how' cannot be antecedent governed, as this is blocked by CP-spec. This is because CP-spec is filled by a PP in (115a) and by the subject in (115b). In (115c) and (115d), on the other hand, antecedent government works perfectly, as there is no material in CP-

22. That the Yiddish examples (116a,b,d) really are acceptable in the relevant interpretation is supported by the fact that the judgments are the same if viazoy 'how' is replaced by bay velkhn lerer 'from which teacher', which does not easily lend itself to a matrix extraction reading ("From which teacher did

she say X?").

110

Verb Movement

spec, leaving it open for a trace of the extraction: wie now antecedent governs the trace in CP-spec, and the trace in CP-spec antecedent governs the lowest trace.23 Consider now the data from Yiddish, which are radically different: (116)Yi.

Viazoy hot zi gezogt ... How has she said

a.

. . . i az in shul that in school

b.

... i az di kinder hobn £ that the children have

c. *. . . t az £. .. . that d.

hobn di kinder zikh gelernt geshikhte t t? have the children REFL learned history ? zikh gelernt geshikhte t REFL learned history

hobn di kinder zikh gelernt geshikhte t have the children REFL learned history

. . . i az di kinder hobn zikh gelernt geshikhte t? that the children have REFL learned history ?

? ? ? ?

(= (116b))

The judgments in (116a,b) are rather surprising: One would have expected the extraction to be impossible, for the following reasons: In (116a,b) the lowest trace of viazoy 'how' should not be antecedent governed, as there is an intervening Abar-specifier position which is not part of the chain, the one filled by the PP in (116a) and by the subject in (116b). Notice that (116b,d) are two different analyses of the same string: Construction (116b) is embedded V2 with the subject being the topicalised element—i.e., occurring in an A-bar-position (which is CP-spec, given CP-recursion; ZP-spec; or IP-spec, given topicalisation to IP-spec), whereas construction (116d) is an embedded clause "without V2", where the subject appears in the position it also has when a non-subject is topicalised—i.e., occurring in an A-position (which is IP-spec, given CP-recursion or the ZP analysis; TP-spec, or VP-spec, given topicalisation to IP-spec). It is only in Yiddish and Icelandic that these two different possibilities result in the same surface string: In German and the other VP-I° languages, the verb would immediately follow the topic (in this case, the subject) in a topicalisation, but it would occur in clause-final position in the embedded sentence without topicalisation, as in (115b,d). In Danish and the other F-VP languages without V°-to-I° movement, the verb would immediately follow the topic (in this case, the subject) in a topicalisation, but it would occur after a sentential adverb or negation in the embedded sentence without topicalisation, as in (118b,d). This means that we have no direct indication as to the well- or ill-formedness of (116b), given that we would expect (116d) to be acceptable. The judgment given of (116b) is inferred under analogy with (116a). Irrespective of this, it remains a problem that (116a) seems to be acceptable: The well-formedness of a parallel example is reported by Hey cock & Santorini (1992:5, (9a)). We saw here how the well-formedness of (116a) was a problem for an analysis that assumes CP-spec within the framework of relativised minimality. However, the two alternative analyses fare equally badly as long as relativised 23. Though extraction across daft 'that' as in (115d), is not very good in northern dialects of German, it is perfectly acceptable in southern dialects (see, e.g., Grewendorf 1988:260 and Fanselow & Felix 1987b:175).

Verb Second in Embedded Clauses

111

minimality is retained: In any case, there will be an A-bar position that is not part of the extraction chain. If one replaces relativised minimality by the framework of Chomsky (1986a), based on Lasnik & Saito (1984), then the picture changes slightly: The CP-recursion and the ZP analysis still predict example (116a) to be ungrammatical, as there has to be a trace adjoined to IP-spec (i.e., immediately left of the subject) so that a trace adjoined to VP can be antecedent governed, which then, in turn, antecedent governs the trace in the base-generated position (see Chomsky 1986a:29). This IPadjoined trace fails to be antecedent governed itself (see Chomsky 1986a:31, (60): CP is a barrier by inheritance, and the IP-adjoined trace therefore cannot be antecedent governed across it. The trace also cannot be antecedent governed by CPspec (which contains the topic with a different index) nor from a position adjoined to CP (i.e., immediately left of the topic), adjunction to CP being impossible (see Chomsky 1986a:15 and the evidence discussed in section 4.7). Under the topicalisation to IP-spec analysis, it is possible to give an account of the well-formedness of (116a), but only if some additional assumptions are made. For instance, although adjunction to IP is generally possible in the Chomsky (1986a) framework, the assumption that adjunction is possible to an IP with an A-bar-specifier position is not all that evident, given that in Chomsky IP-spec is always an A-position. The question is thus whether an IP with an A-bar-specifier should be aligned with CPs or with IPs with A-specifiers. If IPs with A-barspecifiers are like IPs with A-specifiers—that is, it is possible to adjoin to them— then we can account for (116a), but not for the corresponding Icelandic example, (120a). So far it is thus a trade-off: We can either account for extraction from embedded topicalisations in Yiddish or for the corresponding facts in Icelandic, but not for both. By assuming that adjunction to IPs with A-bar-specifiers is possible, however, we lose more than the account for the Icelandic extraction data: We also would not be able to account for the Yiddish data in section 4.7, where adjunction of leyder 'unfortunately' immediately left of the embedded topic is impossible. Furthermore, if it is possible to adjoin to IPs with A-bar-specifiers, it seems to me to be difficult to exclude adjunction to the lower CP in what all three accounts take to be CPrecursion structures—embedded topicalisations in Danish, Swedish, or English (note that both categories are selected by a C°, both have an A-bar-specifier, and so on). This would make the wrong predictions both for overt adjunctions (cf. the Swedish data discussed in 4.7) and for extractions (cf. the Danish (118a,b) and the English (121a)). The other possibility, of course, is that adjunction to IPs with A-bar-specifiers is not possible, in which case we have no account for (116a), but for all the other data mentioned in the previous paragraph. I will therefore conclude that adoption of the topicalisation to IP-spec analysis in conjunction with the assumption that adjunction to IPs with A-bar-specifiers is possible in the framework of Chomsky (1986a) is not preferable to the analysis defended in this chapter, CP-recursion and relativised minimality, even if (116a) remains unaccounted for. As for (116c), where there is no filled A bar-position between viazoy and its lowest trace, the problem is a different one: The trace between az and hobn violates

112

Verb Movement

the ECP, as it cannot be properly head governed by az 'that', as opposed to the highest trace, which is properly head governed by the matrix verb gezogt 'said'. This analysis, which was suggested for argument extractions by Diesing (1988:137, 1990:74) is confirmed by the fact that the sentence is acceptable without the az:24 (117) Yi.

Viazoy hot zi gezogt t hobn di kinder zikh gelernt geshikhte t? How has she said have the children REFL learned history ?

Let us now turn to the Danish data: (118) Da.

Hvordan sagde him . . . How said she . . .

a. *... t at i skolen havde barnene altid laert historic t t? that in school-the had children-the always learned history ? b. *. . . t at barnene havde t .. . that children-the had c. *... t at that d.

t

altid laert historic t? always learned history ?

havde barnene altid laert historic t? had children-the always learned history ?

... t at bernene altid havde laart historic t? ... that chaldren-the always had learned history ?

Examples (118a,b) are ruled out because the lowest trace of hvordan 'how' cannot be antecedent governed. This is blocked by CP-spec, which is filled by a PP in (118a) and by the subject in (118b). In (118d), on the other hand, nothing prevents antecedent government: hvordan governs the trace in CP-spec, and the trace in CP-spec governs the lowest trace. Example (118c) is ruled out in the same fashion as the Yiddish (116c): Although nothing prevents antecedent government, the trace between at and havde violates the ECP, as it cannot be properly head governed by at 'that', as opposed to the highest trace, which is properly head governed by the matrix verb sagde 'said'. The facts from Faroese are completely parallel to the Danish ones: (119)Fa.

Hvussu sigur hon, . . . How says she ...

a.

*. . . t. at 1 skulanum hava barnini altiS laert segu t that in school-the have children-the always learned history

b.

*. . . t at bernini that children-the

hava t have

altifl laert sogu t always learned history

? ?

c.

*. . . £ at t that

hava b0rnini altifl laert sesgu t have children-the always learned history t

? ?

&.

. . . t at bernini altiO hava laert segu that children-the always have learned history

t? ?

t? ?

Examples (119a,b) are ruled out because the lowest trace of hvussu 'how' cannot be antecedent governed. This is blocked by CP-spec, which is filled by a PP in (119a) and by the subject in (119b). In (119d), on the other hand, nothing prevents antecedent government: hvussu governs the trace in CP-spec, the trace in CP-spec governs the lowest trace. Example (119c) is ruled out in the same fashion as the 24. As in example (116), the judgment stays the same if viazoy 'how' is replaced by bay velkhn lerer 'from which teacher', which shows that the extraction really is an extraction from the embedded clause.

113

Verb Second in Embedded Clauses

Yiddish (116c) and the Danish (118c): Although nothing prevents antecedent government, the trace between at and hava violates the ECP, as it cannot be properly head governed by at 'that' , as opposed to the highest trace, which is properly head governed by the matrix verb sigur 'says'. Let us now turn to Icelandic: (120) Ic.

Hvernig sagoi hiin ... How said she . . .

a. ??... t afl i skAlanum hafflu bornin alltaf Isrt sogu t t? that in school-Che had children-the always learned history ? b. ??... t a6 bJSrnin hafSu t that children-the had c. d.

«... £ aS t that

alltaf Isrt sogu t always learned history

? ?

hafSu bornin alltaf Isrt sogu t had children-the always learned history

? ?

. . . £ a« biinin hafou alltaf Isrt sogu that children-the had always learned history

t? ?

((120b))

As mentioned above, these data crucially differ from Yiddish: Whereas the Yiddish (116a) is acceptable, the corresponding Icelandic sentence, (120a), is not well-formed. In (120a,b) the lowest trace of hvernig 'how' is not antecedent governed, as there is an intervening non-coindexed A-bar-position, the one filled by the PP in (120a) and by the subject in (120b). Notice that, as in Yiddish, (120b,d) are two different analyses of the same string: (120b) is embedded V2 with the subject being the topicalised element— i.e., occurring in an A-bar-position (which is CP-spec, given CP-recursion; ZPspec; or IP-spec, given topicalisation to IP-spec), whereas (120d) is an embedded clause "without V2", where the subject appears in the position it also has when a non-subject is topicalised— i.e., an A-position (which is IP-spec, given CP-recursion or the ZP analysis; TP-spec; or VP-spec, given topicalisation to IP-spec). We thus have no direct indication as to the well- or ill-formedness of (120b); given that (120d) is acceptable, the grammatical! ty judgment given of (120b) is merely inferred from (120a). Example (120d) is grammatical. The subject is in IP-spec— i.e., in an A-position— and there is therefore only one A-bar-position at the beginning of the embedded clause (in the spec of ad). As this position is not filled, it may form part of the chain from hvernig to its lowest trace. As for (120c), where there is no filled A-bar-position between hvernig and its lowest trace, the problem is a different one: The trace between ad and hafSu violates the ECP, as it is not properly head governed by ad 'that', as opposed to the highest trace, which is properly head governed by the matrix verb sagdi 'said'. Although the situation is completely different in English, due to the restricted nature of residual V2 (the b and c examples above cannot be replicated for English; see section 3.3.2), the facts are accounted for under any of the approaches: (121)En.

How did she say ... a. *. . . £ that under no circumstances would she ever vote t t? d. . . . t that she had voted t?

114

Verb Movement

Only (121a) contains an A-bar-position, which cannot be part of the chain, and only (121a) is ungrammatical. In this section we saw that the possibility of extraction via the specifier of the head that contains the finite verb depends on whether the next higher head (i.e., the head selecting the XP with the finite verb in its X°) is a potential proper governor— i.e., whether it is that, which is not a proper governor, (116c), (118c), (119c), and (120c), or the matrix verb, which is a proper governor, (115c) and (117). With respect to the three analyses of embedded V2, they were all incompatible with the Yiddish (116a) but compatible with all the other data, irrespective of whether we follow the extraction analysis of Rizzi (1990a:85-95) or of Chomsky (1986a:17-18) and Lasnik & Saito (1984:258). One exception was the possibility of adopting the view that adjunction to an IP with an A-bar-specifier is possible within the Chomsky (1986a) analysis, but we also saw that although this view would account for the Yiddish (116a), it would lose the account for a series of other data, including the Icelandic (120a).

4.8.2 Argument extraction In this section, I will merely list the argument extraction data. As these are subject only to subjacency, and not to antecedent government, they are not directly relevant for our discussion, because they will not tell us anything about the presence of Abar-positions. Notice that this holds for both the relativised minimality framework of Rizzi (1990a) and the barrier framework of Chomsky (1986a). From both points of view, we would not expect argument extractions to be subject to antecedent government requirements: To relativised minimality, this is so because extracted arguments only have to bind their traces, not to antecedent govern them (cf. section 2.2). To the barriers framework, this is so because an intermediate trace of an argument extraction may save a lower trace from violating the ECP, while itself remaining immune to the ECP, because it may be erased before LF.25 (122)Ge.

Welchen Film hat sie gesagt, . . . Which film has she said

a. * . . . in der Schule haben die Kinder t t gesehen? . . . in the school had the children seen ? b. * . . . die Kinder . . . the children

haben t have

t

gesehen? seen ?

c.

haben die Kinder t have the children

gesehen? seen ?

... £

25. As in the previous section, the underlined constituents in (122)-(126) are either in the higher CP-spec or in the lower CP-spec (or ZP-spec or the A-bar-position IP-spec), i.e. in one of the two A-barpositions. The only traces shown are the ones of how and of the underlined elements. The only subjecttrace shown is the trace in IP-spec (or VP-spec—i.e., in the position in which the subject is assigned case). The four examples in each of (122)-(126) are arranged in the following order: (i)

a-examples: embedded fa-examples: embedded c-examples: embedded d-examples: embedded

V2 with V2 with V2 with clauses

a PP preceding the finite verb the subject preceding the finite verb a trace preceding the finite verb "without V2 " (i.e. without topicalisation)

115

Verb Second in Embedded Clauses d. (123)Yi.

£ daS die Kinder t gesehen haben? that the children seen have ? Vos hot er nit gevolt ... What has he not wanted . . . az in shul that in school

b.

zoln di kinder leyenen t t? should the children read ?

£ az di kinder zoln that the children should

£ az £ that d.

(124)Da.

t

leyenen t read

zoln di kinder leyenen t should the children read

£ az di kinder zoln that the children should

leyenen t? (= (123b) ) read ? (examples (123a,b,d) from Santorini 1989:59, (42b,c))

Hvilken film sagde hun . . . Which film said she . . .

£ at

skolen havde barnene allerede set t t? that in school-the had children-the already seen

b.

d.

<125)Fa.

£ at bfflrnene that children-the

havde t had

£ at £ that

havde b0rnene allerede set t had children-the already seen

allerede set t already seen

? ?

£ at b0rnene allerede havde set t? that children-the already had seen ?

Hv0nn film seg8i hon, . . . Which film said she . . . £ at i skulanum hpvdu b0rnini longu saeo" t t? that in school-the had children-the already seen ?

b.

£ at bernini havflu that children-the had

£ at £ that d.

(126)Ic.

longu saeS t already seen

havflu barnini longu sseS t had children-the already seen

? ?

£ at b0rnini longu h0v<3u saeS t? that children-the already had seen ?

Hvafla mynd sagfii hun Which film said she

a . ? * . . . £ a<5 i sk61anum hef<5u b6rnin that in school-the had children-the . . £ afl bSrnin hefGu t .. that children-the had .. £ aS t that

begar se<5 t t? already seen ? begar sefl t already seen

? ?

hefflu b6rnin begar seo t hacf children-the already seen

? ?

. . £ afl bornin hefflu begar sefl t ? .. that children-the had already seen ?

(= (126b)l

116

Verb Movement

(127)En. Which film did she say ... a. ??. . . £ that under no circumstances would she t ever watch t again? b. . . . £ that she would never watch t again?

In comparison to the adjunct extraction data, the argument extraction data show no differences in German, Yiddish, Danish, Faroese, and Icelandic: Subjacency violations are just as unacceptable as ECP violations. The English (127a) exhibits exactly the improvement over (121a) predicted by both the relativised minimality approach and the barriers approach (cf. (113)). Subjacency violations lead to less severe ungrammaticality than ECP violations.

4.8.3

Topicalisation vs. stylistic fronting in Icelandic

In this section I will briefly consider a case in which extraction is possible from embedded V2 clauses in Icelandic. Maling (1980, 1990) was the first to suggest that there is a distinction in Icelandic between topicalisation and what is now called stylistic fronting.26 Stylistic fronting applies to "past participles, Adjs, some Advs, particles, etc.", (Maling 1990:76), and it seems to require that the subject is either extracted, postposed, or absent in some other way (e.g., passives): (128) Ic.

a.

Fundurinn [sem iiajn hafSi fario i 6sl6] var skemmtilegur Meeting-the that place had taken in Oslo was fun

b.

Fundurinn [sem .farifi haffli fram i 6sl6] var skemmtilegur Meeting-the that taken had place in Oslo was fun (from Maling 1990:82, (35))

The moved elements thus seem not to be XPs, and yet they seem to require case— that is, they seem to have moved through the position to the immediate right of the finite verb where the subject is assumed to receive case (IP-spec in the CP-recursion analysis). None of the analyses suggested in the literature is able to satisfactorily resolve the conflicting properties of stylistic fronting: Maling (1980, 1990), Platzack (1987b:394), and Ottoson (1989:95) analyse it as movement into IP-spec, whereas Holmberg & Platzack (forthcoming), Jonsson (1991), and Santorini (forthcoming) take it to be adjunction to 1°. The analysis of Cardinaletti & Roberts (forthcoming) is somewhat related to the latter, as they analyse it as movement into ZP-spec (their AgrlP-spec) via IP-spec (their Agr2P-spec). Stylistic fronting is found in Icelandic, Faroese, the older forms of Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish, and, according to Cardinaletti & Roberts (forthcoming), in Yiddish and Old French, though Santorini (forthcoming) says that Yiddish has no stylistic fronting. Topicalisation, on the other hand, applies to "object NPs, PPs, etc." (Maling 1990:76) and does not require the subject to be absent from IP-spec. Topicalisation is found in all V2 languages. 26. Maling (1980) originally called the movement "stylistic inversion". "Stylistic fronting" is the term used in Ott6son (1989), Rognvaldsson & Thrainsson (1990), and Sigur3sson (1989), and also in the revised version of Maling (1980), see Maling (1990:88).

Verb Second in Embedded Clauses

117

It seems clear that when a verb undergoes stylistic fronting, it is only the V° that is moved and not the VP—not even when the object is either a pronoun, as in (129b) or an indefinite NP as in (129c): (129)Ic. a.

Eg helt afl kvsst hefSu hana margir studentar I believed that kissed had her many students

b. *Eg helt afl kvsst hana hefflu margir studentar I believed that kissed her had many students c. *Eg helt afl kvsst stelpu hefflu margir studentar I believed that kissed (a) girl had many students

In an embedded clause containing a wA-element, it is possible to have stylistic fronting, (130a), but not to have topicalisation, (130b) (see also section 4.1.4): ( 1 3 0 ) I c . a.

Konur verfla hrsddar begar settar eru mys i baflkerifl Women become afraid when put are mice in bathtub-the

b. *Konur verfla hraeddar begar a Islandi berjast menn Women become afraid when in Iceland fight people (fromOtt6son 1989:95, (13), (14a))

Extraction out of a topicalisation (i.e., out of an embedded clause where an NP or another XP immediately follows ad) seems to be impossible:27 (131)Ic. a.

£g veit afl bessum hrino lofafli Olafur Mariu t I know that this ring (ace) promised Olafur (nom) Maria (dat)

b.

*Mariu veit eg afl bessum hrina lofafli 6lafur t t Maria(dat) know I that this ring(acc) promised 6lafur(nom)

(132) Ic. a.

Eg veit afl Mariu lofafli 6lafur t bessum hring I know that Maria(dat) promised 6lafur(nom) this ring(acc)

b. *?&essum hrina veit eg afl Mariu lofafli 6lafur t t This ring (ace) know I that Maria (dat) promised 6lafur(nom) (from Rognvaldsson & Thramsson 1990:32, (54))

Extraction out of a stylistic fronting, on the other hand, is possible, in both argument extraction, (133)-(134), and adjunct extraction, (135)-(136): (133) Ic. fressi maflur held eg afl tekifl hafi lit peninga ur bankanum This man think I that taken has out money from bank-the (from Rognvaldsson & Thramsson 1990:26 (37b)) ( 1 3 4 ) I c . frennan mann helt eg afl iarifi heffli verifl med a sjukrahiis This man thought I that gone had been with to hospital (from Rognvaldsson & Thrainsson (1990:32,52c)) (135) Ic. a. b.

Hun sagfli afl lar£ hafflu s6gu i She said that learned had history in Hvernia sagSi nun How said she

sk61anum m6rg born school-the many children

afl iari hafflu s6gu i skdlanum that learned had history in school-the mbrg born t? many children ?

27. Although (131) and (132) are argument extractions, it should follow that it is also impossible for adjunct extraction, as adjunct extractions (which are subject to antecedent government and subjacency) are only possible if argument extraction (which is only subject to subjacency) is possible.

118

Verb Movement

(136)Ic. a. b.

Hun sagSi She said

afl settar vaeru mys i baSkerifl that put were mice in bathtub-the

Hvernia sagOi How said

nun ac5 settar vsru mys i baflkerifl t? she that put were mice in bathtub-the ?

The two strings of words underlying (135b) and (136b) are ambiguous—i.e., they could also be interpreted as if the question were "how did she say something" rather than "how had the children learned history" and "how had mice been put into the bathtub". What is important here is that the readings involving extraction from the embedded clause are possible in both cases. Let me finally add one observation to the ongoing discussion of stylistic fronting, which would seem to indicate that in Faroese stylistic fronting is movement into (or through) IP-spec (cf. Barnes 1987:13-14). The observation is that whereas stylistic fronting is optional when the subject has been extracted, (137), it is obligatory if the subject is missing (in a passive), or if it is a "postposed" subject, (138) and (139). (In Icelandic, stylistic fronting would be optional in all three examples, (137), (138), and (139).): {137)Pa. a. b.

Ta<3 var eitt slikt devils TaS var eitt slikt devils

It

was a

such

sinni, ifl sinni, i6

devil's anger

a

hann kom kom a

hann

that ton him) came Ion him) (from Barnes 1987:13, (21))

{138}Fa. a. Kjartan sat heima, me<5an farifl b. *Kjartan sat heima, me<5an

Kjartan sat home,

varO varfl farifl

i i

kirkjuna kirkjuna

while (gone) was (gone) to church-the (from Barnes 1987:13, (23))

(139)Fa. a. Hann helt, at stuttlicrt matti veriS at saeS tey aftur b. *Hann helt, at matti veria stuttlicrt at s«5 tey aftur He thought that (fun) must be (fun) to see them again (from Barnes 1987:13, (25))

That stylistic fronting is optional in (137) and obligatory in (138) and (139) could be derived from the ECP in the following way. In (137b) IP-spec contains a trace of the empty operator in CP-spec (cf. the analysis of relative clauses discussed in section 4.1.4) and id in C° is a proper governor (note that it is a C°-element only used in relative clauses, like English relative that or Danish som). In (138b) and (139b), IP-spec has no content, as Faroese has no empty expletives (cf. section 7.1.1), and, furthermore, medan 'while' in (138) and at 'that' in (139) are not proper governors (like their counterparts in many other languages, including Danish and English). That stylistic fronting can save these sentences from violating the ECP would thus seem to indicate that stylistic fronting, at least in Faroese, is movement into or through IP-spec. In this subsection we saw that it is possible to extract both arguments and adjuncts from embedded V2 clauses in Icelandic, provided V2 is a result of stylistic fronting and not of topicalisation. Why this should be is an unanswered question. As discussed in the two previous subsections, both relativised minimality and barriers theories provide a reason for the impossibility of extraction from embedded top-

119

Verb Second in Embedded Clauses

icalisations, but no one to my knowledge has yet provided a satisfactory analysis of the general properties of stylistic inversion—for example, How come heads may be topicalised? Why does the subject have to be missing?—much less of the possibility of extraction from an embedded stylistic inversion.

4.9 Embedded clauses introduced by which-that or if-that In this section I will try to show that the double CP analysis is also neeeded to account for phenomena related to non-V2 embedded clauses. The different kinds of data discussed below all have in common that they have that in the lower of the two C°s. In section 3.3.2, the w/i-criterion was discussed, and at the end of the section, it was pointed out that whereas the w/z-criterion (together with the projection principle) rules out V°-to-I°-to-C° movement in an embedded question (the movement into C° would delete the [+wA]-feature in C° which has to be there at D-structure), it does not rule out base-generated material in C°, as no movement into C° is involved. In (140), of whether' is present in C° at D-structure, S-structure, and LF: (140)Du.

Hij weet hoe of je dat moet doen He knows how whether you that must do (=He knows how you must do that) (from Hoekstra 1993:161, (lb))

The content of C° in (140), of, is furthermore one that is normally taken to have a [+w/z]-feature, as it only occurs in embedded questions. This is not always the case; in fact, most examples of embedded questions with both a w/z-element and a complementiser in the literature have that in C° (rather than if). One possible analysis would therefore be to assume that that exceptionally does have the feature [+wh] in the following examples from Bavarian German, Swiss German, Flemish, Middle English, Middle Danish, and colloquial Copenhagen Danish (cf. also the discussion in Brink & Lund 1975:676): (141) a. Ba.

I woafi ned jjana daS da Xaver kuirant I know not when that the Xaver comes (from Bayer 1984b:24, (3a))

b. SG.

I ha-n-im gseit, wie da£s_ er daas sou mache I have-him told how that he this should do (from Penner & Bader 1991:81, (6b))

c. WF.

Kweten niet wannier ^a. Valere goa werekommen J know not when that Valere goes return ( = i s going to return) (from Haegeman 1992:57, (33a))

d. ME. Only the sight of hire whom ;ktiat I serve Only the sight of her whom that I serve (line 1231 in Chaucer: The Knight's Tale, cited in Lightfoot 1979:321, (53b)) e. MD.

I vide aldri naar. a£ freromede f lender offuerfalde oss Y"ou know(pl) never when that foreign enemies attack(pl) us (Peder Palladius, b. 1503, cited in Mikkelsen 191 1:504)

f. Da.

Jeg ser hvordan at Dragten samler sig om deres Form J see how that costume-the gathers itself around their shape (J.P. Jacobsen, 1924, cited in Hansen 1967,111:462)

120

Verb Movement

However, if dqfi/dass/dat/that/at may have the feature [+wh] in the above examples, then it is difficult to account for why dafildassldatlthatlat cannot occur in any other context where the feature [+wh] is required of the C° position—e.g., in embedded yes/no-questions like the following. (As far as I have been able to ascertain, this holds for all the languages used in the preceding examples.): (142)a. Ge. *Ich frage mich, dafi Peter das Buch gelesen hat b. Da. *Jeg gad vide at Peter har Isest bogen c. En. *I wonder that Peter has read the book (143)a. Ge. b. Da. c. En.

Ich frage mich, ob Jeg gad vide om I wonder if

Peter das Buch gelesen hat Peter har laest bogen Peter has read the book

An alternative analysis is therefore called for. I would like to suggest that the sentences in (141) are all instances of CP-recursion,28 as illustrated in the following tree of the relevant part of (14Id):

Here that does not occur in the top C°, which is selected for the feature [+wh] (as the head of an embedded question), and so there is no longer any requirement that that in (141) have the feature [+w/z]. Instead, that occurs in the C° of a lower CP, with an empty CP-spec. This ("empty") CP-spec actually has to contain the trace of the w/z-element, due to relativised minimality. Although the spec of that thus still is a w/z-element, this appears no longer to be a problem: It makes a difference whether that is in a C° that which is selected for the feature [+wA], as in (142), or whether that is in a C° that has a trace of a wA-element in its spec, as in the following: (145)a. Ge. b. Da. c. En.

Was glaubst du, t dafi Peter t gesagt hat? Hvad tror du 1 at Peter sagde t ? What do you think t that Peter said t ?

The relevant restriction could be that that is only excluded from appearing in a C° that is required to have the feature [+wh] by the w/i-criterion (see section 3.3.2), and not from appearing in a C° in whose spec a w/i-trace occurs: In the embedded yes/ no-question (142) that is in the C° that is (or should be) involved in wfc-licensing, whereas in both (145) and (141) (if analysed as in (144)), that does not occupy the C° involved in wfc-licensing. The question remains why the embedded yes/no-question with that, (142), cannot receive an analysis parallel to (144) along the following lines: 28. A similar suggestion is independently made by Hoekstra (1993). Reinholtz (1989:110) also uses similar data to argue for the presence of two functional heads left of the subject, though she then takes the second of the two functional heads, the one containing that, to be Agr° (i.e., 1° in (144)). 1 shall argue against this in section 4.10.2.

Verb Second in Embedded Clauses

121

That is, the higher CP spec contains an empty operator (cf. the analysis of main clause yes/no-questions in section 3.3.2, as well as the arguments for empty operators to be discussed immediately below in connection with (155)-(158)), the higher C° is empty, the lower CP-spec contains a trace of the empty operator, and the lower C° contains that. I suggest that this violates some independent requirement on whlicensing—namely, that at least one of the two elements involved (a [+wh] X° and a [+wh] XP; cf. section 3.3.2) must be overt. This assumption, that either the CP-spec or the C° involved in w/t-licensing must be phonetically realised, is supported by the fact that (146) is not actually excluded (in other words, that may occur in embedded yes/no-question) as long as the higher C° is not empty; compare (147)(152), where it is filled by if.29 Summing up: With the double CP analysis, as in (144), we can treat the examples in (141) on a par with (145) and different from (142).30 Returning to the double CP analysis in (144), it would also enable us to account for additional data, which contains sequences of the type if that. In the following examples (from Middle English, Middle Danish, colloquial Copenhagen Danish, and West Flemish), that immediately follows something which is unquestionably in C°— because, if, and though. That these elements are C°-elements can be seen from their inability to occur sentence-initially followed by a verb in a V2-clause:

29. It is not obvious how this could be extended to the kind of object relative clauses found in Danish and English, where both CP-spec and C° of the relative clause would seem to be empty: (i)

a. En. Have you read the book _ b. Da. Har du last den bog, _

s*.

_ _

he was talking about t? han snakkede om t?

Both CP-spec and C° are empty, although they should both participate in w/i-licensing (of each other). 30. It might also be possible to account for the following that-tiace asymmetry in Danish by means of the double CP analysis: (i)

Da.

Hvemj tror du Who think you

tL vil k0be den her bog ? will buy this here book?

(ii) Da. *Hvemi tror du Who think you

at tt vil kabe den her bog ? that will buy this here book?

(iii) Da. ?Hvemi gad du vide OJD Who would you know if

ti vil kobe den her bog ? will buy this here book?

In (i), an empty C° is able to properly govern a trace in IP-spec, just like in the classical English examples, such as Who do you think left? (cf. e.g. Chomsky & Lasnik 1977). In (ii), on the other hand, at would be in the lower C°, and, as argued in Vikner (1991:127), at cannot be a proper governor. Finally, in (iii) om could be in a higher C°, leaving the lower C° empty. The lower C° would thus be able to properly govern the trace in IP-spec, parallel to (i), and (iii) would only be expected to be a subjacency violation (as hvem cannot go through the specifier of om, which contains an empty operator).

122

Verb Movement

(147)ME. a.

Blameth nat me if itat ye chese amis Blame not me if that you choose amiss (=make the wrong choice) (line 3181 in Chaucer: The Miller's Prologue, cited in Eitle 1914:69)

b.

Though £)iat my tale be of an hostileer Though my story is about an innkeeper (line 4359 in Chaucer: The Cook's Prologue, cited in Eitle 1914:1 18)

(1481MD.

(149)Da.

I lede effter mig, Icrdi at i ode aff bradet i"ou look for me, because that you ate of bread-the (New Testament, trsl. by Christian Pedersen 1529, cited in Falk & Torp 1900:229) a.

Fordi at Gerda var saa ung Because that Gerda was so young (J.P. Jacobsen, 1924, cited in Hansen 1967,111:396)

b.

Skont at han ikke ville have Genstanden Though that he not would have thing-the (Christian Engelstoft, 1926, cited in Hansen 1967,111:399) If

(150)WF.

at det ikke havde vaeret sa S0rgeligt that it not had been so sad (Tom Kristensen, 1921, cited in Hansen 1967,111:388)

Kweten nie of da Valere dienen boek a gelezen eet I know not if that Valere this book already read has (from Haegeman 1992:50, (13a))

These examples can also all be explained in a double CP analysis, as illustrated in the following tree of the relevant part of (147 a):

This type of data may also be found in Icelandic (Hoskuldur Thrainsson, personal communication):31 ( 1 5 2 ) I c . a.

Eg veit ekki hvort a6 betta er i lagi I know not whether that this is all right b_£gar a£ eg ^°m as that I came

b.

Harm for He left

c.

tetta er maourinn sem a<5 kom i gaer This is man-the that that came yesterday

Finally, I shall briefly turn to a slightly different type of data which also seems to necessitate the double CP analysis. In at least one of the dialects that have agreeing complementisers, it is possible to have inflection on a w/z-element followed by a that. This example is from the German dialect spoken in Westphalia (Thilo Tappe, personal communication):32 31. For an analysis of the Danish relative C° som, which corresponds to Ic. sem, see Vikner (1991:121). 32. It might be argued (along lines similar to Shlonsky 1992a,b) that even the standard examples of agreeing complementisers, where that has an inflectional ending (cf., e.g., Bayer 1984a,b and Bennis & Haegeman 1984), are better accommodated in a double CP analysis, as that and the inflectional ending would not both have to be base-generated in the same C°: that could be generated in the lower C° and then moved (incorporated) into the higher C°, where the inflectional ending would be base-generated.

123

Verb Second in Embedded Clauses (153)Wp. a.

b.

Peter geht erst, wennst dafi du kommst Peter goes first when-AGR that you come-AGR (=Peter will not leave until you Arrive) . . . [ cp [ c= wenn-st ] [ cp [c, daE ] when-AGR that

[ I p du kommst) ] ] you come

The next question is then what rules out the direct parallels to the Dutch (140), repeated here as (154), in a number of other languages, e.g., German, Danish, and English: (154)Du.

Hij weet hoe of je dat moet doen He knows how whether you that must do (=He knows how you must do that)

(from Hoekstra 1993:161, (lb))

I suggest that there may be an independent requirement of elements like oblomlif— namely, that they contain an empty operator in their specifier (cf. a similar claim made for the Danish relative C° som in Vikner 1991:121). The obligatory presence of such an empty operator in the CP-spec of if would also explain two further facts. One is that embedded questions with oblomlif are islands (cf. the extractions discussed in section 2.2.2 above):33 (155)a. Ge. *Wie willst du wissen, [OP ob du dieses Gemuse kochen sollst ] ? b. Da. *Hvordan gad du vide [OP om du skulle koge de her grssnsager ] ? c. En. *How do you know [OP if you should cook these vegetables] ?

The other fact explained by the presence of an empty operator (in CP-spec of the embedded clause) is the possibility of negative polarity items in embedded questions with oblomlif. In the "paradigm case", negative polarity items are licensed by "not or some other overt negation" (Linebarger 1987:336). This explains the difference between (156) and (157), where the negative polarity item is the adverb ever (Ge.jemals, Da. nogensinde). In (156) a negation is present, but not in (157): (156)a. Ge. b. Da. c. En.

Ich glaube nicht. [daS Peter -iemals Biicher liest] Jeg tror ikke [at Peter nocrensinde laeser b0ger ] I don't think [that Peter ever reads books ]

(157)a. Ge. *Ich glaube [da& Peter iemals Biicher liest] b. Da. *Jeg tror [at Peter noaensinde Isser b0ger ] c. En. *I think [that Peter ever reads books ]

Although there is no negation present in the embedded questions with if, negative polarity items are possible. This would be explained if they were triggered by the empty operator in CP spec: 33. It is interesting to note that the Dutch version of (155) is just as bad: (i)

Du. *Hoe wil je weten [of je deze groenten moet koeken] ? How will you know if you these vegetables should cook ?

This may be interpreted to mean that where German ob, Danish om, and English (/all require an empty operator in their specifier position, Dutch of is satisfied with any kind of operator, empty or overt. (That the operator does not have to be empty is shown by (154) above.) The problem with (i) is then parallel to the problems encountered with (155): Either the spec of of contains a trace of hoe, but then the operator requirement is violated, or the spec of of contains an (empty) operator, but then there is no link between hoe and its trace inside the embedded clause, and hoe cannot be interpreted.

124

Verb Movement

(158)a. Ge. b. Da. c. En.

Ich frage mich [OP ob Peter iemals Biicher liest] Jeg gad vide fop om Peter noaensinde laeser b0ger ] I wonder fOP if Peter ever reads books ]

In this section, I have tried to show that the double CP analysis is also called for to account for phenomena related to non-V2 embedded clauses, which could not be accounted for otherwise. The CP-recursion analysis makes it possible to explain how that may seemingly occur in the C° of some embedded questions, even though it is clearly impossible in embedded jes/no-questions, and also how that can occur after another C° element in an embedded clause (including after an inflectional ending).

4.10 Embedded V2 in Danish: CP-recursion or topicalisation to AgrP-spec? Using a framework with AgrP and TP, like the one used in the analyses suggested by Belletti (1990) or Chomsky (1991), Reinholtz (1989) suggests the following analysis of embedded V2 in Danish, which amounts to saying that Danish has general embedded V2: (159) a. b.

El iorPjE Aar" TP-sp«c ... - that - subject - finite verb ... - that - topic - finite verb - subject

adverbial ... - adverbial . . .

One would expect that if the conclusions presented in sections 4.3^1.8 were correct—that is, that embedded V2 in Yiddish and Icelandic should be analysed as CP-recursion (or involving a ZP) rather than as topicalisation to IP-spec/AgrPspec—then this conclusion should also hold for Danish, given that embedded V2 clauses (irrespective of whether or not the topic is the subject) are much less general in Danish than in Icelandic and Yiddish (see section 4.1). Furthermore, the conclusion in section 4.9 that CP-recursion (or ZP-insertion) is independently motivated by phenomena in embedded non-V2 clauses was also based on evidence from Danish. In this section I shall first try to show that the data supporting (159) are less convincing than would appear from Reinholtz (1989), and then argue that at least three of the arguments from the above discussion of Yiddish and Icelandic also are valid in this discussion, and that these indeed argue against a topicalisation to AgrP-spec analysis.

4.10.1 Embedded V2 less than general in Danish Although the topicalisations of non-subjects given by Reinholtz (1989: 104-105) are admittedly more acceptable than one would expect under a CP-recursion analysis, it is not the case that embedded V2 is possible in all embedded clauses in Danish. This is already apparent from the data in section 4.1, where it was shown that V2 only occurs with a subset of the verbs that take finite sentential complements (as opposed to Yiddish and Icelandic), and that V2 never occurs in embedded questions (as opposed to Yiddish and Icelandic, where it is sometimes possible).

Verb Second in Embedded Clauses

125

Consider the following examples, where the main clause verbs/expressions, which come from the list of "non-bridge verbs" in 4.1.3, have no negative denotation whatsoever and therefore do not fall under the small class of exception admitted by Reinholtz (1989:104, fn 7). Examples (160) and (162a) are cases of subjectinitial V2 (as can be seen from the post-verbal position of the negation/adverbial), and (161) and (162b) are non-subject-initial V2: (160)Da. a. b. c. d. e.

*Hun bekreftede *Hun *Hun *Hun *Hun

beviste forklarede var glad for overbeviste mig om

She She She She She

confirmed proved explained was happy convinced me

... at han kunne ikke have begaet forbrydelsen . . . that he could not have commited crime-the

(161)Da. a.

*Hun bekraeftede

b. *Hun beviste c. ??Hun forklarede d. *Hun var glad for e. ??Hun overbeviste mig om

She She She She She

confirmed proved explained was happy convinced me

... at den forbrydelse kunne han ikke have begaet . . . that that crime could he not have committed (162)Da. a. *De tilled at han arbejdede af og til free-lance They permitted that he worked now and then free-lance b. *De tilled at af og til arbejdede han free-lance They permitted that now and then worked he free-lance

Consider also the fact that the verbs used by Reinholtz (1989:104-105) do not allow for embedded V2 with the subject as the topic: (163)Da. a.

Barnet mS Isre at man selvfalgelia mS tage hensyn til andre Child-the must learn that one of course must show consideration for others b. ??... man ma selvfalgelig tage ... Jeg vil vasdde pa at hun gerne vil med i biografen I will bet on that she gladly will with in cinema-the b. ??... hun vil gerne med ...

U64)Da. a.

de Drengene aftalte at ville skiftes til at vaske op Boys-tie agreed that they furthermore would take-turns to to wash up b. *. . . de ville desuden skiftes . . .

(165)Da. a.

Peter affandt sig med at Karen nok interessede sig mere for fodbold end for ham Peter reconciled himself with that Karen probably interested herself more in football than in him b. ??. . . at Karen interessede sig nok mere . . .

(166)Da. a.

Kaptajnen forlangte at der hver moraen skulle afholdes gudstjeneste pa agterdsekket Captain-the demanded that there every morning should be-held mass on quarter-deck- the b. *. . . der skulle hver morgen afholdes. . .

(167)Da. a.

126

Verb Movement

(168)Da. a.

Peter indsa at Karen helt enkelt interessede sig mere for fodbold end for ham Peter realised that Karen quite simply interested herself more in football than in him b. ??... Karen interessede sig helt enkelt mere ...

(169)Da. a.

Jeg frygter at skattenedsaettelsen kun vil fere til en stigning i leveomkostningerne I fear that tax-reduction-the only will lead to a rise in costs-of-living-the b. «... skattenedsaettelsen vil kun fare ...

(170)Da. a.

Det var en overraskelse at de slet ikke var uenige It was a surprise that they at all not were disagreed b. ??... de var slet ikke uenige ...

In other words, the order f/za/-subject-verb-adverbial is clearly less acceptable than tfzaf-subject-adverbial-verb. Notice, furthermore, that if the matrix verbs are substituted by verbs like say, believe, or think—i.e., verbs from the list of "bridge verbs" in section 4.1.3—both orders become grammatical. The empirical basis of Reinholtz (1989) for postulating general embedded V2 in Danish, as opposed to limited embedded V2, would thus seem not to be convincing. I therefore disagree with Reinholtz (1989) and agree with latridou & Kroch (1992), for example, that embedded V2 in Danish takes place outside IP/AgrP.

4.10.2

Subject-verb agreement

Reinholtz (1989:109, 113) takes colloquial Danish examples with sequences of complementisers, if that, unless that, though that, etc. (cf. the examples in section 4.9) as an argument that at 'that' may occur in Agr°, which again would entail that the subject may occur lower than AgrP-spec, given that it may never precede at. Reinholtz (1989:111) links the possibility of having at in Agr° to the fact that Agr° would otherwise be empty, as modern Danish has no verbal inflection. Although modern Danish has no subject-verb agreement at all (as will be discussed in section 5.1), earlier stages of Danish had: Old Norse had four (or five, depending on the verb class) different endings for the six number and person combinations, a situation equivalent to modern Icelandic, and Middle Danish distinguished between singular and plural (elsker/elske 'love' sg. and.pl.). I will therefore analyse the subjects in the examples that follow from Old Norse and Middle Danish to be in AgrP-spec, given that all show subject-verb agreement. As in section 4.6,1 take subject-verb agreement to be a reflex of spec-X° agreement between Agr° and AgrP-spec, with the agreement morphology being generated in Agr° (note that "Agr" in Agr°/AgrP stands for "agreement"). Given Reinholtz's analysis of the complementiser sequences (because/if in C°, that in Agr°), we would expect that in these older stages, where Agr° contains the agreement morphemes, such sequences would be excluded. This is not borne out, however. Old Norse f>vi and Middle Danish thy 'because', for example, were often followed by another complementiser, at, 'that', just as in Icelandic and colloquial modern Danish (cf. section 4.9):

Verb Second in Embedded Clauses En

Hoflr st6fi

utarliga

1 27

(171) ON.

i bvl But Ho r stoodOsg) near-the-edge in because

mannhringinum, at harm var blindr men-circle-the that he was<3sg) blind (from Mikkelsen 1911:531-32)

(172)MD.

En tord balsamj flyder genesten til botnen, thv at balsamus er gantzae tung af sek self A dry balm floats (sg) immediately to bottom-the because that balm-the isisg) rather heavy of it self (from Mandevilles reise, late 1 5th century, cited in Mikkelsen 1911 :532)

As there is agreement between the verb and the subject, the subject must be in AgrP-spec, and then there must be two functional heads left of the subject, one containing hvi/thy and one containing at. I see no reason why this should not also be the case in modern Danish. A similar argument can be based on the presence of that in embedded whquestions; Reinholtz (1989:109, (18b)) also assumes such examples to support the presence of at in Agr°, presumably based on the assumption that that cannot be in C° if CP-spec contains a w/i-element: (173) ON.

Olafr spurdi 6lafr asked (3sg)

[hvern styrk at hann mundi fa honum ] which strength that he could (3sg) get him(self) (from Falk & Torp 1900:232)

(174)MD.

I vide aldri [naar at fremmede fiender offuerfalde oss] you know(pl) never when that foreign enemies attack(pl) us (Peder Palladius (1503-1560), cited in Mikkelsen 1911:504)

(1751MD.

Wi l»se [huorledis at ouinderne ginge vd mod Dauid] We read(pl) how that women the walkedlpl) out towards David (translation of Saxo Grammaticus by Anders S0rensen Vedel (1542-1616), printed 1585, cited in Falk & Torp 1900:232)

As in section 4.9, 1 take it that that is in C° of a different CP from the one in which the wfc-element occupies the specifier position, as that cannot be taken to have the feature [+wh] because it cannot occur in the higher C° in an embedded yes/no-question. Consequently, still assuming that overt subject-verb agreement presupposes that the subject is in AgrP-spec, there must be two functional categories to the left of the subject, one which is empty, but has the wft-element in its spec, and one containing at. In this section we saw that the data presented in 4.9 from older stages of Danish— Old Norse and Middle Danish— not only shows that two functional projections are needed left of the position of the subject, but also that the arguments (from Yiddish and Icelandic) from section 4.6 concerning subject-verb agreement is also relevant here: The data displays subject-verb agreement, and the subject must therefore be taken to be in or have passed through AgrP-spec. These older stages of Danish thus provide counterexamples to Reinholtz' s analysis that sequences like ifthat or wh-that must be taken to have at in Agr°.

4.10.3 Adjunction to AgrP and CP Reinholtz (1989:103) claims that, as opposed to Dutch and German, there is no indication in Danish that V2 is movement of the verb to C°. I will here argue that there is, or at least was, until very recently.

128

Verb Movement

In Swedish, such indications exist, namely the adjunction facts of Swedish discussed in sections 3.2 and 4.7: There are two kinds of elements which a pronominal subject may not be separated from, a complementiser and a preceding finite verb. If Reinholtz (1989) is right that the complementiser is in C°, but a verb preceding a subject is in Agr° and the subject itself is in TP-spec, then we have no parallelism between the two situations. If, on the other hand, the CP-recursion is right and both the complementiser and the finite verb are in C° and the subject is in AgrP-spec, then we have a clear parallelism between the two situations. Although the above facts hold for Swedish, and not for Danish (where adverbials never occur to the left of the subject except in the topic-position), I think they are nevertheless relevant for our discussion; Danish and Swedish are very closely related languages, and it seems to me to be problematic to suggest a basic order for Danish that does not apply to Swedish. This is what Reinholtz (1989) does, however. My argument is strengthened by the following evidence which indicates that the difference between Danish and Swedish—that adverbials never adjoin to IP in Danish—is a rather recent difference. Mikkelsen (1911:625) gives the following examples, which are like Swedish and differ from contemporary Danish, where both (176b) and (177b) are impossible: (176}Da. a.

Jeg I b. *Jeg J

(177)Da. a. b.

Jeg I Jeg I

er am er am

i in i in

tvivl doubt tvivl doubt

om whether om whether

han overhovedet he at all overhovedet han at all he

er am er am

i in i in

tvivl doubt tvivl doubt

om whether om whether

han selv he himself overhovedet at all

konuner comes kommer comes

overhovedet at all han selv he himself

kommer comes kommer comes

Said Mikkelsen (1911:625), "the proposing cannot take place if the subject is a weak pronoun", thus describing the difference between (176b), which has a pronominal subject, and (177b), which has a non-pronominal subject.34 Diderichsen (1962:189) also has examples of this construction, and he adds, "the construction is less frequent with a light pronominal subject". Summing up: The fact that adverbials are possible in Swedish between a subject and a preposed verb in a V2 sentence under exactly the same conditions as when it is possible between a subject and a complementiser (in both cases, the subject cannot be a pronoun) indicates that the verb in a V2 construction and the complementiser in a non-V2 embedded clause occur in the same position. Rather than take this as an indication that the basic structure of the clause is different in Danish and Swedish, I assume this to be a minor difference in possible adverbial positions. This is supported by the fact that at least some of these data could also be found in Danish at the beginning of this century.

34. As noted by Holmberg (1986:209) with respect to object shift, expanded pronouns (like he himself) behave like full NPs and not like pronouns. Holmberg's examples are you two, her with the handbag, and you and me.

Verb Second in Embedded Clauses

4.10.4

129

Conclusions concerning embedded clauses in Danish

In this section, 4.10,1 have tried to argue that though Reinholtz (1989) is correct that the possibilities of embedded V2 clauses may be greater than what has been assumed so far, they are far from as great as in Yiddish and Icelandic. There are still many cases in which embedded clauses are only possible if they are not V2 (section 4.10.1). I furthermore tried to show that some of her arguments that V2 is movement of the finite verb to Agr° and topicalisation to AgrP-spec do not hold: There are reasons (from older stages of Danish) to believe that the pre-subject but post-wh at does not have to be in Agr° but may occur higher (4.10.2), and indications exist (in Swedish and also in Danish from around 1900) that the position of the complementiser and the position of the finite verb are of the same nature—i.e., that the maximal projection of the finite verb in an embedded V2 is a CP (4.10.3).

4.11

Conclusion

This chapter on V2 in embedded clauses first showed that V2 is found also in embedded clauses which are introduced by a complementiser, and then illustrated the difference between general embedded V2 (i.e. the situation in Icelandic and Yiddish) and limited embedded V2 (found in most other V2 languages). The purpose of the discussion was to see whether the existence of general embedded V2 should lead to a revision of the unitary analysis of V2 given in chapter 3, as movement of the finite verb into C°. Throughout the chapter I defended the view that such a revision is not called for, even if though this means that embedded V2 clauses often consist of two CPs (CP-recursion). Section 4.2 discussed the different approaches suggested in the literature (CPrecursion, ZP, or topicalisation to IP-spec), and their consequences for the analysis of the data in the three different groups of languages: the ones with general embedded V2 in 4.2.1 (i.e., Yiddish and Icelandic), the ones which do not allow embedded V2 after a complementiser at all in 4.2.2 (example language: German), and finally the ones which have limited embedded V2 in 4.2.3 (example languages: Danish and English). Sections 4.3-4.10 then went on to discuss various kinds of evidence which either had been or could be taken to favour one of the three analyses over the other two. Section 4.3 discussed an alleged argument in favour of topicalisation to IPspec, the existence of so called VI declarative structures, and tried to show that, if anything, this evidence was more problematic for the topicalisation to IP-spec approach than for the others. In sections 4.4—4.7, it was argued that even in embedded topicalisations where the subject follows the finite verb, the subject cannot be lower than IP-spec, due to facts concerning the relative positions of the subject and the sentential adverbial (section 4.4), object shift in Icelandic (4.5), subject-verb agreement (4.6), and adjunction of adverbials to IP and CP (4.7). It follows that if the subject is in IPspec (as I took it to be), the topicalised element must be in a CP-spec (or maybe in ZP-spec), and not in IP-spec, and thus these different types of evidence may all be used as arguments against the topicalisation to IP-spec analysis.

130

Verb Movement

In section 4.8, on the other hand, we saw that the evidence concerning extraction from embedded V2 clauses gave no clear indications one way or the other. In section 4.9,1 argued that the CP-recursion analysis (or the ZP one) is also called for to account for phenomena connected to non-V2 embedded clauses, which could not be accounted for otherwise, notably embedded questions where the embedded w/z-element is followed by that. In section 4.10, embedded V2 in Danish was discussed, which has also been claimed (by Reinholtz 1989) to require an analysis of the "topicalisation to IPspec"-type. Some reasons were given to disagree with this claim. The general conclusion is that, if anything, the CP-recursion analysis is favoured rather than disfavoured by the evidence, and there is thus no reason to revise the analysis (or analyses) of V2 suggested in chapter 3: V2 is the movement of the finite verb to C° and of some XP into CP-spec.

5 V°-to-I° Movement

According to chapter 3, the preferable analysis of V2 in main clauses is that V2 involves both movement of the finite verb into C° and movement of some maximal projection into CP-spec, although this maximal projection is not necessarily an overt element, in that no overt element precedes the finite verb in, e.g., yes/no-questions. In chapter 4, it was further argued that this analysis could be maintained for the V2 phenomena that occur in embedded sentences as well, even if embedded V2 sentences may be preceded by a complementiser. As all verbs are base-generated inside a VP (with the possible exception of modal verbs in English, which are different from other verbs in that they lack, for example, infinitival and participial forms), V2 is movement of a verb from V° to C°. According to the head movement constraint (see section 2.4), this movement cannot take place in one step: Heads can only move into a head which properly governs it—i.e., into the next higher head. This means that as C° does not directly select VP, C° is not the next higher head from the point of view of V°. Instead, C° selects IP and 1° selects VP (or maybe 1° selects TP and then T° selects VP), the verb has to pass through T° and 1° on its way to C°. In other words, every case of V2 necessarily involves V°-to-I° movement, as it is V°-to-I°-to-C° movement. In that sense, every single V2 language also has V°-to-I° movement. In this chapter I do not discuss whether a given language has V°-to-I° movement in this sense, but whether a language has what should perhaps be called "independent V°-to-P movement"—i.e., whether the finite verb ever occurs in 1° or whether it only goes to 1° when it is on its way to C°. These two kinds of V°-to-I° movement take place under different and unrelated circumstances: In declarative clauses in French, independent V°-to-I° movement takes place and V°-to-I°-to-C° movement cannot take place (see section 5.2.1); whereas in Danish, V°-to-I°-to-C° movement takes place and independent V°-to-I° movement cannot take place (see sections 3.2-3.3 and 5.3.2). In this chapter, I discuss the conditions for and characteristics of independent V°-to-I° movement. In section 5.1, the "richness" of verbal inflection discussed as the motivation for independent V°-to-I° movement, and in the following sections, 131

132

Verb Movement

the various cases are discussed; in 5.2, the I°-VP languages with V°-to-P movement, in 5.3, the I°-VP languages without V°-to-I° movement, and in 5.4, a brief note on the VP-F languages, where it is rather difficult to determine whether V°to-F movement takes place or not. In 5.5 the focus is on the connection between V2 and V°-to-F movement, and a hypothesis will be offered as to why only F-VP languages with independent V°-to-F movement have general embedded V2, whereas all other V2 languages only have limited embedded V2. Finally, 5.6 contains the conclusion.

5.1 Inflection The perhaps intuitively most plausible way of connecting verbal inflection and V°to-F movement would be to say that the mere presence of verbal inflection (i.e., if the finite verb shows any agreement as to person or number) would trigger V°-to-F movement, whereas complete absence of inflection would not trigger this movement (there would be no reason for the verb to move to F). This is clearly wrong, as it would predict that only those languages which have no person/number inflection at all (i.e., Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish) have no V°-to-F movement. But as we shall see later, more languages lack V°-to-I° movement than these three, including English and Faroese. The next logical possibility is to say that mere presence of inflection is not enough, but that inflection has to be strong—that is, the crucial difference is no longer between no and any inflection but between a relatively rich inflectional system and a relatively poor one. This is the view defended in the articles that were the first to suggest a link between inflection and V°-to-F movement—Kosmeijer (1986), Holmberg & Platzack (1988:31, forthcoming), and Platzack (1988)—which were all based on the Scandinavian languages. Note that Emonds (1978) and Pollock (1989) were based on English and French. In this section I will argue that the predictions yielded by this view are essentially correct. As an indication of whether a language has a strong inflectional system (which should then cause V°-to-F movements, one may consider standard verb paradigms like the following:1

1. Although it may seem from example (1) that German has more inflection than Icelandic, this is not the case. The two languages are exactly parallel: They have four different endings in the present tense of a weak verb and five different endings in the present tense of a strong verb. Werfen/kasta 'throw' just happens to be a strong verb in German and a weak one in Icelandic. Consider the following verb, fahrenlfara 'go', which is strong in both German and Icelandic. Furthermore, Faroese fara 'go' belongs to a small group of verbs that have four different endings rather than three in the present tense, although the second person form often is replaced by the third person in the spoken language (cf. Lockwood 1955:80-84 and the discussion in Rohrbacher 1994:132):

133

V°-to-I° Movement (1)

throw. infinitive and present indicative:

Inf.

Sg. 1s1

Icelandic

Faroese

Danish

kasta

kasta

kaste

2nd 3'" PI. 1st 2"" 3*

eg kasta pu kastar hann kastar

eg kasti tu kastar hann kastar

jeg kaster du kaster han kaster

vi5 kSstum piO kastifl peir kasta

vit tit tey

vi I de

Total

4

3

1

German

Yiddish

English

French

werf en

varfn

throw

Jeter

ich werfe du wirfst er wirft

ikh du er

I you he

je tu il

wir werfen ihr werft sie werfen

mir varfn ir varft zey varfn

we throw you throw they throw

nous jetons vous jetez ils jettent

5

4

2

3

Inf.

Sg. l!l 2nd 3'" PI. 1s' 2nd 3">

Total

kasta kasta kasta

varf varfst varft

kaster kaster kaster

throw throw throws

jette jettes jette

(lsg=2sg=3sg=3pl)

Saying that a strong inflectional system—i.e., the presence of a substantial number of distinctions with respect to person and number—are needed to cause V°to-I° movement to take place raises two questions. First, how are the finite verbs in English and Faroese united with their inflectional endings (-s in English 3sg, -i in Faroese Isg, -r in Faroese 2sg and 3sg). I assume that these inflectional elements ate actually base-generated in 1°, but subsequently moved downward to join with the verb in the base-generated position of the latter. This idea can be found in Emonds (1976, 1978), Pollock (1989), Chomsky (1991), and Rizzi (1990a:22-24), among others, and it is ultimately derived from the affix-hopping analysis of Chomsky (1957). Second, how high does the number have to be in order to count as substantial? It may not be possible to set an exact number in that Faroese and French both seem to have three different endings, and French has V°-to-I° movement whereas Faroese does not. (i)

etc/ travel, infinitive and present indicative: German Inf. Sg. 1st

PI.

1st 2nd 3rd

Total

Icelandic

Faroese

fahren

fara

fara

ich fahre du fahrst er fahrt

eg fer t>u ferfl hann fer

eg fari tu fert hann fer

wir fahren ihr fahrt sie fahren

vifl forum pifl farifl peir fara

vit tit tey

5

5

4

fara fara fara

134

Verb Movement

An alternative to the idea of "substantial number of distinctions" is given by Platzack (1988:233) and Platzack & Holmberg (1989:70), who suggest that V°-to1° movement is triggered by the existence of distinctions between different persons. This is done in order to account for the difference between two Scandinavian dialects: In the Swedish dialect of Alvdalsmalet (spoken in Dalecarlia, eastern central Sweden) there are both number and person distinctions, whereas in the Norwegian dialect of Hallingdalen (central southern Norway) the verb is only inflected for number, not for person: (2) throw, infinitive and present indicative: ilvdalamAlet Hallingdalen

Inf. Sg. 1st

2 nd 3rd

(Sweden)

(Norway)

kasta

kastae

kastar kastar kastar

kasta kasta kasta

kastum kaster kasta

kasts kastae kasta!

4

2

PI. 1s1

2 nd

y

Total

(Alvdalsmalel from Levander 1909 and Trosterad 1989:97-98); Hallingdalen from Trosterud 1989:88-89)

Only Alvdalsmalet has V°-to-Ic movement (see the discussion in sections 5.2 and 5.3): (3)

Ad.

(4)

Hd.

I Ba fo dye at uir uildum Just because that we wouldllpl) (from

Neg int fy om not follow him Levander 1909, cited in Platzack & Holmberg 1989:70)

Sao. v Noko garni* mamna som i k j i hadd Some old men that not had(pl)

vore mas ve kyrkja been along at church (from Platzack & Holmberg 1989:70)

This account still predicts that Faroese and French should both have V°-to-F movement, which is not correct for Faroese. Considering that French does and Faroese does not have V°-to-I° movement, Platzack & Holmberg's suggestion would have to be amended to say that what counts is whether person distinctions are present in the plural (and that the singular is irrelevant). The obvious question then is, Why plural rather than singular? To avoid this problem, Roberts (1993: 267) suggests that V°-to-I° movement is triggered by the existence of distinct inflectional endings in both singular and plural. In Alvdalsmalet, distinct endings are marked plural (-urn and -er) and one is marked singular (-ar), which is sufficient to show the language learner that material generated in 1° requires the verb to move there. In Hallingdalen, on the other hand, there is a distinct ending marked singular (-a), but no distinct plural ending, as the plural forms have no ending at all. (Note that they are identical to the infinitive and presumably also to the imperative singular.)

V°-to-I° Movement

135

As shown by Platzack & Holmberg (1989:73-74) and Roberts (1993:268), the relationship between the presence of subject-verb agreement and V°-to-I° movement is an implication rather than an equivalence: Formulated in the terms used above, it is true that if a language has distinct endings in both singular and plural, then it also has V°-to-I° movement, but it does not necessarily hold that if a language has V°-to-I° movement, then it also has distinct endings in both singular and plural. A relevant example is the dialect of Swedish spoken in Kronoby in Finland, which has no subject-verb agreement at all (like Danish and standard Swedish), but nevertheless seems to have V°-to-I° movement, as the verb precedes the adverbial in an embedded clause of the type that clearly is not V2 in Danish or standard Swedish: (5) a. Kb. He va b. Da. *Det var c. Da. Det var It was

bra godt godt good

et at at that

an tsofft int bootsen han kabte ikke bogen han ikke kabte bogen he {bought) not (bought) book-the (example (5a) from Platzack & Holmberg 1989:74, (43))

Applying this analysis to the languages discussed, we obtain the correct predictions that German, Icelandic, Yiddish, and French (like Alvdalsmalet) all have V°-to-I° movement2 and that Danish, English, Faroese, Norwegian, and Swedish (like Hallingdalen) do not have V°-to-P movement. In Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish, distinct endings are present. In Danish, for example, the present tense form, kaster, is distinct from both the infinitive, kaste, and the imperative, least. But although there are distinct endings, they can be analysed as endings of tense, and not of number, as they are the same in both singular and plural. Historically, Middle Danish had a system like Hallingdalen—an ending in the singular, -r, but no ending in the plural. When the singular ending generalised to the plural (a process starting in the west of Denmark before 1400, though the plural forms only disappeared completely in print around 1900), it also lost its number significance and became a marker of tense. English and Faroese, on the other hand, are very much like Hallingdalen, in that they have distinct endings which are marked singular, English -s (3sg), Faroese -i (Isg) and -ar (2sg, 3sg), but apparently no distinct plural endings. It might seem that the plural forms in both languages have no ending at all because they are identical to the infinitive and to the imperative (in Faroese to the imperative singular). This is actually not true for Faroese, as argued by Rohrbacher (1994:100-102). He shows that consideration of Faroese verbs from other conjugational classes indicates that the plural form cannot generally be assumed to be identical to the stem. Whereas it is true for kasta 'throw' that the same form is used in the present tense plural, the infinitive, and the imperative singular, it does not hold for verbs from other classes, e.g., keypa 'buy'. Here it is clear that the present tense plural keypa consists of more than the stem because the imperative singular is only keyp. This 2. The analysis of Roberts (1993:235 n33, 266, 335 n i l ) presupposes that distinct endings are present in the underlying forms in the singular in French, an assumption that goes back at least to Schane (1968:69). Otherwise French would be like Hallingdalen and Faroese, except that here it would be singular rather than plural, which was marked by absence of endings rather than by distinct endings.

136

Verb Movement

would mean that Faroese and French are similar with respect to Roberts' criterion: Both have distinct endings in both singular and plural. Rohrbacher (1994: 109,118,128) therefore suggests a different formulation of the connection between verbal inflection and V°-to-I° movement: That in at least one tense either singular or plural (or both) have to mark the first and the second person unambiguously (i.e., first and second person forms have to differ from each other, from the third person form, and from the infinitive form). Whereas this holds for the plural of the French present tense, it does not hold for the plural of the Faroese present tense where first, second, and third person are identical to each other and to the infinitive, nor for the singular of the Faroese present tense where second and third person are identical to each other. I therefore conclude with Rohrbacher (1994) that what is necessary to lose V°to-I° movement is that no tense exists where both first and second person singular and/or both first and second person plural are unambiguously marked. The actual transition between two stages is influenced by the number of constructions from before the change (i.e., with V°-to-I° movement) that are compatible with the new analysis (i.e., without V°-to-I° movement). For the Scandinavian languages such constructions not only include all V2 structures, where the finite verb is in C° and therefore cannot be seen in 1° or in V°, but also all structures without medial adverbs and negations and also at least some of the stylistic fronting structures (see the discussion in section 5.5.4). Having discussed the status of verbal inflection and its possible connection with V°-to-I° movement, we will now go on to consider the evidence concerning V°-to-I° movement in the different languages.

5.2

F-VP languages with V°-to-I° movement

In I°-VP languages, the data provide direct evidence whether or not V°-to-I° movement has taken place: It has taken place if the finite verb precedes a medial adverbial or a negation (elements that occur left of VP; see section 4.4), and it has not taken place if the finite verb is preceded by one or more such elements. In some cases, it may not be possible to decide whether an adverbial occurs left or right of the VP (i.e., whether it is medial or final): (6)

Fr.

Pierre dort a peine Pierre sleeps hardly

Such cases are disambiguated when another element is present, such as a participle or an object: (7) Fr. a. Pierre a a peine dormi b. *Pierre a dormi a peine Pierre has (hardly) slept (hardly) (8) Fr. a. Jean lit a peine les journaux b. *Jean lit les journaux a peine Jean reads (hardly) the newspapers (hardly! (example (8b) from Pollock 1989:380, (32b))

It is clear from (7) that the adverbial a peine has to precede the VP, as it may only precede and not follow the participle, which is the head of the VP. If a peine always

V°-to-/° Movement

137

precedes VP, the verb dort 'sleeps' in (6) must have left VP, as it precedes a peine. Examples (6) and (7) thus show that French has V°-to-I° movement. The same argumentation applies to (8): It is clear that a peine has to precede and cannot follow the VP, as it has to precede the object lesjournaux 'the newspapers'. This again means that the verb lit 'reads' must have left VP and moved to 1°. The languages with I°-VP order and with V°-to-I° movement include French, Icelandic, and Yiddish (and also the dialects of Swedish spoken in Alvdalen and in Kronoby, as discussed in the previous section). With the exception of the Kronoby dialect, these languages all contain tenses in which both first and second person in either singular or plural are unambiguously marked. These are present tense plural in French and Icelandic, and present tense singular in Yiddish (cf. example (1) in 5.1). 5.2.1

French

Consider the data from French. As far as the main clause is concerned, it is clear from (9a,b) that V°-to-I° movement takes place, and it is clear from (9c) that the V°-to-I° movement in (9a,d) is independent V°-to-P movement and not V°-to-P movement as part of V2 (cf. the data from Icelandic and Yiddish): IP«P I" (9)

AdT

V

Fr. a. Jean lit souvent ce journal b. *Jean souvent iii ce journal Jean (reads) often (reads) this newspaper

£± c. *Probablement iii d. Probablement e. *Probablement Probably (reads)

IZflB I± Jean Jean lit Jean Jean (reads)

Adz XI souvent souvent souvent Hi often (reads)

ce ce ce this

journal journal journal newspaper

When we turn to the embedded clauses, the picture stays exactly the same: (10) Fr.

Pierre dit que Pierre says that ... I£SB II a. ... Jean lit b. *... Jean ... Jean (reads)

Adv JC. souvent ce journal souvent lit ce journal often (reads) this newspaper

C" IEBD I" Adz V c. *... probablement lit Jean souvent ce journal d. ... probablement Jean lit souvent ce journal e. *... probablement Jean souvent lit ce journal . . . probably (reads) Jean (reads) often (reads) this newspaper

Also here it is clear from the ungrammatically of (lOc) that the verb movement that must take place in (10a,d) cannot be V2 but must be independent V°-to-I° movement. The suggestion that the difference between French and English (cf. these data to the English data in section 5.3.1) could be analysed in terms of V°-to-I° movement was first made by Emonds (1978).

138

Verb Movement

5.2.2 Icelandic and Yiddish Let us now turn to Icelandic and Yiddish, which apparently behave completely alike. Main clause word order may seem to be parallel to that of French, but when we consider non-subject-initial clauses, it becomes clear that Icelandic and Yiddish have obligatory V2 in main clauses, as opposed to French: £1 I£SB (11) Ic. a. Helgi JjefjiE b. *Helgi Helgi (has)

11

AdT VI oft lesia bessa b6k oft hefur lesia bessa b6k often (has) read this book

£1 lESfi 15 AdT VI c. Z>essa bok hefur Helgi oft d. *J>essa b6k Helgi hefur oft e. *tessa b6k Helgi oft hefur This book (has) Helgi (has) often (has) £1 ZEfiB (12) Yi. a. Dos yingl vet b. *Dos yingl The boy (will) £1 c. Morgn vet d. *Morgn e. *Morgn Tomorrow (will)

11

lesia lesia lesia read

AdT VI oyfn veg zen a kats oyfn veg vet zen a kats on-the way (will) see a cat

IBBB 12. dos yingl dos yingl vet dos yingl the boy (will)

AdT oyfn oyfn oyfn on-the

VI veg zen a kats veg zen a kats veg vet zen a kats way (will) see a cat (based on Santorini 1989:50, (25a))

Example (lla.b) and (12a,b) show that the verb cannot be left in V° in a main clause; the verb in (1 la) and (12a) could then be either in C° or in 1°. It is clear from the topicalisation data that the finite verb is in C°, (lie) and (12c), and neither in 1°, (lid) and (12d), nor in V°, (lie) and (12e). This means that Icelandic and Yiddish has V2 in main clauses, and so it seems reasonable to assume that (lla) and (12a) are also V2 clauses, and that the verb is in C°. Consider now embedded clauses in Icelandic and Yiddish: (13) Ic.

ba8 var 6v»nt, aS ... It was unexpected that ... £1 IPSP II a. ... Helgi skvldi b. *... Helgi . . . (Helgi) (should) (Helgi)

Adv VI oft hafa lesia bessa bok oft skvldi hafa lesia bessa bok often (should) have read this book

Cl IPsp 11 AdT Y_l c. ... bessa b6k skvldi Helgi oft hafa lesia d. *... bessa b6k Helgi skvldi oft hafa lesiS e. *... bessa b6k Helgi oft skvldi hafa lesia . . . this book (should) Helgi (should) often (should) have read (14) Yi.

Es iz nisht tsu dervartn az ... It is not to expect (=to be expected) that . .. St IPBP a. ... dos yingl zsiL b. *. . . dos yingl ... the boy (will)

11

AdT VI oyfn veg zen a kats oyfn veg zsl zen a kats on-the way twill) see a cat

V0-to-I° Movement

139

Ci IPst> If. Adv YI c. ... morgn zol dos yingl oyfn veg zen a kats d. *. . . morgn dos yingl zol oyfn veg zen a kats e. *. . . morgn dos yingl oyfn veg zol zen a kats . . . tomorrow (will) the boy (will) on-the way (will) see a cat

These examples illustrate two important properties of Icelandic and Yiddish. First, examples (13c) and (14c) show something that we have already seen in chapter 4—namely, that, unlike the other Scandinavian languages in which it depends on the lexical items of the matrix clause, embedded V2 is possible in all embedded declarative clauses in Icelandic. (Note that matrix clauses with exactly the same lexical items in Danish and Faroese do not allow embedded V2, as shown in sections 5.3.2 and 5.3.3.) As we saw in chapter 4, this suggests that CP-recursion—the higher C° containing ad, the lower C° the finite verb—is general in Icelandic and Yiddish, whereas it is lexically restricted in the other Scandinavian languages. Second, examples (13b) and (14b) show that, unlike the other Scandinavian languages (note again parallel examples in Danish and Faroese in the following sections), the finite verb can never stay in V°, not even in embedded clauses. This property is more relevant for the present discussion, as it provides us with an indirect indication that Icelandic and Yiddish have obligatory V°-to-I° movement, for the following reasons. V2 is never forced in embedded clauses, as the embedded environments fall into only two groups: those that allow both V2 and non-V2 and those that only allow non-V2. There are no environments that only allow embedded V2 (cf., e.g., section 4.1.3). Examples (13b) and (14b) therefore show that even without V2, the verb has to leave V°. However, it is also possible to find direct evidence that Icelandic and Yiddish have independent V°-to-I° movement. As discussed in section 4.1.4, it is not possible to say that V2 is generally possible in embedded questions nor to say that it is generally impossible. Nevertheless, it is not difficult to find examples of embedded questions where embedded V2 is unacceptable to most speakers: (15) Ic.

6g spurai ... I asked ... a. b. c.

fil IPsp I± Adv YI *. . . af hverju heffli Helgi oft lesia bessa b6k . . . af hverju Helgi tieffii oft lesia bessa bok *... af hverju Helgi oft heffli lesia bessa bok why (had) Helgi (had) often (had) read this book

SL IPsn H Adv YI d. ??... af hverju bessa b6k heffli Helgi oft lesia e. *... af hverju bessa b6k Helgi hefai oft lesia f. *... af hverju bessa b6k Helgi oft heffli lesia . . . why this book (had) Helgi (had) often (had) read (16) Yi.

Miriam hot gefregt ... Miriam has asked C! a. *... ven hot b. ... ven c. *... ven .. when (has)

IEBE I± AdS Y± Avrom deriber geleyent Avrom hat deriber geleyent Avrom deriber hoi geleyent Avrom (has) therefore (has) read

dos dozike dos dozike dos dozike this

bukh bukh bukh book

140

Verb Movement J£ d. *. . . van dos dozike bukh ho^ e. *... ven dos dozike bukh f. *... ven dos dozike bukh ... when this book (has)

IEUZ I± Adv Yl Avrom deriber geleyent Avrom ho£ deriber geleyent Avrom deriber hg_t geleyent Avrom (has) therefore (has) read

Examples (15b) and (16b) on their own might be examples either of V2 or of independent V°-to-I° movement, but the impossibility of (15d) and (16d) shows that the latter must be the case. Although embedded V2 is much more general in Icelandic and Yiddish than in the other Scandinavian languages, (15) and (16) are thus examples of a construction in which embedded V2 is not possible. They therefore show us that both Icelandic and Yiddish have V°-to-I° movement which is obligatory, (15c) and (16c), and which may be independent, (15b) and (16b). In this section, 5.2, we saw evidence that French, Icelandic, and Yiddish all have independent V°-to-I° movement. The evidence is very accessible in French, which does not have V2, and relatively difficult to come by in Icelandic and Yiddish, which are not only V2 languages, but furthermore have general embedded V2, so that one has to consider indirect evidence, like that fact that the finite verb never stays in V°, or to turn to the particular area of embedded questions.

5.3 F-VP languages without V°-to-I° movement As in the previous section, the data provide direct evidence whether or not V°-to-I° movement has taken place: It has taken place if the finite verb precedes a medial adverbial or a negation, and it has not taken place if the finite verb occurs right of such an element. The I°-VP languages without V°-to-I° movement include English, Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish, as well as the Norwegian dialect from Hallingdalen, as discussed in section 5.1. In section 5.3.3,1 will argue that Faroese also belongs in this group, which is not an uncontroversial claim. In all these languages, there are no tenses in which first and second person are unambiguously marked either in the singular or in the plural (cf. the discussion in section 5.1). In the present tense, for instance, the second person singular is identical to the third person singular in Faroese, and the first and the second person singular are identical in Danish, English, Hallingdalen Swedish, Norwegian, and Swedish. Furthermore, all three persons are identical in the plural in all the languages mentioned.

5.3.1 English The English data fall into two groups, depending on whether the finite verb is a main verb or not. If the finite verb is a main verb, there is never any V°-to-P movement, neither of the independent type—cf. the ungrammatically of (17a,d)—nor as part of V2—cf. the ungrammaticality of (17a,c): I£fiE I^. Adv Yl (17) En. a. *John reads often this newspaper b. John often reads this newspaper

141

V-to-r Movement Cl IPSP 11 c. *In actual fact reads John d. *In actual fact John reads e. In actual fact John

Adv J£ often this newspaper often this newspaper often reads this newspaper

The facts from embedded clauses are exactly parallel, the finite main verb always stays in V°: (18) En.

It was a complete surprise that . . . IPap If, Adv je. a. *... John read often this newspaper b. ... John often read this newspaper SI IPsn If. c. *... in actual fact read John d. «... in actual fact John read e. ... in actual fact John

Adv Vi often this newspaper often this newspaper often read this newspaper

Consider now data where the finite verb is the auxiliary verb have. It is clear from (19a,b) that V°-to-I° movement may take place, and it is clear from the ungramrnaticality of (19c) that the V°-to-I° movement in (19a,d) is independent V°-to-I° movement rather than V°-to-P movement as part of V2 (cf. the data from Icelandic and Yiddish discussed in 5.2.2): II MY 5£i (19) En. a. John has often bought this newspaper b. ?Jonn often has bought this newspaper

c° IEHE i± ftdz y_f c. *In actual fact has John often bought this newspaper d. In actual fact John has often bought this newspaper e. ?In actual fact John often has bought this newspaper

Exactly the same holds for embedded clauses; the finite auxiliary/modal verb may move to 1° but no further, except in questions and negative topicalisations (cf. section 3.3.2): (20) En.

It was a complete surprise that . . .

IESE If. &dY

y°

a. ... John had often bought this newspaper b. ?. . . John often had bought this newspaper fil

IPsn I0

Adv

c. *... in actual fact had John often d. ... in actual fact John had often

v bought this newspaper bought this newspaper

The data in (19) and (20) would have been exactly parallel if the finite verb had been be or one of the modal verbs can, could, may, might, must, shall, should, will, and would. With dare and need, there is a choice between the two possibilities, which correlates with the presence or absence of inflection and the presence or absence of the infinitival marker to: Either they behave like a main verb, with inflection, with to, but without V°-to-I° movement, or they behave like modal verbs, with the opposite characteristics: IPJU2 I"

(21) En. a. b.

He He

AdZ

V°

never needs to raise his voice at all need never raise his voice at all

142

Verb Movement

The fact that English modals or auxiliaries may undergo independent V°-to-F movement is a potential problem for any approach that tries to link V°-to-I° movement to the richness of inflection, given that English modals have no inflectional morphology whatsoever (cf., e.g., Roberts 1993 and Rohrbacher 1994:177). Like the suggestion that the difference between French main verbs and English main verbs could be analysed in terms of V°-to-I° movement, the observation that auxiliary verbs in both French and English behave like main verbs in French in this respect was made in Emonds (1978). As discussed earlier in section 3.3.2, English has V2 only in questions and in topicalisation of negative elements. A further restriction on V2 in English is that only those elements that may occur in 1°, may move on to C°: Cf (22) En. a. b.

IPSP if

Adv

y_f

John has often Why lias. John often

read this newspaper read this newspaper?

If V2 is needed in a structure in which the verb would not have been possible in 1°, do-insertion is necessary: El (23) En. a. b. *Why reads c. Why does

IPSP II Adv Yf. John often reads this newspaper John often this newspaper? John often read this newspaper?

This is also clear if we consider need and dare, the two verbs that allow both options but with different forms. They can only occur in C° without inflection and without to, corresponding to the fact that they can only occur in 1° without inflection and without to, as in example (21): £1 (24) En. a. Why need he b. *Why needs he

raise his voice at all? to raise his voice at all?

In this section we saw that English main verbs may not undergo V°-to-I° movement, but English auxiliary and modal verbs may. We also saw that only those English verbs that may undergo independent V°-to-I° movement may occur in C°.

5.3.2

Danish

Let us then turn to Danish, and indirectly also to Norwegian and Swedish, as all the data from Danish given here also hold for Norwegian and Swedish. In main clauses, V°-to-I° movement definitely takes place, (25a,b), but only as part of V2; note that (25c), which has V2, is grammatical, and that (25d), which would have been independent V°-to-I° movement, is ungrammatical: fil IPSP (25) Da. a. Helge vil b. *Helge Helge (will)

If

Cf

c. Den d. *Den e. *Den This

her her her here

bog vil bog bog book (will)

Adv Yf gerne laese den her bog gerne vil laese den her bog readily (will) read this here book IPSP

If

Helge Helge vil Helge Helge (will)

Adv

V

gerne gerne gerne vil readily twill)

laese laese laese read

V°-to-I° Movement

143

When we turn to embedded clauses, it becomes crucial whether the clause in question is embedded under a so-called bridge verb (where both V2 and non-V2 are possible) or not (where only non-V2 is possible) (see section 4.1.3). Consider first the situation where the embedded clause is embedded under a bridge verb: The same possibilities are grammatical as in main clauses, with one addition: (26b). The options are as follows: If only V2 were possible, we would expect only (26a,c) to be grammatical; if only independent V°-to-P movement were possible, we would expect only (26a,d) to be grammatical; and if neither V2 nor independent V°-to-P movement were possible, we would expect only (26b,e) to be grammatical. The analysis therefore has to be as follows: Embedded V2 is possible, as in (26a,c), and it is also possible to have neither V2 nor independent V°-to-I° movement, as in (26b), provided no topicalisation takes place, as in (26e). (26) Da.

Peter troede at ... Peter believed that ... a. b.

El IPap If. Adv VI ... Helge ville gerne laese den her bog ... Helge gerne ville laese den her bog . . . (Helge) (would) (Helge) readily (would) read this here book

£1 I£fiB 11 Adv VI c. ... den her bog ville Helge gerne laese d. *... den her bog Helge ville gerne laese e. *... den her bog Helge gerne ville laese . . . this here book (would) Helge (would) readily (would) read

This analysis is supported by the facts from clauses embedded in a matrix clause which does not contain a bridge verb. The ungrammaticality of the sequence in (27a) indicates that neither V2 nor independent V°-to-P movement is possible. The ungrammaticality of (27c-e) shows that the requirements of topicalisation (which requires V2) and of embedding under non-bridge verbs (which neither allows V2 nor independent V°-to-I° movement) cannot both be fulfilled: (27) Da.

Det var en overraskelse at ... It was a surprise that ... El IPsp II Adv Yi a. *... Helge ville gerne laese den her bog b. ... Helge gerne ville laese den her bog . . . (Helge) (would) (Helge) readily (would) read this here book c. *. . . den d. *... den e. *... den ... this

her her her here

Ci IPSP bog ville bog bog book (would)

Ii Adv 3£t Helge gerne laese Helge ville gerne laese Helge gerne ville laese Helge (would) readily (would) read

So far we have seen that Danish has V2 in main clauses and in clauses embedded under a bridge verb, and that the finite verb may occur in V° in all embedded clauses. There is thus no reason to assume that Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish have independent V°-to-I° movement. Nevertheless, exactly this has been assumed in the literature more than once, e.g., in Holmberg (1986:90) and in Lightfoot (1991:46; 1993:212, fn5). In these analyses, the position of negation is then seen as left-adjoined to I-bar:

144

Verb Movement

These analyses assume that all V2 languages have independent V°-to-I° movement. The position of negation before the finite verb in embedded clauses "indicates that inte 'not' and other such adverbs are left-adjoined to I, and does not provide evidence agasint the application of V-to-I. Occurrence of verbs in C is strong evidence of movement through I" (Lightfoot 1993:212, fn5). The underlying assumption of this analysis is that in languages where all verbs may occur in C° (i.e., all V2 languages), all verbs must move from V°-to-I°, and this is based on the fact that only the verbs that may move from V° to 1° in English (see section 5.3.1) may occur in C°. I think that there are a number of reasons not to prefer this analysis over the one assumed throughout this chapter—i.e., that Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish do not have independent V°-to-P movement. One reason has to do with X-bar theoretic considerations. As already set out in section 4.4, it is very doubtful that adverbials can be adjoined to I-bar (and anyway, if they could they should be of the type X-bar themselves, in which case they should not be able to occur in CP-spec). The only two options are adjunction to IP or to 1°. Adjunction to IP gives the wrong prediction, as inte 'not' in example (28) does not precede the subject, which is in IP-spec. Adjunction to 1° would require that inte, and other negations or adverbials that may appear in the same position, be an X° category. That this is not so can be seen from the fact that inte can be exchanged with full adverbial XPs such as without doubt, in spite of everything, in no way, in this way, of and on, honestly spoken, etc. Furthermore, if inte and other adverbials could adjoin to P, we would not be able to account for why the negation or adverbial could not move along to C° when the finite verb moves there, as opposed to, say, English where the n't form of the negation must be analysed as right-adjoined to 1°: I hasn ' t ] believe that John [ Johan F 1 ikke kabtel Jeg tror at 1° ] ] John [ (30) En. a. Why [ hasn .'. t Da. b. *Hvorfor r [Zo ikke ke?btel ] Johan [ I° C (29) En. a. Da. b.

U

t]

lv°v° t]

bought the book bogen

t] [v t ] bought t] [v° t]

the book? •? bogen

Another reason against assuming that Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish have V°-to-F movement is the consequence that this would have for the analysis of the differences between these three languages and Icelandic. What under the present analysis is seen as just one underlying difference—i.e., the presence or absence of independent V°-to-I° movement—has to be seen as at least three different phenomena, and what is more as three phenomena that cannot be linked to the generalisa-

145

V°-to-I° Movement

tion from Emonds (1978) and Pollock (1989) about the differences between English and French being differences caused by the presence or absence of independent V°-to-I° movement and related to the richness of verbal inflection. The first difference would be that negation would have to occur before 1° in Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish (with the independent problems discussed above of where exactly this position would be) but after 1° in Icelandic: (31) Da. Da. Ic. Ic.

a. b. c. d.

*Jeg Jeg tg *£g I

spurgte spurgte spurSi spurSi asked

hvorfor hvorfor af hverju af hverju why

Peter Peter ikjse P6tur Petur ekki Peter (not)

II havdev ikke havdev haf8i v ekki hafSi v had (not)

Yi t v laest tv lasst tv lesifl tv lesiS read

den den hana hana it

The second difference would be that medial (sentence) adverbials would have to occur before 1° in Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish but after 1° in Icelandic: Ii (32) Da. Da. Ic. Ic.

a. b. c. d.

*Jeg Jeg tg *£g I

spurgte spurgte spurSi spurSi asked

hvorfor hvorfor af hverju af hverju why

Peter Peter ofte P£tur Petur oft Peter (often)

v±

havdev ofte tv havdev tv hafSiv oft tv haf5iv tv had (often)

Isst laest lesiS lesiS read

den den hana hana it

That the position of negation and the position of medial adverbials are two different phenomena may be seen e.g. from the fact that in the analysis of Pollock (1989:383) negation has to precede T° whereas sentence adverbials have to follow T°, cf. e.g. that the infinitive of French main verbs may precede a medial adverbial but not a negation: ii (33) Fr. a. *Ne lire b. Ne c. Ne -- (Read)

Hen s± pas pas pas not

aaz

souvent lire souvent souvent (read) often

si Joyce est comprehensible Joyce est comprehensible ii££ Joyce est comprehensible (read) Joyce is understandable (example (33b,c) from Moritz (1989:34, (47))

The third difference between Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish on one hand and Icelandic on the other concerns object shift, which must be taken to have occurred when the object precedes a sentence-medial adverbial or negation (see section 4.5). With the analysis that Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish do not have independent V°-to-I° movement, it is possible to analyse object shift as a unitary phenomenon across the Scandinavian languages: It is a leftward movement of the object (maybe ending in a position adjoined to TP or VP), which only occurs when the main verb has left VP, hence the ungrammaticality of (35): (34) Ic. a. Da. b.

Sess vegna hefurv Petur areiSanlega ekki tv lesiS hana Derfor harv Peter uden tvivl ikke tv last ASH Therefore has Peter doubtlessly not read it

(35) Ic. a. *tess vegna hefurv P6tur hanai areiSanlega ekki tv lesiS tj Da. b. *Derfor harv Peter dfin^ uden tvivl ikke tv laest £j Therefore has Peter it doubtlessly not read

Given that V2 applies in all Scandinavian main clauses, and that all Icelandic embedded clauses have independent V°-to-P movement (or V2), whereas only in clauses embedded under a bridge verb may the finite verb leave V° in Danish, Nor-

146

Verb Movement

wegian, and Swedish, this unitary analysis of object shift accounts for why object shift may occur in both main and embedded clauses in Icelandic, but only in main clauses in Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish: (36) Ic. a. Da. b.

i gaer lasv Petur hana^ areiflanlega ekki t v £i I gar lsestev Peter denj uden tvivl ikke t v £t yesterday read Peter it doubtlessly not

(37) Ic. a. Da. b.

£g spurOi af hverju Petur lasv hafla^ ekki tv ij *Jeg spurgte hvorfor Peter lsstev dejii ikke tv tj I asked why Peter read it not

The ungrammatically of the Icelandic embedded word order in Danish, (37b), is accounted for under both analyses, either as V°-to-I° movement of the finite verb (or V2) in an embedded question or as left-adjunction of the finite verb to I-bar. Note that the word order in (37b) would be impossible even in a sentence without an object and with an intransitive verb. The crucial question is why Danish does not have any kind of object shift in embedded questions: (38) Da. *Jeg spurgte hvorfor Peter dent ikke laeste £t I asked why Peter it not read

To the analysis defended here, (38) is ruled out as the verb has not left VP. To an alternative analysis in which the verb in (38) has moved to 1°, the answer would have to be that the object cannot move across the verb in 1°. This again would mean that, given the grammaticality of object shift in embedded questions in Icelandic, as in (37a), the landing site of Icelandic object shift would have to be preceded by 1°, whereas the landing site of Danish (and Norwegian and Swedish) object shift would have to precede 1°. If all finite verbs in Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish move to (or through) 1°, object shift in these three languages would have to be analysed differently from object shift in Icelandic, whereas such a difference is not necessary if it is assumed that the finite verb may stay inside V° in Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish. Given an analysis in which Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish like Icelandic have independent V°-to-I° movement (e.g., Holmberg 1986:90 and Lightfoot 1991:46, 1993:212, fn5), the following six questions have to be answered: (1) Why can negation not occur to the right of 1° in Danish? The answer cannot be anything to do with X bar-theory or other general constraints, as this is possible in Icelandic. (2) Why can a sentence-medial adverbial not occur to the right of 1° in Danish when this is possible in Icelandic? (3) Why can an object that has undergone object-shift not occur to the right of 1° in Danish when this is possible in Icelandic? (4) Why can negation not occur to the left of 1° in Icelandic? The answer cannot be anything to do with X bar-theory or other general constraints, as this is possible in Danish. (5) Why can a sentence-medial adverbial not occur to the left of 1° in Icelandic when this is possible in Danish? (6) Why can an object that has undergone objectshift not occur to the left of 1° in Icelandic when this is possible in Danish? Given an analysis in which Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish unlike Icelandic do not have independent V°-to-I° movement, the above six questions reduce to the following three that have to be asked of all the Scandinavian languages: (1) Why can negation not occur to the left of I°? (2) Why can a sentence-medial adverbial

V°-to-I° Movement

147

not occur to the left of I°? (3) Why can an object that has undergone object-shift not occur to the left of I°? The answer to all three questions is to be found in X-bar-theory; adjunction to I-bar is generally disallowed, and adjunction to 1° is only allowed for X°s. Scandinavian negations, adverbials, and objects are all XPs. In the last part of this section we have seen a number of reasons to maintain the analysis that finite verbs in Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish, like finite main verbs in English, may not undergo independent V°-to-I° movement. This assumption allowed us to keep the differences with respect to the position of the finite verb between Icelandic and Danish parallel to the differences between French and English, which again allows a general account for the phenomenon in all four languages. The assumption also derives from one underlying difference—the difference in the positions of the finite verb when V2 has not applied—which would otherwise have to be three different differences: The negation follows 1° in Icelandic but precedes 1° in Danish, the sentence adverbial follows 1° in Icelandic but precedes 1° in Danish; and the landing site of object shift follows 1° in Icelandic but precedes 1° in Danish. The last argument in favour of independent V°-to-I° movement being absent from Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish is that only under this assumption is it possible to ascribe to negation, to sentence adverbials, and to the landing site of object shift a position compatible with X-bar theory. I therefore maintain the view that the negation, the sentence adverbial, and the landing site of object shift is adjoined to VP (or to TP) in all the Scandinavian languages, and I consequently find Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish to be counterexamples to Lightfoot's (1993:212, fn5) claim that only languages that have independent V°-to-I° movement can have V2.

5.3.3 Faroese I will argue in this section that modern spoken Faroese represents a case similar to English and to the Norwegian dialect from Hallingdalen (as discussed in section 5.1): Although these languages have some amount of inflectional morphology (as opposed to Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish), it is not enough to motivate independent V°-to-I° movement. In Faroese, either the first person form (in the singular of the past tense of strong verbs and the singular of the present tense of modal verbs) or the second person (in the singular of the present tense of most verbs), or both (in the singular of other tenses and in the plural of all tenses), is identical to the third person. An exception to this picture is presented by the verb vera 'be' and a small group of verbs like/ara 'go', which have different forms in first, second, and third person singular present tense, but the difference between the second and third person forms is only consistently maintained in the spoken language for vera (cf. Lockwood 1955:74, 80-84, and the discussion in Rohrbacher 1994:132). One would therefore expect modern spoken Faroese also to be parallel to English and Hallingdalen Norwegian, as well as to Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish, in not having independent V°-to-I° movement. As this is not an uncontroversial statement, I will discuss a number of examples in detail and show that the argumentation used in the previous section on Danish also holds here. First a main clause:

148

Verb Movement

(39) Fa. a. Dreingirnir b. *Dreingirnir Boys-the

SL

IPsd

I0

v6ru (were)

Ci v6ru

c. f gjar d. *f gjar e. *f gjar Yesterday (were)

v Adv als ikki 6samdir als ikki v6ru 6samdir at-all not (were) disagreed

IP-apec H dreingirnir dreingirnir voru dreingirnir boys-the (were)

Adv als als als at-all

Xi ikki ikki ikki v6ru not (were)

6samdir 6samdir 6samdir disagreed

Examples (39a,b) show that the verb cannot be left in V° in a main clause. The verb in (39a) could then be either in C° or in 1°. When we look at a topicalisation, it is clear that here the finite verb is in C°, (39c), and not in 1°, (39d), or in V°, (39e). This amounts to saying that Faroese has V2 in main clauses, and it leads to the assumption that (39a) is also a V2 clause, and that the verb is in C°, parallel to all other Germanic languages except English. Now we turn to embedded clauses. It becomes crucial whether the clause in question is embedded under a so-called bridge verb (where both V2 and non-V2 are possible) or not (where only non-V2 is possible) (cf. section 4.1.3). Consider first the situation in which the clause is embedded under a bridge verb. The same possibilities are grammatical as in main clauses, with one addition: (40b). The options are as follows: If only V2 were possible, we would expect only (40a,c) to be grammatical; if only independent V°-to-I° movement were possible, we would expect only (40a,d) to be grammatical; and if neither V2 nor independent V°-to-I° movement were possible, we would expect only (40b,e) to be grammatical. The analysis therefore has to be as follows: embedded V2 is possible, as in (40a,c), and it is also possible to have neither V2 nor independent V°-to-I° movement, (40b), provided no topicalisation takes place, (40e). (40) Fa.

Trondur segOi, at ... Trondur said that . . . dreingirnir dreingirnir boys-the

A.

Adv V° als ikki 6samdir als ikki v6ru osamdir (were) at-all not (were) disagreed

C° v6ru

C° v6ru i gj*r i gjar i gjar yes t erday (were)

IP-ap«c fit dreingirnir dreingirnir v6ru dreingirnir boys-the (were)

Adv als als als at-all

V° ikki osamdir ikki 6samdir ikki y6ru 6samdir not (were) disagi

The analysis of examples (40) is supported by facts from clauses embedded in a matrix clause which does not contain a bridge verb. The ungrammatically of the sequence in (4la) indicates that neither V2 nor independent V°-to-I° movement is possible. The ungrammaticality of (41c-e) shows that the requirements of topicalisation (which requires V2) and of embedding under non-bridge verbs (which neither allows V2 nor independent V°-to-F movement) cannot both be fulfilled: (41) Fa.

Tad var ovasntafl, at ... It was unexpected that . . .

II Adz ¥?. a. *. . . dreingirnir voru als ikki 6samdir b. ... dreingirnir als ikki voru osamdir ... boys-the (were) at-all not (were) disagreed

149

V°-to-I° Movement C" c. *... i gjar v6ru d. *. . . i gjar e. *. . . i gjcir ... yesterday (were)

IP-snec I" dreingirnir dreingirnir voru dreingirnir boys-the (were)

Adv v° als ikki 6samdir als ikki osamdir als ikki voru osamdir at-all not (w.) disagreed

According to my informants, the only possibility here is a subject-initial embedded sentence with the verb after the sentence adverb, (41b), i.e. with the verb in V°. So far, we have seen that modern spoken Faroese is parallel to Danish and different from Icelandic with respect to embedded V2: In Danish and Faroese, embedded V2 is only possible if the matrix verb is a bridge verb, whereas in Icelandic this is almost generally possible (with the exception of embedded questions). The following pair of examples are exactly parallel to the ones considered above: C° IPsp I" Adv V» (42) Fa. a. Maria vil gjarna i biograf b. 'Maria gjarna vil i biograf Maria (will) gladly (will) in cinema (=Maria would like to go to the cinema) £1 (43) Fa. a. *Eg vil vedda uppa, at b. Eg vil vedda uppd, at I will bet on that

IPsp If. Maria vil Maria Maria (will)

Adv y gjarna i biograf gjarna vil i biograf gladly (will) in cinema

In main clauses, V2 is obligatory, and therefore the finite verb precedes the sentence adverb in (42a) (if CP-spec had contained a constituent different from the subject, then the finite verb would also have preceded the subject.) In embedded clauses like (43) which are not embedded under a bridge verb, V2 is impossible, in which case it is clear that V°-to-P movement is also impossible, as the verb must be left in V°, (43b). The same analysis will also account for the situation with respect to relative clauses, which are also embedded clauses that are not embedded under a bridge verb. V2 is not possible, which makes it possible to see that independent V°-to-I° movement is also impossible: I± Adv V° (44) Fa. a. *Har voru nogv f61k, FriSrikur kendi ikki b. Har voru n6gv f61k, Friorikur ikki kendi There were many people Friorikur (knew) not (knew) (adapted from Lockwood 1955:156 and Barnes 1987:15, (30))

The judgments in examples of the type (4 la) and (43a) are somewhat controversial. According to my informants, they deserve a "*", but according to the informants of Michael Barnes (personal communication), examples of the same type are less unacceptable, or in some cases even acceptable. Consider the following: (45) Fa.

Vit gjtfrdu av, . . . We

decided

Cl 1MB I± Adz 3d a. ??... at studentarnir skuldu skrivliga svara spurninginum b. ... at studentarnir skrivliga skuldu svara spurninginum . . . that students-the (should) in-writing (should) answer question-the

The example is based on Barnes (1987: 1 6, (3 1 )), where (45a) is taken to be acceptable. According to my informants, (45a) might be acceptable in a rather formal style.

150

Verb Movement

To account for this relatively blurred picture, it would seem reasonable to assume that a change is taking place at the moment—i.e., that Faroese is about to lose or has just lost V°-to-P movement, as suggested by Barnes (1986:44, 1987:17). This would also explain why examples like (41a), (43a), and (45a), with the verb before the adverbial, are as common in Faroese newspapers as are examples like (41b), (43b), and (45b); this occurs because the written language frequently shows a certain lag behind the spoken language. Hence my formulation that modern spoken Faroese seems to have lost V°-to-I° movement. Furthermore, the writer HeSin Brii (born in 1901), who claims to be typical for the dialect of Skalavik (Sandoy) (see Sandquist 1981, cited in Barnes 1987:16, 1992:29), always had the finite verb before the sentence adverb. His dialect could thus be the Alvdalsmal of Faroese, so to speak. That Faroese is in the process of losing V°-to-I° movement is compatible with two other differences between Faroese and Icelandic. First, Faroese seems to have lost general embedded V2. Embedded V2 is possible under some circumstances, (46a), but not all, (46b): (46) Fa. a.

Tr6ndur sigur, at eftir 6lavsaku £a£a. teir at r6gva ut aftur Trdndur says that after dlavseku begin they to row out again

b. *Trondur verflur

nagdur, um eftir 6lavsaku fara teir at rogva ut aftur Tr6ndur will-be satisfied if after dlavseku begin they to row out again (from Barnes 1987:27-28, (48), (50))

That modern spoken Faroese does not have general embedded V2 is also clear when comparing the acceptable (40c) to the unacceptable (41c). Secondly, non-referential pro may be in the process of being lost: According to Henriksen (1983:67), sentences "with no subject" are possible, especially in older stages of Faroese, but the same sentences are also possible with tad 'it'/'there' in IP-spec (Barnes 1986:43), and a number of sentences are possible with tad, which are not possible without a subject: (47) Fa. a. b.

Blivur tad ofta arbeitt hart? Blivur ofta arbeitt hart? Becomes (there) often worked hard?

(48) Fa. a. J6n er bangin fyri, at £a£ er komia eitt braev via batinum b. *J6n er bangin fyri, at er komia eitt braev via batinum J6n is afraid of that there is come a letter with boat-the (49) Fa. a.

I dag er tafl komia eitt braev via batinum *I dag er komia eitt braev via batinum Today is (there) came a letter with boat-the

Summing up: Modern spoken Faroese has no independent V°-to-I° movement, though it would seem possible that this was only lost rather recently. This is fully compatible with the view of Barnes (1986:44, 1987:17) that Faroese at the moment is going through a development similar to that of both Danish and Swedish the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries. According to Barnes (1992:34), another possible analysis of the changes in Faroese exists—namely, that the very strong influence exerted on Faroese by Danish is the reason why the word order (among other things) is changing.

V°-to-I° Movement

151

I agree with Barnes that this is not implausible, given that a very high percentage of the speakers of Faroese are fluent in Danish (cf., e.g., Hagstrom 1984:177181), but I disagree that this should be incompatible with the view that mid- and late-twentieth-century Faroese is going through changes similar to those that Danish and Swedish went through 300 years earlier. Barnes (1992:34) sees these two views as incompatible, because Faroese does not fit into the system set up by Holmberg & Platzack (1988, 1990): Faroese has a three-way distinction in the person and number agreement of the finite verb: Isg vs. 2,3sg, vs l,2,3pl; see section 5.1)—i.e., it is like Icelandic and different from Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish—and yet Faroese is different from Icelandic but like Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish in that the finite verb is preceded by the sentence adverb—i.e., it stays inside the VP. However, with an analysis along the lines suggested by Roberts (1993) or Rohrbacher (1994), as set out in section 5.1, there is no contradiction here: Faroese is like Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish and different from Icelandic both with respect to V°-to-I° movement and with respect to the verbal inflectional system. Thus, I find it perfectly plausible that Faroese is going through changes similar to those that Danish and Swedish went through 300 years earlier, and that this is caused by whatever phonological and morphological developments that cause the simplification of the agreement system, and that on top of this maybe the process is accelerated by the influence of Danish.3 3. One question has not been touched on so far: How do the verb stem and the few inflectional endings that do exist unite, if the verb does not move from V° to I°? The answer must be that the inflectional endings move into V, although this is a downward movement. As stated, this idea can be found in Emonds (1976, 1978), Pollock (1989), Chomsky (1991), and Rizzi (1990a:22-24), and it is ultimately derived from the affix hopping analysis of Chomsky (1957). Faroese may be a problem for Rizzi's (1990a:22-24) account for do-support in structures with negation in English: The inflectional ending moves from Agr° to V, but then it must move back up at LF into a position c-commanding 1°, to avoid having an unbound trace in 1°. This LF movement is Abar-movement (of the verb + ending, which thus move as an XP), which is why it is blocked by an Abar-specifier like not, making do-insertion necessary in negation constructions. The problem is that Faroese has Agr°-elements that move down (note that V°-to-I° movement does not apply generally in embedded clauses), but as opposed to English, this is perfectly possible in negation constructions, without triggering do-support or anything similar (cf. (41b) and (44b)). This would indicate that the necessary movement back up—i.e., to a position where the trace in Agr° may be c-commanded—is not an Abar-rnovement in Faroese. Why should there be this difference between English and Faroese? Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish are not problematic in this respect, as Agr° is just empty. The only thing that moves down is T°, which may be generated below negation anyway; hence, a movement back up to a position c-commanding the trace in T° would not need to move across the negation. Roberts (1993:292-299) points out that English around 1600 has the same characteristics as Faroese—i.e., lowering of I°-elements but no obligatory do-support: A sentence like John not smokes is possible. Roberts (1993:276-282) therefore suggests a revision of Rizzi's analysis in which the movement of the verb at LF (which must take place in order to cover the trace in Agr°) is not seen as an A-barXP movement, but as an A-bar-X° movement, presupposing that also X°-movements are separated into A- and A-bar-ones. This also has the advantage of making superfluous an implausible claim in Rizzi's analysis—viz., that a trace in 1° may be covered through an XP-movement. The consequence is that dosupport should be obligatory if and only if the negation is a head, as a negative XP would not interfere with an X°-movement. The difference between modern English on one side and seventeenth-century English and modern Faroese on the other would then be that only in the former is the negation a head. This is supported by the fact that the first time the form -n't (which clearly is a head; note that it may occur in C° in V2: Isn't this nice?) occurs in writing is in the 1660s (Roberts 1993:305)

152

Verb Movement

5.4 VP-F languages It is difficult to tell whether independent V°-to-I° movement takes place in the languages that I consider to be VP-F languages: Afrikaans, Dutch, Frisian, German, Swiss German, and West Flemish. Consider first the situation with respect to the verbal inflection. The present tense paradigms are as follows: (50) throw, infinitive and present indicative:

Inf. S3. 1" 2nd 3rd

Afrikaans

Dutch

Frisian

German

Swiss Garma.

gooi

gooien

goaije

werf en

gheie

ich werfe du wirfst er wirft

i du ar

ek jy hy

gooi gooi gooi

ik jij hij

gooi gooit gooit

ik do hy

goai goaist goait

gheie gheisch gheit

PI. 1st

2nd 3rd

Total

ons gooi julle gooi hulls gooi

wij gooien jullie gooien zij gooien

wy goaie j imme goaie hja goaie

wir werfen ihr werft sie werfen

mir gheie dir gheiet si gheie

1

3

4

5

3

infinitive and present indicative: J west Flemish Inf.

werken

Sg. 1" 2"' 3r' PI. !•' 2"' 3"

ik gie zie

werken werkt werkt

wunder werken gunder werkt zunder werken

Total

If we adopt the approach of Roberts (1993), we would expect V°-to-P movement to take place in all these languages, except Afrikaans: The four languages all have distinct inflectional endings in both singular and plural, as is apparent when comparing the relevant forms to the stem, as it appears in imperative (singular in Dutch and German): Af. gooi, Du. gooi, Fs. goai, Ge. werf, SG. ghei 'throw!'. On the other hand, we adopt the approach of Rohrbacher (1994), we would expect only German and Frisian to have independent V°-to-I° movement, as only in these two languages is there one instance of both first and second person being unambiguously marked (differing from each other, from the third person form, and from the infinitive), in both cases in the present tense singular. Furthermore, as we shall see, the data corresponding to the crucial data in 5.2 and 5.3 does not allow this question to be settled. For the analyses of expletive constructions in chapters 6 and 7, I need all of these languages, (51a-e), to fall into the same group as the P-VP languages that 4. West Flemish for 'throw', smyten, has a -t as part of the stem, and as -t is also an ending, smyten is not a good illustration of the paradigm. The stem of werken 'work' is werk 'work!', which occurs on its own in the singular imperative.

153

V°-to-I° Movement

have V°-to-P movement, as in (51f,g), and to differ from those I°-VP languages that do not have V°-to-I° movement, as in (51h,i), as only the former group allow transitive expletive constructions: (51) a. Du.

Er

heef

b. WF. c . Fs. d. Ge. e . SG. f . Yi.

m_

eet hat hat

g.

1C.

Der Es Es ES

paO

h. Fa. »TaS i. Da. *Der j. En. *There k. Fr. *I1 a

hett

hot he fur hevur

isn

•i emand

einen

opper imitser einhver onkur

an an

har has

een nen in

iemand entwien

cfuelcju' un

gegesn borflaO etiS spist eaten

rtiang

eitt et an

appel appel apel Apfel opfu

gegeten geeten iten gegessen ggasse

epl epli surepli

sble apple

As mentioned, the data corresponding to the crucial data in 5.2 and 5.3 do not allow the question, or whether or not the VP-P languages have independent V°-to-I° movement. This is because nothing occurs between V° and P-i.e., there is no parallel to the sentence adverbs in the P-VP languages. In other words, there is no empirical data to argue whether (52a) should be represented as in (52b) or (52c):

See Vikner & Schwartz (forthcoming) for discussion of some analyses maintaining (52c). If Travis (1991) and Zwart (1991) are right that P precedes VP, example (52a) would be evidence that V°-to-P movement does not have to take place in German. The structure would then have to be:

I shall follow Schwartz & Vikner (1989) and Vikner & Schwartz (forthcomingsection 2), however, in assuming that the reasons not to adopt this analysis outweigh its potential advantages. In what remains of this section, I will discuss some data which might seem at first glance to be incompatible with the assumption that the verb moves to P in all tensed clauses in German. These data were brought to my attention by Hubert Haider (personal communication) and were intended to show that V°-to-P movement cannot be maintained in embedded clauses in German (see also Haider 1993:58-64). I hope to show that in fact these data do not show that V°-to-P move-

154

Verb Movement

ment does not take place, but are inconclusive with respect to the existence of V°to-I° movement in German. Although in general it is not possible to insert any elements between the verbs at the end of an embedded clause in German, (54a) and (55a), the same elements may occur after the last verb, (54b) and (55b): (54) Ge. a. *... daE sie nicht gesagt, [daS b. ... daE sie nicht gesagt hat, [daS ... that she not said (has) that

Peter reich 1st], hat Peter reich ist] Peter rich is (has)

(55) Ge. a. *... weil er lange nicht mehr gesprochen [mit ihr] hat b. ... weil er lange nicht mehr gesprochen hat [mit ihr] . . . because he long not more talked (has) with her (has) (^because he has not talked to her for a long time)

The question is what the positions of the bracketed constituent are. To account for the difference in grammaticality within (54) and (55), two possible analyses immediately spring to mind: (56) 1. The finite verb is in 1° and the extraposed constituents are adjoined to the right of the IP in (54b) and (55b). In order to then rule out (54a) and (55a), adjunction to VP would have to be independently excluded in German. This account is thus incompatible with right-adjunction to VP being possible. 2. The finite verb is in V° (i.e., no V°-to-I° movement has taken place), and the possible sentences are derived through adjunction to the higher VP. In order for this account to hold, adjunction to the highest VP should be possible and adjunction to any VP but the highest should be impossible. If the latter were not the case, (54a) and (55a) would remain unexplained.

I will now consider evidence that will bear upon both analyses. I shall try to show that adjunction to the right of VP is possible in German. As stated, this would seem to exclude an analysis in which V°-to-I° movement takes place in embedded clauses; on closer inspection, however, it will turn out that the conditions essential for the "no V°-to-I° movement" analysis also do not obtain. I will then try to reconcile these contradictory findings in a way which will in fact preserve V°-to-I° movement in embedded contexts. It has often been claimed that it is possible to right-adjoin to a VP, based on facts concerning VP-topicalisation in German like the following, where CP-spec contains a VP, and there is something adjoined to this VP: (57) Ge.

[Gesagt [daE Said that

Peter reich ist]] hat sie nicht Peter rich is has she not

(58) Ge.

[Gesprochen [mit ihr]] hat er lange nicht mehr Talked with her has he long not more

Hence it would seem that a general ban on right-adjunction to VP in German cannot be maintained. However, as pointed out, it is crucial to the "no V°-to-I° movement" analysis that adjunction in the grammatical (54b) and (55b) be to the highest VP, and that to rule out the unacceptable (54a) and (55a), adjunction to any VP but the highest should be impossible. It is therefore important to realise that there are in fact two possible derivations of the topicalisations above, as shown in (59) and (60). (I consider only (57) for the sake of simplicity, but the same holds per (58)). Notice that the intermediate traces of the verb in 1° have been omitted in both:

V°-to-I° Movement

155

Topicalisation in (59) includes both VPs—that is, the highest VP (VP4, whose head at D-structure is hat) has been topicalised to CP-spec (and subsequently adjoined to). Notice that it is not clear how the trace of hat could avoid violating the ECP, at least at S-structure. In (60), on the other hand, only the lowest VP (VP.,, whose head at D-structure is gesagf) has been topicalised (and subsequently adjoined to). What is important to note is that only if (59) is the correct derivation for (57), can it be concluded that the "no V°-to-I° movement" analysis outlined previously is valid, for only in (59) is the CP daft Peter reich ist adjoined to the highest VP. In (60), this CP is adjoined to the lower VP, as only the lower VP has been topicalised. The derivation in (60) is predicted to be unavailable even under a "no V°-to-I° movement" analysis, as it leaves no way of accounting for the ungrammatical (54a) and (55a). There is evidence, however, that shows that (60) must be a possible derivation; it comes from constructions in which there are more than two VPs.5 Consider the following embedded clause, where there are three verbs: (61) Ge . . . . daS

sie ganz sicher nicht

erzahlt haben [daE Peter reich ist] . . . that she definitely not told have will that Peter rich is (=... that she definitely won't have told anybody that Peter is rich)

The question now is what the possible VP-topicalisations based on (61) are. That it is possible to topicalise a VP containing both non-finite verbs is shown in (62), but this actually does not tell us much, since this is still ambiguous as to whether the highest VP is topicalising or the highest-but-one VP: (62) Ge.

Erzahlt haben TdaS Told have that

Peter reich istl wird sie ganz sicher nicht Peter rich is will she definitely not

(In this and the following examples, the contents of the matrix CP-spec is underlined, and the extraposed CP is bracketed.) More relevant is the following example, as it seems to unambiguously show that topicalisation of, and subsequent rightadjunction to, a lower VP is possible: (63) Ge .

Erzahlt fdaS Told that

peter reich istl wird sie ganz sicher nicht haben Peter rich is will she definitely not have

However, whereas it does follow from (63) that a lower VP may be topicalised, it does not follow that right-adjunction to a lower VP is generally possible. This is 5. Thanks to Bonnie Schwartz, Rex Sprouse, and Thilo Tappe for help with the examples in this discussion.

156

Verb Movement

shown for the non-topicalisation structures in (54a) and (55a) and for the topicalisation structure in the (64): (64) Ge. *Erzahlt Tdag Told that

Peter reich istl haben wird sie ganz sicher nicht Peter rich is have will she definitely not

Here the same topicalisation as in (62) has taken place, but the adjunction is only adjunction to the lowest VP. In other words, the evidence concerning topicalisation is not reliable with respect to whether or not it is possible to right-adjoin to an XP, as it seems that adjunction is only possible to the highest VP in CP-spec, irrespective of whether or not this is also the highest VP of the clause. There are, I think, two ways to view the real generalisation. One is to say that rightward adjunction of an element (in our examples, a CP or a PP) in a particular domain can only be to the highest VP of that domain. This would capture all the data and would, in fact, preclude V°-to-I° movement. However, a recent proposal by Grimshaw (1991) would allow for the generalisation to be stated in a way that maintains V°-to-P movement in embedded clauses. The essence of her ideas is that a functional category projection is linked to the projection of a lexical category, such that, in Grimshaw's terms, I is in fact the extended projection of the verb, D is the extended projection of the noun, etc. If this general idea is on the right track, then one could claim that the grammaticality of (54b) and (55b) is due to adjunction to IP, the highest projection that is related to the verb in its domain after the verb has moved to 1°; similarly, one could expect (54a) and (55a) to be ungrammatical because they would necessitate adjunction to VP; but if the verb is in 1°, then VP itself is no longer the highest projection related to the verb and, hence, adjunction to VP is not possible here. Finally, the data on VP-topicalisation show that adjunction in these cases, too, is only to the highest projection related to V, in that particular domain: Only this way can we explain why adjunction to the VP with erzdhlt 'told' is well-formed in (63) but not in (64), as the erzdhlt VP is the highest in the relevant domain (i.e., inside CP-spec) in (63), but not in (64). Given that we need left-adjunction to IP in German to be possible anyway (see section 4.7), and given that one motivation for verb movement is for it to "hook up" with its verbal inflection in 1° (see section 5.1), then I see this analysis as one way to accommodate these facts of rightward extraposition which is compatible with other relevant proposals for German. Concluding this last part of section 5.4: It is not possible, on the basis of the data discussed, to show that V°-to-P movement does not take place, but it is also not possible to show that it does. What I have tried to demonstrate is that while the data concerning the interaction between topicalisation and adjunction seem to point to a clear generalisation, there are ways to formulate the generalisation that are compatible both with an analysis that excludes V°-to-P movement and an analysis which maintains V°-to-I° movement. Insofar as both analyses are feasible, then I conclude that these data turn out to be indeterminate with respect to the ordering between VP and 1° in German. Summing up the entire section: It seems to be rather difficult to determine the status of the Germanic VP-I° languages with respect to V°-to-I° movement. There

V°-to-I° Movement

157

is no assistance forthcoming from the direct data, and with respect to the verbal inflection, it turns out to be crucial exactly which approach of the ones discussed in 5.1 is followed. I will therefore have to leave the matter open, but the reader should be warned that in chapters 6 and 7, the discussion will simply assume that both Dutch and German have V°-to-I° movement.

5.5

Connection between V2 and V°-to-I° movement

The following diagramme presents a bird's eye view of the development of the Germanic V2 languages with respect to V°-to-I° movement. The classification of the VP1° languages with respect to the absence or presence of V°-to-I° movement is rather uncertain, as discussed in the previous section. More certain and also more central to the central concerns of chapters 3-5 is the development of the I°-VP languages.

Apparent from this diagramme is what I have tried to show in this chapter: Neither Danish, Faroese, Norwegian, nor Swedish has independent V°-to-I° movement, whereas both Icelandic and Yiddish do, as was particularly apparent from embedded questions discussed in section 5.2.2. Two questions are relevant here: Why is it that the languages that are P-VP and have V°-to-I° movement all have general embedded V2, whereas none of the other languages do. This will be addressed in sections 5.5.1 and 5.5.2. Moreover, how is it possible to go from a system like the Icelandic (i.e., Old Norse) to one like the Danish? This seems to be what happened in the history of Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish and what is happening in Faroese. This will be addressed in sections 5.5.3 and 5.5.4.

5.5.7

I°-VP order and V°-to-I° movement with general embedded V2

Before the discussion of the transition from the Icelandic-like system of Old Norse to the system of modern Danish or modern spoken Faroese, I want to discuss the potential link between general embedded V2 on one hand and I°-VP order and V°to-I° movement on the other. Yiddish and Icelandic both have general embedded V2, and it is extremely unlikely that either of the two languages borrowed this feature from the other language, as they "have had virtually no contact with each other" (Santorini forthcoming). The closest Icelandic and Yiddish ever came to each other was some limited

158

Verb Movement

contact in the seventeenth century and later between Yiddish and Danish, when for the first time a few Yiddish speakers settled north of the High German area (i.e., north of a line roughly between Cologne and Berlin). Although Danish in earlier stages presumably was like Icelandic, there still seems no reason to assume any kind of borrowing. First, according to Santorini (1989:23) Yiddish "resisted the influence" of Danish in other areas (e.g., vocabulary); second, the contact only arose around the time when Danish was losing or had already lost V°-to-I° movement (in the seventeenth century); and third it is only the original East Yiddish dialect (which was spoken in areas in which the non-Jewish inhabitants spoke a Slavic language; in other words far from Scandinavia) which developed general embedded V2. The original West Yiddish dialect, spoken in otherwise German-speaking areas, all but died out after falling into disuse in the late eighteenth century. Consequently, one would wish to be able to derive the fact that both Icelandic and Yiddish have general embedded V2 from some other property that the two languages have in common and which none of the other Germanic languages has. In the following subsections, I will try to argue that this property is the combination of three factors: V2, P-VP order, and V°-to-P movement. Both Icelandic and Yiddish are V2 (as opposed to, e.g., English and the Romance languages); both have P-VP order (as opposed to Afrikaans, Dutch, Frisian, German, and Swiss German); and both have V°-to-P movement (as opposed to Danish, modern spoken Faroese, Norwegian, and Swedish). If we consider the two possible orders, VP-P and P-VP, and the absence or presence of V°-to-P movement, there are four different possible language types, across which the Germanic V2 languages are distributed, as follows:6 (66) a. VP-I°, no v°-to-I° movement: b. VP-I°, V°-to-I° movement:

Afrikaans, Dutch, Frisian, German, and Swiss German

c. I°-VP, no V°-to-I° movement:

Danish, modern spoken Faroese, Norwegian, and Swedish (without V2: English)

d. I°-VP, V°-to-I° movement:

Icelandic, Yiddish (without V2: Romance, incl. French)

If general embedded V2 were related to properties of the relative order of P and VP and of the presence or absence of V°-to-P movement, then it would not be an accident that exactly Yiddish and Icelandic have general embedded V2. Furthermore, we would have only four possible combinations of properties concerning general embedded V2, the relative order of 1° and VP, and the presence or absence of V°-to-P movement instead of the eight logically possible combinations of the three binary features (23=8-i.e., each of those in (66) both with and without general embedded V2). Such restrictions are generally desirable, as they limit the number of logically possible grammars, and thereby also the amount of work the child has to do in order to select one of these logically possible grammars. 6. As will be apparent, it will have no serious consequences for the analysis to be developed if any or all of the languages in the (66b) group (VP-I°, V°-to-I° movement) should turn out to belong to the (66a) group (VP-I°, no V°-to-P movement).

V°-to-I° Movement

5.5.2

159

The cause of general embedded V2

In the previous subsection, I argued that a number of desirable results would follow if the languages of group (66d)-i-e., V2 languages that are F-VP and have V°-to-F movement—necessarily also have general embedded V2. This is exactly what I want to argue in this subsection. Consider what happens when a child acquires a Germanic V2 language. She will be faced with a number of questions, one of which is whether root clauses and nonroot clauses differ with respect to V2. The child acquiring one of the languages in group (66b)—e.g., German—or in group (66c)—e.g., Danish or Faroese—will encounter abundant evidence that root and non-root clauses are different (even if root clauses may be embedded under bridge verbs), as there are both clear cases of root clauses which could never be taken to be non-root, (67a,b) and (68a,b), and clear cases of non-root clauses which could never be taken to be root, (67c) and (68c): (67) German root clauses: a. (...-) subject - finite verb - VP b. (...-) topic - finite verb - subject - VP German non-root clauses: c. ... - that - subject - VP - finite verb (68) Danish or Faroese root clauses: a. {... that -) subject - finite verb medial adverb - ... b. {... that -) topic - finite verb - subject - medial adverb - ... Danish or Paroese non-root clauses: c. ... that - subject - medial adverb - finite verb - ...

The child acquiring Icelandic or Yiddish will have to conclude that there is no difference: (69) Icelandic or Yiddish root clauses: a. (... that -) subject - finite verb b. (... that -) topic - finite verb Icelandic or Yiddish non-root clauses: c. ... that - subject - finite verb d. ... that - topic - finite verb

medial adverb - ... - subject - medial adverb - ... medial adverb - ... - subject - medial adverb - ...

What is important here is that even if Icelandic and Yiddish did have a difference between root and non-root clauses, this could not possibly be acquired. Here is what would happen if a given parent generation spoke a kind of Icelandic or Yiddish which did not have general embedded V2 (i.e., which did have a difference between root and non-root like the other V2 languages, only root clauses would allow topicalisations): The child would receive no evidence that root clauses and non-root clauses are different, as there would be no cases of non-root which could not also be interpreted as root clauses: (70) "Icelandic" root clauses: (Icelandic without general embedded V2) a. (... that -) subject - finite verb medial adverb - ... b. (... that -) topic - finite verb - subject - medial adverb - ... "Icelandic" non-root clauses: (Icelandic without general embedded V2) c. ... that - subject - finite verb medial adverb - ...

Some children would form the hypothesis that V2 (i.e., CP-recursion) is not possible in non-root clauses, whereas others would form the hypothesis that V2 is possible in non-root clauses. In other words, some children would at first retain their parents' Ice-

160

Verb Movement

landic, (70), whereas others would innovate and arrive at the Icelandic that actually exists, (69), which is identical to (70) but for the addition of (69d). I thus want to suggest that for example (69) would always win out because children with (69) could accommodate all sentences uttered by children with (70), whereas children with (70) could not accommodate all sentences uttered by children with (69); the latter would be forced by the existence of (69d) to switch to the system in (69). In other words, (70) would always be forced to give way in favour of (69), for inherent reasons related to I°-VP order and V°-to-I° movement—viz., that nothing would stop some children from positing the possibility of V2 in nonroot, if it did not exist in the first place.7

5.5.3 Losing general embedded V2 The next question to be addressed is one related to the transition between the two systems, from Icelandic to Danish: How it is possible for a language to lose part of general V2 in main and embedded clauses without losing all of it? Or, how is it possible to lose general embedded V2 and keep general main clause V2? This question is relevant for the development of Danish, Norwegian, Swedish, and for what seems to be taking place in Faroese (see section 5.3.3) at the moment, given that both Old Norse (cf. (71) and Nygaard 1906:375-379) and Middle Danish (cf. (73), Mikkelsen 1911:588, and Falk & Torp 1900:291) seem to have had general embedded V2, and that the modern languages have V2 only in main clauses, but not in non-selected embedded clauses (cf. (72a) and (73b) and section 4.1.3): (71) ON. Gjarna mundi hann hafa viljat drepa harm i fyrstu, Gladly would he have wanted kill him at first, ... ... ( 7 2 ) Da.

C° CP-spac C" IP-flpac ef honum vaeri bat lofat if him(dat) were it allowed

...

(from Nygaard 1906:376)

Han ville gerne have draebt ham med det samme, . . . He would gladly have killed him right away, . .. a. * . . . b. . . . ...

C° CP-apac hvis ham hvis if (him)

C° IP-apac havde det vaeret tilladt det havde vaeret ham tilladt (had) it (had) been (him) allowed

£1 CP-apec El IP-spac (73) a. MD. Saa som mi gi0r J0derne low . . . b. Da. *Sadan som nu g0r J0derne lov . . . In-such-a-way that now make Jews-the law ... (example (73a) from Mandevilles Reise, late 15th century, cited in Mikkelsen 1911:588) 7. This process might take more than a generation, which then would make it possible for a subset of Icelandic speakers at any point in time not to have general embedded V2. This would account for the fact that not all Icelandic speakers are equally happy with embedded topicalisation outside bridge verb contexts (Hallddr Sigur5sson, personal communication): If, as I will suggest in the following subsection, the direct evidence for general embedded V2, (69d), may be ignored by acquirers, some subset of any generation of Icelandic speakers (not necessarily definable as a particular dialect or sociolect) could form the hypothesis that there is no general embedded V2, and not all of these speakers would have taken note of (or been presented with) positive counterevidence to this assumption during their acquisition period, i.e. between, say, l'/2 and 8 years of age.

V°-to-l° Movement

161

How can general embedded V2 be lost at all? I will assume that it must be possible to ignore the direct evidence for general embedded V2, e.g. (71) and (73a), perhaps because of its presumably very low frequency. The question is then, what would stop acquirers from being led to posit the existence of general embedded V2? I suggest that the answer to this is the absence of V°-to-I° movement: If the language in question were to lose V°-to-I° movement, speakers would no longer have any reason to assume general embedded V2, as discussed in 5.5.2

5.5.4 Losing V°-to-I° movement In a number of papers, including Platzack (1988), Christer Platzack has argued that the loss of V°-to-I° movement in Swedish (and by extension in Danish and Norwegian), which took place between 1500 and 1800, was caused by the weakening of the inflectional paradigm: "[E]xamples with the modern subordinate clause word order do not appear until the weakening of agreement has begun and ... the change is completed when agreement finally is lost" (Platzack 1988:216). The loss of V°-to-I° movement is only possible because most of the evidence that the acquirer is faced with is compatible with both situations ("forward compatible"), for three reasons. (1) All V2 clauses, including all main clauses, are ambiguous, e.g. (74). (2) This leaves only non-V2 clauses, but these may also be ambiguous, if they lack medial adverbials or negation, cf. (75). (3) This leaves only non-V2 clauses containing medial adverbials and negation, but these may also be ambiguous, if the adverbial or negation undergoes stylistic fronting, (76). The ambiguity of these three types of constructions with respect to the presence of V°to-I° movement is illustrated by the fact that the word order is the same in the aexamples from Icelandic, which has V°-to-I° movement and in the b-examples from Danish, which does not have V°-to-I° movement: V2 clauses (74) Ic. a. Da. b.

Sessa b6k hefur Helgi oft lesifl Denne bog har Helge ofte last This book has Helgi often read

Non-V2 clauses with no medial adverbial/negation (75) Ic. a. £g spuroi af hverju Helgi hefdi lesio pessa b6k Da. b. Jeg spurgte hvorfor Helge havde last denne bog I asked why Helgi had read this book Stylistic fronting (76) Ic. a. Petta Da. b. Dette This

of medial adverbial/negation er maour sem ekki hefur spilafi fdtbolta i morg ar er en mand som ikke har spillet fodbold i mange ar is a man who not has played football for many years (example (76a) from J6nsson (1991:35, (ii))

Whereas it does not seem necessary to give evidence for the fact that Old Norse and Middle Danish main clauses were V2, nor for the fact that not all embedded clauses in either language contain a negation or a medial adverbial, the claim that both languages have stylistic fronting is one for which I have not yet given any evidence. As for stylistic fronting in Icelandic, see section 4.8.3 and also Maling (1990), Rognvaldsson & Thrainsson (1990), Cardinaletti & Roberts (forthcoming), and Jonsson (1991) for further discussion, and see Platzack (1988:223-228) for

162

Verb Movement

suggestions concerning medieval Swedish. The following are examples of stylistic fronting of the element preceding the finite verb in Old Norse and Middle Danish: (77) ON.

... at her-iat var i riki bans . .. that harried was in kingdom his (from Nygaard 1906:377)

(78) MD.

... at det skulle fuldkommis, som saad ££ ved Propheten . . . that it should be-finished as said is by prophet-the (from the Christian III Bible, 1550, cited in Falk & Torp 1900:296)

(79) MD. a. b.

(80) MD.

Then gudh ther bodae skapeth himmel oc iordh oc stiaerneaer . . . The God that both created heaven and earth and stars ... och haf oc alt thet ther fjjdji ££ i ierderige ... and sea and all that which born is in earth-realm (from AffSancte Kersline hennis pyrue. around 1450, cited in Uldaler & Wellejus 1968:271,1. 22-23))

Nar han fram farr for noghrae closter ellerr abbacier When he ahead goes before any convents or abbeys (from Mandevilles Reise, late 15th century, cited in Uldaler & Wellejus 1968:256,1. 27-28)

In short, the direct evidence for or against V°-to-I° movement is less than abundant in the acquirer's input, making it all the more understandable why V°-to1° movement, as pointed out by Platzack, seems to show a very close correspondence with the presence or absence of agreement inflection on the finite verb, which is something for which the acquirer does have abundant evidence. This view requires that the acquirer either does not encounter or ignores several kinds of data. One is the kind of stylistic fronting that cannot be reanalysed as the absence of V°-to-I° movement—i.e., stylistic fronting of an element that would otherwise follow the verb even if the verb remained in V°. In other words, (79b) and (80) have to be ignored at the stage of reanalysis as they can only be derived though stylistic fronting, given that the verb stem of the finite verb is never generated in a position following an embedded participle or a verb particle. Note that, e.g., (79b) and (80) as opposed to, e.g., (79a) are impossible in modern Danish: (81) Da. a. *Alt det der fedt er pa jorden ... All that which born is on earth-the ...

=

(79b)

b. *Nar han frem karte foran stationen ... When he ahead drove before station-the ...

= (80)

c.

=

Den Gud der b_4ple_ skabte himlen og jorden ... The God who both created heaven-the and earth-the . ..

(79a)

Similarly, the direct evidence in favour of general embedded V2 has to be ignored or not encountered; cf. the differences in grammaticality between the Old Norse/ Middle Danish data and the modern Danish data in section 5.5.3. As briefly mentioned in section 5.1, the presence of verbal inflection forces V°-to-I° movement, but the absence of verbal inflection does not prevent V°-to-I° movement from taking place, as can be seen from two facts: In all V2 sentences, the finite verb undergoes V°-to-I° movement before it moves to C°; at least one dialect exists with independent V°-to-F movement but without inflection of the finite verb (the Swedish dialect from Kronoby, Finland, cf. Platzack & Holmberg 1989:74). If this is so, then why does the loss of verbal inflection lead to the loss of V°to-I° movement in the large majority of cases? Applying the intuition of Roberts' (1993:156) "Acquisitional Least Effort Strategy" (which is based on the "Trans-

V°-to-I° Movement

163

parency Principle" of Lightfoot 1979:121 and the "Least Effort Condition" of Chomsky 1991:426), we could say that the reason for the preference of the "no V°-to-I° movement" interpretations of (74)-(76) is that this derivation would require the least effort: This is clearest with respect to (76): In Icelandic (and Old Norse and older Danish), this example would require not only the movement of V°-to-I° but also the stylistic fronting of the negation. Neither of these two movements are necessary in the modern Danish interpretation: both the negation and the verb stay in their base-generated positions: adjoined to VP and in V° respectively. Also for (75), the derivation requires less effort if there is no obligatory V°-to-I° movement (in which case the verb would stay in V°) than if there were obligatory V°-to-I° movement (in which case the verb would move from V°-to-I°). Only with respect to V2-constructions like (74) does it not matter: The verb has to move from V° via 1° to C°, regardless of whether the language has independent or obligatory V°-to-P movement.

5.5.5

Conclusions concerning the link between V2 and V°-to-I° movement

In this section, 5.5,1 have argued that F-VP order and V°-to-I° movement are the necessary and sufficient conditions for general embedded V2, and that the loss of either will entail a loss of general embedded V2 (sections 5.5.1-5.5.3). I have furthermore suggested the following about the transition from an Old Norse (Icelandic-like) system to a Danish one (section 5.5.4): Thanks to a weak verbal inflection, to relatively low frequency of constructions that would constitute counterevidence (given the high frequency of ambiguous constructions, including stylistic fronting), and also to the fact that the change entails a simplified derivation, the child may infer that V°-to-I° movement is no longer necessary.

5.6

Conclusion

In this chapter I have discussed the second kind of movement of the finite verb which appears in the Germanic languages (the first being V2): V°-to-I° movement. I have tried to show that there is a connection between the occurrence of V°to-P movement and the status of 1°, so that the more verbal inflection a language has, the more it is likely to have V°-to-I° movement. It was shown that both the analyses of Roberts (1993) and the one of Rohrbacher (1994) may be more precise ways of stating this fact: V°-to-I° movement occurs in languages that have distinct inflectional endings in both singular and plural (according to Roberts 1993), or V°to-I° movement occurs in the languages where first and second person are unambiguously marked in at least one tense in singular and/or plural (according to Rohrbacher 1994). In the last section, I argued that I°-VP order and V°-to-I° movement are the necessary and sufficient conditions for general embedded V2, and that the loss of either will entail a loss of general embedded V2.

This page intentionally left blank

Ill EXPLETIVE SUBJECTS

This page intentionally left blank

6 NP-Positions in Expletive Constructions

In this and the following chapter, I discuss various aspects of constructions with expletive subjects. Particularly, I show that the properties of these constructions in any given Germanic (or Romance) language are determined by the properties of finite verb movement—i.e. by whether the language has V2 and/or V°-to-F movement. By expletive subjects, I mean what has also been called pleonastic subjects or anticipatory subjects, per the following quote from Quirk et al. (1985:749): "Another term...is 'expletive' it, the term indicating the view that this it merely fills a syntactic gap (that of subject) and is otherwise meaningless". I assume that in languages like English and Danish there is only one expletive subject: therelder. As I argue in more detail in chapter 7 (following Hoekstra 1983 and Bennis 1986), it/ del is not really an expletive element but an argument (note also that these elements are often referred to as quasi-arguments, e.g., Chomsky 1981:325). It thus follows that it/det must be assigned a theta-role, and that it does not have to be coindexed with any other overt NP, even if such coindexation is not excluded (e.g., if it is an antecedent for a reflexive, see section 7.1.2). Therelder, on the other hand, may not be assigned a theta-role, and, following the obligatory LFadjunction to expletives of Chomsky (1991:441)(see 6.1.3), which in turn is based on the principle of full interpretation (Chomsky (1986b:98, 1991:437)), therelder is coindexed with an argument NP at S structure.

6.1 Introduction In this chapter, I consider the distribution of NPs in constructions with expletive subjects across the Germanic (and Romance) languages in a number of different constructions. The following languages are discussed in all stages of the analysis: 167

168

Expletive Subjects

German, Icelandic, Danish, English, and French. The discussion will also include a number of examples taken from Yiddish and from Faroese. As for the languages not directly discussed, it is tacitly assumed that Afrikaans, Dutch, Frisian, Swiss German, and West Flemish behave like German with respect to the tables in (1); that Yiddish behaves like Icelandic; that Faroese, Norwegian, and Swedish behave like Danish; and that the Romance languages in general behave like French. The following descriptive table is only concerned with a subset of the five constructions to be discussed in this chapter: ergatives, active and passive transitives, and active and passive intransitives. The table lists which constructions are possible with an expletive subject, and also the possible positions of the (obligatorily indefinite) NP which would have been the subject if an expletive subject had not been present. This NP can occur either inside or outside the complement of the main verb. In languages with verb-object order, this difference is a distinction between whether the NP may follow or precede the (V° of the) main verb. In German and the other object-verb languages, it is impossible to tell whether the NP occurs inside or outside V-bar, due to the object-verb order—i.e., the NP always precedes the base-generated position of the verb (hence the missing symbols in the German column): Ergatives, [v. NP ] Ergatives , NP [ Transitives, [v. NP ] Trans itives , NP [v, ] Passive transitives, [v. NP ] Passive transitives , NP [v. ] Intransitives, [v. NP 3 Intransitives , NP [v. ] Passive intransitives V2 V°-to-I° movement

I argue in this chapter that the facts described in table (1) co-vary with two crucial features of the languages in question: whether or not they are V2 languages (see chapters 3 and 4), and whether or not they have obligatory verb movement to 1° in tensed clauses (see chapter 5). This will give us the three relevant groups of languages: German and Icelandic have both V2 and V°-to-F movement; Danish has V2 but not V°-to-I° movement; and English and French are not V2 languages. The analysis suggested in this chapter will try to show in detail what the connection is between verb movement and possible NP positions in expletive constructions. 1. The "+" indicated for English ergatives should only be taken to indicate that these constructions are not completely ill-formed in English. However, it has to be admitted that they are not always wellformed; cf. the discussion in section 6.4.1. This might be an appropriate place to warn the reader that, as in most other works on this topic, a number of phenomena will have to be let unexplained. This is particularly true for the differences between English and French—e.g., this difference with respect to ergatives, or the difference that the obligatorily indefinite NP must occur preceding the main verb participle in an English expletive passive transitive rather than following it.

NP-Positions in Expletive Constructionsions

169

The surface generalisations made in (1) can be formulated as follows (and illustrated as in (2)): • None of the languages allow the obligatorily indefinite NP to occur inside the complement of the main verb in expletive active transitives (section 6.4.2). • In a subset of all the languages, namely in the V2 languages, the obligatorily indefinite NP may occur inside the complement of the main verb in expletive active intransitives (section 6.4.4). The same languages may have expletive passive intransitives (section 6.4.5). • In a subset of the V2 languages, namely in the V2 languages with V°-to-I° movement, the obligatorily indefinite NP may occur outside the complement of the main verb with all the verb types (section 6.3).

The analysis in this chapter may be seen as a sort of a cross or compromise between the two previous analyses of Safir (1985, 1987) and Belletti (1988). The suggestions of Safir will be discussed in section 6.1.1, those of Belletti in 6.1.2. A new analysis will then be suggested in 6.1.3-6.1.5, and an overview of the rest of the chapter in 6.1.6.

6.1.1 Safir (1985, 1987) Safir (1985), which is the published version of Safir (1982), suggests an analysis along the following lines: In an expletive construction with an argument—e.g., in the complement of an ergative verb like come—the argument (an obligatorily indefinite NP) will not be assigned case; it has to be linked to the expletive, in order to receive the case assigned to the expletive. This chain, in which the expletive c-commands and is coindexed with the argument, is a potential violation of principle C of the binding theory (Chomsky 1981:188), as referential NPs may never be bound (as opposed to, e.g., pronouns and reflexives). However, according to Safir, the process of quantifier raising (which is independently justified; cf., e.g., Chomsky 1981:18 and May 1985) rescues indefinite NPs from this violation. Any indefinite NP is taken to be a kind of quantified expression: (3)

En. a. b.

A bov l e f t 3 x, x: a boy, x l e f t

If it is assumed that binding (at least of indefinites) is checked at LF; i.e., after quantifier raising—then we get the following result:

170

Expletive Subjects

The indefinite argument NP is not bound at LF, whereas the definite argument is. Grange (1987:25) argues against Safir that as binding theory (in the version of Chomsky 1986b) is a theory of referential dependency, and as there is no such dependency in the case of binding of an argument by a non-argument, there should be no interaction between binding theory and the distribution of non-referential expletives. In Safir (1987), the expletive-argument chain is still required to transfer case to the argument, but it no longer interacts with binding theory. This revision entails that the criticism against applying binding theory to non-referential binding no longer applies. In the revised version the expletive-argument chain is subject to the predicate principle:2 (5) A potential referring expression is a predicate or else free. (Safir 1987:87)

As the argument in an expletive argument chain is bound by the expletive, it must be a predicate. But what is it a predicate of? It cannot be predicated of the expletive, or indeed of anything else in the sentence, so it must be predicated of an event—this is what Safir calls a "bare predicate" (1987:92-93). The defmiteness effect then "should follow... given the event interpretation assigned to bare predicates" (1987:93). Safir (1985:101, 107) accounts for the fact that German allows impersonal passives and French does not by suggesting a "stripped predicate parameter", which has the effect that predicates must have an overt argument in French but not in German. As opposed to the analysis suggested here, this does not in any way link impersonal passives to expletive active intransitives, even though the two constructions are either both possible or both impossible in any of the Germanic languages (cf. 6.4.3 and 6.4.4). Safir also analyses English and German as both containing ergative impersonals (i.e., expletive ergatives) without discussing that German also has intransitive impersonals (i.e., expletive intransitives). Belletti (1988:7, fn. 18) points out that Safir (1985) is wrong in assuming that no indefiniteness requirement exists in null subject languages like Italian. Belletti (1988:7-10) demonstrates that such a requirement does in fact exist. What I consider the most important problem for Safir's analysis is also pointed out in Falk (1989a), and a similar point is made with respect to raising constructions in English by Lasnik (1992:383): Safir's analysis, under which the indefinite argument NP in (6a) receives nominative through a chain with the expletive subject, cannot account for why such a chain cannot rescue the NP in (6b,c,d): 2. The "predicate principle" of Safir (1987:87) should not be confused with the "predicate principle" of Holmberg (1986:135-145), which is discussed in section 3.4.1.

NP-Positions in Expletive Constructions (6)

Da. a. b. d.

at at at at that

de de de et brev de th re (a letter)

171

vasre

kommet et brev kommet kan et brev vaere kommet vaere kan kommet may fa let.) have (a let.} come (a let.) kan kan

vajre et brev

As far as I can tell, Safir's analysis cannot explain why a chain can transmit nominative to the NP in (6a) although a similar transmission of nominative is not possible in (6b,c,d). In other words, there are no particular locality restrictions in Safir's account. Under an analysis in which the NP in (6a) is licensed directly—e.g., by assignment of partitive case, as in Belletti (1988), as in the following subsection, or by other kinds of licensing, either in the way to be suggested in 6.1.4, or as in Falk's analysis (1989a,b; see section 6.6.4)—the difference in (6) is not problematic.

6.1.2

Belletti (1988)

Safir (1985, 1987) on one hand and Belletti (1988) and Lasnik (1992) on the other all agree that the expletive, like all other elements that may occur in IP-spec, receives nominative case. (For discussion of this point, see 6.2.2.) The two approaches differ, however, when it comes to case-assignment to the obligatorily indefinite NP. Where Safir (1985, 1987) assumes that the obligatorily indefinite NP receives case through forming a chain with the expletive, Belletti (1988), along with Lasnik (1992), assumes that the obligatorily indefinite argument NP must be assigned case independently. If no standard structural case is available—i.e., when nominative is assigned to the expletive, and accusative is unavailable because the verb is either ergative or passive—the argument NP must be identified in some other way. This identification is a type of case assignment that is only compatible with indefinite NPs. This is what Belletti calls partitive case, and this is what accounts for the socalled definiteness effect—i.e., the restriction that the argument NP must be indefinite in constructions with an expletive subject. Belletti (1988:15) assumes partitive to be assigned only to positions that are "VP-internal and thematically associated with the verb"—i.e., to the complement of the main V°, to the specifier of the main VP, and to positions adjoined to the main VP. She assumes that partitive is an inherent case, as opposed to structural cases like accusative and nominative, and that such a distinction can account for the following two facts. First, partitive assignment is not affected by passivisation of the verb assigning partitive (Belletti 1988:6). This is different from other case-assignments: (7) Da. a. b.

Marie fotograferede Peter Marie photographed Peter Peter blev fotograferet Peter was photographed

c. *Der blev fotograferet Peter d. Der blev fotograferet en studerende There was photographed Peter/a student

In (7a,b) vs. (7c), the ungrammaticality of the latter is normally derived from the inability of a passive verb to assign accusative to the object. In Belletti's analysis,

172

Expletive Subjects

the object cannot be rescued by partitive assignment, because partitive is only compatible with indefinite NPs, as in (7d). Second, sentences of the following kind are excluded (Belletti 1988:27-31): (8) a. En. 'There seemed [a man to have eaten an apple] b. It. *Sono considerati [alcuni student! intelligent!] Are considered some students intelligent (from Belletti 1988:30, (72))

If partitive could be assigned under the same circumstances as structural case, it should be possible for a man to receive partitive from the main verb seem. If partitive furthermore is not sensitive to passivisation of the case-assigning verb, it should also be possible for alcuni studenti to receive partitive from the main verb considerare? However, as these verbs do not assign theta-roles to the NPs in question, they cannot assign partitive case to them either: "Partitive cannot be assigned to NPs that are not theta-marked by the Case-marking verb" (Belletti 1988:28). Thus the NPs receive no case, which accounts for the ungrammatical (8a,b). Although I agree that licensing of the obligatorily indefinite NPs may be associated with the assignment of theta-roles, I consider these conditions on the occurrence of NPs with partitive case to be both not strict enough and too strict: They are not strict enough in that they allow partitive NPs to occur in positions that are not head governed (e.g., in VP-spec and in the position adjoined to VP), and they are too strict in that they exclude partitive NPs from occurring outside the VP of the main verb. Consider the following example: (9)

Ic.

E>a<5 hefur einhverium p6tt 6lafur leiOinlegur It has someone(dat) thought 6lafurlnom) boring(nom) (from Zaenen et al. 1985:453, (25a); also cited in Belletti 1988:14, fn33)

According to Belletti (1988:14, fn33) the obligatory indefiniteness of einhverjum 'someone' shows that it occurs in a position adjoined to VP, as otherwise it could not be assigned partitive, and then there would be no account for the obligatory indefiniteness of the NP. However, when another auxiliary verb is added to this construction, it becomes clear that the predictions made by Belletti's analysis are not borne out. The predictions would be that, given an infinitival auxiliary between the finite auxiliary, hefur 'has', and the main verb, pott 'thought', the indefinite NP would have to be to the right of such an infinitive: If it were to the left of the infinitive, it could not possibly be considered to be inside (or even adjoined to) the VP of the main verb. The facts, however, point in the opposite direction: The indefinite NP, em's. The reason structural case is excluded here has to do with Burzio's generalisation (Burzio 1986:178-186; cf. also below, in particular section 6.4.4): Accusative is never assigned by a verb that does not also assign an external theta-role. This constraint does not affect partitive, and so we might expect (8a,b) to be possible and to constitute a parallel to the so-called exceptional case marking constructions in which accusative is assigned to an element that is not selected by the case-assigning verb:

As opposed to (i), (8a,b) are not possible.

173

NP-Positions in Expletive Constructions

hverjum, is considerably better when it is separated from the main VP by the infinitive of the temporal auxiliary hafa 'have', as in (10), than when it occurs in the specifier of the VP of the main verb (or adjoined to this VP), as in (1 1): (10) Ic.

. . . a<5

t>a<5

mun

. . . that there will

(11) Ic. * . . . ad ...

t>aO

t einhver-ium

hafa l?6tt

mun t nafa. einhver-ium

that there will

6lafur

leiSinlegur

someone (dat) have thought 6lafur (nom) boring (nom)

t>6tt

Olafur

have someoneidat) thought Olafur(nom)

leiflinlegur boring(nom)

Thus it must be possible for a partitive NP to occur outside the main VP. I will therefore assume a different set of licensing conditions in order to include (10) and exclude (11): The NP must be head governed by a case assigner (stricter than the predictions of Belletti 1988): It does not suffice for the NP just to be in VP-spec of the main verb. Moreover, the class of licensers includes I°s that contain inflection as well as main (i.e., non-auxiliary) verbs (less strict than the predictions of Belletti 1988): The NP may occur outside the VP of the main verb. In addition to these differences in licensing conditions, I also differ from Belletti (1988) in that I do not assume this licensing to be a kind of case-assignment; instead I follow Safir (1985, 1987) and assume that the obligatorily indefinite NP receives case through forming a chain with the expletive subject. I will give three reasons for this before I outline the new analysis in the following subsections, 6.1.3-6.1.5. The first problem for Belletti's (1988) analysis is related to subjects with socalled quirky case in Icelandic. Subjects with quirky case, or quirky subjects, have an oblique case that is commonly assumed to be lexically assigned and associated with their base-generated position inside VP (cf. Thrainsson 1979:462, Cole et al. 1980, Zaenen et al. 1985, Sigurdsson 1989:204 and references therein). The problem is that, like nominative subjects, subjects with quirky case may also be subject to the obligatory indefiniteness requirement; note, for example, that the obligatory indefinite NP in both (9) and (10) is dative and not nominative. This leads to the counterintuitive conclusion that the subjects with quirky case in (9) and (10) have no less than two cases, both of which are inherent: quirky case and partitive. Belletti (1988:14, fn33) notes this and suggests that such examples "can be interpreted as resulting from having a quirky subject licensed by partitive Case". In my eyes, such a view is better accommodated in an analysis where partitive is not a specific case at all, but merely a way of licensing NPs, whose case is assigned/transferred in some other manner.4 The problem outlined here may be less of a problem in the analysis of Lasnik (1992), as partitive case may be either structural or inherent (Lasnik 1992:394396). The following two problems, however, are in my opinion just as serious for Lasnik (1992) as they are for Belletti (1988). 4. Within the analysis of section 6.1.3-6.1.5, "quirky case" means that the NP in question displays a morphological case determined by its theta-assigner and not by its case-assigner (cf., e.g., Marantz 1984:81 or Andrews 1990 and references therein). Nevertheless, NPs with quirky case still have to be either assigned structural case ("on top of* the inherent case, so to speak) or alternatively licensed, just like any other NP. In examples (9) and (10), einhverjum 'someone(dative)' is alternatively licensed (see section 6.1.4). That NPs with quirky case have to be licensed just like ordinary NPs (i.e. through structural case or alternative licensing) is supported by the fact that (as pointed out by Anders Holmberg, personal communication) Icelandic objects with quirky case may also undergo object shift (see also section 4.5). In (i) the object is dative; in (ii) it is genitive:

174

Expletive Subjects

The second problem for Belletti's (1988) analysis has to do with the morphological realisation of partitive case. Belletti (1988:1-2) uses Finnish as an example of a language in which partitive case is morphologically realised. One might then ask why partitive is not morphologically realised in any of the Germanic or Romance languages, but there may be no interesting answer to this question (i.e., it is a historical accident), just like there may be no interesting answer to the question why German and Icelandic have a morphologically realised dative case, whereas Dutch, English, and Danish do not. More interesting is the question of how partitive is morphologically realised: Just like an NP which would have had dative case in German and Icelandic always occurs with accusative case in Dutch, English, and Danish (insofar as one can tell the case at all—i.e., if the NP is a pronoun), we may ask the question of how partitive is morphologically realised in the languages where it is not an independent morphological case. We would then have to say that partitive shows up as nominative in German; in the following expletive passive construction, for instance, the NP cannot be pronominal, (12b,d,f),5 nor can it be accusative, (12c), or dative, (12e):

(i)

Ic.

I gaer leitafli Petur ... Yesterday looJced-for Petur . . . a. ... bessarar bokar sennilega ekki t t b. *. . . sennilega bessarar bokar ekki t t c. ... sennilega ekki t bessarar b6kar ... (this book(dati) probably (this bookldat) I not /this book(datl)

(ii)

Ic.

1 gaer lysti Petur ... Yesterday described P^tur ... a. ... bessari bok b. *... c. ... ... (this book(gen))

sennilega sennilega bessari b6k sennilega probably (this book(gen))

ekki t £ ekki t £ ekki t bessari bok not (this booklgen}}

This distribution is identical to objects with structural case: (iii) Ic.

I gaer las Petur . . . Yesterday read Petur ... a. ... bessa bok b. *... c. ... ... (this book(acc))

sennilega sennilega bessa bok sennilega probably (this book(ace))

ekki t £ ekki t £ ekki t bessa b6k not (this book(acc))

Assuming the standard view on quirky case as case assigned by the theta-assigner and assuming further that object shift is movement to a case-assigned position (as suggested in Holmberg 1986 and Vikner forthcoming), these facts show that NPs with quirky case, (i) and (ii), may or may not be licensed under the same conditions as NPs with structural case, (iii). 5. It would seem that whereas the NP that would have been the subject absolutely has to be indefinite in most of the languages under consideration, this restriction is less strict in German and Yiddish; the interpretation of (ia,b) is that of a letter already referred to: Ge. Yi. Da. Ic.

a. Es b. ES c . *Der d. *ba<3 There

ist iz er he fur

Ge. Yi. Da. Ic.

a. b. c. d.

ist

Es Es Der bafl There

is

heute haynt ongekumen i dag kommet i dag komid today (arrived)

heute iz haynt ongekumen i dag kommet er he fur i dag komifl is today (arrivedj

der Brief der briv brevet brefio the letter

von fun

Maria Mi ri amen fra Marie fra Mariu from Wary

gekommen

ein Brief a briv et brev

von fun fra fra

gekommen

a

Maria Mi ri amen Marie Mariu bref letter from Mary

(arrived,)

(arrived^

For the present purpose, suffice it to observe that it is possible to obtain a contrast between indefinite NPs on one hand and non-modified personal pronouns on the other; hence the variants used in (12). For further discussion, see Cardinaletti (1990a:21-23) and references cited there.

175

NP-Positions in Expletive Constructions (12) Ge. a. Es wurde am Tatort ein b. *Es wurde am Tatort ich There was at crime-scene a

danischer Linguist Danish

gesehen gesehen linguist (nom)/I seen

c. *Es wurde am Tatort einen danischen Linguisten gesehen d. *Es wurde am Tatort mish. gesehen There was at crime-scene a Danish linguist(ace)/me face) seen e. *Es wurde am Tatort einem danischen Lincmisten gesehen f. *Es wurde am Tatort mir gesehen There was at crime-scene a Danish linguist (dat)/me (dat) seen

If partitive is realised as nominative in German, we are faced with a problem, because nominative is not possible in all the cases where Belletti predicts partitive to be possible. The difference between ergative verbs and active transitive verbs, for example, is that the ergative verb can only assign partitive, whereas the active transitive verb can assign both accusative and partitive. Note that Belletti (1988:3) says that partitive "will typically be assigned to the direct object of both transitive and unaccusative [i.e., ergative (SV)] verbs". In other words, Belletti predicts partitive to be an available alternative to accusative as far as direct objects of active transitive verbs are concerned. This means that we incorrectly would expect nominative to be a possible alternative to accusative in the following: (13) Ge. a.

Frank hat am Tatort einen danischen Linguisten gesehen Frank has at crime-scene a Danish linguist(ace) seen

b. *Frank hat am Tatort ein Frank has at crime-scene a

danischer Linguist gesehen Danish linguist (nom) seen

The conclusion is that partitive is not only not realised as an independent morphological case, but it cannot even be linked to any other particular morphological case. As noted earlier, I find this conclusion is better accommodated in an analysis when partitive is not a specific case at all, but merely a way of licensing NPs, whose case is assigned/transferred in some other manner. Like the second problem just discussed, the third and last problem for Belletti's (1988) analysis has to do with the morphological realisation of partitive case. The following two examples from Icelandic (respectively with an ergative and a passive transitive verb) show that in a "standard" expletive construction, the obligatory indefinite NP must have nominative case, and not accusative: (14) Ic. a.

faSj

hofSu

tj sennilega sokkiS einhverjir batart i

b. *fa<5i

hofou

There had(3pl)

(15) Ic. a.

Paoi

b. *fao i

mundu

mundu

ti sennilega sokki<3 einhverja probably

sunk

firfiinum

bata

i firSinum boats (Nom/Ace) in bay-the (example (14a) from Sigurdsson 1991:346, (43a)) some

ti kannski hafa verio t i seldir einhverjir batar A

a

uppbooinu

t t kannski hafa verifi selda einhverja bata a uppbooinu There wouldOpl) maybe have been sold (Nom/Ace. PI . M . ) some boats (Nom/Ace,M) at auction-the (example 15a) from Sigurdsson 1991:347. (43b)}

176

Expletive Subjects

When these constructions are found in an infinitival clause embedded under the matrix verb telja 'believe' (i.e., in a so-called exceptional case marking construction), the obligatory indefinite NPs suddenly have to be accusative and cannot be nominative:6 (16) Ic. a. *Hann taldi

[proi

hafa sokkiS einhverjir batar

[proi

hafa sokkifl einhverja

i b.

Hann taldi He believed

have sunk

firSinum]

bataj

i firSinum] boats (Nom/Acc) in bay-the (example (16b) from Sigurflsson 1991:347, (44a))

some

(17) Ic. a. *Hann taldi b.

lproi hafa veriO seldir einhverjir batar a uppboSinu ] Hann taldi lproi hafa veriS tj selda einhverja batai a uppboSinu ] He believed have been sold (Nom/Acc. PI.M.) some boats (Nom/Acc.M) at auction-the (example (17b) from Sigurdsson 1991:347, (44b))

In my view, this is related to or caused by the expletive (in the embedded IP-spec, realised as pro, see section 6.2.2) receiving accusative from the matrix verb taldi, 'believed'. So the difference between the two sets of examples is that the expletive in (14) and (15) receives nominative, as it is the subject of a finite clause, just like Mn 'she' in (18): (18) Ic. a. Hun hefur borOafl epli b. *Hana hefur borOafl epli She/Her has eaten (an) apple

The expletive in (16) and (17), on the other hand receives accusative, as it is the subject of an infinitival in an exceptional case marking construction, just like hana 'her' in (19). This is also valid for the English translation: (19) Ic. a. *£g tel hun hafa borSaO epli b. 6g tel hana hafa borfla<5 epli I believe she/her (to) have eaten (an) apple

Summing up the data: The variation we see between (14) and (15) on one hand and (16) and (17) on the other with respect to the case of the obligatorily indefinite NP is exactly the variation we would expect to see with respect to the case of the (expletive) subject. If Belletti (1988) is right that the case of the obligatorily indefinite NP is partitive, we would not expect its surface realisation to co-vary with the case assigned to the (expletive) subject. On the other hand, if the obligatorily indefinite NP obtains its case from forming a chain with the expletive, this is exactly what we would expect. This is the hypothesis I defend there. 6. The fact that the participle sold in (15) and (17) has to have agreement (with respect to case, number, and gender) with the obligatory indefinite NP, which is in its complement, shows that there has to be a chain formed, which involves at least the VP spec of sold and the obligatorily indefinite NP (given that verbs do not normally agree with their objects in Icelandic). Later I suggest that this chain is in fact the chain that Safir (1985, 1987) suggested, and that it also involves the expletive subject. We therefore actually have two independent indications of the existence of such a chain:, these agreement phenomena as well as the case variation discussed in the text. The agreement phenomena will be discussed in section 6.1.5, where (15) and (17) are repeated as (27) and (28).

NP-Positions in Expletive Constructions

6.1.3

177

Licensing requirements: thematic roles

In this and the two following sections, I will outline what the licensing requirements are which I take to apply to all NPs, independently of whether they underlie an indefiniteness requirement or not. The obligatory indefiniteness found on NPs in constructions with expletive subjects will be a consequence of the licensing requirements. The two major kinds of licensing commonly assumed in the literature are assignment of thematic roles and assignment of abstract case. Starting with thematic roles, I first assume the theta-criterion: (20) Each argument bears one and only one thematic role and each thematic role is assigned to one and only one argument. (from Chomsky 1981:36, (4))

Following numerous authors, including Sportiche (1988b:425) and Koopman & Sportiche (1991:212), I assume that the external thematic role (i.e., the thematic role assigned to the subject of a transitive or intransitive verb) is assigned by a main verb to its own specifier—i.e., that the base-generated position of the subject is in VP-spec. Although this last assumption, which is often referred to as the "VP-internal subject hypothesis", may not be necessary for the analysis of most of the constructions discussed, in section 6.3.1 it will be essential in accounting for how an NP bearing an external theta-role can appear even when an expletive occurs in IPspec, and an object in the complement of V°. I would like to suggest that the expletive has to form a chain with something—e.g., with the obligatory indefinite NP—and this claim is related to thematic roles in the following way: I want to follow Chomsky (1991:441), who derives this from the principle of full interpretation (Chomsky 1986b:98, 1991:437), which holds that all elements must be interpreted at any of the three interface levels between the grammar and other cognitive systems: D-structure, phonetic form (PF), and logical form (LF). This means that at PF, each element must receive a phonetic interpretation—i.e., be articulated or perceived, and that at LF, each element must receive a semantic interpretation. Therefore a consequence of the principle of full interpretation is that expletive subjects will be ill-formed at LF, because they cannot receive any interpretation (note that they are not assigned any theta-role). Chomsky (1991:441) suggests that one way out of this dilemma— that expletive subjects clearly occur at S-structure and yet they supposedly are not allowed at LF—would be to assume that the expletive is an affix at the level of LF: Between S-structure and LF, some element moves up and adjoins to the expletive. This element, which Chomsky (1991:441) calls the "associate" of the expletive, must fulfill two conditions: The associate must be something which itself receives an interpretation (otherwise the new LF-element formed by adjoining the associate to the expletive subject would still violate the principle of full interpretation), and the associate must be an element capable of forming a chain with the expletive subject at S-structure. "It also follows that at S-structure, an expletive E and its associate A must satisfy all LF chain conditions since there is a chain ([A-E],..., tj at LF" (Chomsky 1991:443).

178

6.1.4

Expletive Subjects

Licensing requirements: case

Let us now turn to case assignment. It is commonly assumed that every NP that is phonetically realised must be assigned case. I furthermore assume that no NP may have more than one case (cf., e.g., section 7.2 and Vikner 1987). These two assumptions together make up a corollary to the first half of the theta criterion, the case filter: (21) Every phonetically realised NP must be assigned one (and only one) case.

Following a suggestion by Joseph Aoun, cited in Chomsky (1986b:94), the case filter may be (partly) derived from the theta-criterion, assuming that case assignment is necessary for theta-role assignment. This idea is referred to as "visibility": Case assignment makes the NP visible for the theta-role, and as every argument NP must have a theta-role, it must be visible, and so it must be assigned case. Sportiche (1988a) and Koopman & Sportiche (1991:229) suggest that case may be assigned either via spec-X° agreement or under government. Numerous authors, including Rizzi & Roberts (1989:25, fn3) and Koopman & Sportiche (1991:228), assume that nominative is assigned to IP-spec by 1° under spec-X° agreement. I will assume that this only holds for non-V2 languages, like English and the Romance languages. As already discussed in section 3.4 in part II, I would like to exploit these two different ways of assigning case to describe not only the difference between nominative assignment in English and French (by 1° via specX° agreement) and accusative assignment in English and French (by V° under government) but also the difference between nominative assignment in English and French (by 1° into IP-spec via spec-X° agreement) and nominative assignment in the V2 languages (by C° into IP-spec under government). Another restriction on case assignment, this time on the assignment of accusative by V° to its complement, is the so-called Burzio's generalisation (Burzio 1986:178-186), according to which the assignment of case to the verb complement depends on the assignment of an external theta-role. In section 6.4.4,1 argue that accusative assignment requires not only that the assigning V° assigns an external thetarole, it actually requires that V° assigns both an external and an internal theta-role. I would like to also make another departure from standard analyses and suggest that as an alternative to being assigned case, an NP can also be licensed by one of two kinds of government: government by its theta-assigner (reminiscent of inherent case assignment) or government by an 1° which then must fulfill conditions similar to those required of an X° that assigns (structural) case under government (like C°; cf., e.g., section 3.4). That is, it must have lexical content, and it cannot already be involved in the assignment of case.7 This condition on lexical content excludes 1° in languages without V°-to-I° movement from being a licenser, and the condition that 1° may not already be assigning case excludes 1° in languages 7. This requirement may also explain why object shift is not possible in English: There cannot possibly be any case assigned from 1° in English, as 1° is busy assigning nominative to the subject. Notice that although I say an object-shifted object in Danish is licensed from 1°, there is a distinction between 1° licensing an associate of an expletive subject and 1° licensing object-shifted NPs: Whereas the associate really is licensed by 1°, object-shifted NPs are actually licensed by the verb (or verb trace) in 1°. Thus object shift may apply in Danish, but an associate NP cannot be licensed from 1°, as 1° has no content, in that there is no V°-to-I° movement (see Vikner forthcoming and section 4.5).

NP-Positions in Expletive Constructions

179

without V2 from being a licenser. In other words, 1° can only license the associate NP in languages with both V2 and V°-to-I° movement (see section 6.3).

6.7.5 Licensing requirements: expletive-associate chains In the two previous subsections, 6.1.3 and 6.1.4,1 discussed two kinds of licensing, theta-role assignment and case assignment: (22) a. b.

All arguments must be assigned a thematic role {and vice versa) All phonetically realised NPs must be assigned case or alternatively be governed either by their theta-assigner or by 1° (iff 1° has content and does not assign nominative)

The visibility hypothesis was also given as a motivation for case assignment. This is not quite consistent with the two alternatives to case assignment: It is now possible for an NP to be licensed in accordance with (22b) without actually being assigned case. (As above, this refers to an associate NP in an expletive subject construction, which has a theta-role but no case.) Although such an NP is licensed, it is still in violation of visibility, and it therefore has to link up with a case.8 I suggest that this link-up with case may take the form of a chain with an element that has case even though it does not have a thematic role—e.g., an expletive subject. The intution is that the associate NP (which has a theta-role) is an element that needs case and has not got one, whereas the expletive (which does not have a theta-role) is an element that has case but does not need one. The result of the link between an expletive and its associate NP is a chain that does not violate visibility: It receives one thematic role and one case. I thus want to exploit the same kind of chain that is needed for reasons to do with the principle of full interpretation (see section 6.1.3) and which is also needed to account for agreement properties of various expletive constructions (cf. the discussion later in this section). This kind of chain between an expletive and the oblig8. Luigi Rizzi (personal communication) points out that the case-related licensing conditions could be reformulated in the following way, assuming that the concept of case as a licensing mechanism is relevant both at LF and at PR At LF, case reduces to being a consequence of visibility, given that at LF only NPs with theta-roles (i.e., arguments) appear (as a consequence of the principle of full interpretation). Therefore the case conditions at LF are the following: Every theta-marked element must be in a case-assigned position. At PF, case cannot be reduced to visibility, as non-argument NPs also occur (e.g., expletive subjects). Both at LF and at PF, an NP will not count as having been assigned case unless it (or its trace) is in a case-assigned position. However, at PF, the associate of the expletive subject is not in a case-assigned position (nor does it have a trace in such a position). As opposed to the situation at LF, the associate has not undergone any kind of movement at PF. Therefore an additional alternative to case assignment is necessary. The PF case conditions would thus be: Every phonetically realised NP (or its trace) must be licensed—i.e., be assigned case—or be alternatively licensed—i.e., be governed either by 1° or by the relevant theta-assigner. This basically amounts to saying that the case conditions at LF correspond to the original intuition of Joseph Aoun's visibility condition (cf., e.g., Chomsky 1986b:94), and that the original intution of Jean-Roger Vergnaud's case filter (cf., e.g., Chomsky 1981:175 and Newmeyer 1986:167) is reflected in the licensing conditions at PF. Lasnik (1992:391) suggests an extension of visibility such that at S-structure,visibilityapplies not only to arguments but also to targets of (A-) movements. I have to disagree, as this presupposes that an expletive and its associate are both assigned case (independently of each other). For the reasons given at the end of section 6.1.2,1 do not think that associates are assigned case independently, but merely that they are alternatively licensed.

180

Expletive Subjects

atorily indefinite NP (the associate of the expletive) is thus also used for what Lasnik (1992:383), citing Safir (1982), calls "case transmission". Putting it slightly differently, I would like to replace the partitive assignment mechanism of Belletti (1988) with something very close to the suggestions of Safir (1985, 1987): The chain between the expletive and its associate NP allows the associate NP to escape a violation of visibility, as it now counts as having received case, belonging as it does to a chain that is assigned case. An expletive-associate chain contains two phonetically realised NPs, even though it receives only one thematic role and only one case (note that Safir 1985, 1987 uses the term "unbalanced chains" for expletive-associate chains). As normally no more than one link of a chain may be phonetically realised, I do not find it completely counterintuitive that an expletive-associate chain be subject to a particularly strict licensing condition: Either the case of the chain or the thematic role of the chain must be assigned under government. This will have the desirable effect of limiting expletive active intransitives and expletive passive intransitives (impersonal passives) to the V2 languages (see sections 6.4.4 and 6.4.5). We are now in a position to see why it was not necessary to stipulate in section 6.1.3 that the expletive subject must form a chain with the obligatory indefinite NP—i.e., it was not necessary to say that only the obligatory indefinite NP may adjoin to the expletive subject at LF. The reason is that if any other element were to adjoin to the expletive at LF, the associate NP would violate the licensing requirements.9 As far as the principle of full interpretation is concerned, any element with a thematic role may adjoin to the expletive at LF and thus save it from being ruled out. But as the chain that anticipates this adjunction at LF is the same chain that transmits morphological case to the obligatory indefinite NP, it follows that if this chain did not link the expletive subject to the obligatory indefinite NP, the latter would violate visibility, and the sentence would be ungrammatical. If there is no obligatory indefinite NP, the chain required by the principle of full interpretation does indeed link the expletive subject to another thematic element, as can be seen in the impersonal passive constructions (see section 6.4.5). The expletive-associate chain (motivated not only by visibility but also by the principle of full interpretation) has a number of consequences. I will assume one consequence to be the obligatory indefiniteness of the theta-marked NP at the foot of the chain—the associate. The reason for this could be the predicate principle of Safir (1987:87), as discussed in section 6.1.1. Another consequence is that we now have an account for why the obligatory indefinite NP occurs in the morphological case that is assigned to the expletive subject, as discussed in section 6.1.2. The rest of this subsection is concerned with yet another consequence of the expletive-associate chain—namely, that a whole range of agreement phenomena are triggered by the chain. The first question to ask is, Why have a chain at all? Why not simply link the expletive and its associate by binding? The answer is that binding requires both the binder and the bound element to possess a referential index, and it must be assumed that the expletive subject does not have such an 9. Cf. Chomsky (1991:442): "Other well-established principles conspire to guarantee that the only element that can adjoin to the expletive is the associate with the appropriate properties".

NP-Positions in Expletive Constructions

181

index (see sections 2.2 and 2.3, as well as Rizzi 1990a:85-91). It therefore must be assumed that the link between the expletive and its associate is established by means of antecedent government—i.e., that a chain is what is connecting them to each other.10 The next question is then whether the chain is an A-chain or an A-bar chain. I conclude that it is an A-chain and not an A-bar chain, as it fulfills the conditions of the former and not the latter: The top (the expletive) is assigned case, and the foot (the associate) is not assigned case. As an A-chain (see section 2.3), it has to include all specifiers which are A-positions (i.e., all VP-specs) between the expletive and its associate. In other words: All VP-specs must be part of the expletive-associate chain. This explains a number of agreement phenomena. The simplest kind of agreement phenomenon is the one displayed by the finite verb. Normally this is assumed to be agreement with the subject, but the subject (i.e., the expletive) does not vary throughout (23) and (24):u (23) a. b. c. d.

En. There is Ge. Es ist En. *There are Ge. *Es sind

a ein a ein

car Auto car Auto

outside drauSen outside drau@en

(24) a. b. c. d.

En. *There is Ge. *Es ist En. There are Ge. Es sind

three drei three drei

cars Autos cars Autos

outside drauSen outside drauSen

Clearly, the finite verb agrees with the indefinite NP in (23a,b) and (24c,d). By assuming that the expletive is associated with the indefinite NP through an A-chain, we can account for (23a,b) and (24c,d) as instances of agreement between the finite verb in 1° and the subject in IP-spec. Let us now turn to more complicated agreement phenomena. Whereas the finite verb agreement in (25) can be accounted for as parallel to (23) and (24), the

10. A further reason might be that when two elements are connected only by means of binding and not by anything else, such two elements normally observe visibility independently. 11. Some expletives, e.g. French // 'it' and Norwegian and Swedish det 'it', do not allow agreement with the associate NP, but forces singular agreement: (i)

Fr. a. 11^ vient des visiteurs^ b. *Ili viennsnt des visiteurSi Jt comes/come guests

(ii) No. a.

... at Aeti er [vp . . . that it are

t=Guests are arriving)

koine, nokre gjesteri] cometsg) some guests

b. *... at deti er [vp ti komne. nokre gjesteri] . . . that it are come (pi) some guests (adapted from Christensen & Taraldsen 1989:58, (25))

I take this to be a difference between expletives which agree completely with their associate NP (normally in languages that distinguish between there and it; see chapter 7) and expletives that enforce their own agreement (normally the overt ones that correspond to it and occur in languages that do not distinguish between there and it). This might be taken to indicate that French il 'it' and Norwegian and Swedish det 'it' do not form a chain with an associate NP. Such an assumption would however predict a number of syntactic differences between those Norwegian dialects which have there and agreement, (26), and those which have it and no agreement, (ii). Such differences do not exist, see e.g., Christensen & Taraldsen 1989, and I therefore do not take the fact that not all expletives show agreement with the associate to reflect any significant syntactic property.

182

Expletive Subjects

question is why participle agreement is obligatory in (25) and (26), given that participles do not normally agree with their objects: (25) It. a.

pro; sana [vp ti arrivati alcuni ospitij There are arrivedImasc/pl) some guests

b. *proi sono [vp There are

arrivata alcuni ospitij arrived(masc/sg) some guests

c. *pro £ There is

[vp ti arrivati alcuni ospitij] arrived(masc/pl) some guests

d. *pro s. There is

[Vp

(26) No. a.

arrivata alcuni ospitij arrived (masc/sg) some guests

... at dert er [vp tt komne. nokre gjesterj] ... that there are comelpl) some guests

b. *... at dert er [vp . . . that there are

kome. nokre gjesterj come(sg) some guests (adapted from Christensen & Taraldsen 1989:58, (24))

As in Vikner & Sprouse (1988), I shall follow Kayne (1985) in assuming that the participle shows agreement with an element in its specifier (this is a reflex of specX° agreement). The contrasts in (25) and (26) show that VP-spec must be coindexed with the chain between the expletive and its associate. This is accounted for with the assumption that the chain is subject to antecedent government—i.e., that every A-specifier between the expletive subject and its associate NP must be part of the chain. This is shown even more clearly in the following Icelandic examples, partly repeated from (15) and (17) in section 6.1.2. Not only must the indefinite NP occur with the morphological case assigned to the expletive (nominative in (27) and accusative in (28)), but also the participle must show agreement with the indefinite NP with respect to no less than three features: case, number, and gender: ( 2 7 ) Ic. a.

tafli mundu t t kannski hafa veri<5 ti seldir . .. There wouldOpl) maybe have been sold (Norn. PI. M.) ...

b. *E*ao1 mundu t± kannski hafa verid There wouldOpl) maybe have been

selda ... sold tAce. PI .M.! ...

... einhverjir batar 4 a uppbooinu . . . some boats (Nom.M.) at auction-the (example (27a) from Sigurtsson 1991:347, (43b)) (28) Ic. a. *Hann taldi [proi hafa verifl He believed have been b.

Hann taldi

He

believed

... einhverja ... some

seldir ... soldfNom. Pl.M.) ...

[prOi hafa verifl ti selda

have Jbeen

. ..

sold I Ace. PI. M.) ...

bataj a uppboflinu JboatsMcc.M. > at auction-the (example (28b) from Sigurtsson (1991:347, (44b))

Examples (27) and (28) are also accounted for with the assumption that the chain is subject to antecedent government, i.e. that every A specifier (including the specifier of the participle sold) between the expletive subject and its associate NP must be part of the chain.

NP-Positions in Expletive Constructions

6.1.6

183

Summary and overview

In the preceding three subsections, I have argued for the following licensing conditions on NPs: (29) a. Theta-criterion (6.1.3): All arguments must be assigned a thematic role (and vice versa). b. Expletive must link (6.1.3): The expletive must form a chain with an element with a thematic role (derived from the principle of full interpretation). c. Licensing and case (6.1.4): All phonetically realised NPs must be assigned case or be "alternatively licensed"—i.e., be governed either by their theta-assigner or by 1° (provided this 1° has content and is not involved in the assignment of a case). d. Government requirement on the chain between an expletive subject and its associate NP (6.1.5): Assignment of the thematic role (and/)or case assignment must take place under government. Apart from this, the standard conditions on A-chains apply to this chain (see section 2.3).

In the rest of this chapter, the actual consequences of these licensing conditions will be discussed in detail for a number of languages. The different sections are ordered according to which NP-positions are licensed. In the following tree I have tried to illustrate which licensing relationships are theoretically possible, and at the same time to indicate in which of the following sections the construction will be discussed:

Another configuration shows when a main verb may license an NP—namely, when the NP is in the specifier position of the complement of the verb:

In 6.5, the two different kinds of main verbs that occur in this configuration will be discussed: Exceptional case marking verbs and raising verbs. 6.2

Licensing of IP-spec by C° or by 1°

Whereas C° could only possibly license one position—viz., IP-spec—1° is a potential licenser of two different positions. One is its own specifier, IP-spec, which it

184

Expletive Subjects

may license through case assignment via spec-X° agreement. The other is the specifier of its complement, VP-spec, which 1° may license under government. The licensing of IP-spec either by C° or by 1° is discussed in this section, and the licensing of VP-spec by 1° is discussed in section 6.3. 6.2.7

Thematic subjects

The licensing of nominative subjects in IP-spec is not affected by any of the changes introduced in section 6.1, as the licensing follows rather standard assumptions. In other words, none of the licensing methods alternative to case assignment are relevant here, as IP-spec is always licensed by nominative assignment. As already discussed (cf., e.g., sections 3.4 and 6.1.4), I assume that in V2 languages, nominative is assigned under government from C°, (32a-d), whereas in non-V2 languages, it is assigned from 1° under spec-X° agreement, (33e-g): (32) a. b. c. d. e. f. g.

Ge. Heute Yi. Haynt Ic. i dag Da. I dag En. *Today Fr. *Aujourd'hui It. *Oggi

Ef. Jiab_£Q hobn hafa har. have ont hanno

Ic. Da. En. Fr. It.

geleyent lesifl Isst read lu letto

das Buch gelesen dos bukh b6kina bogen the book le livre il libro

1° haben hobn ha fa har have ont hanno

geleyent lesia Isst read lu letto

das Buch gelesen dos bukh bdkina bogen the book le livre il libro

IP-spec die Kinder di kinder *1 dag bornin *I dag barnene Today the children Aujourd'hui les enfants Oggi i bambini

(33) a. Ge. *Heute b. Yi. *Haynt

c. d. e. f. g.

IP-apac die Kinder di kinder bornin bernene the children les enfants i bambini

The licensing of nominative subjects is thus rather uncontroversial, insofar as the revised licensing analysis of section 6.1 does not entail any changes from what I take to be widespread assumptions. However, it is only the licensing of nominative thematic subjects that is uncontroversial. In the following subsection I argue that the expletive subjects in the Germanic languages are licensed in exactly the same way, which is a more controversial claim. 6.2.2

Expletive subjects

The particular problem with the licensing of expletive subjects is disagreement about whether or not what I here call expletive subjects are actually subjects. It has been suggested that expletives in particular languages may or must be base-generated (and thus also licensed) in CP-spec rather than in IP-spec. I argue against this analysis below, but let us first briefly review the facts. The expletive subject in German (es), in Yiddish (es), and in Icelandic (pad) differ from expletive subjects in the other Germanic languages in that they only occur overtly in CP-spec, never in IP-spec. In the cases where we would expect es or j)ad to occur in IP-spec, this position remains empty.

NP-Positions in Expletive Constructions

185

Consider first the situation with the expletive subject in CP-spec. Here there are no differences between German, Yiddish, and Icelandic on one hand and the other languages (represented by Danish) on the other, the expletive subject must be overt:12 (34) a. b. c. d.

Ge. Yi . Ic. Da.

Ss. E£ &afl Per There

ist iz hefur er is

e. f. g. h.

Ge. Yi . Ic. Da.

"pro *pro *pro *pro (There)

ein gekumen a komia kommet en (come) a

ist iz hefur er is

Junge gekommen yingl strakur dreng boy (come)

ein gekumen a komifl kommet en (come) 3

Junge gekommen yingl strakur dreng boy (come)

The differences appear when we consider cases in which the expletive cannot be in CP-spec, either because CP-spec contains a topic, (35), or a wft-element, (36). In German, Yiddish, and Icelandic, the expletive subject cannot be overt, (35a,b,c) and (36a,b,c), whereas in Danish and the other Germanic languages it must be, (35h) and(36h):13 (35) a . Ge. *Gestern

ein Junge gekommen yingl a strakur en dreng (come) a boy

b. Yi. *Nekhtn c . Ic. *I gsr d. Da. Igar Yest er day

ist iz hefur er is

££ fifi gekumen komia baa dar kommet there (come)

Gestern Nekhtn g. Ic. I gaer h. Da. *Igar yesterday

ist iz hefur er is

ein gekumen a komia kommet en pro (there) (come) a

ist iz hefur er is

as.

ist iz hefur er is

pro pro pro pro (there)

e . Ge. f . Yi.

(36) a. Ge. *Warum

b. Yi. *Far vos c. Ic. *Af hverju d. Da. Hvorfor Why e. f. g. h.

Ge. Yi . Ic. Da.

Warum Far vos Af hverju *Hvorfor Why

pro

pro pro

es ba5 der there

ein gekumen a komid kommet en (come) a

gekommen Junge yingl strakur dreng jboy (come)

Junge gekommen? yingl ? strakur ? dreng ? boy (come) ?

ein gekumen a komiS kommet en (come) a

Junge gekommen? yingl ? strakur ? dreng ? boy (come) ?

Two different approaches may be taken. In the first, the expletive may be generated in CP-spec, as argued by Tomaselli (1990c:140) for German and by SigurSsson (1989:11, 165, 284) (and references therein) for Icelandic. It then fol12. Examples (34e,f,g) are possible as yes/no-questions. Examples (34f,g) are furthermore possible as VI declaratives (see also the discussion in section 4.3). 13. It should be pointed out that any utterance which may be analysed as (35e) and (36e)—i.e., Gestern ist ein Junge gekommen and Warum ist ein Junge gekommen?—will also have an alternative analysis: Instead of pro in IP-spec and ein Junge in object position, ein Junge could be in IP-spec. This alternative is a consequence of the basic object-verb order in German, and it therefore does not apply in (35f) and (36f) and in (35g) and (36g), where the postverbal position of a yingllstrdkur makes it impossible to interpret it as being in IP-spec.

186

Expletive Subjects

lows that it could never appear in IP-spec. An alternative is that the expletive is generated in IP-spec and then obligatorily moved to CP-spec, as suggested in Cardinaletti (1990a,b). I follow the latter approach, as it is the only one compatible with the view that expletives need to be assigned case (and that nominative case is assigned only under government in V2 languages). To some extent, this difference is made irrelevant by the obligatory chain formation between the expletive and the associate NP, which forces all A-specifiers between the expletive and the associate NP to be part of this chain (cf. 6.1.5). When the expletive is in CP-spec, IP-spec will be part of the chain, irrespective of whether the expletive was base-generated here or not. However, if the expletive was not generated in IP-spec, it would be difficult to explain why the associate NP may not occur in IP-spec when the expletive is in CP-spec.14 The requirement that expletives be assigned case receives further support from the following difference in languages like Danish and Swedish: (37)

Da. a.

...

t dert faktisk ser ud til ti ikke at blive danset til festen hat there actually seem out to not to become danced at party-the hat there actually seems not to be any dancing at the party) t det hat it

(38)

Sw. a.

...

faktisk ser ud til der. ikke at blive danset til pfesten actually seem out to there not to become danced at party-the

tt

deti faktiskt verkar t A inte dansas pa festen det faktiskt verkar d££ inte dansas pS festen ... that it actually seems (it) not danced-be at party-the

These examples can be accounted for only if the expletive must be assigned case: In (37a) and (38a) the expletive is raised out of its own clause and receives case as subject of the higher embedded clause. In (37b) and (38b), on the other hand, no raising takes place, and the expletive in the most deeply embedded clause does not receive case. If the expletive did not require case, (37b) and (38b) should be wellformed. I therefore conclude that expletive subjects are completely parallel to other subjects: They are assigned case in IP-spec. The separate questions of why they have to appear as empty expletives in IP-spec in German, Yiddish, and Icelandic, and why they have to be overt in CP-spec also in these three languages, I will have to leave open. (Though see Cardinaletti 1990b:17, where an appeal to the "avoid pronoun principle" is made.)

6.3 Licensing of VP-spec Let us now turn to the case of an 1° licensing the specifier of its complement—i.e., the specifier of the VP in which the finite verb is base-generated. According to the licensing rules in section 6.1.4, this should be a possible licensing position provided 1° fulfills the conditions that apply to case assigning heads: X° must be filled and it cannot already be assigning another case. This excludes 1° in the languages without 14. As discussed in section 4.1.2, the expletive in Yiddish and Icelandic occurs in CP-spec even in embedded clauses. I have therefore indicated the presence of a trace of the expletive in IP-spec in the Yiddish and Icelandic examples in this chapter (cf., e.g., (41b,c) and (42b,c) in section 6.3.1).

NP-Positions in Expletive Constructions

187

V°-to-I° movement, as 1° is not filled, and it excludes 1° in non-V2 languages, as here 1° is busy assigning nominative to IP-spec under spec-X° agreement. The data that show this are rather complicated, and this section is therefore divided into two subsections—one on the general case, 6.3.1, and one on the particular properties of the transitive passive construction, 6.3.2.15

6.3.1

In general

The relevant data are complicated because it is difficult to tell which VP-specifier a given NP occupies. This is so because the only node that occurs between the two VP-specs is the V° of an auxiliary verb, which in languages with V°-to-I° movement only contains a trace of the auxiliary verb that has moved to 1°. Therefore an example of (39) may only be distinguished from an example of (40) in languages without V°-to-I° movement:16

The special government requirement on the expletive-associate chain (see section 6.1.5) does not distinguish between the two cases above: The chain will either be well-formed both in (39) and in (40), or ill-formed in both, as the chains in the two differ neither as to how they receive case (which is assigned to the expletive) nor as to how they receive a thematic role (which is assigned to the foot of the chain). If the language is a V2 language, the chain will always be well-formed in both (39) and (40), as it will receive case under government. If the language is not a V2 language, the chain will be well-formed if the main verb assigns the thematic role under government (i.e., to the complement of V°, for example, if the verb is ergative or passive transitive) and ill-formed if the main verb does not assign the thematic role under government (i.e., to its own VP-spec, for example, if the verb is 15. To avoid the effects of V2, which moves some XP into CP-spec, and the finite verb into C° (cf. chapters 3-5), in 6.3 and 6.4 all examples from V2 languages will be embedded clauses. It will not be possible, of course, to avoid V2 in Yiddish and Icelandic (cf. chapter 4). This means that Yiddish es and Icelandic f)a3 occur in the embedded topic-position (or CP-spec) and leave a trace in the subject-position (or IP-spec). 16. In trees, I assume a right-branching structure—i.e., the trees will only hold for the SVO languages. As discussed earlier, e.g., in chapter 5, I assume that these trees also cover German and other SOV languages if one switches the order of V° and its complement and of 1° and its complement.

188

Expletive Subjects

intransitive or active transitive). In none of these cases is there a distinction between (39) and (40). A difference in prediction only appears when we consider licensing the position of the associate NP: As mentioned earlier, we predict an NP to be possible only in the VP-spec governed by 1°, and only in languages with both V2 and V°-to-I° movement. Instantiations of the first tree, (39), should thus only be acceptable in German, Yiddish, and Icelandic, and therefore ruled out in Faroese, Danish, English, and French:17 (41) a. b. c. d. e. f. g.

Ge. Yi. Ic. Fa. Da. En. Fr.

Verb: ergative, associate NP: in spec of VP selected by 1° ... da£ pro ein Junae gekommen ist ... az es iz t a vinal gekumen ?. . . aO bafl hefur t strakur komifl *. . . at taO ein dronour er komin *... at der en dreng er kommet *There has a bov come *I1 est un aarcon venu

We would expect instantiations of the second tree, (40), to be ruled out in all the languages, as the only potential licenser of the associate NP is a verb that does not assign any thematic roles—i.e., it is an auxiliary, which does not qualify as a licenser. However, as mentioned, examples of (40) cannot be distinguished from examples of (39), except in languages without V°-to-P movement, where the examples are ruled out anyway. Thus (42a,b,c,f,g) are identical to (41a,b,c,f,g), and therefore (42a,b,c) which are predicted to be ungrammatical but are acceptable (to a high extent if not completely) can be taken to be examples of (39) rather than of (40): (42) a. b. c. d. e. f. g.

Ge. Yi. Ic. Fa. Da. En. Fr.

Verb: ergative, associate NP: in spec of VP selected by a V° ... daE pro ein Junae gekommen ist . . . az es iz t a vinul gekumen ?. . . a<3 bafl hefur t strakur komiO *... at tao er ein dronmir komin *... at der er en drena kommet *There has a boy come *I1 est un aarcon venu

17. Data like the ones discussed here, (41)-(46), where an associate NP is possible preceding the main verb only in German, Yiddish, and Icelandic, are also discussed in Platzack & Holmberg (1989:5960). The difference Swedish vs. Icelandic/Yiddish (/Old Swedish/Middle English) is derived from 1° having agreement or not. Only if it does (i.e., in languages with V-to-I0 movement; therefore not in Swedish), can it L-mark VP, which is necessary; otherwise VP is a barrier, and the NP in VP-spec may not be antecedent governed by an NP that has been assigned nominative case (i.e., the expletive), as is required for its licensing. The problem with this approach is that one would expect cases with the indefinite in the complement of V° (e.g., in ergatives and passive transitives) to be ruled out in similar fashion: The NP in the complement of V° should also be antecedent governed by an NP with nominative case, and as VP is A-barrier in the languages with weak inflection, one would expect this to be ruled out in Swedish and Danish. This is not the case, however, as shown in sections 6.4.1 and 6.4.3. Platzack & Holmberg (1989:60) account for this by saying that the NP in the complement of V° may also be licensed by being antecedent governed, not by the nominative NP (the expletive) itself, however, but by VP-spec, which is in a chain with the nominative NP. This chain, between the empty VP-spec and the nominative NP (the expletive) is not subject to antecedent government, even though the chain between an indefinite NP in VP-spec and the nominative NP is subject to antecedent government. It seems to me that this difference (allowed for by Platzack & Holmberg 1989:57, (10c)) is rather ad hoc.

NP-Positions in Expletive Constructions

189

Both (41) and (42) had an ergative verb as the main verb. Completely parallel pictures are obtained when we consider licensing of VP-spec by 1° in constructions in which the main verb is respectively an active transitive, (43) and (44), and an active intransitive verb, (45) and (46). (The passive transitives are more complicated, and will be discussed in the following subsection, 6.3.2.) In all cases, one can only tell whether the associate NP is in the higher or lower VP-spec in languages without V°-to-I° movement—i.e., Faroese and Danish, where they are ruled out anyway. 1° is not a licenser in Faroese and Danish because 1° has no content, which is also why Faroese and Danish do not have V°-to-I° movement. (43} a. b. c. d. e. f. g.

Ge. Yi. Ic. Fa. Da. En. Fr.

Verb: active transitive, associate NP: in spec of VP selected by 1° ... dafi pro iemand einen Apfel gegessen hat ... az es hot t imitser gegesn an epl . . . afl pa<3 hefur t einhver borflaS epli *... at ta<3 cjikujc hevur eti<5 eitt surepli *. . . at der noaen har spist et aeble *There has someone eaten an apple *Il a ouelou'un mange une pomme

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

Ge. Yi. Ic. Fa. Da. En. Fr.

Verb: active transitive, associate NP: in spec of VP selected by a V° . . . dafi pro jejpand einen Apfel gegessen hat ... az es hot t jmjtggr gegesn an epl . . . afl ba5 hefur t ejjjh^yej bord'ao' epli *. . . at ta5 hevur onjcujr etifl eitt surepli *. . . at der har noaen spist et aeble *There has someone eaten an apple *Il a guglgu^un. mange une pomme

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

Ge. Yi. Ic. Fa. Da. En. Fr.

Verb: active intransitive, associate NP: in spec of VP selected by 1° ... dafi pro jejna,Qd, im Garten getanzt hat ... az es hot t imitser getantst in gortn . . . afl bad) hefur t einhver dansafl i garflinum *. . . at ta<3 eitt par hevur dansafl i havanum *... at der noaen har danset i haven *There has someone danced in the garden *Il a guelcfli.'jjn, danse dans le jardin

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

Ge. Yi. Ic. Fa. Da. En. Fr.

Verb: active intransitive, associate NP: in spec of VP selected by a V° ... daS pro jemand im Garten getanzt hat ... az es hot t imitser getantst in gortn . . . a<5 ba<3 hefur t einhvej: dansafl i gar<5inum *. . . at ta<3 hevur e4;tt_par. dansad" i havanum18 *. . . at der har nog en, danset i haven *There has someone danced in the garden *Il a auelau'un danse dans le jardin

(44)

(45)

(46)

Because not only both VP-specs but also the complement of V° precede the lower V° in German, it cannot be determined whether a given NP occurs in one or the other VP-spec: The pairs of a-examples above—(4la) and (42a); (43a) and (44a)—are identical, and neither can be told apart from the situation in which the NP is inside the complement of the lower V°, as shown in the various examples in the subsections of 6.4. 18. There is an empirical contrast which I do not understand between (46d) and (i), which should have the same structure, but differ as to acceptability: (i)

Fa. ? . . . at tafl hevur ein urtapottur sta*i<5 i vindeyganum . . . that there has a flowerpot stood in window-the

190

Expletive Subjects

The only evidence that an associate NP may be possible in a VP-spec is thus furnished by Yiddish and Icelandic. As already mentioned, it cannot be empirically determined for languages with V°-to-I° movement where—i.e., in which of the two VP-specs—the associate NP occurs in the examples above, (41)-(46), the higher one, as in the tree in (39) or the lower one. as in the tree in (40), because no lexical material may intervene between the two. There are nevertheless reasons to believe that the associate NP in the Yiddish and Icelandic examples in (41)-(46) is only possible in the VP-spec head governed by P, and not in the one governed by (an auxiliary) V°. If we consider a structure with three VPs rather than two—i.e., a structure with two auxiliary verbs (one finite, which has moved from V° into 1°, and one infinitival, which has remained in its V°)—we see that it is not possible for the associate NP to occur in the lowest VP-spec. The three possibilities are the following, with the associate NP in each of the three VP-specs:

As in the preceding discussion, it is impossible to distinguish between examples of (47) and of (48), except in languages without V°-to-P movement (where the construction is ungrammatical anyway, cf. the Danish and Faroese examples), because the only node that occurs between the two higher VP-specs is the trace of the auxiliary verb which has moved to 1°. It is possible to distinguish between examples of (47) and (48) on one hand and examples of (49) on the other, however, because in

NP-Positions in Expletive Constructions

191

(47) and (48) the associate NP will precede both the auxiliary infinitive and the participle of the main verb, whereas in (49) it will follow the auxiliary infinitive but precede the participle of the main verb. As this account for the impossibility of the associate NP occurring in any VPspec in Faroese, Danish, English, and French crucially depends on the necessity of inflectional material in 1° (which also causes V°-to-I° movement, ruling out Faroese and Danish) and on 1° not being involved in case assignment (ruling out English and French), we would expect that an 1° which fulfills both conditions may license an associate NP, in contrast to an auxiliary V°. These predictions seem to be borne out: (50) Yi. a. . . . az es volt t a vinal gevolt kumen b. *... az es volt t gevolt a vinal kumen . . . that there will (a boy! would (a boy! come (= that a boy would want to come) (51) Ic. a. . . . aS paa mundi t einhver strakur hafa komio b. *... afl pa<5 mundi t hafa einhver strakur komi<3 . . . that there would (some boy) have (some boy) come

German would not tell us anything, as it would be impossible to tell which VP-spec contained the associate NP in sentences of the types (50) and (51), again due to the head being final in German VPs. The crucial cases are therefore Yiddish and Icelandic, which show a clear preference for (50a) and (5la), which are examples of (47) or of (48) over (50b) and (5 Ib), which are examples of (49). It is thus clear, from (50b) and (5 Ib), that the associate NP may not appear in at least one VP-spec where it is not licensed by 1°, and in the other examples, (50a) and (5la), it is ambiguous as to which structure it has. The most coherent analysis would seem to be the one that rules out one kind of VP-spec (the ones not governed by 1°) and allows the other (the one governed by 1°). There is thus good reason to assume that the associate is licensed by 1° when it precedes the main verb, as it is only possible in sentences where it may be taken to be governed by 1° (and by an 1° which has lexical content and which does not assign any case at the same time). Example (50) and (51) had an ergative verb as the main verb. Completely similar results are obtained when we consider the following parallel examples. The main verb is respectively an active transitive verb, (52) and (53), and an active intransitive verb, (54) and (55)), (The passive transitives are still postponed until section 6.3.2.) (52) Yi. a. . . . az es volt t imitser gevolt esn der epl b. *. . . az es volt t gevolt imitser esn der epl . . . that there will (someone) would (someone) eat the apple (= that someone would want to eat this apple) (53) Ic. a. . . . a<5 baS mundi t einhver hafa boroao betta epli b. *. . . a<5 ba<5 mundi t hafa einhver borflad betta epli . . . that there would (someone) have (someone) eaten this apple (54) Yi. a. ... az es volt t imitser gevolt getantst in gortn b. *. . . az es volt t gevolt imitser getantst in gortn . . . that there will (someone) would (s.one) danced in garden (= that someone would want to dance in the garden)

192

Expletive Subjects

(55) Ic. a. . . . a<5 JjaS mundi t einhver hafa dansa<3 i garSinum b. *. . . a<5 ]pa6 mundi t hafa einhver dansad i gardinum . . . that there would (someone) have (s.one) danced in garden-the

This subsection has illustrated and tried to account for the following: If the associate NP precedes the main verb, the construction is only possible in German, Yiddish, and Icelandic, and only if the associate NP may be taken to be governed by 1°. This is caused by the licensing requirement which allows licensing only by case assignment, or by a theta-assigner, or by an 1° which has content and which does not assign case.

6.3.2

In passive constructions

Although we would expect the data containing an associate NP in a VP-spec with a passive transitive verb as the main verb to be parallel to the cases discussed in the previous subsection, this is not the case, or at least not at first glance—hence the need for this particular subsection. As discussed, the associate NP is only predicted to be licensed in the topmost VP-spec, and only in German, Yiddish, and Icelandic. In a construction with two VPs, we can only tell the difference between the two VP-specs in languages without V°-to-I° movement, as only here is there an element present in the V° between the two VP-specs, namely an auxiliary verb, whereas in languages with Vc-to-I° movement, this V° only contains a trace of the auxiliary verb, which itself has moved to 1°. The trees are given in (56) and (57), repeated from (39) and (40):

Following section 6.3.1., we expect (56) to be possible only in German, Yiddish, and Icelandic and to be ruled out in Faroese, Danish, English, and French: (58) a. b. c. d. e. f. g.

Ge. . , . dafi pro ein ApJIel gegessen wurde Yi. . . . az es vert t an er>l gegesn Ic. . . . a<5 bafi var t ffyttfayett. epli borflafl Fa. * . . . at tafl eitt sureoli bleiv etifl Da. * . . . at der et able blev spist En. There was an apple eaten Fr. *I1 a ete une pomme mange

NP-Positions in Expletive Constructions

193

Example (57) is furthermore expected to be ruled out in all languages, as the associate NP is not head governed by an 1° (nor by a main V°): (59) a. b. c. d. e. f. g.

Ge. ... daE pro ein Apfel gegessen wurde Yi. ... az es vert t an epl gegesn Ic. ... a<3 pad var t eitthvert epli bor<3a<5 Fa. ??... at ta« bleiv eitt surepli etifl Da. ??. . . at der blev et able spist En. There was an apple eaten Fr. *I1 a ete une pomme mange

However, not only is (58f) much better than expected, it turns out that the only example in (59) that is really ungrammatical is (59g), in spite of the prediction that all seven examples in (59) should be ungrammatical. The six problematic cases may be split into two groups: (59a,b,c) and (59d,e,f). The latter group also comprises (58f), as English auxiliaries always undergo V°-to-I° movement. As for (59a,b,c), in the previous subsection we have already seen more than once that due to V°-to-I° movement, German, Yiddish, and Icelandic (and French) examples of (57) cannot be distinguished from examples of (56). Thus (59a,b,c,f,g) are identical to (58a,b,c,f,g), and therefore (59a,b,c), which are predicted to be ungrammatical but are grammatical, can be taken to be examples of (56) rather than of (57). With respect to (58f) and (59d,e,f), the problem is that they are not as ungrammatical as should be expected; in fact, in some contexts these constructions may even be perfectly acceptable (though far from all contexts, at least in Danish). The position of the associate NP here is the lowest VP-spec, even in constructions with three VPs, as will be shown later. I have no explanation to offer for why these sentences are less than completely ungrammatical, but it may be relevant that this (marginal) availability of the lowest VP-spec is only possible in languages without V°-to-I° movement. For further discussion, see section 6.4.6 on copulas. Support for the division of the problematic (58f) and (59a-f) into the two groups (59a,b,c) and (58f) and (59d,e,f) appears when we consider a structure with three VPs—i.e., a structure with two auxiliary verbs. The three possibilities are the following, with the associate NP in each of the three VP-specs:

194

Expletive Subjects

As already stated, it is impossible to distinguish between examples of (60) and (61), except in languages without V°-to-I° movement because the only thing that occurs between the two higher VP-specs is the trace of the auxiliary verb, which has moved to 1°. It is possible in all languages to distinguish between examples of (60) and (61) on one hand and examples of (62) on the other, however, because in (60) and (61) the associate NP will precede the auxiliary participle, whereas in (62) it will follow the auxiliary participle. As before, it is predicted that in German, Yiddish, and Icelandic, the associate NP may occur in the VP-spec closest to 1°, and that it may not appear in the VPspec of the other two VPs. These predictions seem to be borne out: (63) a. b. c. d. e. f. g.

Ge. Yi. Ic. Fa. Da. En. Fr.

... daS pro ein Apfel gegessen worden 1st ... az es iz t an epl gevorn gegesn19 ... a6 bao hefur t eitthvert enli verifi bor6a<5 *... at tafl eitt surenli er bliviS etiS *... at der et able er blevet spist *There has an apple been eaten *I1 a une pomme ete mange

(64) a. b. c. d. e. f. g.

Ge. ... daS pro ein Apfel gegessen worden 1st Yi. . . . az es iz t an epl gevorn gegesn Ic. ... aS bafl hefur t eitthvert epli veriS boroaS Fa.??... at taS er eitt siirepli blivifl etifl Da. *. . . at der er et aeble blevet spist En. *There has an apple been eaten20 Fr. *I1 a une pomme ete mange

19. The usual order in Yiddish passives is gegesn gevorn 'eaten been'—i.e., the participle of the main verb before the participle of the auxiliary—though the order given is marginally possible. The contrast (63b) and (64b) vs. (65b) holds, but is therefore rather tenuous. 20. Notice though that (64f) is relatively acceptable when there contracts with the auxiliary: (i)

En. ?There's an apple been eaten

NP-Positions in Expletive Constructions (65) a. b. c. d. e. f. g.

195

Ge. ... daE pro ein Apfel gegessen worden 1st Yi. *... az es iz t gevorn an gpl gegesn Ic. *... afl fcaS hefur t veriO eitthvert epli borflacS Fa. ??. . . at taS er blivifl eitt surepli etiS Da. ??.. . at der er blevet et able spist En. There has been an apple eaten Fr. *I1 a ete une pomme mange

The Faroese, Danish, and English examples, which unexpectedly were less than completely unacceptable, now turn out to be of a different nature from the examples from German, Yiddish, and Icelandic. As usual, German cannot tell us anything, as it is impossible to tell which VPspec contains the associate NP in the three examples above, again due to the head being final in German VPs. We can see that in Yiddish and Icelandic, however, this construction is only good if the associate precedes the auxiliary participle gevorn 'become'/verid 'been', whereas in Danish and English the associate is best if it follows the auxiliary participles blevet 'become'21 and been, supporting the assumption made earlier that the relatively acceptable version of this construction in Yiddish and Icelandic is different from the relatively acceptable versions in Danish and English: In Yiddish and Icelandic the associate is always in a position where it is head governed by 1°, (58)/(59) and (63)/(64), whereas in Danish and English the associate is in the specifier position of the lowest VP, (59) and (65). My Faroese informants did not seem to prefer either one over the other. It has thus been shown that the possibility of having the indefinite associate NP outside the complement of the main verb in a passive intransitive construction in Danish and English is of a rather different nature from the same possibility in Icelandic and Yiddish, as the positions in the two cases are different: VP-spec of the main verb in Danish and English, VP-spec of the highest verb in Yiddish and Icelandic. This fits in well with the fact that this relative grammaticality in Danish, English, and Faroese is particular to the passive transitive construction, whereas in Icelandic and Yiddish the indefinite associate may occur outside the complement of the main verb in all the constructions that have an indefinite associate. This whole section, 6.3, has illustrated and attempted to account for the following: If the associate NP precedes the main verb, irrespective of the class of the main verb, the construction is possible in German, Yiddish, and Icelandic, as long

It could be that the contracted finite verb is taken to be a form of be rather than of have, so that an apple in (i) is licensed by 's. A similar case of licensing by a be, which is higher than the passive auxiliary, was pointed out by Ian Roberts (personal communication): (ii) En. ?There must have been an apple being eaten

which, for some unknown reason, is preferable to licensing by the passive auxiliary in the same structure: (iii) En. ??There must have been being an apple eaten

21. Even though blive may be analysed to assign atheta-role (see Vikner 1988:12-14 and Vikner & Sprouse 1988:28), this does not explain how come it may be a licenser here (i.e., blive cannot be put into the group of ergative verbs), as the ("additional") theta-role assigned by blive is assigned to its specifier, not to the indefinite NP in the specifier in its complement. This NP being neither a complement nor a specifier of blive, it could not possibly be assigned a theta-role by blive.

196

Expletive Subjects

as the associate NP is governed by 1°. This distribution is caused by the licensing requirement which allows licensing by an 1° only if it fulfills conditions similar to those of a case assignor (it must have content, it must not assign any other case).22 If the associate NP precedes the main verb, and the main verb is a passive transitive verb, the construction is possible in Faroese, Danish, or English, as long as the associate NP occurs in the spec of the main verb VP. (This last condition may not hold in Faroese.) The descriptive generalisation could be that an associate NP may be licensed by the passive auxiliary in the languages without V°-to-I° movement.

6.4 Licensing of the complement of V° The next configuration to be examined is the one in which the complement of V° is licensed by V° itself. In this section, we will look at six subcases of this configuration: ergatives in 6.4.1, transitives in 6.4.2 and 6.4.3, intransitives in 6.4.4 and 6.4.5, and copulas in section 6.4.6.

6.4.1

Ergatives

Ergative verbs are verbs that assign no external theta-roles, but only an internal one (cf. Burzio 1986, Perlmutter 1978, and others). Furthermore, ergative verbs do not assign structural case to their complement (hence the other name for this class of verbs: "unaccusative verbs"). That the assignment of case to the verb complement depends on the assignment of an external theta-role is what is expressed in "Burzio's generalisation" (Burzio 1986:178-186). The argument NP which receives the internal theta-role from an ergative verb does not receive accusative case, and therefore it will have to either move to a position in which structural case is available (i.e., to IP-spec, where it may be assigned nominative) or to be licensed in some other fashion. As IP-spec (and nominative case) is already occupied by the expletive in an expletive construction (see section 6.2.2), I will consider only the latter option. Here there are two options: licensing in VP-spec (by 1°), as discussed in section 6.3.1; and licensing in its base-generated position—i.e., in the position to which the theta-role is assigned, inside the complement of V°, which is discussed here. Alternative licensing of the complement position of V° may take place, as the ergative main verb assigns its (only) theta-role to the chain. The special government requirement on the expletive-associate chain (see section 6.1.5) does not rule out this construction in any of the languages discussed: Although the languages will differ as to whether case is assigned to the chain under government (it is in the V2 languages, but it is not in English and French), this is not crucial, as ergative verbs always assign their only thematic role to their complement, i.e. under government, and this alone suffices to satisfy the government requirement. 22. If T° exists (see section 2.4)—i.e., if 1° selects a T(ense)P which in turn selects a VP—there is no reason to assume that it is a licenser. All T°s selected by an auxiliary V°—i.e., if every VP is selected by a T°—can even be excluded from being a licenser on empirical grounds.

NP-Positions in Expletive Constructions

197

We thus should expect all the languages to allow this construction: (66) a. Ge.

. . . daE pro ein Junae gekommen 1st

b. Yi. c. Ic.

... az es iz t gekumen a vinal ... a<5 pafl he fur t komi<5 strakur

d. Fa.

... at taS er komin ein dronour

e. Da. ... at der er kommet en drena f. En. *There has come a bov g. Fr. II est venu un crarcon

This expectation is almost borne out, but not quite: In English this construction is not possible or at least much less frequent than in the other languages, as, e.g., the following difference: (67) En. a.

There will come a time when you will be sorry

b. ??There has come a letter from your mother

One attempt to come to terms with the seemingly almost random situation in English is by Milsark (1974), who distinguishes between two classes of constructions, IV (inside verbals) and OV (outside verbals). One difference is that all IV constructions are possible in contexts like (66), e.g: (68) En. a. b. c.

There arose a terrible storm There sprang up a wild gale that night There developed a serious problem

As there seems to be considerable variation among speakers (cf. Safir 1985:122 and Belletti 1988:4, fn!2), I will not go into this matter further, but refer the reader to Milsark (1974) and to Safir (1985). This section has illustrated and tried to account for the following: If the associate NP follows an ergative verb, the construction is possible in all languages under consideration (with the notable and unexplained partial exception of English). The construction fulfills both the requirements asked of associate NPs (licensed by a theta-assigner) and the requirements asked of an expletive associate chain (thematic role assigned under government).

6.4.2

Transitives

Transitive verbs assign both an external and an internal theta-role. If an expletive occurs in IP-spec, it will receive the nominative case, and the external argument (which is the one that is deprived of its structural case by the expletive) will not only have to appear somewhere else, but it will also have to be licensed without being assigned structural case. If the external argument occurs inside the complement of the main V, there are two possibilities: Either the external argument precedes the internal one, (69), or the internal argument precedes the external one, (70):

198

Expletive Subjects

The external argument is the one with the index 'i', as seen from the fact that it (or its trace) receives a theta-role in VP-spec, and the internal argument is the one with the index 'j', which is assigned its theta-role inside the complement of V°. In both (69) and (70), the projection principle would be violated, as the lexical requirements that the main verb makes with respect to its complement (i.e., that it should contain the internal argument and no other arguments) is violated at at least one level—viz., S-structure. Therefore we would expect both (69) and (70) to be impossible in all the languages. (For further discussion of the projection principle, see section 6.4.4). First we will discuss examples of (69), as shown in (71): (71) a. b. c. d.

Ge. Yi. Ic. Fa. Da. En. Fr.

. . . dafi pro ~iemand einen Apfel gegessen hat ... az es hot t gegesn imitser an epl . . . aa paa hefur t boroaS einhver epli ... at tafi hevur etifl onkur eitt surepli ... at der har spist noaen et able There has eaten someone an apple II a mange o^ielou 'un une pomme

The only potential problem here is the well-formedness of (7la). However, due to the object-verb structure of German, (7la) is ambiguous. The argument NP need not have been moved into the complement of V°. It can either be an example of the structure (69) or of a structure in which the external argument NP is licensed by 1° (cf. (43a) in section 6.3.1). As is the case with all general structures, (69) was given for verb-object languages. To make it clearer how (69) and licensing from 1° result in identical strings in object-verb languages, here are the German trees—(72) with the external argument NP inside the complement of V° (which is an impossible construction) and (73) with the external argument NP licensed by 1° (which is not impossible, cf. section 6.3.1):

NP-Positions in Expletive Constructions

199

There might be a reason why (7la) should not be taken to be an example of (72)— i.e., why we should not assume that an external argument may occur inside the complement of the transitive V°, although admittedly the empirical support is less than rock solid, presumably due to speaker variation and/or focus and intonation variation possibilities. It has to do with the impossibility of the so-called was-fur-sp\it (see section 2.3 and Corver 1991 and references cited there). In den Besten (1984:34-39), it is argued that was-fiir-split only applies to NPs in the complement of V°. Consistent with the analysis suggested above, where the only indefinite NP that cannot appear inside the complement of V° is the external argument of expletive active transitives, this NP is also the only one that cannot undergo was-fiir-split, (74c,d). Wasfur-split may successfully apply to the other cases of indefinite NPs: (74) Ge. a. Du. b.

The internal argument of an ?Was 1st pro ft fur ein Wat is er Ft voor een What is (there) for a

The external argument Ge. c. ??Was hat pro Ft Du. d. *Wat heeft er rt What has (there) Ge. e. Du. f.

Ge. g. Du. h.

ergative verb (cf. 6.4.1) Junoe ] gekommen? ionoenl gekomen ? boy come ?

of an active transitive verb fur ein Juncre ] einen Apfel gegessen? voor een ionaenl een appel gegeten ? for a boy an apple eaten ?

The internal argument of a passive Was ist pro ft fur ein Apfell Wat is er ft voor een appel1 What is (there) for an apple The external argument Was hat pro ft ?Wat heeft er Ft What has (there)

transitive verb (cf. 6.4.3) gebraucht worden ? gebruikt ? used (become) ?

of an active intransitive verb fur ein Juncre ] im Garten voor een "ionqenl in de tuin for a boy in the garden

(cf. 6.4.4) getanzt? gedanst? danced ?

200

Expletive Subjects

Let us now look at the other logical possibility for having the external argument occurring inside the complement of V°, namely (70). The examples of (70) are: (75) a. b. c. d. e. f. g.

Ge. ?. . . dafi pro einen Apfel iemand gegessen hat Yi. . . . az es hot t gegesn an epl imitser Ic. ... a8 paS hefur t borSaS epli einhver Fa. ... at taO hevur etiS eitt siirepli onkur Da. ... at der har spist et seble noaen En. There has eaten an apple someone Fr. II a mang6 une pomme quelou'un

The German (75a) would be completely grammatical with a definite object (e.g., this apple), but then it would be an example of scrambling, one or both of the NPs will have moved after the licensing requirements have been applied (cf., e.g., Grewendorf & Sternefeld 1990, Vikner forthcoming, and Webelhuth 1992). Gisbert Fanselow (personal communication) points out that scrambling is even possible of an indefinite object, and that (75a) would be the result. The judgments presuppose that stress and focus is on neither subject nor object, but on the verb (e.g., eaten as opposed to stolen). Important here is that there is an analysis of (75a) where the object leaves the complement of V°, and so it is not necessarily an example of an external argument NP occurring in the complement of an active transitive V°. I take the Yiddish (75b) to be an example of heavy NP shift (even if the NP in Yiddish may not have to be stressed). This is supported by the fact that it is important in the Icelandic (75c) that the external argument, einhver 'someone' is unstressed, as the sentence otherwise is more or less grammatical. If einhver is replaced by a heavier NP, the example becomes perfectly acceptable; this is of course also true for Yiddish: (76) Ic.

. . . aS bad) hefur t borflafl betta epli einhvgr strakur fra Danmarku . . . that there has eaten this apple some boy from Denmark

(77) Yi.

... az es hot t gegesn an epl a vinal fun Danmark . . . that there has eaten an apple a boy from Denmark

Examples (75b), (76), and (77) are not necessarily counterexamples to the preceding analysis, as they may be interpreted not as examples of the external argument occurring inside the complement of V°, but rather as an example of heavy NP-shift (as the moved NP has to be rather heavy to be grammatical in this position, at least in Icelandic), adjoining the heavy NP to the VP. Thus the structure of (75b), (76), and (77) is not (70), but rather (78), where the projection principle is not violated, as the complement of the main verb is not interfered with:

201

NP-Positions in Expletive Constructions

Examples (75b), (76), and (77) (and (78)) are thus examples of what was treated in sections 6.2. and 6.3: The argument occurring outside the complement of the main verb. I would like to point out that taking (76) and (77) to be heavy NP shift explains why its Faroese and Danish counterparts are ungrammatical (see also (88)): ( 7 9 ) a. Fa. *. . . at b. Da. «... at

ta<5

hevur eti<5 hetta

der

har

. . . that there has

sureplifl onkur

spist dette aeble eaten this

apple

gn_

droncrur fra

Danmark

drena

££3—earmark

some/a boy

from Denmark

The reason for the difference between (76) and (77) and (79a,b) is that heavy NP shift is an A-bar-movement, and A-bar-movement can only move case-marked NPs or, of course, NPs licensed by alternative licensing. As opposed to the subject in (76) and (77), the subject in (79a,b) (and in (88c,d) in section 6.4.4) cannot have moved through any position in which it could have been licensed, and it is therefore ruled out by the case-filter. (In Faroese and Danish, there is no licensing outside the complement of V°, as 1° never qualifies as a licenser, due to the missing content.) This is thus an account for one of the differences between Icelandic and Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish noted (but not explained) by Holmberg & Platzack (1988:26, 40), and it will also account for why heavy subject postposal is not possible in Faroese as noted by Barnes (1992:26-27). This section has illustrated and tried to account for the following: If the external argument NP (which is the one deprived of its structural case by the expletive subject — i.e., the one that is the associate of the expletive) is c-commanded by an active transitive verb, the construction is impossible in all languages under consideration, as the projection principle would be violated in the following way: The lexical requirements that the active transitive verb makes about its complement— i.e., that it should contain the internal argument and no other arguments— is violated at at least one level— namely, S-structure.

6. 4.3 Passive transitives Though transitive verbs assign both an external and an internal theta-role, the external role disappears in the passive, and the result is more similar to the ergative construction than to the active transitive one: Only one theta-role is assigned, and this role is internal. I will follow Jaeggli (1986), Roberts (1987), and Baker et al. (1989) in assuming that the external theta-role is assigned to the participial morphology, -en (cf. fall-fellfallen, steal-stole-stolen). Others, e.g. Grimshaw (1990) and Grimshaw & Vikner (1992), suggest that the theta-role is absorbed rather than actually assigned. Perhaps the two alternatives could be reconciled, as the theta-role is assigned, but to a head, not to an XP. What is important to the present analysis is that -en plays an active part in the theta-assignment without being the assignor of the theta-role. It therefore has to be assigned case, in order to be visible for the theta-structure. If Roberts (1987) were right that -en is furthermore assigned accusative case in passive transitives, we would have a reason for the unavailability of accusative in passive constructions.

202

Expletive Subjects

Alternatively, one might say that passives of transitive verbs do not assign structural case to their complement, as the structural case is absorbed because of the absorption of the external theta-role (cf. Burzio's generalisation mentioned earlier). Whatever the reason, the internal argument NP will not be assigned accusative, and therefore it will have to be alternatively licensed (as IP-spec, where nominative is available, is occupied by the expletive). The alternative licensing of the complement position of V° can in theory be licensing either by an 1°, which is irrelevant, as 1° does not govern the complement of V°, or by the theta-assigner of the chain. The latter is what takes place in this case: The passive transitive main verb assigns its only theta-role to the chain. The special government requirement on the expletive-associate chain (cf. section 6.1.5) does not rule out this construction in any of the languages discussed: Although the languages will differ as to whether case is assigned to the chain under government (it is in the V2 languages, but it is not in English and French), this is not crucial, as passive transitive verbs always assign their only thematic role to their complement—i.e., under government—and this alone suffices to satisfy the government requirement. We thus should expect all the languages to allow this construction, but this is not completely borne out, as, for some unknown reason (and parallel to the ergative construction, cf. 6.4.1), it is not grammatical in English:23 (80) a. b. c. d. e. f. g.

Ge. ... dafi pro ein Apfel gegessen wurde Yi. ... az es vert t gegesn an epl Ic. . . . aS bac5 var t borSaS ejali Fa. ... at ta5 bleiv etifl eitt surepli Da. ... at der blev spist et able En. *There was eaten an apple Fr. II a 6te mang6 une pomme

This section has thus illustrated and attempted to account for the following: When the associate NP follows the main verb, the expletive passive transitive construction is possible in all languages under consideration (with the notable and unexplained exception of English). The construction fulfills both the requirements concerning associate NPs (licensed by a theta-assigner) and the requirements concerning an expletive associate chain (thematic role assigned under government).

6.4.4

Intmnsitives

Intransitive verbs only assign an external theta-role. If an expletive occurs in IPspec, it will receive the nominative case, and so if the external argument appears in the complement of the main verb, it will also have to be licensed without receiving case ('alternatively licensed'). 23. In most of (80), the tense of the passive auxiliary, be, is simple past, but there are two exceptions: Yiddish vert 'is' in (80b) is simple present. This also holds for (58) and (59). Yiddish does not have a simple past tense, but instead uses the perfect:

French a ete 'has been' in (80g) is present perfect, for aspectual reasons (cf, e.g., Vikner 1986).

NP-Positions in Expletive Constructions

203

"Complement" is used here in a positional sense, not a functional one. I take it that all heads may have a complement, thanks to X-bar structure:

This occurs irrespective of whether or not X° selects something to occur in the complement. The alternative licensing possibilities of the complement position of V° include licensing by the theta-assigner of the chain. This is what takes place in this case: The active intransitive main verb assigns its only theta-role to the chain (the chain includes a trace in the VP-spec of the intransitive verb). This requirement therefore does not rule out this construction in any of the languages. The special government requirement on the expletive-associate chain (see section 6. 1 .5), on the other hand, does rule out the construction in some languages but not in others. As the thematic role is assigned to VP-spec rather than to the complement of V°, the government requirement cannot be satisfied w.r.t theta-role assignment. This means that we have to insist that the case of the chain is assigned under government. This is only the case in the V2 languages and not in English and French, however, and so we expect the construction to be possible in all but the latter languages: (82) a.. b. c. d. e. f. g.

Ge. Yi. Ic. Fa. Da . En. Fr.

... da& pro jemand im Garten getanzt hat . . . az es hot t getantst imitser in gortn ?. . . a<5 Pad hefur t dansafl einhver i garflinum ?... at tao hevur dansafl eitt par i havanum ... at der har danset nogen i haven "There has danced someone in the garden *I1 a danse quelgu'un dans le jardin

An analysis of (82a,c,e,f) along these lines— i.e., with the associate NP inside the complement of the intransitive V° — was originally suggested by Platzack (1983:92-94). We might expect the projection principle to be violated here, as the external argument NP occurs in the object position without being the object. The intuitive reason would be that, as intransitive verbs are not subcategorised for (or do not contain in their theta-structure) any internal arguments, they may not have any arguments in their object position at any point of the derivation. This is reflected by the fact that the analysis I propose is technically incompatible with the formulation of the projection principle in Chomsky (1981:36,38): (83) Given the structures i.

[ . . . a . . . (5 . . . ] and

[ . . .p . . .a . . .]

if p is an immediate constituent of t at Lt. and T = a 1 , then a 0-marks P in t

ii. if a selects P in T as a lexical property, then a selects p in T at LA iii. if a selects P in T at Lt, then a selects P in T at L.,

The external argument would be the immediate constituent of V-bar of the main verb, without being selected in that position at all levels (Llt L}, etc. — i.e., D-structure, S-structure and LF).

204

Expletive Subjects

The question is whether it is really desirable to exclude this analysis of (82)— that the NP occurs in the complement of V°—because of the projection principle, given that there are no theta-roles assigned at one level and not at another. Although it might be considered a violation of the projection principle, it seems to me that it does not have to be one. If we take the projection principle to say that lexical specifications (essentially theta-roles) must be the same at all (syntactic) levels, then it could be argued that the projection principle is not violated here: It is possible to move something into the complement of an intransitive verb, because intransitive verbs do not have any lexical specifications on their complements (they do not assign any theta-roles to their complements), as opposed to ergative or transitive verbs. Thus the theta-requirements of the intransitive verb are respected at all levels (the external theta-role is assigned to the VP-specifier at all levels).24 I take this approach to be perfectly compatible with the view expressed in Burzio (1986:224) for example: "Our approach here consists of assuming that only some relations must obtain at all levels, as determined by the requirement that thematic structure be represented at all levels, that is by the projection principle. The relations which will be required to obtain at all levels will then be those that involve theta-role transmission." Thus the suggested interpretation of the projection principle makes different predictions about active intransitives, as discussed previously, and active transitives, as discussed in section 6.4.2. In the transitive case, there are lexical specifications on the complement (i.e., an internal theta-role does exist), and nothing else may therefore occur inside the verb complement; in the intransitive case, the external argument may occur inside the complement of the main verb, as no lexical specifications (with respect to the verb complement) exist. This distinction is necessary, as appears from the contrast between the ungrammatically of the transitive examples, (71) and (75) in section 6.4.2, and the grammaticality of the intransitive examples, (82a-e) in this section. Notice also that this analysis does not predict that raising to object is a possible operation; on the contrary, in fact, it predicts that the only movement possible into the object position is "lowering to object", as discussed above. In raising to object, as in (84) *. . . [ V | . . . V° NP t [ x p . . . t! . . . ] ] . . .

24. Luigi Rizzi (personal communication) suggests an alternative analysis of (82b,c,d,e), which would avoid violating either interpretation of the projection principle: The verb (participle) moves out of V to a higher X°—e.g., AgrO° of Chomsky (1991)—and the NP occurs in VP-spec. This has the advantage of being compatible with the idea that all cases are assigned to specifier positions, as suggested, e.g., by Johnson (1991). Such an analysis would also account for why the external argument could not occur postverbally in a transitive construction: The object would have moved to VP-spec, and the position available in the intransitive construction would thus not be available. However, the data concerning subcategorised PPs, as in example (85), are somewhat problematic: There would be no reason why the order could not be verb-NP-PP, as the PP would not need to move to VP-spec, as PPs do not need case. This may not be a major problem though, as the data are not crystal clear. One would expect the PPs in the following example to be subcategorised by the verb bugva/bo 'live' (corresponding to Ge. wohnen, Fr. habiter), but the examples are nevertheless acceptable: (i)

a. Fa. b. Da.

Tafl buflu nogv folk i bynum Der boede mange folk i byen There lived many people in town-the

NP-Positions in Expletive Constructions

205

an NP moves into the object position of a verb, but it moves out of a constituent (e.g., VP, IP, or CP) which is selected by the same verb. As the verb in question thus selects an XP, this verb does have lexical specifications on its complement, and under the present interpretation of the projection principle, movement into an object position of a verb is only possible if the verb does not have any lexical specifications at all on its complement. Thus raising to object is excluded on a par with expletive active transitives with the external argument inside the complement of V°; cf. the ungrammatically of the latter, (71) and (75) in section 6.4.2. The variation in sentences with intransitive verbs and a PP, as in example (85), may be explained along the same lines. In the ungrammatical cases the PP would be selected by the verb, which thus has lexical specifications, which excludes any interfering with the complement of V°; in the grammatical cases the PP would not be selected by the V°, and therefore would not occur inside the complement, either. Although the status of the individual examples admittedly is not all that clear, the direction is clear: They get worse, not better, in both Danish and Faroese:25 (85) a. Fa. b. Da.

c. Fa. d. Da.

TaS dansaSu n6gv f61k til balliO Der dansede mange mennesker til festen There danced many people at party-the TaS ringdu tvey bla6f61k i seinastu viku Der ringede to journalister i sidste uge There called two journalists (in) last week

e. Fa. TaS undirvisa n6gvir laerarar a skiilanum f. Da. ?Der underviser mange laerere pa skolen There teach many teachers in school-the g. Fa. TaS koyra nogv folk viS bussi hvenn dag h. Da. ?Der kprer mange mennesker med bus hver dag There go many people with bus-the every day i. Fa. TaS ganga n6gv f61k i cowboybuksum hvenn dag j. Da. ??Der gar mange mennesker i cowboybukser hver dag There go many people in jeans every day k. Fa. ?TaS lurta n6gv ung eftir Mozart nu a d0gum 1. Da. *Der lytter mange unge til Mozart nutildags There listen many young (people) to Mozart nowadays m. Fa. ?Tac3 tosa n6gvir legtingsmenn n. Da. *Der snakker mange folketingsmaend There talk many congressmen

vis blaSfdlk hvonn dag med journalister hver dag with journalists every day

An alternative analysis of this whole set of data, which would not run into any problems with the projection principle, might be to consider the indefinite external argument NP in (82) to be right-adjoined to the VP: 25. For expository purposes, all the sentences in (85) are V2 structures with the main verb in C°. This means that they could all be analysed as examples of licensing by I", in that they are all grammatical in Icelandic. The question is, How do we know that the NPs here are inside the complement of the main verb? The answer is that licensing by 1° is not possible in Danish or in Faroese, as shown in the examples in section 6.3.1. Given that this alternative analysis is independently ruled out, the NPs have to be inside the complement of the main verb.

206

Expletive Subjects

There are several reasons to reject this analysis. One is that we already have independent (but less than firm) evidence from Dutch and German that the external argument may occur in the complement of a V° in intransitives, but not in transitives— see (74) in section 6.4.2. Another is that we would predict that this was possible in transitive cases in Icelandic and Danish (and Yiddish) as well. The complement of V° is not involved at all, and there should be no distinction between external arguments of intransitive verbs and external arguments of transitive verbs. However, this postverbal occurrence of the external argument is only possible with intransitive verbs in the V2 languages, (82b-e), not with transitive ones, (71b-e) and (75b-e). In my analysis, this difference follows from the external argument occurring in the complement of V°, which makes it impossible in transitive constructions, as shown in the preceding discussion of the projection principle. There may also be an argument concerning the position of the PP, in the garden, in (82b-e). If it is inside the VP, it is clear that the argument must also be inside the VP. However, the PP may also be right-adjoined to VP, and then the external argument in (82b-e) is interpretable either as being inside the complement of V° or as being VP adjoined. This still leaves us the possibility of trying to adjoin the external argument to the right of the PP. Here the result is ungrammatical in Faroese and Danish, and grammatical in Icelandic provided the argument NP is heavy. (As Yiddish before seemed to be more liberal than Icelandic about what counted as heavy — see example (75) — it is only consistent (even if annoying) that (87a) is acceptable): (87) a. b. c. d.

Yi . ... az es hot t getantst in gortn imitser Ic. *. . . a5 ba<3 hefur t dansaC i garoinum einhver Fa . * ... at ta8 hevur dansao i havanum eitt par Da. *. . . at der har danset i haven noaen . . . that there has danced in garden-the someone/a couple

(88) a. Yi.

. . . az

es

hobn t getantst _ in gortn vil_ sprakhwissenshaf tier b. Ic . ... a5 bao hafa t dansao i garfiinum marair malvisindamenn_ c . Fa . * ... at tao hava dansafi i havanum n6ovir malfrfflflincrar_ d. Da. *. . . at der har danset i haven mange linovister_ . . . that there have danced in garden-the many linguists

fun Island fra

fslandi

ur

islandi

fra

Island

from Iceland

As (87b-d) are ungrammatical, and as there is no heaviness requirement in (82c-e), it would seem that the arguments in (82b—d) are not adjoined to the VP. Another argument in favour of assuming that the external argument NP is not

NP-Positions in Expletive Constructions

207

right-adjoined to the VP but occurs inside the complement of V° comes from expletive active intransitive particle constructions. Here the external argument NP occurs between the V° and the subcategorised particle (Prt) in Danish, (89a,b), whereas it occurs to the right of the particle in Swedish, (89c,d), exactly parallel to the ergative particle construction in the two languages, (90): (89) a. Da. ... at der har sagt fire ansatte op b. Da. «... at der har sagt op fire ansatte ... that there have said (up) four employees (up) (= four employees have given in their notice) c. Sw. *. . . att det d. Sw. . . . att det . . . that there (= a light had

hade blinkat en lampa iill. hade blinkat till en lampa had flashed (to) a lamp (to) flashed intensively)

(90) a. Da. ... at der er kommet en mand ind b. Da. *... at der er kommet ind en mand . . . that there is come (in) a man (in) c. Sw. *. . . att det har kommit en man in. d. Sw. . . . att det har kommit in en man ... that there has come (in) a man (in)

If (86) was the correct analysis—i.e., if the external argument NP is adjoined to the VP rather than inside V-bar—then we would predict (89b) to be grammatical and (89a) to be ungrammatical, exactly contrary to fact. If the external argument NP is inside the complement of V° in (89), as suggested by my earlier analysis and as is undoubtedly the case with the ergative verbs in (90), then these facts should follow from most analyses of (90) (see Vikner 1987:263-267). There the particle and verb are reanalysed along the lines suggested in Baker (1988:259): In some sense, they are one word even though they remain heads of two different projections at S-structure. The idea is that the particle incorporates into the verb at LF, and this can only take place if the two are coindexed at S-structure. This means that the particle counts as part of the verb for thematic purposes, so that the NP, which is base-generated in VP-spec, can move down into the PrtP (not into the complement of V, as this is the position of PrtP). If the Prt° assigns case, then the NP may occur in the complement of Prt°—this is what happens in Swedish. If the Pit0 does not assign case, the NP will have to occur in PrtP-spec, where it may get case from V°—this is what happens in Danish:

208

Expleti ve Subjects

In other words, the difference between Danish and Swedish is that accusative is assigned, and/or alternative licensing is carried out, by V° in Danish and by Prt° in Swedish. The difference between the intransitive-particle construction and the ergative-particle construction is that theta-assignment takes place from V° to VPspec in the former and from Prt° to the complement of Prt° in the latter. The conclusion of the discussion in this subsection is that in V2 languages it is possible for the external argument of an intransitive verb to appear inside the complement of the verb, whereas this is not possible in non-V2 languages. This difference arises because the expletive-associate chain, which is necessary for the associate not to violate visibility, is only well-formed in V2 languages, due to the government requirement. As the theta-role is not assigned under government, case must be, and this only holds for V2 languages. In all languages, the construction fulfills the licensing requirements asked of associate NPs: It is licensed by a thetaassigner. As for the contrast with transitive verbs, the external argument of the latter cannot occur inside the complement of V° in any languages, due to the projection principle. If the above conclusions are accepted, we will have to revise Burzio's generalisation, from "accusative is only assigned by a verb which also assigns an external theta-role" (cf. Burzio 1986:178-186) to "accusative is only assigned by a verb which also assigns both an external and an internal theta-role". The reason lies in the analysis of examples like the following: (92) Da. a. Dert har b. *Deri har There have

studerende. fra K0benhavn ringet en ringet den studerendej fra K0benhavn from Copenhagen called a/the student

Following the analysis defended in this subsection, a/the student occurs in the complement of V°. If the intransitive verb could assign accusative, this NP should receive it, and then we would expect both the definite and the indefinite versions to be good. The ungrammatically of (92b) shows that accusative is not assigned, and so we have to say that assignment of an external theta-role may be a necessary condition for accusative assignment, but it cannot be sufficient. Sufficient is only the assignment of both internal and external theta-roles.

NP-Positions in Expletive Constructions

209

This change will not affect ergatives or passive transitives (which still will not assign accusative, as they do not assign an external theta-role), nor active transitives (which still will assign accusative, as they assign both an external and an internal theta-role), nor passive intransitives (in which there are no elements that might receive the accusative anyway).

6.4.5

Passive intransitives (impersonalpassives)

In constructions with passive intransitive verbs, also called impersonal passives, there is no NP to which the expletive may be linked. Due to the principle of full interpretation (cf. the discussion in secion 6.1.3), however, the expletive must form a chain with an element with a thematic role. For this, there is only one candidate available: -en, the passive morpheme, which is adjoined to the verb. This morpheme is a X° element which is assigned (or which absorbs) the external theta-role. The question of the licensing of the associate NP becomes irrelevant, -en does not need to be licensed, as it is incorporated into V°. The special government requirement on the expletive-associate chain (cf. section 6.1.5), on the other hand, still applies: There is a chain between the expletive and -en, and as the chain does not receive its theta-role under government (the theta-role was not assigned to a complement but to VP-spec under spec-X° agreement before absorption), it has to receive its case under government. As usual this is only the case in V2 languages, where nominative is assigned from C° under government, and not in English or French, where nominative is assigned from 1° via spec-X° agreement. Consequently, passives of intransitives are only possible German, Yiddish, Icelandic, Faroese, and Danish. (93) a. b. b. c. d. e. f.

Ge. ... dafi pro getanzt worden 1st Yi. ... az es iz t getantst gevorn Ic. . . . a8 bafl hefur t veriS dansafl Fa. ... at ta<5 er blivia dansaa Da. ... at der er blevet danset En. *There has been danced Fr. *I1 a et6 dans£

The fact that the French example (93f) is improved if a post-verbal PP is added could perhaps be related to the fact that the expletive now does not have to be linked to -en, but may be linked to the NP inside the PP—sur le bateau in (94f). This was originally due to Jean-Yves Pollock, as discussed in Safir (1985:99) and Reuland (1985:345). The NP inside the PP would receive its thematic role under government, and thus it would not matter anymore that nominative is assigned to French il via spec-X° agreement and not under government:26 (94) a. Ge. b. Ic. c. Fa.

. . . dafi pro auf das Boot geschossen worden 1st ... aa bafl hefur t veria skotia a batinn ... at ta3 er blivia skotia eftir batinum

26. It might be a problem that the expletive-associate chain has two cases in (94f). This does not apply to (94a-d), as here the expletive may form a chain with the passive morphology, as in (93). I have no explanation to offer for the fact that although (93b) is well-formed in Yiddish, (94) is not: . . az es iz t geshosn gevorn oyfn shifl .. that there is shot become on-the boat

210

Expletive Subjects d. Da. ... at der er blevet skudt pa baden e. En. *There has been shot at the boat f. Fr. II a et6 tire sur le bateau

This section has thus illustrated and attempted to account for the following: With passive intransitive verbs, the expletive construction is only possible in the V2 languages, because only in these languages can the expletive form a chain (with a theta-related element) which does not violate the government requirement. Using the approach of Rizzi & Roberts (1989), one would expect there to be a difference between English and French about government of the subject: In English (but not in French), the finite verb may assign nominative to IP-spec under government when I°-to-C° movement (i.e., V2) has applied. If nominative is assigned under government in English questions, the assumptions of section 6.1 would lead us to expect that impersonal passives should be possible in English questions (here the expletive would be governed, and so nothing should rule out the chain), which clearly is not true: (95) En. a. 'Was there danced? b. *Has there slept anybody here?

Ian Roberts (personal communication) suggests that one could allow for these constructions and then rule them out on the grounds that f/iere-constructions are exceptionally limited in English anyway, even in cases predicted to be grammatical—cf., e.g., the examples in sections 6.4.1 and 6.4.3. This might work for (95b), but it will not work for (95a), as the restriction in English seems to be that the associate NP is only licensed under circumstances much more restricted than in other languages. In impersonal passives, however, as argued here, there is nothing to be licensed: The only operative restriction is the government requirement on expletive-associate chains (cf. also section 7.2.2). However, if I follow the assumptions made in section 3.4.6 that nominative case assignment to there in (95) takes place from 1° under spec-X° agreement, even though 1° has moved to C°, then the desired predictions are made. This does not solve the problem entirely. I still cannot account for why English (in contrast to Icelandic, cf. section 6.5.1) does not allow active and passive intransitive constructions with expletive subjects embedded under exceptional case marking verbs, as here the accusative case assigned to there from believe surely must be assigned under government: (96) En. a. *I believe there to have been danced b. *Do you believe there to have slept anybody here?

6.4.6

Copulas

As seen in section 6.3.2 on licensing from 1° in passive transitives, it would seem that be and other copula verbs may also license an associate of an expletive (at least under certain circumstances): (97) En. a. There is a good film on TV tonight b. *There is the good film on TV tonight

NP-Positions in Expletive Constructions

211

That be may license the associate in English is very convincingly shown in Lasnik (1992:383-389). Such data are problematic in the present analysis: It is unexpected that be can license the NP in (97a) above, as presumably a good film is not assigned a theta-role by be. Lasnik (1992:397) suggests a way out of this, via what he refers to as a "reasonableness criterion": It would not be reasonable to require theta-role assignment of a copula like be, as be never assigns any thematic roles.27 If we follow Lasnik's suggestion, we obtain the correct predictions as far as the data discussed in sections 6.4 and 6.5 are concerned. Alternative licensing by main verbs that assign theta-roles requires that a thematic role be assigned to the expletive-associate chain (sometimes licensers: ergative, transitive, and intransitive verbs (section 6.4), never licensers: raising verbs and passive ECM verbs (section 6.5)), whereas alternative licensing by main verbs that do not assign any theta-roles does not require that a thematic role be assigned to the expletive-associate chain (licensers: be and other copulas). However, a problem occurs, when auxiliary verbs are considered: Assuming that auxiliary verbs never assign any thematic roles, we would expect them to be possible licensers, given that it would not be "reasonable" to require theta-assignment of a verb which never assigns a thematic role. It was shown at some length in section 6.3 that this prediction is not borne out, including those cases in which be is the auxiliary—e.g., with ergative verbs in Faroese, Danish, and French. There was an exception to this, however: Passive auxiliaries could be licensers in English and to some extent also in Danish and Faroese (cf. section 6.3.2). It is interesting to note that this patterning of passive auxiliary be with main verb be against other kinds of auxiliary be (e.g., in ergatives or in Romance transitives with reflexive objects) is also found in another aspect of these verbs: Main verb be and passive auxiliary be may be inflected for aspect by means of another auxiliary, whereas this is not possible for other kinds of auxiliary be: (98) Da. a. En. b.

Der er en god film i TV There is a good film on TV

Da. c. ??Der blev en ansaoning afvist i gar aftes En. d. There was an application rejected last night Da. e. *Der er et brev konunet There is a letter come (99) Da. a. En. b. Da. c. En. d.

Peter har vaeret i TV flere gange Peter has been on TV several times De fleste af disse ansfflgninger er blevet afvist Most of these applications have ksgn. rejected

Da. e. *Den slags breve har (ofte) varet This kind (of) letters has often been

kommet come

Example (98) shows that main verb be and passive auxiliary be may license an associate of an expletive, whereas other kinds of auxiliary be may not, and example 27. Lasnik (1992:397) is actually arguing that it should not be required that be assign partitive as an inherent case, given that inherent case presupposes theta-role assignment and that be does not assign any theta-roles. Although it is thus presented in a different context, I find that Lasnik's suggestion carries over to the present dicussion.

212

Expletive Subjects

(99) shows that main verb be and passive auxiliary be may be inflected for aspect, whereas other types of auxiliary be may not. The conclusion is that if the reasonableness criterion is somehow limited to apply to main verbs (perhaps including passive auxiliaries in English, Danish, and Faroese), be is excused for the theta-assignment requirement. Although this analysis is less than conceptually satisfactory, there are no feasible alternatives, and I will therefore apply it in the remainder of this subsection. In languages that have expletive constructions with be, the associate may be licensed by the main verb be, (100), but not by its auxiliary, irrespective of whether the latter is have or be, (101):28 (lOO)a. b. c. d. e. f. g.

Ge. Yi. Ic. Da. En. Fr. It.

... dafi ein outer Film im Fernsehen aewesen sein mufi ... az es hot t gemuzt zavn a outer film in televizye . . . afl bao mun t hafa veria o6d mvnd i sj6nvarpinu ... at der m& have varet en god film i TV There must have b_geji a good film on TV II doit y avoir eu un bon film a la television Dev1 esserci stato un film interessante alia TV

{101)a. b. c. d. e. f. g.

Ge. Yi. Ic. Da. En. Fr. It.

... dafi ein outer Film im Fernsehen gewesen sein muS *. . . az es hot t gemuzt a auter film zayn in televizye *... a5 bafl mun t hafa a6d mvnd verifi i sj6nvarpinu *. . . at der ma have en god film vaaret i TV *There must have a good film been on TV *I1 doit y avoir un bon film eu a la television *Dev' esserci un film interessante stato alia TV

In the same constructions, 1° may license only if it has morphological content, as shown in section 6.1.4. In this example, the argument is in the spec of the VP of the highest auxiliary: (102) a. Ge. b. Yi. c. Ic. d. Da. e. En. f. Fr. g. It.

... daS ein outer Film im Fernsehen gewesen sein nili£ ... az es hot t a outer film gemuzt zayn in televizye ?... a<5 bao mun t a6d mvnd hafa verio i sj6nvarpinu *. . . at der en god film ma have vseret i TV *There must a good film have been on TV *I1 doit un bon film y avoir eu a la television *Deve un film interessante esserci stato alia TV

An example almost similar to (102) (here the argument is in the spec of the VP of the lower auxiliary) shows that an NP may not be licensed by the highest auxiliary, must. This example only differs from (102) in Danish, which is the only language in which the auxiliary does not move to 1°, and which is thus the only language in which you can tell whether the NP is in the spec of must, (102d), or of have, (103): (103)Da. *. . . at der ma en god film have vaeret i TV . . . that there must a good film have been on TV 28. Italian has been included here to control for the effects of the French il y a... construction, which, although it corresponds to there is..., uses have rather than be. Alessandra Tomaselli (personal communication) points out also that Italian has a definiteness requirement in this case (cf. Belletti 1988:9-10): (i)

*Dev' esserci stato il film interessante alia TV Must be-there been the film interesting on TV

NP-Positions in Expletive Constructions

213

This section has thus illustrated and attempted to account for the following: The expletive construction with a copula as main verb behaves exactly as if be was ergative or passive transitive—i.e., as if be assigned a thematic role to its complement, indicating perhaps that, as (main verb) be never assigns any thematic roles, it may be excused from the thematic requirement, as opposed to the verbs to be discussed in the next section: ECM verbs and raising verbs.

6.5 Licensing of IP-spec by a main V° The last configuration to be examined is the one in which the specifier of the complement of a main verb V° is licensed by V° itself. We will look at two subcases of this configuration: Exceptional case marking verbs in 6.5.1 and raising verbs in 6.5.2.

6.5.1 Exceptional case marking verbs Exceptional case marking verbs are verbs that may take either a finite or an infinitival clause as complement: (104)a. Ic. b. En.

Eg tel afl I believe that

c. Ic. *Eg tel aS d. En. *I believe that

hun she

hafi boroaS epli has eaten an apple

hana hafi boroafl her has eaten

epli an apple

When the complement is an infinitival clause, the main verb also assigns accusative to the subject of the infinitival clause: (105)a. Ic. *Eg tel hun b. En. *I believe she c. Ic. d. En.

hafa borflafl epli to have eaten an apple

Eg tel hana hafa borSao epli I believe her to have eaten an apple

It is not particularly well understood why even related languages show great variation with respect to the possibility of exceptional case marking constructions. Note that Chomsky (1986b:190) assumes they form the exception rather than the rule across languages, and that "the exceptional Case-marking property of believetype verbs in English must be specifically learned". Whatever the reason for this is, the result is that we can only test the predictions for a few of the languages considered so far. However, even if we are only able to test the predictions on English and Icelandic, the conclusions are still interesting. First, the fact that the verbs may assign accusative to the specifier of their complement is compatible even with the revised version of Burzio's generalisation (see the end of section 6.4.4): telja and believe assign an external theta-role (to eg and 7) as well as an internal theta-role (to the entire embedded infinitival clause in (105c,d)). That the ECM-verb assigns an external theta-role is also why expletive subjects are only possible in passive ECM-verbs where this external theta-role has been absorbed. Second, if both languages have structural case assignment (i.e., accusative) from the ECM-verb to the IP-spec of the embedded clause, as shown by (105c,d),

214

Expletive Subjects

and if the ECM-verb does not assign a thematic role to the accusative-marked position, we would expect expletive subjects also to occur there: (106) a. Ic. b. En.

tg tel pro hafa veriS goda mynd f sjdnvarpinu I believe there to have been a good film on TV

c. Ic. *Eg tel pro hafa verifl myndina i sjonvarpinu d. En. *I believe there to have been the film on TV

This is confirmed by the fact that example (106) behaves exactly as expected of expletive constructions in the two languages: The Icelandic expletive is pro, as it occurs in IP-spec and not in CP-spec; there is an indefiniteness requirement in both languages; and the Icelandic NP occurs in the case assigned, which we would expect to be assigned to the NP (see also the discussion of (14)-(17) in section 6.1.2). Third, a fact which is also predicted by the analysis is that passive ECM-verbs can neither assign accusative, nor license an associate NP: (107)a. En. *There was

believed

[a good film

to have been

on TV

]

b. Ic. *E>aS voru taldir Feinhveriir batar hafa veriS keyptir t] There were believed some boats (noml have been bought (from Sigurdsson 1991:356, (57a))

Accusative is impossible here, as there no longer is assignment of an external thematic role. Licensing is also impossible here, as neither of the three possibilities apply: As I just said, believe does not assign case, nor does it assign a thematic role to the indefinite NP, and, finally, it is not possible for the finite 1° to govern the indefinite NP (which is governed by the matrix main V°). Government by the matrix 1° is possible if the relative order between believed and the indefinite NP is reversed, and the result is then grammatical, as licensing by 1° is not linked to any thematic relationship between licenser and licensee: (108) Ic.

t>aO voru fn6rir batar taldir There were four boats (nom) believed

[t hafa veriQ seldir t] have been bought (from SigurSsson 1992:Chapter 5)

The embedded main verb is the assigner of the thematic role to the chain (under government, as kaupa 'buy' is a transitive verb), and it therefore also has the ability to license the associate NP, as in the following example: (109)Ic.

E»ao voru taldir There were believed

[t hafa verio kevptir einhvernir batar ] have been bought some boats (nom) (from SigurBsson 1991:356, (57d))

The parallel is also possible in English (cf. 6.4.6, where it was noticed that the copula behaves as a theta-assigning verb in this kind of construction): (llO)En.

There was believed

[t to have been a good film on TV]

In this section, I tried to illustrate and account for the following: When the associate NP follows a passive exceptional case marking verb, the construction is impossible. If the associate NP occurs higher, it may be licensed by 1° (under the usual restrictions: 1° must have content and not be assigning case, i.e. in Icelandic, but not in English). If the associate NP occurs lower, it may be licensed by the theta-assigning verb.

NP-Positions in Expletive Constructions

215

If the exceptional case marking verb is active, it assigns accusative, and hence it is possible for ordinary subjects, including expletive ones (as this is not a thematic position) to occur as the subject of the infinitival clause.

6.5.2 Raising verbs Raising verbs are verbs that take a clausal complement (finite or infinitival) and which assign no external thematic role, which makes it possible for an expletive to move there from the embedded infinitival. As the raising verb does not assign an external theta-role, it cannot assign accusative. As it does not assign a thematic role to the embedded subject position, it cannot license this position for the associate NP of an expletive subject, either: (111) a. Ic. *I>a<5 mundu virflast Fmaraar baekur hafa veriS lesnar] b. Da. *Der kunne se ud til fmanae baaer at vaere blevet laest] c. En. *There would seem [many books to have been read] (example (11 la) from SigurSsson 1991:356, (58a))

It is clear that licensing is the problem here, not the expletive-associate chain as such. The chain is well-formed, because the theta-role is assigned under government (by read to its complement), and that suffices to fulfill the government requirement. This point is also illustrated by the fact that the same examples are acceptable when the associate NP has the thematic verb read as potential licenser, rather than the non-thematic verb seem: (112) a. Ic. tad mundu virflast [hafa veriS lesnar maraar baekurl b. Da. Der kunne se ud til [at vaere blevet last mancre bacrerl c. En. ??There would seem [to have been .csasj many books 1 (example (112a) from Sigurdsson 1991:357, (58d))

The government requirement is fulfilled as just discussed (theta-role assigned by read under government), and the licensing is done by read, which qualifies as a licenser because it is the theta-assigner.29 An interesting twist on this tale is that when the Icelandic raising verb has an experiencer, the experiencer would seem to count as an external thematic role: Now it is possible not only for the raising verb to license an associate NP but also to assign accusative to an NP, neither of which is possible in Danish or English: (113) a. Ic. Her mundu virflast Fmaraar baekur hafa veri<5 lesnar] b. Da. *Der forekommer mig rmanae baaer at vaere blevet last] c. En. *There would seem to me [many books to have been read] (example (113a) from Sigurdsson 1991:357, (59a)) (114)a. Ic. Her mundu virflast fbaekurnar hafa veriS lesnar] b. Da. *Der forekommer mig fbaoerne at vaere blevet last] c. En. *There would seem to me fthe books to have been read] (example (114a) from Sigurdsson 1991:357, (60))

In this section, I tried to illustrate and account for the following: When the associate NP follows a raising verb, the construction is impossible. If the associate 29. Example (112c) is only as good as English there-constructions are generally. If changed to a ffcere-construction with copula, it becomes perfect: (i)

En. There would seem to be a good film on TV tonight

216

Expletive Subjects

NP occurs lower, it may be licensed by the theta-assigning verb. If the raising verb could assign an external thematic role, it would also be able to assign accusative, which again would make the embedded subject position possible for definite NPs. This situation only obtains in Icelandic, whereas in English and Danish, the experiencer does not seem to count as an external thematic role.

6.6 Alternative analyses In this subsection I will discuss a few alternative analyses and compare them to the analysis suggested in section 6.1. By alternative analyses I mean analyses which differ in their analysis of the indefiniteness requirement and of the contrasts within the Germanic languages that are discussed.

6.6.1

Platzack(1983)

Platzack assumes both the case transfer mechanism and the motivation for the indefiniteness requirement of Safir (1985). Platzack furthermore assumes explicitly that any post-verbal argument in an expletive construction is inside the complement of V° (1983:92-94), an assumption I follow, as discussed, for example, in section 6.4.4. Platzack (1983:89) assumes that if there is an expletive in IP-spec, the external theta-role may be assigned to the complement of the verb. As discussed in connection with example (116), this leaves us without a theta-difference between ergatives and intransitives, and thus will not explain why only the latter may passivise in V2 languages. It also does not allow an account for why only the former may select be as an auxiliary (cf., e.g., Burzio 1986 and Vikner & Sprouse 1988). Platzack furthermore assumes that in Icelandic the expletive occurs in CPspec, and that this leaves IP-spec empty, so that the external argument of an expletive active transitive may occur there. As Swedish expletives occur in IP-spec, Swedish cannot have expletive active transitives. As discussed in section 6.2.2, I also take the Icelandic expletive subject to be base-generated in IP-spec, as otherwise I would not expect any indefiniteness requirement in Icelandic. Platzack (1983:96) notes this fact about Icelandic and leaves it unaccounted for, whereas in my analysis it is expected. The status of the German facts, where there would seem to be no indefiniteness requirement on the external argument of expletive active transitives is just the opposite: It is expected in Platzack's analysis, whereas it is unaccounted for in mine. Notice, though, that there is evidence that the indefiniteness requirement holds to a certain extent even in German, as shown by the examples in section 6.1.2.

6.6.2

Reuland (1983, 1985)

According to Reuland (1983, 1985), there cannot be assigned case (as opposed to it), and nominative therefore must be assigned somewhere else for there to be able to occur in IP-spec, as otherwise IP-spec would be a case-assigned position. The indefinite NP may be assigned nominative from 1°, but this is possible only (a) if

NP-Positions in Expletive Constructions

217

the NP is in VP-spec or (b) if the NP is in the complement of V°. The VP must either be headless (1985:336), or 1° must be realised on V° (1985:337). Following Chomsky (1981), Reuland (1985:332, 337) assumes that there is a rule lowering inflection onto the V° which may apply in the syntax in Dutch but not in English. However, Pollock (1989) and Chomsky (1991) show that in English, inflection is lowered onto the V°, which means that English should have just as many expletive active intransitives with the argument inside the complement V° as Dutch, which clearly is not correct (see section 6.4.4). Independently of this, there is a problem in sentences with compound tenses: Even if inflection is lowered onto a V°, it is onto the V° in which the finite auxiliary is base-generated, and not onto the V° of the main verb, which is not finite, and which therefore could never be argued to merge with the inflection. In other words, Reuland's analysis cannot account for how the NP is assigned case in the following: (115)Da.

... at der er kommet en dreng ... that there is come a boy

The NP is not in VP-spec, the VP is not headless (it is headed by the participle kommet), and 1° is not realised on V°. In spite of these objections and others that follow, some features of Reuland's analysis reflect weaknesses in my analysis as set out in section 6.1. First, the objection is that in some cases the indefinite NP has a case that is not inherent and which is not partitive/nominative—e.g., the es gibt... 'it gives...' (= there is...) construction in German. In my analysis, geben would have to require alternative licensing even though it is assigned accusative directly, which is clearly not very a satisfactory conclusion. Second, is the existence of expletive-argument chains. Reuland derives this from a constraint which predates Chomsky's (1986b:132,179, 1991:437) use of the principle of full interpretation—namely, that A-positions must have a theta-role at LF in order to be visible (Reuland 1985:342), and from a version of the extended projection principle which has as an effect that any clause must have a visible subject position (Reuland 1985:340). Let us move on to specific details of Reuland's analysis of intransitive constructions. First, expletive active intransitives. According to Reuland, agent may be an internal theta-role in Dutch. If the theta-properties of the two classes—intransitives and ergatives—are thus the same (in both, the theta-role may be assigned to the complement of V°), the fact that the two classes select different auxiliaries is left completely unexplained: (116)Du. a.

Ik zag dat er iemand gedanst had I saw that there someone danced had

b.

Ik zag dat er iemand gekomen was I saw that there someone come was

Also left unexplained by such an approach is the fact that only intransitives and not ergatives may be passivised. It seems to me that the fact that the argument can be waf-voor-split in both cases shows that the argument is VP-internal in both cases, and the fact that the

218

Expletive Subjects

auxiliary and the possibility of passivisation vary shows that the theta-role is assigned in different places. It is also a drawback for Reuland (1985) that two generalisations are necessary to express how Dutch differs from English in this construction: (a) Nominative is available inside VP (derived from the lowering of 1° onto V° at S-structure in Dutch, as discussed above), and (b) the agent theta-role may be an internal thetarole (1985:343)(which does not correlate with any other difference between Dutch and English). In my analysis, case is available inside the complement of V° in both languages, and agent is an external theta-role in both languages. The difference between the languages follows from the government requirement on expletiveassociate chains, and it is thus co-variant with the absence/presence of V2. With respect to expletive passive intransitives (impersonal passives), Reuland suggests that the reason for English not having this construction is that English requires not only that an external theta-role be suppressed (passive has this effect in all languages, in my view because -en is assigned/absorbs the external theta-role), but also that there is an externalisable internal role (Reuland 1985:344). Another difference is thus introduced, which again has no correlate with any other difference between English and Dutch. In my analysis, this is also accounted for by the above-mentioned government requirement on expletive-associate chains. The existence of expletive active intransitives and of expletive passive intransitives in Dutch and their absence in English is thus explained on parallel grounds, where Reuland accounts for them as two unrelated phenomena. According to Reuland, the passive morphology, -en, suppresses the agent theta-role, which turns the theta-subject into a quasi-argument (1985:343). It is difficult to see why this does not entail the complete disappearance of the theta-subject instead. This empty quasi-argumental theta-subject is furthermore what saves impersonal passives from the effect of the extended projection principle: The position of there must be linked to a theta-role at LF; otherwise the structure will not count as having a visible subject at LF, and it will be ruled out by the projection principle. The reason impersonal passives are not ruled out is that there is linked to the empty quasi-argumental theta-subject. But how can linking up to something whose theta-role has been suppressed give there a theta-status?

6.6.3 Maling (1987) Maling (1987:1) discusses the following difference between Swedish and Icelandic: Only Icelandic allows expletive active transitives (cf. section 6.4.2): (117)a. Sw. *Det at en man en pudding b. Ic. PaS borCafli ma<3ur buding There ate (a) man (a) pudding

The transitive external argument cannot occur in IP-spec in Swedish, because this is where the expletive occurs. In Icelandic the expletive does not occur in IP-spec, and thus it does not block the external argument from occurring there (according to Maling). As the theta-role of agent has to be assigned outside VP in both languages, it follows that only in Icelandic is it possible to have expletive active transitives.

NP-Positions in Expletive Constructions

219

I have two objections to this analysis. One objection is that, as argued in section 6.6.1, the external argument in an expletive active transitive does not occur in IP-spec. This would leave us without an account of why it would have to be indefinite, or at least it is incompatible with the approach to the indefiniteness requirement taken here, as well as the ones suggested by Safir (1985) and Reuland (1985). Maling (1987) therefore has to suggest a different account for the obligatory indefiniteness of the external argument in Icelandic expletive active transitives. She suggests that in Swedish the indefiniteness requirement is linked to a theta-hierarchy and that "grammatical rules must be able to refer.. .to the particular theta-role that a given argument bears" (1987:18). As seen in section 6.1, there is no reason in my analysis to make such a radical claim. The other objection is that the exclusion of agents from occurring inside the VP does not account for the impossibility in Danish (and in Swedish) of all constructions with both internal and external arguments. Maling (1987:3), quoting Platzack (1983:92), has two Swedish examples of experiencer-theme constructions that are grammatical with an expletive. These are taken as support that it is only the agent is banned from occurring inside the complement of V°. Her examples are also grammatical in Danish: (118) Da.

Der haendte ham noget underligt i gar There happened (to) him something strange yesterday

(119)Da.

Der ventede mig en stor overraskelse da jeg kom hjem There awai ted me a big surprise when I came home

However, not all experiencer-theme constructions are possible with an expletive: (120)Da. a. *Der afskyr en af mine venner penge b. *Der afskyr penge en af mine venner There loathes (money) one of my friends (money) (121)Da. a. *Der behager penge en af mine venner b. *Der behager en af mine venner penge There pleases (money) one of my friends (money)

In my analysis, (120) and (121) would be ruled out in exactly the same fashion that (117) is ruled out: An argument that does not bear an internal theta-role and which occurs in the complement of V° violates the projection principle if and only if there are already theta-roles assigned to the complement of V° (section 6.4.4). Thus the difference between the grammatical (118) and (119) and the ungrammatical expletive active transitives with an agent, (117), is not that (118) and (119) do not have an agent and (117) does. This would predict (120) and (121) to be grammatical: Like (118) and (119), (120) and (121) do not have an agent. The crucial difference is that (118) and (119) do not have an external argument and (117) does, which then predicts (120) and (121) to be ungrammatical, as they have an external argument, even if it is not an agent—in (120) it is the experiencer, in (121) the theme. In a revised version of her paper, Maling (1988) has a two-level analysis: She distinguishes between the question of which arguments may count as external in which constructions (a question that I have not addressed at all here), and the ques-

220

Expletive Subjects

tion of which types of arguments may not occur in Swedish expletive constructions (Maling's answer: external ones). She goes on to notice that this is not true for "real" intransitive verbs like Swedish dansa 'dance' and that this points to a problem in the "unaccusative hypothesis" of Perlmutter (1978), Burzio (1986), and others. She states the problem in the following way: Dansa may occur in an active expletive construction, which shows that it is ergative, but it may also occur in a passive expletive construction, which shows that it is "real" intransitive, and thus not ergative: (122)Sw. a. b.

Det dansade fortfarande flera par vid midnatt There danced still several couples at midnight Det dansades hela natten There danced-was all night

(fromMaling 1988:178, (15))

Maling holds it against the "unaccusative hypothesis" that "it forces us.. .to say that there are two verbs dance, one unergative and one unaccusative" (Maling 1988:178). I do not agree. I think that the "unaccusative hypothesis", which I have been assuming may be upheld, and that example (122a) is not evidence that dansa is ergative (= unaccusative). (That is, I take flera par in (122a) to be an external argument; cf. section 6.4.4.) Another indication that dansa is always a real intransitive and never ergative is that in Danish danse always forms compound tenses with have and never with be, as opposed to ergative verbs like komme 'come', which always select be. As for the difference between Swedish and Icelandic, Maling (1988:177, 179) notices the difference that external arguments may occur in expletive constructions in Icelandic, and not in Swedish, but she does not explain this difference. In my analysis, the difference follows from 1° being able to license partitive case in Icelandic (where 1° has morphological content), but not in Swedish (where it is completely empty).

6.6.4

Folk (1989a,b)

Extending a suggestion by Jaeggli (1986), Falk (1989a, 1989b:49) suggests that the external theta-role is not necessarily external, but merely structurally unspecified, whereas the internal theta-role must be assigned to the complement of V°. This means that even the agent role may be assigned inside the complement of V°, and, according to Falk, this is what happens in an expletive active intransitive with the argument appearing in the complement of V°. It seems to me that this possibility loses an account of the difference between the ungrammatical (120) and (121) and the grammatical (118) and (119); to me, only the latter had an external argument, as this external argument may now be assigned internally, thus obliterating any difference. Also what rules out expletive active transitives with an agent, as, for example, in example (117)? Like Platzack (1983:93-94) and Maling (1987:5-6, 1988), Falk (1989a) discusses evidence that seems to indicate that in some sense agents are only really agents if they occur in IP-spec. Only when they occur in IP-spec may agents be modified by adverbials referring to intention:

221

NP-Positions in Expletive Constructions (123) Da. a.

b.

Der sad nogen oppe pa balkonen (*for at Jcunne se bedre ) There sat somebody up on balcony-the < for to could see better) Nogen sad oppe pa balkonen (for at kunne se bedre ) Somebody sat up on balcony-the I for to could see better!

(124) Ic. a. ??t>a5 hefur stigifl gamall mao"ur varlega inn 1 straetisvagninn There has stepped (an) old man cautiously Into bus-the b. ??faS hefur gamall maSur stigifl varlega inn 1 strstisvagninn There has (an) old man stepped cautiously into bus-the c.

Gamall maflur steig varlega inn i straetisvagninn (An) old man stepped cautiously into bus-the

(fromFalk!989a)

Falk's conclusion is that the agent theta-role is assigned by I-bar. This raises problems with respect to expletive intransitives, where either an agent NP or the passive morphology -en seem to be able to receive the agent role though they are inside the complement of V° and nowhere near I-bar. Falk suggests that the agent theta-role percolates down the tree from I-bar to VP to V-bar to V°, from where it is assigned to the complement of V°. This analysis first has the theta-information percolate up the tree so that I-bar can assign exactly the right properties (which consist of information from a.o. V°), and then these properties percolate back down the tree so that V° can assign the agent role. It is very difficult to find any alternative, however, given the data in (123) and (124) and given that agents do occur inside VP in expletive intransitives. Falk (1989a, 1989b:49) suggests that an NP must be either casemarked or "lexically governed in the canonical direction". As this lexical government may take place from V° in all languages, but from 1° only in languages like Icelandic where 1° hosts the nominal feature of agreement, this gives an account of the difference between Icelandic and Swedish/Danish very close to the one suggested here in sections 6.1. Falk assumes, however, that in object-verb languages like German and West Flemish, the NP may occur in VP-spec, as this position may be governed by V°. I assume that insofar as an NP may occur in a VP-spec, it is because it will then be licensed by 1°. There is a difference in the predictions made by the two analyses, but this can only be shown in an object-verb language where 1° does not contain the feature of agreement—i.e., where there is very little inflection of the finite verb. As there is no testable difference in predictions, the only difference is that my analysis analyses Icelandic, Yiddish, German, Dutch, and West Flemish in the same way—VP-spec is identified (having its partitive case licensed) from 1°—whereas Falk treats them in different ways—in Yiddish and Icelandic VP-spec is identified (lexically governed) by 1°, in German, Dutch, and West Flemish by V°. To exclude an indefinite argument inside the complement of V° in any expletive construction in English, Falk (1989a, 1989b:55) suggests that the ungrammaticality is caused by the non-identification of the empty VP-spec. Empty expletives must be made visible by case assignment, but this case assignment must take place in a particular way (Falk 1989a, 1989b:56): If the overt expletive is assigned case through spec-X° agreement, the empty expletive must be in a spec-X° agreement relation with the case assignor, and if the overt expletive is assigned case through

222

Expletive Subjects

government, the empty expletive in VP-spec must be c-commanded by the case assignor. The prediction is that expletive ergatives and expletive transitive passives are only possible in V2 languages: In non-V2 languages, the overt expletive receives case through spec-X° agreement, and as the empty expletive in VP-spec is not in a spec-X° agreement relation with the case assignor, the construction is ruled out. While it is true that these constructions do occur in V2 languages, and they do not occur in English, it is not the case that they never occur in other non-V2 languages. Falk herself (1989a) notes the grammaticality of expletive passive transitives in French (see section 6.4.3), but she ascribes it to a special feature of French etre 'be', as in French only expletive passive transitives and expletive ergatives (see section 6.4.1) are possible, both of which use etre. The ungrammaticality of expletive passive intransitives is explained by the empty expletive in the complement of V° not receiving any case; note that in some cases filling this position makes the construction grammatical. This seems to me to be counterintuitive: English is taken to follow the rules, whereas French is seen as an exception, where the lexical choice of etre saves the construction which really should be ruled out. English is the language, if any, where the lexical choice determines whether or not an expletive ergative construction is grammatical. French, on the other hand, can be shown not to depend on lexical choice, in that the expletive' ergative and the en-cliticisation are possible with ergative verbs that do not take etre (cf. Burzio 1986:139-143): (125)Fr. a. b.

II a disparu un livre de Molidre There has disappeared a book by Moliere II n' en a disparu que deux cette annee There thereof has disappeared but two this year

Note also that English is different in the aspects under discussion from any other language (non-V2 and relatively few expletive ergative and expletive passive transitive constructions with post-verbal argument), whereas French is like any other non-V2 Romance language, as expletive ergative and expletive passive transitive constructions with post-verbal argument are generally possible.

6.7

Conclusion

In this chapter, I have tried to link the variation in expletive constructions in the Germanic (and some Romance) languages to whether the languages have verb second (V2) and V°-to-I° movement: German, Yiddish, and Icelandic have both, Faroese and Danish has V2 but not V°-to-I°; and English and French do not have V2. (All verbs in French and auxiliaries in English also undergo V°-to-I° movement, but this was not relevant to my predictions, as these two languages are not V2. This was done by assuming two crucial restrictions, (a) An NP, including an indefinite NP, may be licensed either by case assignment or by government from 1° under case-assignment-like conditions (Ic must have morphological content and cannot not assign/license case in any other way) or by government by their theta-

NP-Positions in Expletive Constructions

223

assigner; (b) The government requirement is that an expletive-associate chain—i.e., a chain with only one case and one theta-role but two phonologically overt elements—must have either its case or its theta-role assigned under government. I furthermore follow Chomsky (1991:441) in assuming that the expletive has to form a chain with a theta-related element. This is particularly crucial in the analysis of impersonal passives. All the languages have expletive ergatives and expletive passive transitives. The government requirement on the chain is observed in all the languages as both kinds of verbs assign their theta-role to the chain under government (i.e., to the complement of V°). The associate NP is licensed in the complement of V°, as here it is governed by its theta-assigner. It may furthermore be licensed by 1° in German, Yiddish, and Icelandic, as 1° must have content (excluding Faroese, Danish, and English) and may not assign case under spec-X° agreement (excluding English and French). The data are parallel in the copula constructions, which can be explained under Lasnik's (1992:397) "reasonableness" criterion. The copula be is able to behave like a theta-assigner, because it would not be reasonable to expect a copula to assign a theta-role. Only V2 languages may have expletive passive intransitives ("impersonal passives") and expletive active intransitives. The government requirement on the chain is not observed in all the languages as this kind of verb assigns their theta-role to VP-spec, i.e., via spec-X° agreement and not under government. It is therefore required that case is assigned under government, and this is only the case in the V2 languages. On top of this comes the licensing of the associate NP itself in the active intransitive construction: The associate NP is licensed in the complement of V°, as here it is governed by its theta-assigner. It may furthermore be licensed by 1° in German, Yiddish, and Icelandic, as 1° must have content (excluding Faroese, Danish and English) and may not assign case under spec-X° agreement (excluding English and French, but they were excluded anyway). Only V2 languages with V°-to-I° movement may have expletive active transitives, and these only when the external argument is outside the complement of V°. Inside the complement of V°, it would violate the projection principle. Outside the complement of V°, it needs to have its partitive case licensed by 1°. Only I°s which have a morphological content (i.e., I°s in V°-to-I° languages) may license/assign case, and only I°s which do not assign case by spec-X° agreement (i.e. I°s in V2 languages, where nominative is assigned under government from C°) may license/ assign case under government, and therefore this construction is only found in German, Yiddish, and Icelandic. Finally, passive exceptional case marking verbs and raising verbs are not incompatible with expletive constructions, but they cannot license the associate NP, as they neither assign case to, nor enter into a thematic relationship with the expletive-associate chain.

7 Expletive Subjects and Quasi-Arguments

7.1

Introduction

Chomsky (1981:325) makes a distinction between a quasi-argument and a nonargument. Taking expletive subjects to be typical non-arguments, I will follow Hoekstra (1983) and Bennis (1986) and assume this difference to be that a quasiargument, like an argument, must be assigned a theta-role, whereas an expletive subject may never be assigned a theta-role. In this introductory section, I first briefly discuss the different realisations of this difference across the Germanic languages in 7.1.1, and then in 7.1.2 and 7.1.3 turn to some of the arguments from Hoekstra (1983) and Bennis (1986) in favour of their analysis. In the main part of the chapter, sections 7.2 and 7.3,1 discuss the possibility of it and/or there as subjects in sentences with embedded sentences as arguments, showing how the Hoekstra/Bennis analysis enables us to explain the various phenomena. Whereas section 7.2 concerns "normal" verbs that take clausal complements, section 7.3 is about raising verbs—i.e., those verbs that not only take clausal complements, but also allow the subject of their complement to raise to their own subject position. Finally, section 7.4 contains the conclusion.

7.7.7

Different realisations of the distinction between "there" and "it"

Within the Germanic languages the difference between quasi-arguments and expletive subjects (i.e., non-arguments) may either not play a role at all (the expletive and the quasi-argument look exactly identical), it may play a role throughout (the two always take on different forms), or it may only play a role in some positions (e.g., the difference can only be told in IP-spec and not in CP-spec). For reasons of clar224

Expletive Subjects and Quasi-Arguments

225

ity, I shall mainly discuss the second group in the sections that follow (where the distinction is maintained in all positions), but first I will illustrate the three different possibilities outlined here. One possibility is no difference at all between the two types, as seen in Norwegian, Swedish, and the Romance languages, here exemplified by Italian (rather than French, which displays a different distinction between ce 'that' and il 'it'—i.e., between demonstrative and non-demonstrative forms). The same element is used in the a-examples (argument), b- and c-examples (quasi-argument), and d-examples (expletive) (see (6a-d) for English translations):

Another possibility is that the difference between arguments and quasi-arguments on one side and expletives on the other is realised throughout, i.e. the argument and quasi-argument is always it (a-, b-, and c-examples), the expletive always there (d-examples):

(4) Da. a. Pet/*Der b. Det/*Der c. Det/*Der d. *Pet/ Per (5) Du. a. Hsi/*Et b. Hfi£/*E£ c. H£t/*££ d. *Het/ ££

er for dyrt (det = det her maleri) regner er godt at du er kommet er kommet en dreng is te duur (het = dit kunstwerk) regent is goed dat jij gekomen bent is een jongen gekomen

(6) En. a. It/*There is too expensive (it = this painting) b. It/*There rains c. It/*There is good that you came d. *It/*There has arrived a boy e. *££/ There is a boy outside the door

As will be discussed later in 7.2.2, English has some specific restrictions on the occurrence of NPs in constructions with there; cf.(6 d,e) The final possibility is that the language does distinguish between the argument/quasi-argument (if) and the expletive (there), but that this distinction only shows up under certain circumstances. This is the case in German, Yiddish and Ice-

226

Expletive Subjects

landic, where there is no contrast in CP-spec, (7), (9), (11), whereas in IP-spec the contrast is it vs. an empty category (pro), (8), (10), (12):1

(7) Ge. a. ES/*pro b. Es/*pro c. Ea/*pro d. Es/*pro (8) Ge. a.

(9)

ist zu teuer (es = dieses Gemalde) regnet ist gut, daE du gekommen bist ist ein Junge gekommen

Leider ist as/*pro zu teuer (dieses Gemalde) Unfortunately is it too expensive (this painting)

b.

Gestern regnete ££/*pro yesterday rained it

c.

Natiirlich ist Of course is

d.

Gestern ist Yesterday is

Yi. a.

b. c. d. (10) Yi. a.

b. c. d.

Es/*pro £s./*pro £s_/*pro £fi/*pro

es/ pro gut, daE du gekommen bist it good that you come are *eji/ pro ein Junge gekommen it a boy come

iz tsu tayer (es = dos dozike bild) regnt iz gut, vos du gekumen bist iz gekumen a yingl

Leyder iz Nekhtn hot Natirlekh iz Nekhtn iz

££/*pro ejt/ pro es/ pro *££/ pro

tsu tayer (es = dos dozike bild) geregnt gut, vos du gekumen bist gekumen a yingl

(11) Ic. a. b. c. d.

£a£/*pro £afi/*pro £a2/*pro £aJ5/*pro

er of dyrt (baS = betta malverk) rignir er gott a<5 pii ert kominn hefur komiO strakur

(12) Ic. a. b. c. d.

tvi mifiur er £afi/*pro of dyrt (baO = betta malverk) t gar rigndi *£afi/ pro AS sjalfsogSu er £a£/ pro gott aS bu ert kominn t gaer hafoi *£afi/ pro komiO strakur

From what was said above, we would expect the judgments in the IP-spec cases, (8), (10), and (12), to be parallel to the judgments from Danish, Dutch, and English 1. I take the versions with pro in CP-spec of (7c,d), (9b,c,d), and (1 lb,c,d), to be impossible, even though corresponding (i.e., verb-initial) yw/n°-questions and "VI declarative" structures (at least in Yiddish and Icelandic) are actually possible. As discussed in sections 4.1.2 and 4.3, rather than assume an expletive subject (i.e., pro) in CP-spec of such sentences, I take them like all ves/no-questions and VI declaratives to have an empty operator in CP-spec. This, in turn, means that the well-formed verb-initial versions of (7c,d), (9b,c,d), and (llb,c,d) have an empty operator in CP-spec and an expletive pro in IPspec. In other words, these would be parallel to the cases with pro in IP-spec in (8c,d), (10b,c,d), and (12b,c,d). It should also be pointed out that any utterance that may be analysed as (7d) and (8d)—i.e., Gestern/Es ist ein Junge gekommen—also will have an alternative analysis: Instead of pro in IP-spec and ein Junge in object position, ein Junge could be in IP-spec. This alternative is a consequence of the object always preceding the verb in German, and it therefore does not apply in (9d) and (lOd) and in (lid) and (12d) where the post-verbal position of a yingllstrakur makes it impossible to interpret it as being in IP-spec.

227

Expletive Subjects and Quasi-Arguments

in examples (4)-(6). But whereas there is complementary distribution of there and it in Danish, Dutch, and English, this is not quite the case even in IP-spec in German, Yiddish, and Icelandic. Two of the four constructions break this pattern: the extraposed CP case in (8c), (lOc), and (12c) and the weather expressions in (8b), (lOb), and (12b). As for the CP, there is an additional difference between German, Yiddish, and Icelandic on one hand and Danish and English on the other, which is relevant here: Alternative licensing (cf. 6.1.4) is possible from 1° in the former but not in the latter. The exact analysis of these cases (and the problem posed by the Dutch data) are discussed in section 7.2.1. As for the weather expressions, the situation is more complicated: The subject can only be it (i.e., es) in German, only there (i.e., pro) in Icelandic, and either in Yiddish. The weather expressions are the most problematic cases for the claim that it is never an expletive subject but always an argument, as it seems self-evident that weather expressions do not select a subject at all, but still it (as opposed to there) is the only possible subject. Although I am not able to give a simple and elegant analysis, the facts at least show that more goes on than meets the eye: Weather expressions do allow or disallow a number of possibilities as far as their subject is concerned: They have more specifications on their subject than do, say, passive transitive or intransitive verbs. The particular behaviour of weather expressions is also found in Faroese, which otherwise is like Norwegian and Swedish in that it does not distinguish between (quasi-)arguments and expletives: All are realised as tad. If the subject of a weather-expression is not in CP-spec, then it can be realised either as tad or as pro:

(13) Fa. a. b. c. d.

Iafi/*pro lafi/'pro Iafi/*pro T^fi./*pro

er ov dyrt (taa = hetta malaria) regnar er gott, at tu kom er komin ein drongur

(14) Fa. a. b. c. d.

Tianverri er i gjar regnafli Sjalvandi er i dag er

£afi/*pro ov dyrt (taS = hetta malaria) taoV pro iafi/*pro gott, at tu kom iafi/*pro komin ein drongur

A further peculiarity of weather expressions in Icelandic and Faroese is that he is possible as a subject. This indirectly supports the analysis that the subject of weather expressions is not an expletive but a quasi-argument: (15) a. Fa.

b. Fa.

Hann loysti via regni He released with rain

Tafl letur ur It

c. Ic.

1= Rain started to

fall)

liojmm

leaks out-of him

Rigndi liafln. mikia i gaer ? Rained he much yesterday?

(= It is

<= Did it

drizzling)

rain a lot

yesterday?)

228

Expletive Subjects

A somewhat similar phenomenon is reported from French and from West Flemish, where weather expressions allow not only the quasi-arguments il/et 'it', but also the argumental demonstrative qa/da 'that': (16) Fr. a. b. (17) WP. a. b.

II pleut Ca pleut It/That rains

(from Estenazi 1968:110)

. . . dat st regent . . . dat da regent . . . that it/that rains (from Grange &Haegeman 1989:160, (14a), 162, (17a))

Gisbert Fanselow (personal communication) points out that this also holds for German and Standard Dutch. Also here, weather expressions allow not only the quasiarguments eslhet 'it', but also the argumental demonstrative dasldit 'that':2 (18) a. Ge. b. Du.

Eas regnet ja doch wieder Pit regent toch weer That rains after all again

Examples (15)-(18) all support the intuition that the it of weather expressions is "more" than a pure expletive. In the rest of this chapter, I concentrate on the languages with a difference between it and there in embedded clauses: Danish, Dutch, English, and German. Although Icelandic and Yiddish also make a distinction between it and there, this is not realised in the initial position of embedded clauses. I will be making extensive use of the suggestions in Hoekstra (1983) and Bennis (1986), reproducing and criticising their argumentation in 7.1.2 and 7.1.3, and showing how their analysis interacts with assumptions about case assignment in 7.2 and 7.3.

7.1.2

"It" is an argument, "there" is not an argument

Following Hoekstra (1983), Bennis (1986) argues (for Dutch) that the distinction between the two "dummy" subjects it and there is that it always is an argument and there never is. At least one of his arguments in favour of the argument status of Dutch het, 'it', also holds for Danish, namely that het may be the controller of PRO (Bennis 1986:99-101). In Danish as in Dutch, we thus have a property that del 'it', (19a), and not der 'there', (19b), has in common with arguments, which is accounted for assuming del but not der to be an argument: (19) Da. a.

Han mente at [efter PRO matte vaere ffe thought that [after must be

det nu at vaere blevet forklaret ti gange] klart for enhver at jorden er rund it now having been explained ten times) clear to everyone that earth-the is round

1. Not everybody agrees with this claim; cf., e.g., Cardinaletti (1990b:98, fn7) on German.

Expletive Subjects and Quasi-Arguments

229

b. *Han sagde at der nu [after PRO ofte at vaere blevet pastaet i det skjulte] er blevet sagt i radioen at jorden er rund He said that there now [after often having been claimed secretly] has been said in radio-the that earth-the is round

7.1.3 Extraction from inside the embedded clause Having argued in detail that the difference between it and there is a difference in argument status, Bennis (1986:108-110), following Hoekstra (1983:98), goes on to use it to explain a difference about the possibility of extraction from inside a clause embedded in the clause whose subject is it or there. In this section, I argue that the extraction possibilities from within the embedded clause do not tell us anything about the argument/non-argument status of it/ there, because the data vary unexpectedly across the four languages: Extraction across it is impossible in Dutch and German, but possible both in Danish and in English, even though it supposedly is an argument in all four languages. Below I suggest an alternative account of the facts discussed by Bennis. I would like to emphasise that although I disagree with one of Bennis' supporting arguments, I do not disagree with Hoekstra's (1983) and Bennis' (1986) basic hypothesis that it is an argument, and there is not. On the contrary: In sections 7.2. and 7.3,1 argue that this hypothesis, together with facts about case assignment, can be used to explain the distribution of it and there, both in structures with the embedded clause at the end and in structures where the embedded clause is topicalised. Let us first review Bennis' (1986) suggestions. Consider the following case where both het and er are possible: (20) Du. a. b.

Het wordt gezegd Er wordt gezegd It/There is said

dat Jan ziek is dat Jan ziek is that Jan ill is

In an example like (20a), Bennis assumes that het is base-generated in the object position, and then moved into the subject position, presumably for reasons of case, as the sentence is passive. The embedded CP, dat Jan ziek is 'that Jan ill is', is assumed to be in an adjoined position. In (20b), the assumption is that the embedded CP is in the object position (the argument position), and er is base-generated in the subject position. Only the nonargument er (and not the argument het) could possibly be base-generated in the subject position of a passive, which is a position that does not receive a theta-role. Bennis' analysis is thus the following (omitting all traces but the ones of het, and er): (21) Du. a. b.

[ cp Het i wordt [ I p ti [ vp ti gezegd [ cp dat Jan ziek i s ] ] ] ] [ CP EXi

wordt [ I p tj [ vp

gezegd [ cp dat Jan ziek i s ] ] ] ]

Bennis (1986:105) claims that in both (2la) and (21b) the CP is inside the VP of the matrix verb, and that in (21 a) its position is not an argument position (as the trace of het is in the argument position), whereas the CP does occupy an argument position in (21b).

230

Expletive Subjects

This would mean that the argument position of a verb like zeggen 'say' varies: It is to the left of the verb if the complement is an NP, (22a), including het with an extraposed clause, (22b), but it is to the right of the verb if the complement is a clause, (22c), (the er case): (22) Du. a.

... [vp lets zeggen] ... something say

b.

... [vp het zeggen] . . . [cp dat Jan ziek is] . . . it say . . . that Jan ill is

c.

... [vp zeggen [cp dat Jan ziek is] ] ... say that Jan ill is

I find this rather dubious (and also unnecessary), given that one could say that in er cases like (22c), there is a trace of the embedded clause in the complement position left of the verb: (23) Du.

... [v, ti zeggen] . . . [cp dat Jan ziek islj . . . say . . . that Jan ill is

If example (23) were correct, the verb would always assign its theta-role to the same position, whereas (22c) presupposes an exceptional flexibility w.r.t something as inflexible as assignment of theta-roles. I thus find that fairly strong arguments are needed for (22c) to be preferred over (23), and in my opinion, Bennis (1986) does not present such arguments.3 The actual position of the embedded clause is very difficult to determine. If the matrix clause were an embedded clause itself (i.e., if the finite verb appeared under 1°), the embedded CP would have to follow the finite verb. This could be interpreted as evidence that the embedded clause is adjoined to IP (if not higher): ( 2 4 ) a. Du. b. Ge. c. Du. d. Ge.

. . . dat [ I P [ I p het t [ v p t t gezegd] wordt] CP ] . . . dafi [ I p [ I p es t [ v p t 4 gesagt] wird ] CP ] . . . that it said is CP . . . dat [ l p [ I p ££ [ vp t t gezegd] wordt] CEJ . . . daE [ I p [ I p pro [ vp t t gesagt] wird ] CJPJ . . . that there said is CP

If we look at VP topicalisation—movement of the (matrix) VP to (the matrix) CP-spec—this is corroborated, as far as the hetles 'it' cases are concerned. The embedded CP cannot move as part of the matrix VP: ( 2 5 ) a. Du. ? ? [ V P Gezegd [ cp dat Jan ziek is ] ] wordt het niet b. Ge. * [ vp Gesagt [ CP dafi Johann krank 1st]] wird as nicht Said that Jan ill is is it not c. Du. d. Ge.

[ vp Gezegd] wordt hei niet [ cp dat Jan ziek is ] [ vp Gesagt] wird ££ nicht [ c p dafi Johann krank ist] Said is it not that Jan ill is

On the other hand, with respect to the er/pro 'there' cases, we now have contradictory evidence. Example (24c,d) suggests that the embedded CP is adjoined to the 3. Hans Bennis (personal communication) objects that the null hypothesis should be that theta-role assignment is non-directional. I disagree with this; it seems to me that if there is anywhere that the different choices of the ordering parameter are realised—e.g., I°-VP vs. VP-I", or verb-object vs. objectverb—it is precisely in the selection of complements.

231

Expletive Subjects and Quasi-Arguments

matrix IP or higher, whereas VP-topicalisation suggests that it may be adjoined to matrix VP or lower, as it may move along to CP-spec when the matrix VP moves to CP-spec, cf. (26a,b): (26) a. Du. b. Ge.

[vp Gezegd (vp Gesagt Said

[cp dat Jan ziek is ]] wordt er niet [cp daS Johann krank 1st] ] wird pro nicht that Jan ill is is there not

c. Du. ? [VP Gezegd] wordt ££ niet [cp dat Jan ziek is ] d. Ge. [vp Gesagt] wird pro nicht [cp da£ Johann krank ist] Said is there not that Jan ill is

I will assume that in the it case, the embedded CP cannot adjoin to VP but must adjoin relatively high (e.g., to IP); note the ungrammaticality of (25a,b). In the there case, on the other hand, the embedded CP may adjoin either to VP, (26a,b), or to IP, (24c,d). Given the discussion in section 5.4, we would expect the adjunction to VP to be ruled out under certain circumstances, such as in (24c,d) when the VP is not the highest verb-related XP in the domain. In (24c,d) the highest verb-related XP would be IP, whereas in (26a,b) the domain is CP-spec, and the highest verbrelated XP here is the VP. Summing up this far: We have seen how Bennis analyses the hetles case differently from the er/pro case. In the former, the argument is hetles, and the embedded CP is a kind of apposition; in the latter, the argument is the embedded CP, and er/pro is an expletive. We have also seen which positions Bennis assumes the embedded CPs to occupy within the main clause (both inside the matrix V), and some reasons to doubt this. We can now address the issue of extraction. It is crucial to Bennis that the CP in the er case is in an argument position, and that this is not so in the het case. According to Bennis (1986:104-105), this accounts for the difference w.r.t. extraction: (27) a. b. c. d.

Du. *Wat Ge. *Was Du. Wat Ge. Was What

wordt wird wordt wird is

het es er pro it/there

gezegd gesagt, gezegd gesagt, said

dat daS dat daS that

Jan Johann Jan Johann Jan

t t t t

gelezen gelesen gelezen gelesen read

heeft? hat ? heeft? hat ? has ?

Bennis (1986:104) assumes that extraction from an embedded CP is only possible if the CP is in an argument position, and that this is what rules out not only (27a,b) but also the following: (28) a. b. c. d.

Du. Ge. Da. En.

*Wat *Was *Hvad *What

heb hast sagde did

jij du du you say

iets gezegd etwas gesagt, noget something

[nadat [nachdem [efter at [after (that)

jij du du you

£ gehoord hebtj? £ gehSrt hast]? hfflrte £ ]? heard £ ]?

Compare the well-formed extraction, which shows that the ungrammaticality of (28) must be related to the position of the trace inside the embedded clause:4 4. I have changed the verb from Bennis' (1986) betreuren 'regret' to zeggen 'say' in all examples. The Dutch judgments are not affected by this, however. Cf., e.g., Bennis' (1986:104) version of (28): (i)

a. b. c. d.

Du. Ge. Da. En.

*Wat heb jij de beslissing betreurd nadat jij gehoord hebt? *Was hast du den Entschlufi bereut, nachdem du gehbrt hast? *Hvad har du fortrudt beslutningen efter at du har h0rt? *What have you regretted the decision after (that) you have heard?

232 (29)

Expletive Subjects a. b. c. d.

Du. Ge. Da. En.

Wat Has Hyad What

heb hast sagde did

jij £ gezegd du i gesagt, du £ you say £

[nadat [nachdem [efter at [after (that)

jij het gehoord hebtl? du es gehort hast]? du harte det ]? you heard it ]?

Leaving aside for the moment the question of what rules out (28) in all three languages, I want to concentrate here on the alleged parallelism between (27a) and (28a). The problem is that Danish and English versions of (27a) are possible, (30a,b), whereas (as we saw above) the Danish and English versions of (28a) are not possible, (28c,d): (30) a. Da. b. En.

Hvad blev det sagt at Peter havde stjalet t? What was it said that Peter had stolen t?

I therefore conclude that something more needs to be said about the parallelism between (27a,b) and (28a-d). For the sake of completeness, let me mention that the there cases are possible in Danish, but not in English: (31) a. Da. Hvad blev der sagt at Peter havde stjalet t? b. En. *What was there said that Peter had stolen t?

We thus have the following overall picture: Extraction in the it cases is possible in Danish and English, but not in Dutch and German, whereas extraction in the there cases is possible in Danish, Dutch, and German, but not in English. The impossibility of extraction in the English there case obviously derives from the general ungrammaticality of this type of construction: (32) En. 'There was said that Peter had stolen the book

This will be addressed in section 7.2.2. Here I will attempt to account for the ungrammaticality of extraction in the Dutch/German it case. As stated above, one problem with Bennis' analysis of this ungrammaticality is that the parallelism with (28) does not seem to hold. It cannot be maintained that it is the argument status of it that rules out this extraction, as the Danish and English versions are grammatical, and as it is desirable to maintain that German es (in IPspec), Danish det, Dutch het, and English it all have the same status: They are all arguments. This will be argued in more detail in the following subsections. We thus know that the mere fact that a CP does not occur in an argument position does not suffice to prevent extraction of its object. Another problem with Bennis' analysis is the following: As the embedded CP is not assumed to be in its base-generated position in the er case (cf. my preference for (23) over (22c) in the absence of convincing arguments to the contrary), it is difficult to see how the embedded CP can possibly be said to be in an argument position in er cases like (20b) and (27c,d). I will therefore suggest that extraction is possible from a CP in certain positions (e.g., adjoined to VP), even though these may not be argument positions, whereas it is impossible from a CP in certain other positions (e.g., adjoined to IP). Although I have no explanation to offer why adjunction to VP allows for extraction whereas adjunction to IP does not, an analysis along these tentative lines seems to me to be the only one compatible with the following two sets of facts. First: It would seem that for some reason, embedded CPs in constructions with Dutch het or German es are forced to adjoin higher up than CPs embedded in con-

Expletive Subjects and Quasi-Arguments

233

structions with Dutch er or German pro: Compare the VP-topicalisation facts, (25) vs. (26). If this is so, then whatever prevents CPs with Dutch het or German es from adjoining to VP thereby also prevents extraction from within such a CP. Second: It could be argued that the embedded CPs in (28), which were ungrammatical in all four languages, could not possibly be adjoined to VP. The embedded CP has a temporal meaning, and maybe this forces it to have scope over tense in the matrix clause, which entails that its position has to be higher in the tree than adjoined to VP. In this subsection I have tried to show that although there is a difference between the (un)grammaticality of extraction from embedded CPs with Dutch het or German es and the grammaticality of extraction from embedded CPs with Dutch er or German pro, this has nothing to do with the difference in argument status of hetles and erlpro. This can be seen from the fact that the former difference does not exist in Danish (and English, modulo section 7.2.2) though the latter does. Although no precise suggestion has been put forward as to what determines this difference in grammaticality, it was shown that there may be a connection between how low in the tree the embedded clause is adjoined and how acceptable the extraction is.

7.2 It, there, and case assignment In this section I discuss a range of data involving it/there and embedded clauses. I will try to show that the data can all be accounted for if we follow Hoekstra (1983) and Bennis (1986) in assuming that the distinction between the two "dummy" subjects it and there is that it always is an argument and there never is. In other words, there is the only expletive subject of the two. All the structures discussed contain an embedded clause (an embedded CP), which either receives or at least corresponds to a certain theta-role. In the there cases, the embedded CP is the associate of the expletive, and the theta-role is assigned to the expletive-associate chain; in the it cases, the embedded CP is an apposition to (or predicated of) the argument, it, to which the theta-role is assigned. I assume that in the there cases, the embedded CP, like all other associates of expletive subjects, must be licensed, as discussed in sections 6.1.4 and 6.1.5. This means that the CP must either be assigned a case or alternatively licensed—i.e., governed either by its theta-assigner or by an 1° which does not assign case and which has lexical content. In the it cases, on the other hand, the CP underlies no such constraint, as it is an apposition, and receives neither theta-role, nor case, nor alternative licensing. The constraints on the possibility of it are not related to the CP, but to it itself: It is base-generated in the theta-position, and then moved to the subject position. This is only possible if the theta-position is not case-assigned, as otherwise it would be case-marked twice (which I take to be a violation of the case filter; see section 6.1.4). The three following subsections, 7.2.1-7.2.3, will discuss the different constructions, depending on whether the embedded CP or its trace is in a position that

234

Expletive Subjects

is assigned case or alternatively licensed, or neither. The CP is either not licensed at all (7.2.1), or alternatively licensed (7.2.2), or assigned accusative case (7.2.3). This full range of possibilities is only manifest in Danish, not in English, Dutch, or German. The organisation of the subsections 7.2.1-7.2.3 is therefore based on the situation in Danish, although the situation in the other three languages will also be discussed. Let us first have a closer look at what exactly the three licensing possibilities are. As the CP is always in final position (extraposed), it is always possible that it has a trace inside the matrix clause, and that the licensing takes place via this trace. This fact leaves us with the following three possible situations: The embedded CP (or its trace) may be (alternatively) licensed by 1° but not by the main verb (discussed in 7.2.1), or it may be (alternatively) licensed by 1° or by the main verb (discussed in 7.2.2), or it may be assigned accusative case (discussed in 7.2.3). In the latter case, which is only found in Danish, the case assigner is a preposition. Two more subsections have therefore been added, which consider the other cases where the CP (or its trace) is governed by a preposition; in 7.2.4 in English (and Norwegian and Swedish) and in 7.2.5 in Dutch and German. Each time a construction is examined, six different versions will be discussed: Two with the CP at the end (a.: with there, and b.: with it), and four with the CP at the front (c.: with neither it nor there, d.: with there, e.: with it):5

The sixth version is a left dislocation construction, which has the surface of (33e), but with a demonstrative; i.e., with that rather than it.

7.2.1

CP neither assigned case nor alternatively licensed

There are two different configurations in which the embedded CP or its trace is neither assigned case nor alternatively licensed, at least in Danish and English. In the first case, examples (35)-(42), the matrix verb is transitive and the CP corresponds to the external argument. Although this means that the verb also assigns accusative, it is assigned to its object and not to the embedded CP, which is in final position following the object. In the second case, examples (43)-(48), the CP is an argument of an adjec-

5. As there in German is realised as pro, it is not possible to tell (33d) apart from (33c). Consequently, there will be no German examples in the instantiations of the (33d) pattern in the following subsections.

E xpletive Subjects and Quasi-Argumentsents

2 235

live, and adjectives neither assign case to their complement nor license their complement in any alternative fashion. In both instances, it should be possible for a trace in the highest VP-spec to be licensed by F, provided the other conditions on a licensing 1° are fulfilled (it has lexical content and it does not assign a case)—i.e., in German and Dutch, but not in Danish and English. This was the account given in section 6.3 for examples of the following type: (34) a. b. c. d.

En. *There has Da. *Der har Du. Er heeft Ge. Es hat

someone bought books nogen k0bt bager iemand boeken gekocht jemand Bucher gekauft

We would thus expect parallel cases in which the associate of the expletive is also the external argument but a clause rather than an NP to pattern in the same way— i.e., to be impossible in English and Danish and possible in Dutch and German. This is not the case, as the picture is much less clear than in (34). It would seem that constructions with there and with a clause corresponding to the external argument are generally acceptable in German and generally unacceptable in Dutch, the latter being unexpected under the present analysis, given the data in (34). Let us first consider the cases in which the embedded CP corresponds to an external argument of a transitive verb. Such a case is the construction with the verb annoy. It is not possible to use there in such a construction in English and Danish, as expected, and also not in Dutch, less expectedly, but it is possible in German:6

6. With the exception of (39) below, I will omit the trees from now on and give only the example sentences themselves. The examples will contain a number of traces: The traces of there/it and the embedded CP occur in the various specifier positions (of CP, IP, and the two VPs of the auxiliary and the main verb), and in the complement position of the lowest X°. The traces of the moved verb occur in V° and also in 1° (if the verb is in C°, in Danish, Dutch, and German main clauses). Danish and English has I°-VP and verb-object order; Dutch and German have VP-F and object-verb order. Traces inside the embedded CP are not shown. The indices are as follows: "i" is the index of the CP, "j" the expletive subject, and "v" the finite verb, "i" and "j" together are thus the indices of the expletive-associate chain.

236

Expletive Subjects

These examples contain the expletive subject therelderlerlpro. Because of the visibility condition (cf. 6.1.3), the expletive has to be linked to a thematic associate (i.e., to the external argument), and the associate has to be licensed (cf. 6.1.4). There can be no case assignment to the external argument because nominative is assigned to the expletive subject in IP-spec and accusative to the object me. Furthermore, the main verb cannot license the external argument, as this would necessitate that the (trace of the) external argument occurs inside the complement of V°, which is prevented by the projection principle (cf. 6.4.2), given that the complement of V° contains an object, me. This leaves only licensing by 1°, which requires that 1° is not involved in case assignment (excluding English) and that 1° has lexical content (excluding Danish and English). The prediction is thus that both (35c,d) should be good, which is not completely borne out. Something seems to prevent 1° from licensing a trace of a sentential argument in Dutch. 7 1 have no explanation to offer for this, but the same pattern will be found with adjectives. Cardinaletti (1990b:94) expects German examples like (35d), with pro and an embedded CP corresponding to the external argument, to be ungrammatical "since German does not allow an argumental null pronominal". The fact that German has no argumental pro (as opposed to, e.g., Italian) is not crucial. Both in my and Cardinaletti's analyses (which have in common that the external argument in a transitive construction like in (34c,d) occurs lower than IP-spec, because IP-spec is occupied by the expletive subject or its trace), an expletive subject should be just as possible in (35c,d) and (36a,b), where the external argument would be a CP, as it is in (34c,d), where it is an NP: In all cases the expletive subject is generated in IP-spec 7. Note that (35c) is well-formed if none of the arguments are embedded clauses: (i}

Du.

Piet gelooft dat er mij een jongen iriteert Piet thinks that there me a boy annoys

Another case in which a difference in grammaticality seems to depend is whether or not one of the arguments is an embedded clause: (ii) Du.

Ik geloof dat er een jongen Piet von jouw onschuld overtuigd heeft I think that there a boy Piet of your innocence convinced has

(iii) Du. *Ik geloof dat er iet von jouw onschuld overtuigd heeft, dat jij gekomen bent I think that there Piet of your innocence convinced has that you come are

Expletive Subjects and Quasi-Argutnents

237

and the external argument in VP-spec. The fact that (36a,b) are grammatical might further support this analysis: (36) Ge. a.

Ich glaube, J

b.

dafi pro den Peter von deiner Unschuld uberzeugt hat, da£ du gekommen bist believe that the PeterCaccJ about your innnocence convinced has that you come have

Er glaubt, daS pro mir bekannt 1st, dafi du gekommen bist He thinks that to-me known is that you come have

Admittedly, with matrix verbs that are less likely to belong to the class of psych-verbs (cf., e.g., Belletti & Rizzi 1988 and Grimshaw 1990:112ff), the examples with pro are less acceptable: (37) Ge.

?Ich glaube, daS I

pro meine Theorien unterstiitzt, daS solche Satze mSglich sind believe that my theories supports that such sentences possible are

This might lead to the conclusion that external argument CPs may not be extraposed and that internal argument CPs must be extraposed. This would account for why it is only possible to extrapose with psych-verbs, as what looks like an external argument could actually be an internal one, and could therefore be extraposed from inside the VP—i.e., it could have a licensed trace inside VP. I see two problems with this analysis: One is that in Dutch extraposition of a CP corresponding to the "subject theta-role" is not possible at all, regardless of whether the verb is a psychverb, as in (35) and (36), or a real transitive, as in (37). The other is that assuming that the "external" argument in a psych-verb construction (i.e., the element that would have been subject if there had not been an expletive subject) may be licensed inside VP by the psych-verb itself predicts that such an argument may occur inside the VP if it is an NP instead of a CP. That this prediction is not borne out was shown and discussed in section 6.6.3 for the psych-verbs loathe and please. I shall therefore conclude that for some reason, 1° cannot license a CP argument in any of the Dutch cases or in the German cases with non-psych verbs (as opposed both to psych-verbs and to adjectives, which discussed further later in this chapter). Consider now the situation when instead of the expletive subject there, it is used: IPsp VPsp

(38) a. b. c. d.

En. Da. Du. Ge.

i

Xt^ . . . at datj . . . dat lietj . . . dafi es^

4.

t^ tj t j mij t t mien

annoys me irriterer mig tv irriteert v tv argert v

[that you came] [at du er kommet] [dat jij gekomen bent] [daS du gekommen bist]

It receives nominative case in IP-spec and receives theta-role via a trace in VP-spec. The embedded CP, which is an apposition to (or predicated of) the argument it, receives neither case nor theta-role. The CP thus occupies a position similar to that of a left-dislocated element; note also that it "may be considered to be a resumptive pronoun", according to Hoekstra (1983:97). Let us now consider the cases where the CP is moved to the first position of the main clause. Here there are three possibilities: Either it moves there through IP-

238

Expletive Subjects

spec (which then contains a trace), or it moves there directly, leaving IP-spec free to contain either there or it. If the CP moves through IP-spec, the structure is possible. I am assuming that the embedded CP occurs in IP-spec in English but in CP-spec in Danish, Dutch, and German:8

Here the CP receives the theta-role via a trace in VP-spec and receives case via a trace in IP-spec. If IP-spec contains there, the structure is impossible: CPsp 4,

IPsp 4

4

VPsp .

(40) a. En. "[That you came]; ih££e_j annoysv tt tv me b. Da. MAt du er kommet] irritererv dgrj tv tt tv mig c. Du. »[Dat jij gekomen bentlj irriteertv ££., tj mij tv tv

As in (35), these examples could only be grammatical if the associate—i.e., the trace of the CP—were licensed. As licensing mechanism for the trace of the CP— 8. Cf. the analysis in Koster (1978), where such sentences are analysed to be left dislocated, with an empty operator in CP-spec.

239

Expletive Subjects and Quasi-Arguments

i.e., the external argument—neither case assignment nor licensing by the main verb are relevant, as nominative and accusative are both assigned and the main verb does not govern any part of the expletive-associate chain. As discussed, this leaves only licensing by 1°, which only could take place in Dutch and German. As in (35), however, it seems that something prevents 1° from licensing a trace of a sentential argument in Dutch. German, on the other hand, does not provide any counterexample, given that this construction in German would result in the same surface string as the grammatical (39d). If IP-spec contains it, the structure is not possible either: CPsp

IPsp

4, (41) a. b. c. d.

En. Da. Du. Ge.

1

VPsp

4

-

*[That you came] itt annoysv t4 * [At du er kommet] irritererv deti tv tA * [Dat jij gekomen bent] irriteertv hett t± mij * [DaE du gekommen bist] argertv esj^ t± mien

tv me tv mig tv tv tv tv

In order to occur in CP-spec of the main clause, the embedded CP has to undergo A-bar-movement. This is only possible for maximal projections which are assigned both a theta-role and case. If the CP is assigned theta-role and case here, then the argument it receives neither, and then the structure would be impossible. If the CP is assigned neither theta-role nor case (i.e., it is an apposition or a predicate), then it cannot move into CP-spec, and again the structure would be impossible.9 This last construction should be distinguished from a left dislocation (cf., e.g., van Haaften et al. 1983 and references cited there). Left-dislocated elements receive neither theta-role nor case: CPsp (42) a. b. c. d.

En. Da. Du. Ge.

4,

IPsp

4,

VPsp

i

[That you came], thati tA [At du er kommet] , dati irritererv ti tv ti [Dat jij gekomen bent], daii irriteertv tt tt mij [DaS du gekommen bist], da^ argertv t± ti mich

annoys me tv mig tv tv tv tv

The comma signals the intonational break, which is necessary for the dislocated interpretation. Left dislocation constructions are thus really cases in which the demonstrative pronoun replaces the CP itself in CP-spec of the matrix clause (and the embedded CP exists in some sort of vacuum/suspended animation to the left of the CP, much like the position of the CP on the right periphery in a standard it construction). The judgments are therefore completely parallel to the examples with the CP in CP-spec of the main clause, in (39)-(41) above. The only well-formed example there was (39), which is why (42) contains a trace in IP-spec, and not there or it. 9. Cf. that appositions (predicates) which are NPs cannot undergo A-bar-movement, either: I dag m0dte jeg Pefceri-

Today met I b. *Min aamle ven^ (ii) Ge. a. b.

Peter my old friend mgdte jeg Peter^ i dag

My old friend met I Peter today Heute habe ich Peter^. meinen alten Freund^. getroffen Today have I Peter my old friend met Heute habe ich Peter^ getroffen, meinen alten Freundj Today have I Peter met my old friend

c. *Meinen alten Freund^ habe ich geter^ heute getroffen My old friend have I Peter today met (iii) En. a. Today I met Peter^. my old friendi b. *My old f riend^. I met Peteri today

240

Expletive Subjects

Let us now turn to the other case, where the embedded CP or its trace is neither assigned case nor alternatively licensed. This is what happens in constructions with adjectives, as adjectives neither assign case nor license in any alternative fashion. The adjective examples in (43)-(48) thus provide us with a further indication as to the nature of what I have termed "alternative licensing" (introduced in section 6.1.4), reinforcing the parallelism with case assignment. We have already seen that alternative licensing by an 1° is only possible under conditions similar to the conditions on case assignors: 1° must have lexical content and it must not assign another case. Later we see that the other kind of alternative licensing, licensing by a theta-assigner, also takes place under conditions reminiscent of case-assignment, as alternative licensing is possible by a theta-assigning V° but not by a theta-assigning Adj°. The judgments are exactly the same as in (35)-(42). Thus it is not possible to use there in such a construction:

(43) a. b. c. d.

En. * Da. *... at Du. *... dat Ge. ... da£

J.

IPsp

VPsp

i

I

APsp

There3 isv derj ei-j pro^

tj tv tj er tj t-j

t1 ti t( ti

good godt goed tv isv gut tv istv

[that you came^ [at du er kommetli [dat jij gekomen bentlj [da& du gekommen bist]i

As the examples above with there, these examples could only be grammatical if the associate (i.e., the CP or its trace) were licensed. The only relevant licensing is licensing by 1° (given that nominative is assigned to there, and that the adjective may neither assign accusative nor license), and licensing by 1° could only take place in Dutch and German. As discussed, it seems that something prevents 1° from licensing a trace of a sentential argument in Dutch, though not in German. The embedded CP receives a theta-role via a trace somewhere inside the AdjP. In the examples I have assumed that it is base-generated in AdjP-spec, but I have no particular reason for preferring AdjP-spec to the complement of Adj°, except that it will result in a trace less in each representation.10

10. Hans Bennis (personal communication) points out that some adjectives allow both it and there in Dutch: (i)

Du. a. b.

. . . dat hefc mij niet bekend is . . . dat fir. mij niet bekend is . . . that it/there me not known is

[of Jan komt ] [of Jan komt ] whether Jan comes

Although this is what the present analysis would predict for all Dutch adjectives, it only holds for a minority of adjectives like bekend, and even these are not acceptable to all speakers. We are then still left with the impression that licensing from 1° in Dutch fails when and only when the licensee is a (trace of a) CP. But in German it really seems that both it (es) and there (pro) are possible with all adjectives: (ii) Ge. a. c. b. d.

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

da£ daB dafe da6 that

££ dem Peter ££ pro dem Peter pro it/there (to-the Peter)

nicht nicht nicht nicht not

bekannt bekannt bekannt bekannt known

ist ist ist ist is

da£ daE dafe daB that

du du du du you

gekommen gekommen gekommen gekommen come

bist bist bist bist have

Notice that the predicted and not always confirmed ability of Dutch and German adjectives to occur with both it and there is not directly connected to the question of whether or not ergative adjectives exist (cf. Cinque 1990a).

241

Expletive Subjects and Quasi-Arguments

If on the other hand, it is used, the situation changes: IPsp

VPsp

It t isv detj hetj esi

ti t v t t er tt ti

i ( 4 4 ) a. b. c. d.

En. Da. . . . at Du. . . . dat Ge. . . . dafi

i

APsp

4,

t± tj t± t4

good godt goed t v isv gut tv ist v

[that you came] [at du er kommet] [dat jij gekomen bent] [dafi du gekommen bist]

It receives nominative case in IP-spec, and theta-role via a trace inside the AdjP. The embedded CP, which is an apposition to the argument it, receives neither case nor theta-role. Consider now the cases in which the CP is moved to CP-spec of the main clause. Here there are three possibilities: Either it moves there through IP-spec (which then contains a trace), or it moves there directly, leaving IP-spec free to contain either there or it. If the CP moves through IP-spec, the structure is possible (still assuming that the embedded CP has only moved to IP-spec in the English example as English is not a V2 language): CPsp

( 4 5 ) a. b. c. d.

En. Da. Du. Ge.

i

IPsp

i

VPsp

[That you camelj isv [At du er kommet]i erv t t t v [Dat jij gekomen bentJi isv t A [Dafi du gekommen b i s t l j istv ti

i

ti t v tj t v tt tt

APsp

i

ti t4 tA tt

good godt goed tv tv gut t^, t v

Here the CP receives the theta-role via a trace somewhere inside the AdjP, and case (via a trace) in IP-spec. If IP-spec contains there, the structure is impossible: CPsp

4.

IPsp

VPsp

i

APsp

4.

i

( 4 6 ) a. En. "[That you camelj there3 isv t., t v t t good b. Da. * [At du er kommet)i erv derj t v t., tv tj godt c. Du. * [Dat jij gekomen bentli isv er.) tj ti goed tv t v

These examples contain an expletive-associate chain. The associate therefore must be licensed, and as licensing mechanism for the trace of the CP (i.e., the external argument), neither case assignment nor licensing by the main verb is relevant, as nominative is assigned to there, and as the adjective may neither assign accusative nor license. This leaves only licensing by 1°, and only in Dutch and German. It still seems that something prevents 1° from licensing a trace of a sentential argument in Dutch. German, on the other hand, does not provide any counterexample, given that this construction in German would result in the same surface string as the grammatical (45d). If IP-spec contains it, the structure is not possible, either: CPsp

1 ( 4 7 ) a. b. c. d.

En. Da. Du. Ge.

IPsp

4,

* [That you came] it t isv * [At du er kommet] er v detj t v *[Dat jij gekomen bent] isv het t *[Dafi du gekommen bist] ist v fi£i

VPsp

I

APsp

I

t j tv t 4 ti t v t t ti tL tj tj

good godt goed t v t v gut t v t v

242

Expletive Subjects

In order to occur in CP-spec of the main clause, the embedded CP has to undergo A-bar-movement. This is only possible for maximal projections which are assigned both a theta-role and a case. If the CP is assigned neither theta-role nor case (i.e., it is an apposition or a predicate), then it cannot move into CP-spec, and the structure is impossible. Alternatively, if the CP is assigned theta-role and case here, then the argument It receives neither, so the structure is impossible. As discussed, this last construction should be distinguished from a left dislocation. Left dislocated elements receive neither theta-role nor case: CPsp i

( 4 8 ) a. b. c. d.

En. Da. Du. Ge.

[That you came], [At du er kommet] , deti [Dat jij gekomen bent], daLi [DaS du gekommen bist] , daSi

IPsp i

iliatj isv erv tj tv isv ti ist v ti

VPsp APsp I I

t± t v ti t v t± tj

tt t± tt tt

good godt goed t v t v gut t v t v

The comma signals the intonational break, which is necessary for the dislocated interpretation, and this is parallel to the construction with the embedded CP in CPspec of the main clause, (45). This section showed the possibilities for it/there and embedded CPs in constructions where the CP or its trace is not licensed by case assignment or by alternative licensing from the main V°. There may be a there, if the trace of the CP is licensed— i.e., only in German (unexpectedly, this is not possible in Dutch). There may be an it, in which case the CP must be in a position where it needs neither case nor theta-role: apposition (or left dislocation). The CP may also receive both case and theta-role, but then there is room for neither it nor there.

7.2.2

CP alternatively licensed

After having considered what happens when the embedded CP or its trace could only be licensed by 1°, we will now turn to the next possibility: that the embedded CP (or its trace) may be licensed by the main verb. One construction in which the main verb may license the CP (or its trace) is one involving a passive verb, as in section 6.4.3. In the passive construction discussed here, the theta-role is assigned to the complement of V°, and this position may also be alternatively licensed by the main verb. We have already seen, in section 7.1.3, that in constructions with passives of verbs that take CPs as complements, both it and there were possible in Danish, Dutch, and German, whereas only it was possible in English. I will argue that this is linked to another difference between English on one hand and Danish, Dutch, and German (and many more languages, including all other Germanic ones) on the other: In English, expletive-associate chains are generally not possible (with the exception of copulas and the so-called "inside verbals"; cf. 6.4.1 and 6.4.6), as appears from the following passive transitive paradigm from section 6.4.3:

Expletive Subjects and Quasi-Arguments (49) a. b. c. d. e. f. g.

Ge. ... Yi. ... Ic. ... Fa. ... Da. ... En. * Fr.

daS pro az es afl baO at taS at der There II

vert var bleiv blev was a ete

gegesn bor6a6 etiS spist eaten mange

243

ein an

Apfel gegessen wurde epl epli eitt surepli et able an apple une pomme

or from the following ergative verb paradigm: (50) a. b. c. d.

En. * There has fallen a bov out of the window Da. ... at der er faldet en drena ud af vinduet Du. ... dat er een -ionaen uit net raam gevallen is Ge. . . . dafi pro ein Junae aus dent Fenster gefallen ist

In the analysis advocated here, where the embedded CP in a there construction must be part of an expletive-associate chain, and therefore (alternatively) licensed (as opposed to an embedded CP in an it construction), the general ungrammaticality of constructions in English with there and an embedded CP thus will have the same explanation as the ungrammaticality of (49f) and (50a).u There is thus acceptable in such a construction, except in English: IPsp

(51) a. En. * b. Da. c . Du. d. Ge.

i

VPsp

i

VPsp

i

There., wasv t;3 tv said tj . at der.j t:j blev tj sagt . dat ££j t;j tj ti gezegd ... daS prOj

t.,

t-j t± gesagt

[that you would comejj [at du ville komme]i tv werdy [dat jij komen zultjj tv wurdev [daS du kommen wilrdestJi

As was the case with the examples containing there discussed so far, there has to be an expletive-associate chain in these sentences.12 This again requires that the associate (the CP or its trace) be licensed. Given that nominative is assigned to there, and that accusative may not be assigned in passive structures, only what I have called "alternative licensing" is relevant. The analysis predicts that licensing by 1° is possible in Dutch and German, and that licensing by the theta-assigning verb is possible in all the languages (as usual, with the exception of English). Even if something prevents 1° from licensing a trace of a sentential argument in Dutch, it would seem that the theta-assigning V° is not restricted in a similar way, as the example is acceptable. 11. Richard Kayne (personal communication) points out that there with a postposed CP subject— e.g., (51a)—is more severely ungrammatical than there with a postverbal NP subject—e.g., (49f) and (50a). This fact cannot be accounted for under the present approach. 12. Actually, for the purposes of there, it would suffice to be linked to the passive morphology on the verb, which has absorbed the external theta-role (cf. section 6.4.5 on impersonal passives, and section 7.2.3, where there does link to the passive morphology.). This is not possible here because the internal theta-role would violate the visibility condition: It would be assigned to an element (i.e., to the CP via its trace) which never, not even at LF, is linked to a case, as it is neither assigned case nor part of an expletive-associate chain (cf. the discussion in section 6.1.5 on expletive-associate chains).

244

Expletive Subjects

It is also possible in the same kind of contexts:13 ( 5 2 ) a . En. b. Da. c. Du.

. . . at

. . . dat

d. Ge.

IPsp VPsp VPsp i 1 4. said lii wasv ti t v tj sagt deti ti blev t j ti t t t i gezegd heii

... daE esj

tj

tj tj gesagt

[that you would come] [at du ville komme] tv wordtv [dat jij komen zult] tv wurdev [daE du kommen wiirdest]

It receives nominative case in IP-spec, and theta-role via its trace in the complement of V°. The embedded CP, which is an apposition to (predicate of) the argument it, receives neither case nor theta-role. The present analysis would expect it to always be possible in these passive constructions, as it is base-generated in the argument position, with the CP being an apposition. In other words, when a verb selects a CP as argument, this CP may always be replaced by an it linked up to an appositional CP (I take this to be implicit in the analyses of Hoekstra 1983 and Bennis 1986). Cardinaletti (1990b:73) takes a different approach, by claiming that in German it (i.e., es) is only as good in this kind of passive context as it is in the corresponding active ones. This certainly does not hold for Danish and English, and, in fact, it does not seem to hold completely generally for German, either; note that the following examples are much better in passive, (53), than in active, (54), and that they would be acceptable in active as well, if it had not been there, (55): (53) a. En. b. Da. c. Ge.

Yesterday it was said in the news ... I gar blev det sagt i nyhederne Gestern wurde es in den Nachrichten gesagt, ... ... that Peter had won the Nobel Prize ... at Peter havde faet Nobelprisen . . . daE Peter den Nobelpreis erhalten hat

(54) a. En. *Yesterday they said it on the news b. Da. *I gar sagde de det i nyhederne c. Ge. ??Gestern sagten sie £s in den Nachrichten, (55) a. En. b. Da. c. Ge.

Yesterday they said on the news I gar sagde de i nyhederne Gestern sagten sie in den Nachrichten,

that . . . at ... daE ...

that ... at ... daE ...

Let us now consider the cases where the CP is moved to CP-spec of the main clause. Here there are three possibilities: Either it moves there through IP-spec, or it moves there directly, leaving IP-spec free to contain either there or it. If the CP moves through IP-spec, the structure is possible: CPsp

4 (56) a. b. c. d.

En. Da. Du. Ge.

IPsp

i

VPsp VPsp

i

[That you would come]i wasv t A t v [At du ville komme] i blevv ti t v t A tv [Dat jij komen zultli werdv t A ti [Dafi du kommen wiirdest] A wurdev t A tA

i

ti said ti tt sagt t± ti t t gezegd ti ti gesagt

tv tv t v tv

13. Liliane Haegeman (personal communication) points out that the version with het, (52c), as opposed to the version with er, (51c), has a more factive interpretation, which is why a different embedded clause without a future tense may be more acceptable: Du. ... dat lia£ gezegd werd [dat jij gekomen bent] . . . that it said was that you come are

245

Expletive Subjects and Quasi-Arguments

Here the CP receives the theta-role via a trace in the complement of V° and receives nominative case via a trace in IP-spec. If IP-spec contains there, the judgments are parallel to the examples with there in (51) above (even if not absolutely perfect in Dutch): CPsp

IPsp

4

4

4

( 5 7 ) a. En. MThat you would comelj iliaia^ wasv b. Da. [At du ville kommeli blevv derj tv c. Du. [Dat jij komen zult^ werdj, SX.-J

VPsp

VPsp

4

tj t v t.| said t4 t 4 tv t j sagt t4 t., t a t j gezegd tv tv

As stated many times already, there has to be an expletive-associate chain in these sentences. This again requires that the associate (the CP or its trace) be licensed. Given that nominative is assigned to there, and that accusative may not be assigned in passive structures, we are left with "alternative licensing". The analysis of chapter 6 predicts that licensing by 1° is possible in Dutch and German and that licensing by the theta-assigning verb is possible in all the languages (as usual, with the exception of English). I therefore take it that a trace (of the CP) in the object position is licensed by the main verb. If IP-spec contains it, the structure is not possible: CPsp

IPsp

4 (58) a. b. c. d.

En. Da. Du. Ge.

4

* [That you would come] *[At du ville komme] blevv * [Dat jij komen zult] werd^, *[DaS du kommen wurdest] wurdev

4

it 4 wasv dfiti t v iietj eat

VPsp

VPsp

4

ti t v t t tv t4 t;

t4 t4 t4 t4 t4 t 4

said t 4 sagt t t gezegd tv tv gesagt tv t v

In order to occur in CP-spec of the main clause, the embedded CP has to undergo A-bar-movement. This is only possible for maximal projections which are assigned both a theta-role and a case. If the CP is assigned neither theta-role nor case (i.e., if it is an apposition), then it cannot move into CP-spec and the structure is impossible (this is the reading illustrated by the indices above). Alternatively, if the CP is assigned theta-role and case here, then the argument it would receive neither, so the structure is impossible. As was the case in the previous subsection, this last construction should be distinguished from a left dislocation. Left dislocated elements receive neither thetarole nor case: CPsp 4 (59) a. b. c. d.

En. Da. Du. Ge.

[That you would come], (At du ville komme], dfitj blevv [Dat jij komen z u l t ] , daii word, [Dafi du kommen wurdest], dafii wurdev

IPsp VPsp 4 4 lhati wasv t ± t v ti tv tj t v t4 tt tt ti

VPsp 4 tj tt t t t; ti t 4

said t 4 sagt t t gezegd t v t v gesagt t v t v

Left dislocations are subject to exactly the same restrictions as the cases with the embedded CP in the main CP-spec. As would thus be expected, der may occur in IPspec in Danish; note that both (56b) and (57b) were grammatical. Also expected is the fact that there may not occur in English—neither between that and was nor between was and said; note that (56a) is grammatical, but (57a) is not. Less expected is the decline in well-formedness in the Dutch example if er occurs in IP-spec. The result is

246

Expletive Subjects

like (59) with er inserted: ^Datjij komen zult, dat werd er gezegd 'That you come would, that was there said'. This is a sentence which is '??', as opposed to the non-dislocated (57c), which is more or less grammatical. In this section, we discussed what the possibilities were for it/there and embedded CPs in constructions where the CP or its trace may be alternatively licensed by the (passive) main verb. Because alternative licensing is possible in all the languages here, the there versions are also possible (modulo English, as in sections 6.4.1 and 6.4.3). It is well-formed (provided the CP is in a position where it needs neither case nor thetarole: apposition or left dislocation), as it is base-generated in a theta-position, complement of V, and moves into a case-marked position, IP-spec. Whether the complement of V° is an alternatively licensed position (as in this subsection) or not (as in the previous subsection) is of no consequence, as long as it is not case marked (the latter would lead to a case clash, as discussed in the following subsection). Exactly parallel to the it case is the case in which the CP itself occurs in CP-spec. The embedded CP is ruled out in CP-spec if it is in IP-spec, as it then both is assigned the only case in the structure (nominative) and also blocks the CP from being optionally licensed: The trace of the CP cannot be governed by the main verb, because the trace of it is in the complement of V°. As predicted by the analysis, and as discussed for NP arguments in section 6.4, exactly the parallel judgments to those discussed in this subsection would result if the passive transitive verbs were replaced by ergative and by active intransitive verbs. That is, the intransitive It/There follows from this that Peter is coming occurs in all four languages, and the ergative It/There stands in the letter that Peter is coming occurs in Danish, Dutch, and German.

7.2.3

CP with accusative: P°-CP in Danish

In the preceding sections, cases were discussed where the CP or its trace either was not licensed at all or was alternatively licensed. In this section, I examine a construction in which the accusative case is assigned to the position that receives the theta-role of the embedded CP. The construction involves a preposition, as in count on CPIagree on CP. I will first discuss this construction in Danish, which is the only language in which case is definitely assigned. As is supported by the fact that pseudo-passives are impossible in Danish (cf. Herslund 1984:70, fn 7):14 ( 6 0 ) a. b. c. d.

Da. * . . . No. . . . Sw. ... En. . . .

at at att that

Peber i Petter i ££teri EsLSI.i

blev grinet ble ledd skrattades was laughed

a£ av At at

tj t4 tj tj

14. Herslund (1984:61) observes that in languages which allow preposition stranding after whmovement (i.e., English and the Scandinavian languages), there is a correlation between the possibility of pseudo-passive and the possibility of the order verb-particle-object: Danish and Icelandic allow neither; English, Norwegian, and Swedish allow both. Conservative Faroese also seems to allow both (see Barnes 1992:27 and Henriksen 1983:31), whereas modern spoken Faroese, like Danish, allows neither pseudopassive (ib,c) nor particle-object order (iia):

Expletive Subjects and Quasi-Arguments

247

This will be taken as support for the assumption that the preposition assigns its case in all of the Danish examples below. After the discussion of Danish, I will turn to English in section 7.2.4 and also to Norwegian and Swedish, where the pseudo-passive mechanism seems to be at work because the preposition does not assign case. As Dutch and German allow neither preposition stranding nor CPs as complement of P°s, the Dutch/German version of the count on CP-construction has rather different characteristics from Danish and English, and this will be discussed in the final subsection, 7.2.5. In Danish, the construction is regne med CP, literally 'count with CP', and it is possible with there: IPsp

i

(61) Da.

VPsp

1

VPsp

I

... at derj tj blev tj regnet med ti [at du ville kommelj . . . that there was counted on that you would come

There receives nominative case in IP-spec, but no theta-role. The embedded CP receives both a theta-role and accusative case (either directly or via a trace) in the complement of P°. As there may link up with the passive morphology on the verb (which has absorbed the external theta-role; see section 6.4.5 on impersonal passives), visibility is observed separately for the two chains. With it, the picture is the following: IPsp VPsp

1

I

VPsp

I

(62) Da. *... at dett tt blev tj regnet med ti [at du ville komme] . . . that it was counted with that you would come

The embedded CP, which is an apposition to the argument it, receives neither case nor theta-role, and therefore does not violate visibility. It as an argument must be base-generated in a theta-position, which means that it receives both a theta-role and accusative case via a trace in the complement of P°. As it also receives nominative case in IP-spec, the sentence is ruled out as a "case clash": No element can receive more than one case (cf. section 6.1.4).

(i)

Fa. a.

Tafl bleiv tosafl um mannin There was talked about man-the(acc)

b. * Mannin bleiv tosad Jjffl c. *Maflurin bleiv tosad um Man-the face/nom) was talked about (ii)

Fa. a. *Jakup blakafli burtur teppia b. Jakup blakaoi teppia burtur Jakup threw (carpet-the) away (carpet-the)

Following the analysis in Vikner (1987) and the remarks in section 6.4.4, the difference between the two groups could be that English, conservative Faroese, Norwegian, and Swedish have reanalysis of the verb and the preposition (or of the verb and the particle) into one element, a complex verb, whereas Danish, modern spoken Faroese, and Icelandic do not. In other words, the particle in the particle construction and the preposition in the pseudo-passive is "abstractly" incorporated into the verb (i.e., incorporated at LF; cf. Baker 1988:259). This reanalysis has the effect that the case-assignment properties of the particle and the preposition depend on the verb: This is seen in that the particle may either assign accusative or perform "alternative licensing", depending on whether the verb has an external and an internal argument (see also Vikner 1987:278, fn3), and that the preposition may lose its case assigning properties, depending on whether or not the verb is passivised.

248

Expletive Subjects

Let us now consider the cases in which the CP is moved to CP-spec of the main clause. Here the following three possibilities exist: The CP may move there through IP-spec, but it may also move there directly, leaving IP-spec free to contain either there or it. If the CP moves through IP-spec, the structure is not possible. Once again an element receives both nominative (via a trace in IP-spec) and accusative case (via a trace in the complement of P°):15 CPsp ( 6 3 ) Da. * [At du ville komme^ blevv That you would come was

IPsp

VPsp VPsp

ti tv ti tv ti

regnet med ti counted with

15. As would be expected in this analysis, example (63) is possible in Norwegian, which has pseudo-passives (see also the discussion of English and of Norwegian and Swedish in section 7.2.4). As discussed in the previous footnote, my analysis would be that the accusative case assigned by the preposition is dependent on the verb, and therefore cannot be assigned when the verb is passivised. This means that the trace inside PP would receive no case, so that the embedded CP only receives one case. For an alternative analysis, see Afarli (1992:87), who discusses the following contrast: (i)

a. No. b. En.

Ola^ vart snakka ajed. t^ to gonger Ollie^ was balked with tj twice

(ii)

a. No. Ola^ vart snakka to gonger toed. ti b. En. *011ie1 was talked twice with tj

Afarli suggests that with can only assign case to its complement if it is adjacent to the verb—i.e., in (i). Consequently, the passive morphology does not receive case in (ii), as the preposition does not assign case. According to Afarli, example (ii) therefore illustrates that the passive morphology needs case in English but not in Norwegian. I would assume that the passive morphology is always assigned case by the verb itself (see also section 6.4.5). A mechanism which allows (part of) a head (i.e., the passive morphology) to be assigned case from the head of its complement (i.e., the preposition) seems rather implausible. This means that adjacency may be seen as a condition on the reanalysis of the verb and the preposition (i.e., abstract incorporation of P° into V°), a condition which would apply in English but not in Norwegian. Thus with in (iib) cannot be incorporated into the verb, as the conditions for reanalysis are not fulfilled (V and P° are not adjacent), and the case assignment properties of with are therefore not dependent on the verb and remain intact when the verb is passivised. Ollie thus receives case twice in (iib), and the sentence is ruled out, under an analysis parallel to that of (63). In Norwegian there is no adjacency condition on reanalysis, and the case assignment properties of the P° thus depend on the verb under any circumstances—that is, P° loses its case assignment properties when the verb is passivised, irrespective of adjacency, hence (ia) and (iia). Thus I do not take (i) and (ii) to support Afarli's assumptions that case is assigned to the passive morphology, -en, in English by the preposition, that adjacency is required for such assignment, and that Norwegian passive morphology needs no case. These three assumptions would also incorrectly predict one of the two following: 1.

If Danish passive morphology needs no case: that (63) could be made grammatical by interrupting the linear adjacency between the verb and the preposition, which is not the case:

(iii) Da. * [At du ville koinme]^ blev reanet staerkt ol£d. tj That you would come was counted strongrly on 2.

(iv) Da.

If Danish passive morphology needs case: that (64) below could be made ungrammatical by interrupting the linear adjacency between the verb and the preposition, which is not the case either: [At du ville komme]1 blev der rennet st«rkt med ti That you would come was there counted strongly on

Expletive Subjects and Quasi-Arguments

249

If IP-spec contains there, the structure is possible: CPsp ( 6 4 ) Da.

IPsp

VPsp VPsp

[At du ville kommeli blevv der., t v tj tv tj regnet med t 4 That you would come was there counted with

The CP receives the theta-role and accusative case via a trace in the complement of P°, but it does not receive nominative case (which is assigned to there). If IP-spec contains it, the structure is not possible: CPsp

IPsp

VPsp

VPsp

(65) Da. * [At du ville komme] blevv dett tv tj tv tt regnet med tj That you would come was it counted with

As above, it would have a trace in the complement of P°. In order to occur in CP-spec of the main clause, the embedded CP has to undergo A-bar-movement. This is only possible for maximal projections which are assigned both a theta-role and a case. Given that the CP is assigned neither theta-role nor case (i.e., it is an apposition/a predicate), it follows that it cannot move into CP-spec, and the structure is impossible. Also, in this structure, it would receive two cases; nominative in IP-spec, and accusative via a trace in the complement of P°. On the other hand, if the CP is assigned theta-role and accusative here, then the argument it would not receive a theta-role, which would also make the structure impossible. As already discussed several times, this last construction differs from a left dislocation construction. Left-dislocated elements receive neither theta-role nor case: CPsp (66) Da.

IPsp

VPsp VPsp

[At du ville komme], dett blevv der-j tv tj tv t^ regnet med t That you would come, that was there counted with

Left dislocations are subject to exactly the same restrictions as are cases with CP in CP-spec, so in a sense this is merely a variation of (64). In this section, we examined the possibilities for it/there and embedded CPs in constructions where accusative case is assigned to the CP. As accusative assignment is not compatible with nominative case (as opposed to alternative licensing) these facts follow. Accusative is assigned, and therefore the CP may only occur when there is assigned nominative case: at the end of the main clause, or in CPspec. The CP is ruled out in the structure without it or there, as it (the CP) would be assigned both cases in the construction: nominative in IP-spec, and accusative via its trace in the complement of P°. The CP is also ruled out in any structure with it, as it would be assigned both accusative and nominative. This could only be shown in Danish, as Danish has no pseudo-passive, which means that Danish prepositions do not lose their case-assignment properties in passive sentences. We will now go on to consider what happens in English and in Norwegian and Swedish.

250

7.2.4

Expletive Subjects

P°-CP in English and in Norwegian and Swedish

Turning now to English, we shall see that this construction is not an example of accusative case being assigned to the theta-marked position. The relevant examples are the following: (67), cases with the embedded CP at the end; (68) and (69), cases with embedded CP in the IP-spec of the main clause; and (70), left dislocation. The ungrammaticality of (67a) would be explained if the preposition neither assigns accusative nor licenses anything through alternative licensing. Though there gets nominative, which is all it requires, the embedded CP (the associate of the expletive) is not licensed at all, and it should be. If the preposition had assigned a case, the sentence should have been good; cf. the Danish (61). Also (67b) is only accounted for if the preposition does not assign any case, as otherwise it would receive two cases: IPsp VPsp VPsp I 4. 4, (67) En. a. *Therej wasv tj tv t., agreed on t t [that we would leave at 6] i b. ?Jti wasv t j tv t 4 agreed on t t [that we would leave at 6]

The grammaticality of (68) also presupposes that the preposition does not assign a case, as otherwise the CP would get both accusative via the trace inside the PP and nominative in IP-spec: IPsp (68) En.

VPsp VPsp

[That we would leave at eij wasv tj tv tj agreed on t4

The ungrammaticality of (69a) also points to the preposition neither assigning any case nor licensing anything via alternative licensing, as otherwise the sentence would not be ruled out, there would be assigned nominative, and the CP would be alternatively licensed. The ungrammaticality of (69b) on the other hand, is accounted for, irrespective of whether the preposition assigns case, as the embedded CP in any case will receive neither case nor a theta-role (both will go to a trace of if), and it therefore cannot move into CP-spec: CPsp

IPsp

VPsp VPsp

( 6 9 ) En. a. * [That we would leave at 6 ] i t there., wasv tj tv t s agreed on t t b. '[That we would leave at 6 ] , it t wasv tj tv t j agreed on t j

The left dislocation (70) is really a version of (68), and therefore also presupposes that the preposition does not assign case, as otherwise that would have two cases, nominative and accusative: IPsp (70) En.

VPsp

VPsp

[That we would leave at 6] , ijiaii wasv tj tv tL agreed on t j

Summing up this brief analysis of CP as the complement of P° in English, we have seen that it has to be assumed that the P° neither assigns case (as also indicated by the discussion of pseudo-passives in 7.2.3) nor licenses anything through alternative licensing (as indicated by the constructions with there being extremely limited in English; see sections 6.4.1 and 7.2.2).

Expletive Subjects and Quasi-Arguments

251

The cases of Norwegian and Swedish, in which there also are reasons to believe that the preposition may not assign case (see the discussion of example (60)), are more complex, for two reasons: One is that alternative licensing is a real option, as opposed to in English. The other is that these two languages make no distinction between it and there, but use del 'it', for both (see 7.1.1). Examples (71) and (72) may be interpreted either with del corresponding to it and the preposition not assigning a case to the trace of it (this is the indexing shown), or with det corresponding to there and the preposition alternatively licensing the CP via its trace in the complement of P°. IPsp VPsp (71) No. ( 7 2 ) Sw.

. . . at detj t:L ble . . . att detj . . . that it was

VPsp t~~L regnet med tj [at du ville komme] 1-i raknades med t. [att du skulle komma] counted with that you would come

Now for two cases in which the preposition cannot assign a case. In (73) and (74) the preposition cannot possibly assign a case, as then the CP would get both accusative via the trace inside the PP and nominative via the trace in IP-spec: CPsp

IPsp VPsp VPsp

(73) No. '[At du ville kommeJi blev tj tv tj tv tj regnet med ti ( 7 4 ) Sw. '[Att du skulle komma] ± raknadesv tj tv tj tv tj tv med ti That you would come was counted with

In (75) and (76) left dislocation (cf. the del-verb word order) cannot possibly involve more than one case either, as otherwise that would get more than one case: CPsp

IPsp VPsp VPsp

(75) No. 7 [At du ville komme], dett blev t t tv t 4 tv t± regnet med tj (76) Sw. '[Att du skulle komma], dett raknadesv ti tv t t tv t j tv med tL That you would come, that was counted with

Consider now two cases pointing to the preposition being able to license via alternative licensing. In (77) and (78) the CP is in CP-spec, so it must have been moved there. If det corresponded to it here, the construction would be ruled out because it would be movement of a CP that is an apposition. But if the CP is not an apposition, it must be part of an expletive-associate chain, and therefore be licensed. This again means that the preposition must be an alternative licenser, as the CP could not be receiving any case, the only case being nominative, which is assigned to the expletive subject det in IP-spec. CPsp (77) No. (78) Sw.

IPsp

VPsp VPsp

[At du ville kommelj blev detj tv tj tv t., regnet med tj [Att du skulle komma] i raknadesv detj tv tj tv tj tv med ti That you would come was it counted with

These examples thus give us yet further insight into the nature of what I have termed "alternative licensing" (introduced in section 6.1.4), reinforcing the parallelism with case assignment. We saw in 6.3 that alternative licensing by an 1° is only possible under conditions similar to the conditions on case assignors: 1° must have lexical content and it must not assign another case. The other kind of alterna-

252

Expletive Subjects

live licensing, licensing by a theta-assigner, also takes place under conditions reminiscent of case-assignment, as alternative licensing is possible by a theta-assigning V° (sections 6.4 and 6.5), but not by a theta-assigning Adj° (second half of 7.2.1). Finally, in the present construction, we see that prepositions pattern with verbs and against adjectives as possible alternative licensers, continuing a pattern completely parallel to case assignment. Consider finally a different variant of the left dislocation construction. In (79) and (80) both dets must receive case, and so there must be two case assigners: Nominative is assigned to deti (-there) by C° and accusative is assigned to the trace of det± (-it) by the preposition med 'with': CPsp (79) No. (80) Sw.

VPsp

IPsp

[At du ville komme], dett blev detj t [Att du skulle komma] , dett blevv detj 1 That you would come, that was it

VPsp

tj tv tj regnet med tj tv tj raknat med counted witn

Summing up the analysis of CP as the complement of P° in Norwegian and Swedish: It seems that the preposition should not be interpreted as a case-assigner, but as an alternative licenser. Notice that this is not the case for English, as the ungrammaticality of (67a) and (69a) would not be explained if the preposition had been an alternative licenser. If we thus assume that the preposition is not a case assignor (as predicted earlier in the discussion of pseudo-passive), we obtain exactly the right result: alternative licensing in Norwegian and Swedish, and neither licensing nor case assignment in English.

7.2.5

P°-CP in Dutch and German

Let us now turn to the last two of the languages with the it/there distinction in embedded clauses, Dutch and German. As noted, the Dutch and German versions of the count on C/'-construction have rather different characteristics from the Danish, Norwegian, Swedish, and English ones. One difference is that prepositions do not take CPs as complements in Dutch and German. With an NP as the complement, the languages are completely parallel (with the usual difference that the V° follows its object in Dutch and German, but precedes it in the other languages): (81) a. b. c. d. e. f.

En. Da. No. Sw. Du. Ge.

count [on something] reone [med noget ] reone [med noe ] rakna [med nagot ] [op lets ] rekenen [mit etwas] rechnen

count count count [on [with

[with something] [with something! [with something] something] count something] count

With a CP as complement, the languages differ: (82) a. En. ?... agree [ pp on

b . Da . c . No . d. Sw.

. . . .

[cp that we

regne [ p p med [cp regne [ p p med [cp rakna [ p p med [cp count with

e . Du . * . . • In °P f . Ge. * . . [p p mit on/with

at at att that

would

leave at six])

du ville komme] ] du ville komme]] du skulle komma] ] you would come

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

]] rekenen ICP dat jij komen zult [ c p dafi du kommen wurdest]] rechnen that you come would count

Expletive Subjects and Quasi-Arguments

253

Notice that (82a) is not perfectly well-formed, either, though this would appear to have had no consequences for (67)-(70). Maybe this is because English, unlike Dutch and German (but like Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish), allows preposition stranding: (83) a. b. c. d.

En. What Da. Hvad Du. *Wat Ge. *Was

has har heeft hat

he counted flQ t ? han regnet med t ? hij op t gerekend ? er mit t gerechnet?

At any rate, Dutch and German differ from both Danish and English in that they replace the illegal [P° CP] structure by [there [P° t ]] (with the CP in apposition): (84) Du. ...

[vp [ P p fir.! [p. op tj ] rekenen] ... [cp dat jij komen zult ] There on count . . . that you come would

I thus follow the analysis of van Riemsdijk (1978), as discussed in Bennis (1986:20) and van Riemsdijk & Williams (1986:297). There occurs in PP spec, and plays the part of an it: It has a trace in the complement of P°, through which it receives a theta-role and case.16 Given this analysis, the Dutch facts may be accounted for as follows. First the cases with the embedded CP at the end:17

16. The same mechanism was operative in older forms of English (see Bennis 1986:276-281), and still works to some extent in Danish, though with a rather archaic flavour: (i)

Da.

Question: Answer:

Har du lyttet til hendes rad? Have you listened to her advice? ?Ja, jeg har lyttet dfir.til yes, I have listened thereto

17. As discussed by Bennis (1986:178-188), even though only one er occurs in the surface structure, it perform the functions of several ers simultaneously. In (85a), er is thus both the argument of the preposition, and the expletive subject there. The same phenomena existed in older Danish: (i)

Da.

Efi£ bliffuer Tran aff giort There is train oil of made (= Train oil is made thereof) (Peder Clauss0n: Norske Kongers Chronica, printed 1632, cited in Falk & Torp 1900:315)

(ii) Da.

Norgis rige er icke endnu saa gammel. . Norway's realm is not yet so old. . . ... at der er io nogen styrcke, visdom oc krafft udj t . . . that there is indeed any strength, wisdom and power in (Absalon Pedersen: Om Norgis rige, 16th century, cited in Falk & Torp 1900:12)

Notice that for some reason this does not give raise to a case clash—i.e., ungrammatically due to an element receiving more than one case—though er/der receives both accusative from P° and nominative in IP-spec. Ian Roberts (personal communication) points out that if the obligatoriness of case assignment derives from visibility, then the ban on case clash would derive from the theta-criterion: Two cases would have to imply two theta-roles, which is ruled out by the theta-criterion. If one of the cases in question is not assigned as a consequence of visibility (e.g., the nominative assigned to the expletive subject there, as there has no reference), then we would not expect it to be subject to the ban on case clash. Although I have frequently appealed to the ban on case clash, this view would not jeopardise any of those results, as the case clash never was on there (which so far has only been seen to receive nominative).

254

Expletive Subjects IPsp

(85) Du. a. a.

. . .. dat dat [fir^opi t ^ l ]1 . that thereon

VPsp

VPsp

tj tj

tj tj

tt,j

tj

ti

1 £T.i°Pi

b. *. .. dat . that it

gerekend t v werdv . . . counted was gerekend tv werdv . . . counted was ... ... [dat jij komen zult ] . . . [that you come would]

t.

thereon

Example (85a) is grammatical, the embedded CP is an apposition, the argument er of crop receives both case and theta-role. Example (85b) is ungrammatical, as there is no theta-role assigned to het. Let us now turn to the cases with the embedded CP in the CP-spec of the main clause: CPsp

IPsp

( 8 6 ) Du. a. *[Dat jij komen zult ] werdv he_tj b. *[Dat jij komen zult ] j werdv tj That you come would was (it) CPsp

VPsp VPsp t-j tj

tj tj

IPsp

c. *[Dat jij komen zult ] That you come would

[ejdopi t t ] gerekend t v t v [ej^opi t±] gerekend t v t v thereon counted

VPsp

werdv [ej^opi t i l j tj was thereon

VPsp tj tj gerekend t v t v counted

These are all ruled out, as the CP receives no theta-role, and thus cannot move. Furthermore, the CP receives no case in (86b,c), and het receives no theta-role in (86c). Let us finally consider left dislocation. This is impossible with a demonstrative pronoun in CP-spec, which would receive no theta-role like het in (86c): CPsp

IPsp

VPsp VPsp

(87) Du. *[Dat jij komen zult], dat werdv ££°Pi ti That you come would that was thereon

ti t± gerekend tv tv counted

On the other hand, crop has a demonstrative version, daarop. Here there are four possibilities: Daar may move on its own, (88a,b), or move together with the preposition, (88c,d), and another er may or may not occur in IP-spec, (88a,c) vs. (88b,d): ( 8 8 ) Du.

[Dat jij komen z u l t ] , That you come would CPsp 1 daar daar1 . . . there c. d.

... ...

IPsp VPsp 1 1 werdv t j tj werdv £r.j tj was (there)

. . . daaropi werd v ti . . . daaropi werdv ejLj . . . thereon was (there)

tL t±

VPsp 1 t j [op t j ] gerekend t v t v ti [op t±] gerekend tv t v on counted t± ti ti ti

gerekend t v t v gerekend t v t v counted

As noted, erldaar having more than one function does not give rise to an ungrammaticality when it receives more than one case, as in (88a): Daar receives nominative as it is the expletive subject (there), and it receives accusative, as it is the argument of the preposition. Finally, a brief look at German. German has no form that corresponds to Dutch er, but only one that corresponds to Dutch daar—viz., German da. Of all the

Expletive Subjects and Quasi-Arguments

255

Dutch examples above, only two may therefore be found in German, the two without any er—i.e., (88a,c):

Also here we see that no case clash ensues, even though da surely must have case both from its trace in the complement of P° and from its trace in IP-spec. In section 7.2.3 we discussed the possibilities for it/there and embedded CPs in constructions in which accusative case is assigned to the CP. This could only be shown in Danish, as Danish has no pseudo-passive, which means that Danish prepositions do not lose their case-assignment properties in passive sentences. In sections 7.2.4 and 7.2.5 we also saw two reasons why some languages may not have examples of this kind. They may either neutralise the case assignment from the P°, as in English, Norwegian, and Swedish, which all have the pseudo-passive construction, or they may neutralise it with the pro-PP [there P°], as in Dutch and German.

7.3 Raising constructions As frequently pointed out in the literature—e.g., Safir (1984:227, fn26), Cardinaletti (1990b:95), and Lasnik (1992:389, fn9))—raising constructions present a particular set of problems for any account of expletive subjects and quasi-arguments. At first glance, they seem to be parallel to the constructions with embedded clauses as arguments discussed in section 7.2. One such parallel exists between sentences like (90), which were discussed in 7.2.1, and the raising constructions in (91): (90) En. a. b.

It/*There annoys me [cp that Peter likes chocolate] It/*There is good [cp that Peter likes chocolate]

(91) En. a. b. c. d.

It/*There It/*UlSi£ It/*There it/*lb£i£

seems appears turns out is likely

[cp [cp [cp [cp

that that that that

Peter Peter Peter Peter

likes likes likes likes

chocolate] chocolate] chocolate] chocolate)

Raising verbs, however, have an additional property. They allow a construction in which the embedded clause is infinitival and where the subject of this infinitival clause is moved into the subject position of the matrix (raising) verb itself: (92) En. a. *Peteri annoys me tc ti to like chocolate] b. *Petert is good [c £i to like chocolate] (93) En. a . Petert b. Petert c . Petert d. Petert

seems appears turns out is likely

[c [c [c [c

£4 £A £i £i

to to to to

like like like like

chocolate] chocolate] chocolate] chocolate]

256

Expletive Subjects

This additional property is the main problem of the first group of constructions discussed in section 7.3.1, raising predicates with clausal complements. In 7.3.2, a second group of raising predicates (like seem) is discussed, which is more complicated, as they paradoxically do not seem to allow clauses as direct complements, but only as part of their small clause complement.

7.3.1 Raising predicates with clausal complements This subsection is on those raising predicates that take clauses as complements. First some predicates will be considered where the embedded clause is the only argument: the Dutch verb blijken 'appear', the Danish verb siges 'be-said', and the English adjective likely. Then we will turn to other predicates, where the embedded clause is not the only argument: the Danish expressions vise sig 'show itself and forekomme ham 'appear to-him'. The property that distinguishes the raising predicates from non-raising ones— i.e., that it is possible to move the subject out of the embedded clause only if the matrix predicate is a raising one—will only be discussed at the end of this subsection. The Dutch verb blijken 'appear' may be analysed as an ergative verb, as suggested by Bennis (1986:112), note that zijn 'be' rather than hebben 'have' is the auxiliary. This means that blijken assigns one thematic role only, to its complement, and that it therefore does not assign accusative case (given "Burzio's generalisation"). As expected, given the analysis in chapter 6, blijken is able to alternatively license its complement, so that it is possible to build an expletiveassociate chain, as in (94a). Another option is that it (rather than the embedded clause itself) is base-generated in the complement of V°, and then moved to IPspec, where it is assigned nominative case, and the embedded clause is then an apposition to it, as in (94b): ( 9 4 ) Du. a. b.

. . . dat ex, tj t.j t t . . . dat het i t t t ± t^ . . . Chat there/it

gebleken t v isv [ C P dat j i j komen zult li gebleken t v isv [ c p dat jij komen zult ] appeared is that you come would

The trace in the complement of V° is a trace of the CP in (94a) (the indices "j" and "i" will be made equivalent as a consequence of the expletive-associate chain), but a trace of het 'it' in (94b). As in section 7.2, although the CP is an apposition to het in (94b), I do not indicate this by means of an index. Let us now turn to the cases in which the CP is moved to CP-spec of the matrix clause, as in (95). The left dislocation cases in (96) are parallel, except that what moves to CP-spec is the demonstrative pronoun dat and not the embedded CP itself, which is left dislocated: (95)

Du, a. [ cp Dat b. ? ECP Dat

j i j komen zult l i isv t t j i j komen zult ]± isv erj

c. *[ CP Dat jij komen zult ] That you come would (36)

Du. a. [ c p Dat b. [ CP Dat c. * [ C P Dat That

jij jij jij you

komen komen komen come

zult ], zult ] , zult ] , would

t A ti t tj tj t

isv Usti ti t t t is (there/it) dati dati dat that

i-sv isv isv is

ti erj h&tj I there / i t)

t t

gebleken t v t v gebleken t v t v gebleken tv t v appeared ti ti gebleken t v t v tj ti gebleken t v t v ti ti gebleken tv t v appeared

257

Expletive Subjects and Quasi-Arguments

In (95a) and (96a), the embedded CP is base-generated in the complement of V° and then moved to IP-spec, where it is assigned nominative case, and finally the embedded CP is moved into CP-spec. In (95b) and (96b), the embedded CP is basegenerated in the complement of V°, and as it is part of an expletive-associate chain with er in IP-spec, the CP is alternatively licensed, as in (94a), and finally moved directly to CP-spec. In (95c) and (96c), on the other hand, het 'it' is base-generated in the complement of V° and then moved to IP-spec, where it is assigned nominative case. The reason for the ungrammatically of these examples is that the embedded clause is an apposition, and although it as such is well-formed (even though it is neither assigned a thematic role nor licensed), this makes it impossible for the embedded clause to move into CP-spec. So far we have seen that blijken behaves just like any other ergative verb (cf. 6.4.1 and 7.2.2), given that it allows a CP as object as well as an NP. Turning to the next verb, Danish siges 'be-said', the result is exactly parallel, with the one variation that siges, which is morphologically a passive of sige 'say', behaves just like any other passive verb (cf. 6.4.3 and 7.2.2). The judgments are more or less the same, because ergative verbs and passive transitive verbs both have an internal argument in the complement of V° and no external argument, and neither therefore assigns accusative case. The crucial property that distinguishes both blijken and siges from any other (ergative and passive transitive) verb that takes CP as complement is the raising property—i.e., it is possible to move the subject out of the embedded clause. This will be discussed at the end of this subsection. As a passive, siges assigns one thematic role only, to its complement (the external thematic role having been absorbed; cf. section 6.4.3), and therefore it does not assign accusative case (given "Burzio's generalisation"). Like Dutch blijken, Danish siges is therefore only able to alternatively license its complement. This allows the construction of an expletive-associate chain, as in (97a). The other option is that it (rather than the embedded clause itself) is base-generated in the complement of V°, and then moved to IP-spec, where it is assigned nominative case, and the embedded clause is then an apposition to it, as in (97b): (97) Da. a. b.

?

. . . at derj . . . at sieti . . . that there/it

t^ sigesv ti [ cp at Peter kommer ]4 tj sigesv t j [ c p at Peter kommer ] said-is that Peter is coming

The trace in the complement of V° is a trace of the CP in (97a), but a trace of del 'it' in (97b). Let us now turn to the cases in which the CP is moved to CP-spec of the matrix clause, as in (98). The left dislocation cases in (99) are parallel, except that what moves to CP-spec is the demonstrative pronoun det and not the embedded CP itself, which is left dislocated: (98) Da. a. " [ cp At Peter kommer b. 7 [ c p At Peter kommer c. * [ cp At Peter kommer

That Peter is coming

7

( 9 9 ) Da. a. [ C P At b. [ cp At c. * [ CP At

Peter kommer Peter kommer Peter kommer

That Peter is coming

] 4 sigesv ] 4 sigesv ] sigesv

said-is

t4 der.., det4

(there/it)

], <Jet 4 sigesv t 4 ] , detj sigesv dsij ] , det sigesv det 4 that said-is

tv t 4 tv t 4 tv t., tv t 4 tv t t tv ti t v t 4 tv t 4 tv tj tv ti tv t 4 tv ti

(there/it)

258

Expletive Subjects

In (98a) and (99a), the embedded CP is base-generated in the complement of V° and then moved to IP-spec, where it is assigned nominative case, and finally the embedded CP is moved into CP-spec. In (98b) and (99b), the embedded CP is basegenerated in the complement of V°, and as it is part of an expletive-associate chain with der in IP-spec, the CP is also alternatively licensed there, as in (97a), and finally moved directly to CP-spec. In (98c) and (99c), on the other hand, del 'it' is base-generated in the complement of V° and then moved to IP-spec, where it is assigned nominative case. The reason for the ungrammatically of these examples is that the embedded clause is an apposition, and although it as such is well-formed though it is neither assigned a thematic role nor licensed, this makes it impossible for it to move into CP-spec. Whereas the passive of only a few verbs in Danish behave like the passive of sige, the corresponding list of English verbs is rather long, containing, e.g., announced, report, believe, expect, know, presume, supposed, and authorise (cf. the list in Quirk et al. 1985:1203). Perhaps it should be emphasised that the main difference between the English verbs listed above and their Danish counterparts is related to the raising property to be discussed further below—i.e., that it is possible to move the subject out of the embedded clause with the English verbs, but not with their Danish counterparts. Another difference between English and the other languages is one that we have encountered several times above—i.e., that the English constructions have the special feature that they do not allow expletive-associate chains. In other words, just like in 6.4.3, although we would expect there to be possible in (lOOa), (lOlb), and (102b) this is not the case. Apart from this difference, the judgments are as with the passive of Danish sige 'say'. It may be base-generated in the complement of V° and then moved to IP-spec, where it is assigned nominative case: (100) En. a. * There., wasv tj tv td assumed t t [cp that Peter would comelj b. iti wasv ti tv ti assumed tt [CP that Peter would come]

Consider now the possibilities where the CP is moved or left dislocated: (101)En. a.

(c That he would come^

(ti)

wasv ti tv t A assumed ti

b. *[ c That he would comelj, therej wasv t 4 tv t, assumed t 4 wasv tj tv t t assumed t t c. *[« That he would come] , it4

(102)En. a.

wasv tj tv t 4 assumed [ c That he would come], thatj ( t t ) That he would come], that, Hieie^ wasv tj tv t 4 assumed tj wasv tj tv t t assumed t M, That he would come], thatj, itt

b. M, c.

The only possibility is for the CP itself (or the resumptive pronoun) to move to CPspec via IP-spec, as in (lOla) and (102a), so that it can be assigned nominative. Examples (lOlb) and (102b) are impossible because of the general ban on expletive-associate chains in English, and in (Idle) and (102c), the CP (or the resumptive pronoun) would not be licensed and therefore unable to move. One more raising predicate belongs in the same group as the ergative and passive transitive verbs discussed so far. The English adjective likely also has only one argument; however, because it is an adjective, it is neither a case assigner nor an alternative licenser (cf. 7.2.1), and this means that likely is parallel to the other two cases discussed below—the Danish expressions vise sig 'show itself and forekomme mig 'appear-to me'—rather than to blijken and siges.

Expletive Subjects and Quasi-Argwnents

259

The fact that likely is unable to even alternatively license anything (because it is an adjective) means that no expletive-associate chain can be constructed, hence the ungrammatically of (103a).18 The other option, that it (rather than the embedded clause itself) is base-generated inside the AdjP, and then moved to IP-spec, where it is assigned nominative case, remains possible, as in (103b): (103)En. a. *Theret isv tj tv not very ti likely [ c p that he will comelj b. Itj isv t j tv not very t 4 likely [ cp that he will come]

Turning to the cases with the CP either in CP-spec or left-dislocated with a resumptive demonstrative pronoun in CP-spec, the picture is as follows: (104)En. a. [ b. *[ c. *[

That he will comelj (tj) isv tj tv not very tj likely That he will comelj, there., isv t4 tv not very ti likely That he will come], itt isv tj tv not very t4 likely

(105)En. a. [ b. *[ c. *[

That he will come], thatj (ti) isv tj tv not very tj likely That he will come], that, there., isv t4 tv not very tt likely That he will come], thatlf itt isv ti tv not very tt likely

The only possibility is for the CP itself (or the resumptive pronoun) to move to CPspec via IP-spec, as in (104a) and (105a), so that it can be assigned nominative. Otherwise, it would not be licensed, and therefore unable to move, as in (104b,c) and(105b,c). As in 7.2.1, constructions with a transitive verb where an internal argument is already present are parallel to adjective constructions just discussed. The first one to be discussed is the Danish vise sig 'show itself, which means something like turn out or appear. As the object sig 'itself is assigned accusative, the embedded CP (or its trace) cannot possibly be assigned case or alternatively licensed by the main verb. This leaves only alternative licensing by 1°, but as this requires that 1° is base-generated with lexical content, 1° cannot be an alternative licenser in Danish (see section 6.3). This again means that no expletive-associate chain can be constructed, hence the ungrammaticality of (106a). The other option, that it (rather than the embedded clause itself) is base-generated in VP-spec and then moved to IP-spec, where it is assigned nominative case, remains possible, as in (106b): (106)Da. a. *... at derj ti viste sig [cp at han ville kommel b. ... at dett ti viste sig [cp at han ville komme] . . . that there/it showed REFL that he would come

In cases with the CP either in CP-spec or left-dislocated with a resumptive demonstrative pronoun in CP-spec, the picture is parallel to the one obtained with likely.19 18. Actually, given that likely is English, there are two reasons why (103a), (104b) and (105b) should be impossible. One is the one given in the text; that likely is an adjective and adjectives are neither case-assigners nor alternative licensers. The other is that expletive-associate chains are generally not very good in English, as seen, e.g., in the unacceptability of (lOOa), (lOlb), and (102b). 19. The position of sig in (107) and (108), as well as the position of ham in (110) and (111), is not quite accurate. Sig is shown in the position in which it (like any other object) is base-generated—i.e., in the complement of V°. However, when the verb moves to C° as it does here, sig undergoes object shift, and adjoins to the highest VP (cf. Vikner forthcoming and section 4.5). If the examples had had a compound tense, object shift would have been impossible, and sig/ham would have occurred in the complement of V".

260

Expletive Subjects

(107)Da. a. [ cp At han ville komme] 1 viste v b. * tcp At han ville komme]! vistev c. «[ c p At han ville komme] viste v That he would come shoved (108)Da. a. [ CP At b. *[ CP At c. *[CP At That

han ville han ville han ville he would

komme], komme], komme], come

det! dett det that

t± tv t 4 tv sig derj tv t; tv sig dett tv t t tv sig (there/it) REFL

vistev vistev vistev showed

t4 tv t 4 tv derj tv ti tv deii tv t t tv (there/it)

sig sig sig REFL

snart snart snart soon snart snart snart soon

The only possibility is for the CP itself (or the resumptive pronoun) to move to CPspec via IP-spec, as in (107a) and (108a), so that it can be assigned nominative. Otherwise, it would not be licensed, and therefore unable to move, as in (107b,c) and (108b,c). Other restrictions on movement of the embedded CP to CP-spec are discussed by Hansen (1974), who argues both that the content of the fronted CP must be definite in an anaphoric or deictic sense (1974:136-139) and that the main clause must contain enough information to qualify as rheme/comment (1974:139-144). The latter restriction is what makes necessary the inclusion of the word snart 'soon' in (107) and (108). (Notice that the definiteness discussed by Hansen is not related to the indefmiteness requirement on the associate in expletive-associate chains that was discussed in chapter 6, e.g., in 6.1.5.) The second transitive verb where an internal object is already present is the Danish forekomme ham 'appear to-him'. As opposed to vise sig, where the object must be reflexive, the object here can be any non-reflexive NP, as long as it refers to an entity that can form an impression. As the object is assigned accusative, the embedded CP or its trace cannot possibly be assigned case or alternatively licensed by the main verb, as the verb only governs one NP(/CP) position, even if this verb is probably not transitive, but rather ergative with two internal objects. Note that it is related to komme 'come', and that the auxiliary is vcere 'be' rather than have 'have'. As alternative licensing by 1° is not possible in Danish, no expletive-associate chain can be constructed; hence, the ungrammaticality of (109a). The other option, that it rather than the embedded clause itself is base-generated in VP-spec and then moved to IP-spec, where it is assigned nominative case, remains possible, as in (109b): (109)Da. a. *. . . at dfir.j t± forekom ham t t [ cp at nun var enig ] i b. . . . at deti t j forekom ham t± [ cp at hun var enig ] . . . that there/it appeared to-him that she was agreed

If the CP is moved or left dislocated, it (or the resumptive pronoun) has to move through IP-spec in order to be assigned nominative, as in (1 lOa) and (11 la). If IPspec is occupied by it or there, the CP (or the resumptive pronoun) will not be licensed, as in (110b,c) and (lllb,c): 20 20. The examples in (110) and (111) suffer somewhat from the fact that the main clause is almost empty and therefore does not contain enough information to function as comment/rheme (cf. the reference to Hansen 1974). If, e.g., i hvertfald'at any rate' is added, (llOa) and (Ilia) become all but totally acceptable.

261

Expletive Subjects and Quasi-Arguments (110)Da. a. ? [ c p At b. * [ cp At c. * [ CP At That

hun var hun var hun var she was

( l l l ) D a . a. ' [ cp At b. * [ CP At c. * [ C p At That

hun var enig ] , hun var enig ] , hun var enig ] , she was agreed

enig }i enig ] j enig ] agreed

forekon^ t 4 t v t j tv ham t t forekom^ derj t v t^ t v ham t± foreko^ det t t v t.i tv ham ti appeared (there/it) to-him detj det t det that

forekom^ t± t v ti t v forekomy derj tv t j tv forekon^ det t tv t j t v appeared (there/it)

ham t ± ham ti ham t j to-him

So far, it has been discussed whether it and/or there were possible in IP-spec of clauses containing raising predicates, and whether the embedded CP could be moved or left-dislocated. The findings were seen to be exactly parallel to the findings concerning non-raising predicates discussed in section 7.2. Let us now finally turn to the area where this parallelism no longer holds—i.e., to the raising property itself: The difference between the constructions discussed in this subsection and the ones discussed in 7.2 is that only the former allow the subject of the embedded clause to leave this clause and move into IP-spec of the matrix clause. The first question that has to be answered is what the difference is between raising and non-raising predicates. Chomsky (1981:68) suggested that the difference between the raising adjective likely and the non-raising adjective probably is a "lexical idiosyncrasy": The former allows "S-bar deletion" but the latter does not. In the terms of the framework adopted here, this means that the non-raising predicates lack the ability to take IPs as complements; hence, the ungrammaticality of (113b)and(115b): (112)En. a. b.

It It

is likely [cp that Peter will be late] is raoiable. [„ that Peter will be late]

(113) En. a.

[Ip Peter4 is likely b. *Peter4 is Probable [„

(114)Da. a. b.

Det Det

It

sides menes said-is/believed-is

ti ti

Peter

be late] be late]

Peter elsker chokolade] ICP at Peter elsker chokolade] ICP at that Peter 2oves chocolate

siaes

(115)Da. a. b.

to to

said-is/believed-is

ti at elske chokolade] tj at elske chokolade] to Jove chocolate

A second and rather more difficult question is how the clausal complement is licensed when its subject is moved out and into IP-spec of the matrix clause. Consider the following examples: (116)

Jan t blijkt [ I p t 4 ziek te zijn] Jan appears ill to be

(117)Da.

Peterj_ siges [ I P ^ at ville besoge Kpbenhavn ] Peter said-is to want visit Copenhagen

(118)En.

Ei is assumed [Ip ti to be arriving tomorrow]

262

Expletive Subjects

(119) En.

Peteri is likely [Ip tt to vote for Clinton]

(120)Da.

Petert viste sig [ Ip tt at have stjalet bogen ] Peter showed REFL to have stolen book-the

(121)Da.

Sofiei forekom ham [ Ip ti at vsre belt enig ] Sofia appeared to-him to be completely agreed

In none of these cases is the embedded IP assigned accusative case, as none of the matrix predicates assign an external thematic role. Alternative licensing presumably takes place in (116) and (117), since these predicates allow expletive-associate chains, as discussed. Alternative licensing is expected not to take place in (118), because English has very little alternative licensing, nor in (119), as it is an adjective, and finally not in (120) and (121) either, as there already are objects present, which are licensed by the raising verb. Given the visibility condition, as discussed in, e.g., sections 6.1.4 and 6.1.5, we would expect that the embedded IP would need to be linked to a case, as it is assigned a thematic role. But not only is the IP not assigned case, as just shown it would seem that IP is not licensed at all. I therefore suggest that IP is not subject to the visibility condition and that the visibility condition should be restricted to NP and CP. According to Chomsky (1986a:15), "the categories NP and CP have often been held to play a special role in the theories of bounding and government, just as they do in binding theory". I am thus suggesting that the visibility condition is one more such case in which NP and CP behave differently from other categories. That IP is not the only possible complement of raising predicates that seem not to observe the visibility condition will be shown in the next subsection, with respect to small clauses. In this subsection, a range of raising predicates were discussed, and it was shown that their properties with one exception may be accounted for under an analysis parallel to the ones suggested in 7.2.1 and 7.2.2 of other cases of predicates that take clausal complements. The exception to this was the raising property itself, and it was shown that this property and its consequences could be accounted in a way compatible with the analysis of non-raising predicates by assuming first that raising predicates have the ability to take IP-complements and second that only NPs and CPs are subject to the visibility condition.

7.3.2

Raising predicates with small clause complements

Whereas the raising predicates in 7.3.1 actually allowed one of their arguments to be realised as a clause, I argue here that this is not the case for raising verbs of the seem-type. The first indication of this difference is that, as opposed to the ones discussed in the preceding section, raising verbs of the seem-lype are generally possible with adjectives in the following kind of construction:21

21. There are some exceptions to this generalisation. First, some verbs from section 7.3.1 seem to allow the adjective construction: (i)

a. Du.

Jan Jan

bleek appeared

ziek ill

(example (iia) from Bennis 1986:114, (38a))

Expletive Subjects and Quasi-Arguments (122)En. a. *Peter is assumed b. *Peter is likely c. Peter seems d. Peter appears

[t [t [t [t

263

nice) nice] nice] nice]

(123)Da. a. "Peter viste sig [t flink] Peter showed REFL nice

(124)Du.

b. *Peter siges Peter said-is

[t flink] nice

c.

Peter lyder Peter sounds

[t flink] nice

d.

Peter ser Peter looks

[t flink] ud nice out (= Peter appears nice) (t aardig] nice

Piet lijkt Peter seems

(example (124) adapted from Bennis 1986:1 15, (39d))

The second indication is the inability to appear with the embedded CP as subject: (125) a. En. b. En.

[cp That you would come] was assumed [cp That he will come] is not very likely

c. Da.

[cp At han ville komme] viste sig snart Tnat he would come showed REFL soon

Du. a.

[cp Dat jij komen zult ] is gebleken That you come would is appeared

(126)a. b. c. d.

En. Da. Du. Ge.

* [CP That * [cp At * [cp Dat *[cp DaB

you would come ] ] du ville komme komen zult ] jij komme en wurdest] du

seems ser ud schijnt scheint

The facts in (125) were accounted for in section 7.3.1. in the following way: (127)En. a. b.

[cp That he would come^ was assumed ti was assumed ti [cp that he would come]

Either the complement of assume is the CP itself, (127a), which then moves to IPspec and is assigned nominative there, or the complement of assume is it, (127b), which then moves to IP-spec and is assigned nominative there, and the CP is an apposition. Given that (127b) but not (127a) is possible with, e.g., seem (cf. (128)), verbs of this type have to receive a completely different analysis. The facts in (126)

b. En. John was reported dead c. Da. *Jan forekom ham flink Jan appeared to-him nice

Second, some of the verbs of the seem-type do not allow it: (ii) a. Du. *Jan schijnt ziek b. Ge. *Johann scheint krank Jan seems ill *Jan lader Jan let

flink nice

(example (iia) from Bennis 1986:114, (38c))

264

Expletive Subjects

lead Moro (1991:151) to suggest that seem can only take a small clause complement and Bennis (1986:114) suggests that seem does not take CP complements.22 Moro (1991:151-152) suggests that the complement of seem is a small clause containing two elements. The small clause subject is the embedded CP and the small clause predicate, which has the interpretation "true", may be realised as it: (128)En. a. Itj seemed [sc t, CJ [ CP that he is ill]., b. *[ C p That he is ill]., seemed [ sc t., ]

Adopting Moro's analysis, we could say that the ungrammatically of (128b) is caused by the fact that the small clause predicate is missing. This, in turn means that the CP is not assigned a thematic role, and, as there is nothing to which the CP may be an apposition, example (128b) is ungrammatical. This analysis is supported by the fact (pointed out by Liliane Haegeman, personal communication) that only raising verbs of the seem-type allow the following construction (though not in Dutch and German), which could also be taken to be a variation of the small clause construction: (129)a. En. b. Da.

Peterj seems Pete^ ser ud

[ti as if he is ill] [ti som om han er syg]

(130)a. En. *Peteri is assumed b. En. 'Peteri is likely

[tj as [tj as

if he if he

is ill] is ill]

c. Da. *Peteri viste sig [ti som om han er syg] Peter showed REFL as if he is ill

Let us now consider the detailed analysis of seem and its Dutch and German counterparts, schijnen and scheinen.2^ (131)a. En. *. . . that there seems [sc t1 b. Du . * ... dat fit schijnt [ sc tj c. Ge . * ... daE pro scheint, [„. t.. ( 1 3 2 ) a . En. b. Du. c. Ge .

. . . that iti . . . dat he^ . . . daS ££!

] [cp that you would come] ] [ C P dat jij komen zult] 3 ] [ CP daB du kommen wiirdest]

seems [sc t j t 4 ] [ cp that you would come]j schijnt [sc t j t j cp dat jij komen zult].. scheint, [ sc tj til cp daS du kommen wiirdest

(133) a . En. * cp That you would come]j seemed Isc t-, b. Du. * cp Dat jij komen zult].. schijnt Isc t j c . Ge. * cp Dafi du kommen w\irdest] 3 scheint Isc tj

j

j _] 1

there seemed [ sc tj (134) a. En. * cp That you would come]. schijnt er b. Du. * cp Dat jij komen z u l t ] j [sc t j c. Ge. * cp DaS du kommen wiirdest ]., scheint pro Isc tj

] ] ]

As just discussed, the ungrammatically of (131), (133), and (134) is a consequence of the small clause predicate being omitted. In (132) on the other hand, the small clause predicate is not missing, but has merely been moved into IP-spec. Although it is, or stands for, a small clause predicate, it is still an NP which has to be assigned 22. Lasnik (1992:389, fn9) notes the ungrammatically of (126a), but assumes this "difficult problem" to be "quite limited in extent lexically". That may be, but as it seems quite robust across the languages, it would seem to be justified to employ such an abstract analysis as the one suggested by Moro (1991:151). 23. I will assume that the English verbs appear and turn out and the Dutch verb lijken 'seem' may be analysed along exactly the same lines.

Expletive Subjects and Quasi-Arguments

265

case, as seen by the fact that it cannot be left inside the small clause, because it could not be licensed there: (135)a. En. * . . . that there seems [sc tj it ] [ cp that you would come]j b. Du. * . . . dat er schijnt [sc tj h£t] [ cp dat jij komen z u l t l j c. Ge. * . . . dafi pro scheint [sc tj es ] [ cp daS du kommen wurdestlj

The question how the CP in (132) is licensed remains unanswered. It would seem that licensing of the embedded CP is the difference between (132) and the following ungrammatical topicalisations and left dislocations of the embedded CP: (136)a. En. * [ cp That you would come]., itj seems [sc tj t 4 l b. Du. * [ cp Dat jij komen z u l t l j schijnt hfitj [ sc tj t t ] c. Ge. * [ cp Dafi du kommen wiirdestlj scheint ££4 [sc tj t 4 ] ( 1 3 7 ) a . En. *[ cp That you would come], thatj itj seems [sc tj tjl b. Du. * [ cp Dat jij komen zult] , datj schijnt lielj [sc tj t 4 ] c. Ge. * [ cp DaB du kommen wilrdest], daSj scheint £st [sc tj t 4 ]

When a similar situation was found in the previous sections—i.e., when it was only possible for the embedded CP to occur at the end—it was assumed that the CP was an apposition and, as such, was assigned neither theta-role nor case and therefore was unable to move anywhere. However, if it in these examples is a pro-predicate rather than a pro-form for the embedded CP, as indicated, e.g., by the analysis of (128), there is nothing to which the CP in (132) and (136), and the resumptive pronoun in (137), could be in apposition. They would have to be licensed to occur in CP-spec, but they cannot be licensed by seem, which assigns neither case nor thetarole to the subject positon of the small clause. Given that alternative licensing cannot work like case marking in that a head cannot license the specifier of its complement (see exceptional case marking, section 6.5.1) as it does not assign a thematic role to this specifier, we would not expect that seem could license the CP, which would explain the ungrammaticality of (136) and (137) but leave the grammaticality of (132) unaccounted for. All that can be said is that it would seem that being a small clause subject of a case-marked predicate (i.e., it) has the same effect on a CP as being an apposition has: It allows it to occur in final position but not to move around within the clause. This predicts that the embedded clause can only appear as an apposition or initially in a left dislocation. The ungrammaticality of most such left dislocations, as, e.g., (137), is not due to the embedded clause but to the resumptive pronoun in CPspec not being licensed. That the ungrammaticality of (137) is not due to the leftdislocated embedded clause itself can also be seen from the fact that it is possible in left dislocations with so—i.e., a left-dislocated embedded clause would be possible in(144d), (145d), and (147). Let us now turn to three Danish constructions that also belong to the seemclass, but nevertheless are slightly different: lyde 'sound', se ud 'look out' (= seem), and lade 'let' (= seem). A major difference between these three on one hand and the English, Dutch, and German versions of seem on the other is the obligatory presence of the preposition til 'to' with the Danish verbs, when an embedded clause is involved. Compare the examples here with Peter serflink ud 'Peter appears nice' in (123d), where til is not possible:

266

Expletive Subjects

(138) Da. a. *... at det lad (til) [sc tj b. *... at det sa ud (til) [sc t, c. *... at dec lod (til) tsc tj . . . that there sounded/seemed (to) (139) Da. a. b. c.

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

at at at that

dst. deti detj it

lad sa ud lod sounded/seemed

) [cp at han var syglj ] [cp at han var sygjj ] [CP at han var syglj that he was ill

til [sc tj t±] [CP at til [sc tj t^ [cp at til [sc tj t A ] [cp at to that

(140) Da. a. *[cp At b. *[CP At c. *[cp At That

han han han he

var var var was

syglj syg].) syg]., ill

lad sa ud lod sounded/seemed

(til) [sc t., (til) [sc tj (til) [sc t., (to)

(141) Da. a. *(cp At b. *[cp At c. *[Cp At That

han han han he

var var var was

syglj syg]., syg]., ill

led sa ud lod sounded/seemed

der dsr der there

han han han he

var var var was

syglj syglj syg].] ill

] ] ]

(til) !sc tj (til) [sc tj (til) [sc tj (to)

] J ]

As with seem, the ungrammaticality of (138), (140), and (141) is simply a consequence of the small clause predicate being left out. In (139), on the other hand, the small clause predicate is not missing; instead, it has taken the shape of it and moved into IP-spec. As with the seem examples above, the question should also be asked, How the embedded CP is licensed in (139)? It cannot not be an apposition, as it is assigned a thematic role by the small clause predicate, and we would therefore expect that it would have to be assigned case, given the visibility condition. As opposed to the seem examples, there actually is a potential case assignor in (139): the preposition til. Assuming that the CP is assigned case by til (actually a kind of exceptional case marking, as til is assigning case to the specifier of its complement) will explain the grammaticality of the following topicalisations and left dislocations of the embedded CP: (142) Da. a. b. c.

[ CP At [ CP At [ c p At That

han han han he

var syglj var syglj var syglj was ill

lad deti ikke sa ud det 4 ikke ud lod deti ikke sounded/seemed it not (out)

(143) Da. a. b. c.

[ cp At [ cp At [„ At That

han han han he

var syg], var syg] , var syg], was ill!

detj detj det.> that

til til til to

lad det A ikke sa ud deti ikke ud lod detj ikke sounded/seemed it not (out)

[ sc tj til [sc tj t j ] t s c tj til til til til to

[ sc tj t ± ] [ sc tj til [ sc tj t±]

Basing the analysis on the case assigning properties of til, (139), (142), and (143) are all accounted for, as opposed to the counterparts with seem examples, (132), (136), and (137), which had to be left at least partly unexplained. Another difference which follows from the presence or absence of til is the following opposition:24 24. Examples (144d) and (145d) have two interpretations—a concrete one, in which actual acoustic or visual perception is involved, and an abstract one, in which this is not the case. Examples (144a) and (145a) have only the abstract interpretation. The general ungrammaticality of sodon with the third of the verbs under discussion, lade, may be related to the fact that lade does not occur with adjectival small clauses like the ones in (123) above: (i)

Da.

a.

Det

lod det til

c. *Sadan lod det til b. *Det lod det d. *Sadan lod det It/So let it to

(= So it seemed)

267

Expletive Subjects and Quasi-Arguments (144)Da.

(145)Da.

a. Detj led b. *Sadanj led c. *Detj led d. Sadanj led It/So sounded a. Detj sa b. *Sadarij sa c. *Detj sa d. Sadanj sa It/So looked

det t det t detj det; it

det 4 det t detj detj it

til til

[sc [sc [sc [sc

tj td tj tj

tj tj] tj tj]

(to) ud ud

(= So it til til

[sc [sc [sc [sc

(out)(to)

tj tj tj tj

sounded)

tj tj t j ud t ± ] ud (out) (= So it seemed!

The small clause constituents can either both be realised as det 'it' or one as det and the other as sadan 'so'. If they both are realised as det, (144a,c) and (145a,c), the preposition til is necessary, as both dels have to be licensed (i.e., assigned case), one by the preposition and the other in IP-spec. Example (144a) and (145a) support Moro's (1991:152) claim that it is possible as a pro-predicate: As there are two its, it seems that one of them would have to be the predicate. If one of the small constituents is realised as sadan, til is no longer necessary (in fact, no longer possible), as sadan does not have to be licensed: The constructions in (144b,d) and (145b,d) only contain one det, which is assigned nominative case in IP-spec. It follows from the analysis of seem with topicalisation and left dislocation of the embedded CP, (136) and (137), that there is only one place where case is available: IP-spec. It is therefore expected that examples with seem are parallel to the cases without the preposition, (144c,d) and (145c,d): (146)En. a. Ge. b. Du. c . Du. d.

itj seen s tsc tj tj *That *Dies j scheint esj Isc tj tj *Ditj schijnt het i Isc tj tj *Ditj lijkt het i [sc tj tj

(147) En. a.

SOj

Ge. b. Du. c. Du. d.

SOj ZOj ZOj

il;t seems Isc tj tj scheint e:E*! Isc tj t,] schijnt hi5tl Isc tj tj lijkt h( (so tj tj

5ti

We have not yet addressed whether the small clause itself has to be licensed. I suggest that this is not the case (otherwise we would predict a number of the acceptable examples above to be ungrammatical), and that the reason for this is the same as we saw at the end of the previous subsection: The small clause is neither an NP nor a CP, and therefore it may be assigned a thematic role (in this case by seem) and not be assigned case, and still not violate the visibility condition. (148)a. En. Itj

seemed

b. Da. Eeti led til It sounded to

[sc tj t j

[ cp that he was i l l l j

[sc tj t 4 ] [ cp at han var sygjj that he was ill

Finally, consider licensing when the subject is moved out of the embedded IP and into IP-spec of the matrix clause. Moro (1991:150) suggests that IP here is equivalent to the small clauses seen in the above examples, as IP and the above small clauses have in common that they are [+V] maximal projections. Bennis (1986:114), on the other hand, suggests that schijnen takes an IP but not a CP complement:

268

Expletive Subjects

( 1 4 9 ) a . En. Johnj seems [ I p tj to be ill ] b. Du. Janj schijnt [ I p tj ziek te z i j n ] c. Ge. Johannj scheint [ I p t± krank zu sein] (150)Da.

a. Jarii lyder b. Jai^ ser ud c. Jajii lader Jan sounds/seems

til til til to

[ I p t 4 at [ l p t j at [ I P t i at to

vaere syg] vaere syg] vare syg] be ill

As argued earlier and at the end of the previous subsection, only CP and NP need to be licensed when they are assigned a thematic role, and it is therefore not a problem that IP is not licensed in (149). This again leaves one question unanswered— namely, why the preposition til is obligatory in (150). In this subsection, we saw that the properties of seem and its counterparts are radically different from other verbs with CP as (part of) the complement, and also that only rather radical analyses are able to deal with these properties. Raising predicates of the seem-type were analysed (following Moro 1991) as taking small clause complements and not CP ones. This was based on the following differences from the raising predicates of 7.3.1: seem-type raising predicates allow adjectival small clauses as complement, they do not allow the embedded CP to become their subject, and they allow as i/-clauses as complements. Furthermore, various differences between Danish seem-lype predicates and those found in English, Dutch, and German were traced to the presence or absence of the preposition to. Finally it was argued, also following Moro (1991), that even though seem does not allow CP as a complement, it does allow IP. Section 7.3 has thus shown that it is possible to analyse raising predicates in English, Danish, Dutch, and German in a way compatible with the analyses of expletive subjects in chapter 6 and of verbs that take clausal complements in 7.2.

7.4

Conclusion

I have argued in favour of the basic idea of Hoekstra (1983) and Bennis (1986) that the difference between it/det/het/es and therelderlerlpro is a difference between arguments and non-arguments (7.1.1,7.1.2). I also argued that it did not account for the extraction facts (7.1.3), but that it does provide an account for a whole range of other phenomena. In connection with the assumptions made in chapter 6, especially those about case assignment and alternative licensing, the expletive/quasi-argument distinction allows us to account for the whole spectrum of predicates that allow embedded clauses as part of their complement, both non-raising predicates (7.2) and raising predicates (7.3). I thus hope to have shown in this chapter that it is both possible and interesting to analyse predicates that take clausal complements in terms of the analysis of expletive subject constructions in chapter 6.

8 Conclusion

8.1 Summary In the preceding chapters, I have discussed the position of the finite verb across the Germanic languages, the various factors that determine this position, and some of the consequences of the choice of position. These consequences were mainly illustrated from the area of expletive constructions, where it depends on the actual or potential position of the finite verb whether it is possible for an NP to appear outside the three following positions: the complement of a transitive verb, the complement of a preposition, and the standard subject position. Chapter 1 served as an introduction. In chapter 2,1 discussed the "relativised minimality" framework of Rizzi (1990a), which served as basis for the discussion and analyses throughout the book. In chapter 3,1 tried to show how V2 works in main clauses across the different languages (i.e., the finite verb moves to C°), how V2 can be identified, and what the empirical and theoretical differences are between general V2 and residual V2. I also evaluated a number of motivations for V2 from the literature, but had to conclude that, at present, there does not seem to be enough reasons to prefer one over all the others. Chapter 4 discussed V2 in embedded clauses. We saw that V2 is found in embedded clauses introduced by a complementiser, and then I discussed the difference between general embedded V2 (i.e., the situation in Icelandic and Yiddish) and limited embedded V2 (found in most other V2 languages). The purpose of the discussion was to see whether the existence of general embedded V2 should lead to a revision of the unitary analysis of V2 given in chapter 3, as movement of the finite verb into C°. Throughout chapter 4 I defended the view that such a revision is not called for, even though this means that embedded V2 clauses often consist of two CPs (CP-recursion). 269

270

Expletive Subjects

Chapter 5 discussed the second kind of movement of the finite verb in the Germanic languages: V°-to-P movement. I tried to show that there is a connection between the occurrence of V°-to-I° movement and the status of 1°, so that the more verbal inflection a language has, the more it is likely to have V°-to-I° movement. It was shown that both the analysis of Roberts (1993) and the one of Rohrbacher (1994) may be more precise ways of stating this fact. I also argued that I°-VP order and V°-to-I° movement are the necessary and sufficient conditions for general embedded V2, and that the loss of either will entail a loss of general embedded V2. Chapter 6 linked the variation in expletive constructions (particularly with respect to the position of the NP which would have been the subject, if the expletive had been absent) in the Germanic and some Romance languages to whether the languages have verb second (V2) and V°-to-I° movement: German, Yiddish, and Icelandic have both; Faroese and Danish has V2 but no V°-to-I°, and English and French do not have V2. This was done by assuming two crucial restrictions: (a) An NP (including an indefinite NP) may be licensed either by case assignment or by government from 1° under case-assignment-like conditions (1° must have morphological content and cannot not assign/license case in any other way) or by government by their theta-assigner; (b) The government requirement: An expletiveassociate chain (i.e., a chain with only one case and one theta-role but two phonologically overt elements) must have either its case or its theta-role assigned under government. I furthermore followed Chomsky (1991:441) in assuming that the expletive has to form a chain with a theta-related element. In this way, it was possible to account for the facts that only V2 languages may have expletive passive intransitives ("impersonal passives") and expletive active intransitives (which, however, might also require a slight reformulation of the projection principle) and that only V2 languages with V°-to-P movement may have expletive active transitives (and these only when the external argument is outside the complement of V°). In chapter 7, I adopted the basic idea of Hoekstra (1983) and Bennis (1986) that the difference between it (Da. del, Du. het, and Ge. es) and there (Da. der, Du. er, and Ge. pro) is a difference between arguments and non-arguments. In connection with the assumptions made in chapter 6, especially the ones about case assignment and alternative licensing, the expletive/quasi-argument distinction allowed an account for the whole spectrum of predicates that allow embedded clauses as part of their complement, both non-raising predicates and raising predicates: As there is not base-generated in a theta-position, it is possible in sentences where a case is assigned inside the clause. It is not compatible with this, as it would then get two cases—one in its base-generated position and one in IP-spec.

8.2 Last words I hope to have shown that a number of surface differences between the Germanic languages can be derived from the interaction between the following three fundamental choices:

Conclusion (1)

271

a. ±V2 b. ±V°-to I°-movement c. I°-VP or VP-I°

All of (la,b,c) are able to combine freely. What I tried to do in the preceding chapters was to account for the characteristics of (la,b,c) and to derive as many possible properties of the individual Germanic languages from their interaction. Some of the correlations with which I been concerned include: (2) a. Embedded V2 with that b. General embedded V2

iff I°-VP iff V°-to-I° movement and I°-VP

(3)

iff iff iff iff

a. b. c. d.

Pre-verbal NP in expletives Expletive transitives Expletive intransitives Impersonal passives

V2 and V°-to-I° movement V2 and V°-to-I° movement V2 V2

It remains an open question whether (and how) P-VP vs. VP-F, (Ic), interacts with the difference in order—verb-object vs. object-verb. This will have to await further research on Yiddish, as Yiddish is the only potentially mixed language; all the other Germanic languages are either I°-VP and V°-NP (e.g., Danish, English, Faroese, Icelandic, Norwegian, and Swedish) or VP-I° and NP-V° (Afrikaans, Dutch, West Flemish, Frisian, German, and Swiss German). Making correlations such as these is only interesting insofar as it may help explain why the correlations are the way they are rather than some other way, and insofar as the analyses can be related to analyses of other natural language phenomena. Provided this is possible, such correlations allow us to get closer to understanding how language acquisition is possible, especially given the speed and the ease with which it takes place, as they reduce the task of the language acquirer. To take one example—(2b), in section 5.5: It is easier for a child to find out that her language has V°-to-I° movement and is I°-VP and then automatically be able to derive that the language also has general embedded V2 than it would be for the child to figure out not only whether there is V°-to-P movement and whether the order is P-VP or VP-P but also whether there is general embedded V2. This task is even more difficult because the crucial evidence for determining the latter is presumably rather infrequent. As argued in section 1.3,1 believe that one of the main tasks of a comparative linguist is to try to derive as many of the visible surface differences between languages as possible from as few underlying differences as possible. The reason is the one just mentioned: In doing so, we are getting closer to having an account for the speed and the ease with which language acquisition takes place. Two things are necessary prerequisites for such an account: It must be possible to determine the characteristics of the individual languages even on the basis of not very extensive data. This is possible if the characteristics can be derived from basic properties like those in (1). The child must also be able to process such information as the basic properties of (1), which is possible if human beings are born with a certain amount of linguistic knowledge, an idea which in its current form is due to Noam Chomsky (1959:57)—later referred to as the "innateness hypothesis"—but which can be found in other forms much earlier:

272 (4)

Expletive Subjects MD.

Discipulus. veth maenaeskae siael nogaet Pupil: Knows man's soul anything thaer hun kommaer f0rst i maenaeskset [?] where she comes first in man~the ? Magister. af f sin naturae veth siaelaan oc aer cloch Master: Of its nature knows soul-the and is wise i eeth ny f0d barn so som i en f0r man, in a new born child like as in an able man, aen forti legaemaet er krant, tha kan siaellaen aey nyttae syn konst but because body-the is weak, then can soul-the not apply its art so som aengaen aer so godh gaerningz man like as no one is so good workman at han kan nyttae sin konst vdaen anbuth Chat he can apply his art without supplies.

Pupil: Does the human soul know anything when it enters the human body? Master: By its nature, the soul is as wise in a newborn child as it is in a grown man, but because the body is weak, the soul cannot use its knowledge, just like nobody is such a good craftsman that he can use his knowledge without materials. (from Lucidarius, around 1470-1480, cited in Uldaler & Wellejus 1968:248,1.17-21)

References

Afarli, Tor. 1992, The Syntax of Norwegian Passive Constructions. John Benjamins, Amsterdam. Adams, Marianne. 1987. "From Old French to the Theory of Pro-Drop". Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5.1, 1-32. Andrews, Avery. 1990. "Case Structures and Control in Modern Icelandic", in Joan Maling & Annie Zaenen (eds.), Modem Icelandic Syntax, Syntax & Semantics 24. Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 187-234. Authier, Jean-Marc. 1992. "Iterated CPs and Embedded Topicalization". Linguistic Inquiry 23.2, 329-336. Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation, A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Baker, Mark, Kyle Johnson, & Ian Roberts. 1989. "Passive Arguments Raised". Linguistic Inquiry 20.2, 219-251. Barnes, Michael P. 1986. "Subject, Nominative and Oblique Case in Faroese". Scripta Islandica 37, 13^6. Barnes, Michael P. 1987. "Some Remarks on Subordinate-Clause Word-Order in Faroese". Scripta Islandica 38, 3-35. Barnes, Michael P. 1992. "Faroese Syntax—Achievements, Goals, and Problems", in Jonna Louis-Jensen & J6han Hendrik W. Poulsen (eds.), The Nordic Languages and Modern Linguistics, Vol. 7. F0roya Fr68skaparfelag, T6rshavn. pp. 17-37. Bayer, Josef. 1984a. "COMP in Bavarian Syntax". Linguistic Review 3.3, 9-274. Bayer, Josef. 1984b. 'Towards an Explanation of Certain that-f Phenomena: The COMPnode in Bavarian," in Wim de Geest & Yvan Putseys (eds.), Sentential Complementation. Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 23-32, Belletti, Adriana. 1988. "The Case of Unaccusatives". Linguistic Inquiry 19.1,1-34. Belletti, Adriana. 1990. Generalized Verb Movement, Aspects of Verb Syntax. Rosenberg & Sellier, Turin. Belletti, Adriana & Luigi Rizzi. 1988. "Psych-Verbs and Theta-Theory". Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6.3, 291-352. Bennis, Hans. 1986. Gaps and Dummies. Foris, Dordrecht. Bennis, Hans & Liliane Haegeman. 1984. "On the Status of Agreement and Relative Clauses in West-Flemish", in Wim de Geest & Yvan Putseys (eds.), Sentential Complementation. Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 33-53. 273

274

References

Borer, Hagit. 1984. Parametric Syntax. Foris, Dordrecht. Brink, Lars & J0rn Lund. 1975. Dansk Rigsmal. Gyldendal, Copenhagen. Browning, Marguerite. 1987. "Null Operator Constructions", Ph.D., M.I.T. Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian Syntax. Reidel, Dordrecht. BuBmann, Hadumod (ed.). 1990. Lexikon der Sprachwissenschaft, 2nd ed. Kroner, Stuttgart. Cardinaletti, Anna. 1990a. "Es, pro and Sentential Arguments in German", Linguistische Berichte 126, 135-164. Cardinaletti, Anna. 1990b. Impersonal Constructions and Sentential Arguments in German. Unipress, Padua. Cardinaletti, Anna & Ian Roberts. Forthcoming. "Clause Structure and X-Second", in Wynn Chao & Geoffrey Horrocks (eds), Levels, Principles and Processes: The Structure of Grammatical Representations. Foris/de Guyler, Berlin. Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic Structures. Mouton, The Hague. Chomsky, Noam. 1959. "Review of B.F. Skinner's Verbal Behavior"', Language 35.1, 26-57. Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Chomsky, Noam. 1977. "On W7i-Movement" in Peter Culicover, Thomas Wasow, & Adrian Akmajian (eds.), Formal Syntax. Academic Press, New York. pp. 71-132. Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Foris, Dordrecht. Chomsky, Noam. 1986a. Barriers. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Chomsky, Noam. 1986b. Knowledge of Language. Praeger, New York. Chomsky, Noam. 1991. "Some Notes on Economy of Derivation and Representation", in Robert Freidin (ed.), Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. pp. 417-454. Chomsky, Noam & Howard Lasnik. 1977. "Filters and Control". Linguistic Inquiry 8.3,425504. Christensen, Kirsti Koch & Tarald Taraldsen. 1989. "Expletive Chain Formation and Past Participle Agreement in Scandinavian Dialects", in Paola Beninca (ed.), Dialect Variation on the Theory of Grammar. Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 53-83. Chung, Sandra & James McCloskey. 1987. "Government, Barriers and Small Clauses in Modern Irish". Linguistic Inquiry 18.2, 173-237. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1990a. "Two Classes of Intransitive Adjectives in Italian", in Giinther Grewendorf & Wolfgang Sternefeld (eds.), Scrambling and Barriers. Linguistik Aktuell 5. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 261-294. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1990b. Types of A-bar-Dependencies. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Cole, Peter, Wayne Harbert, Gabriella Hermon, & S. N. Sridhar. 1980. "The Acquisition of Subjecthood". Language 56, 719-743. Cook, Vivian. 1988. Chomsky's Universal Grammar; An Introduction. Basil Blackwell, Oxford. Coopmans, Peter & Suzanne Stevenson. 1991. "How Extraction from Finite and Infinitival Complements: A Surprising Asymmetry". Linguistic Inquiry 22.2, 359-367. Corver, Norbert. 1991. "The Internal Syntax and Movement Behavior of the Dutch 'wat voor'-Construction". Linguistische Berichte 133, 190-228. Dahlback, Hans & Karina Vamling. 1983. "'Tog han da foto'—Ett syntaktiskt fenomen i malmoitiskt talsprik", ms, University of Lund. deHaan, Germen & Fred Weerman. 1986. "Finiteness and Verb Fronting in Frisian", in Hubert Haider and Martin Prinzhom (eds.), Verb Second Phenomena in Germanic Languages. Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 77-110. den Besten, Hans. 1977. "On the Interaction of Root Transformations and Lexical Deletive Rules", ms, University of Amsterdam. Published 1981 in Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik 20, 1-78; republished 1983 in Werner Abraham (ed.), On

References

275

the Formal Syntax of the Westgermania. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 47-131; republished 1989 in Hans den Besten, Studies in West Germanic Syntax. Rodopi, Amsterdam, pp. 14-100. den Besten, Hans. 1984. "The Ergative Hypothesis and Free Word Order in Dutch and German", in Jindrich Toman (ed.), Studies in German Grammar. Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 23-64. Reprinted in 1989 in Hans den Besten, Studies in West Germanic Syntax. Rodopi, Amsterdam, pp. 226-273. Diderichsen, Paul. 1941. Sxtningsbygningen i Skaanske Lov. Munksgaard, Copenhagen. Diderichsen, Paul. 1962. Elementcer Dansk Grammatik, 3rd ed. Gyldendal, Copenhagen. Reprinted 1984. Diesing, Molly. 1988. "Word Order and the Subject Position in Yiddish", in James Blevins & Juli Carter (eds.), Proceedings ofNELS 18. GLSA, Amherst, Mass. pp. 124-140. Diesing, Molly. 1990. "Verb Movement and the Subject Position in Yiddish". Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8.1, 41-79. Eitle, Hermann. 1914. Die Satzverknupfung bei Chaucer. Anglistische Forschungen 44. Carl Winter, Heidelberg. Emonds, Joseph. 1976. A Transformational Approach to English Syntax. Academic Press, New York. Emonds, Joseph. 1978. "The Verbal Complex of V'-V in French". Linguistic Inquiry 9, 151175. Engdahl, Elisabet. 1984. "Subject Gaps: An Asymmetry Between Questions and Relatives in Norwegian". Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 7, 1-19. Also published in Charles Jones & Peter Sells (eds.), Proceeding ofNELS 14. GLSA, Amherst, Mass, pp. 64-80. Engdahl, Elisabet. 1985. Constituent Questions. Reidel, Dordrecht. Engdahl, Elisabet & Eva Ejerhed (eds.). 1982. Readings on Unbounded Dependencies in Scandinavian Languages. Almquist & Wiksell, Stockholm. Eskenazi, Andre. 1968. "Note sur les constructions impersonnelles du franfais contemporain". Revue Romane 3.2, 97-115. Faarlund, Jan Terje. 1990. Syntactic Change: Toward a Theory of Historical Syntax. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin. Falk, Cecilia. 1987. "Subjectless Clauses in Swedish". Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 32 1-26. Falk, Cecilia. 1989a. "The Licensing Conditions in Existential Clauses", ms, University of Lund. Falk, Cecilia. 1989b. "On the Existential Construction in the Germanic Languages". Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 44, 45-59. Falk, Hjalmar & Alf Torp. 1900. Dansk-Norskens Syntaks. H.Aschehoug, Kristiania. Fanselow, Gisbert. 1987. Konfigurationalitdt. Gunter Narr, Tubingen. Fanselow, Gisbert & Sascha W. Felix. 1987a. Sprachtheorie. Vol. 1: Grundlagen undZielsetzungen. UTB/Francke, Tubingen. Fanselow, Gisbert & Sascha W. Felix. 1987b. Sprachtheorie. Vol. 2: Die Rektions- und Bindungstheorie. UTB/Francke, Tubingen. Gawlitzek-Maiwald, Ira, Rosemarie Tracy, & Agnes Fritzenschaft. 1992. "Language Acquisition and Competing Linguistic Representations: The Child as Arbiter", in Jurgen Meisel (ed.), The Acquisition of Verb Placement: Functional Categories and V2 Phenomena in Language Acquisition. Kluwer, Dordrecht., pp. 139-179. GeilfuB, Jochen. 1991. "Jiddisch als SOV-Sprache". Working Papers of Sonderforschungsbereich 340 (Universities of Stuttgart and Tubingen) 11, 3-17.

276

References

Giusti, Giuliana. 1989. "Zu-Infinitivals and the Structure of IP in German", ms, University of Venice. Grange, Corinne. 1987. "Selected Aspects of the Syntax of Expletive Constructions", licence thesis, University of Geneva. Grange, Corinne & Liliane Haegeman. 1989. "Subordinate Clauses: Adjuncts or Arguments—The Status of het in Dutch", in Dany Jaspers, Wim Klooster, Yvan Putseys, & Pieter Seuren (eds.), Sentential Complementation and the Lexicon. Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 155-171. Grewendorf, Gunther. 1988. Aspekte derdeutschen Syntax. Gunter Narr, Tubingen. Grewendorf, Gunther & Wolfgang Sternefeld. 1990. "Scrambling Theories", in Gunther Grewendorf & Wolfgang Sternefeld (eds.), Scrambling and Barriers. Linguistik Aktuell 5. John Benjamins, Amsterdam. Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument Structure, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Grimshaw, Jane. 1991. "Extended Projection", ms, Brandeis University. Grimshaw, Jane & Sten Vikner. 1992. "Obligatory Adjuncts and the Structure of Events", in Eric Reuland & Werner Abraham (eds.), Knowledge and Language. Vol. II, Lexical and Conceptual Structure. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 145-159. Haegeman, Liliane. 1991. Introduction to Government and Binding Theory. Basil Blackwell, Oxford. Haegeman, Liliane. 1992. Theory and Description in Generative Syntax: A Case Study in West Flemish. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Hagstrom, Bjorn. 1984. "Language Contact in the Faroes", in P. Sture Ureland & Iain Clarkson (eds.), Scandinavian Language Contacts. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 171-189. Haider, Hubert. 1986a. "Configurationality in Disguise: Word Order and the V-2 Property", in Werner Abraham & Sjakk de Meij (eds.), Topic, Focus, and Configurationality. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 39-64. Haider, Hubert. 1986b. "V-Second in German" in Hubert Haider & Martin Prinzhorn (eds.), Verb Second Phenomena in Germanic Languages. Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 49-75. Haider, Hubert. 1993. Deutsche Syntax Generativ. Gunter Narr Verlag, Tubingen. Haik, Isabelle. 1990. "Anaphoric, Pronominal, and Referential INFL". Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8.3, 347-374. Hall, Beatrice. 1979. "Accounting for Yiddish Word Order or What's a Nice NP Like You Doing in a Place Like This", in Jiirgen Meisel & Martin Pam (eds.), Linear Order and Generative Theory. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 253-287. Hansen, Aage. 1967. Moderne Dansk, Vols. 1-3. Grafisk Forlag, Copenhagen. Hansen, Erik. 1974. "Bestemt og ubestemt saetning". Nydanske Studier 7, 130-150. Haugen, Einar. 1982. Scandinavian Language Structures: A Comparative Historical Survey. Max Niemeyer, Tubingen. Haugen, Einar, Marvin I. Herzog, & William G. Moulton. 1979. "The Germanic Languages", in Encyclopedia Britannica, Macropedia 8. Encyclopedia Britannica, Chicago, pp. 15-31. Helbig, Gerhard & Joachim Buscha. 1986. Deutsche Grammatik. Verlag Enzyklopadie, Leipzig. Henriksen, Jeffrei. 1983. "Oroalagslaera", ms, T6rshavn. Herslund, Michael. 1984. "Particles, Prefixes, and Preposition Stranding", in Finn S0rensen & Lars Heltoft (eds.), Topics in Danish Syntax. Nydanske Studier og Almen Kommunikationsteori 14, 34-71. Heycock, Caroline & Beatrice Santorini. 1992. "Head Movement and the Licensing of Non-

References

277

Thematic Positions", ms, Oakland University & Northwestern University. Paper presented at WCCFL 11. Hoekstra, Eric. 1993. "Dialectal Variation Inside CP as Parametric Variation", in Werner Abraham & Josef Bayer (eds.), Dialektsyntax, Special Issue 5 of Linguistische Berichte, Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen. pp. 161-179. Hoekstra, Teun. 1983. "The Distribution of Sentential Complements", in Hans, Bennis & W.U.S. van Lessen Kloeke (eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 1983. Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 93-103. Hohle, Tilman. 1990. "Assumptions About Asymmetric Coordination in German", in Joan Mascar6 & Marina Nespor (eds.), Grammar in Progress. GLOW Essays for Henk van Riemsdijk. Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 221-235. Holmberg, Anders. 1986. Word Order and Syntactic Features in the Scandinavian Languages and English. University of Stockholm, Stockholm. Holmberg, Anders. 1989. "What Is Wrong with SOV Word Order in SVO Languages?" ms, University of Uppsala. Holmberg, Anders & Christer Platzack. 1988. "On the Role of Inflection in Scandinavian Syntax". Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax. 42, 25-42. Holmberg, Anders & Christer Platzack. 1990. "On the Role of Inflection in Scandinavian Syntax", in Werner Abraham, Wim Kosmeijer, & Eric Reuland (eds.), Issues in Germanic Syntax. Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs 44. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 93-118. Holmberg, Anders & Christer Platzack. Forthcoming. "The Role of Inflection in the Syntax of the Scandinavian Languages", Oxford University Press, Oxford. Hutterer, Claus Jiirgen. 1990. Die germanischen Sprachen, 3rd ed. Drei Lilien Verlag, Wiesbaden. Hyams, Nina. 1986. Language Acquisition and the Theory of Parameters. Reidel, Dordrecht. latridou, Sabine & Anthony Kroch. 1992. "The Licensing of CP-recursion and its Relevance to the Germanic Verb-Second Phenomenon". Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 50, 1-24. Jaeggli, Osvaldo. 1986. "Passive". Linguistic Inquiry 17.4, 587-622. Jespersen, Otto. 1938. En sprogmands levned. Gyldendal, Copenhagen. Johnson, Kyle. 1991. "Object Positions". Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9, 577636. J6nsson, J6hannes Gisli. 1991. "Stylistic Fronting in Icelandic". Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 48, 1—44. Kayne, Richard. 1982. "Predicates and Arguments, Verbs and Nouns", talk given at GLOW 5, Paris. Kayne, Richard. 1985. "L'accord du participe passe1 en franfais et en italien". Modeles Linguistiquesl.1,73-%9. Kayne, Richard & Jean-Yves Pollock. 1978. "Stylistic Inverstion, Successive Cyclicity, and Move NP in French". Linguistic Inquiry 9.4, 595-621. Koopman, Hilda. 1984. The Syntax of Verbs. Foris, Dordrecht. Koopman, Hilda & Dominique Sportiche. 1991. "The Position of Subjects". Lingua 85, 211258. Kosmeijer, Wim. 1986. "The Status of the Finite Inflection in Icelandic and Swedish". Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 26, 1—41. Koster, Jan. 1978. "Why Subject Sentences Don't Exist", in Samuel Jay Keyser (ed.), Recent Transformational Studies in European Languages. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. pp. 53-64.

278

References

Lasnik, Howard. 1992. "Case and Expletives: Notes toward a Parametric Account". Linguistic Inquiry 23.4, 381-405. Lasnik, Howard & Mamoru Saito. 1984. "On the Nature of Proper Government". Linguistic Inquiry 15.2, 235-255. Lasnik, Howard & Juan Uriagereka. 1988. A Course in GB Syntax. MIT Press, Cambridge Mass. Levander, Lars. 1909. Alvdalsm&let i Dalarna. Ordbdjning och Syntax, Stockholm. Lightfoot, David. 1979. Principles ofDiachronic Syntax. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Lightfoot, David. 1982. The Language Lottery: Toward a Biology of Grammars. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Lightfoot, David. 1991. How to Set Parameters: Arguments from Language Change. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Lightfoot, David. 1993. "Why UG Needs a Learning Theory: Triggering Verb Movement", in C. Jones (ed.), Historical Linguistics: Problems and Perspectives. Longmans, London, pp. 190-214. Linebarger, Marcia. 1987. "Negative Polarity and Grammatical Representation". Linguistics and Philosophy 10, 325-387. Lockwood, W.B. 1955. An Introduction to Modern Faroese. Munksgaard, Copenhagen. Reprinted 1977, F0roya Skulab6kagrunnur, T6rshavn. Lowenstamm, Jean. 1977. "Relative Clauses in Yiddish: A Case for Movement". Linguistic Analysis 3, 197-216. Maling, Joan. 1980. "Inversion in Embedded Clauses in Modern Icelandic". Islenskt Mai og Almenn Mdlfrxdi 2, 175-193. Maling, Joan. 1987. "Existential Sentences in Swedish and Icelandic: Reference to Thematic Roles". Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 28, 1-21. Maling, Joan. 1988. "Variations on a Theme: Existential Sentences in Swedish and Icelandic", in Denise Fekete & Zofia Laubitz (eds.), McGill Working Papers in Linguistics, Special Issue on Comparative Germanic Syntax. McGill University, Montreal, pp. 168-191. Maling, Joan. 1990. "Inversion in Embedded Clauses in Modern Icelandic", in Joan Maling & Annie Zaenen (eds.), Modern Icelandic Syntax. Syntax and Semantics 24. Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 71-91. Reprint of Maling 1980. Marantz, Alec. 1984. On the Nature of Grammatical Relations. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. May, Robert. 1985. Logical Form. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Mikkelsen, Kristian. 1911. Dansk Ordfojningslcere, Lehmann & Stage, Copenhagen. Reprinted 1975. Milsark, Gary. 1974. "Existential Sentences in English", Ph.D., M.I.T. Moritz, Luc. 1989. "Apercu de la syntaxe de la negation en franfais et en anglais", M.A. thesis, University of Geneva. Moro, Andrea. 1991. "The Raising of Predicates: Copula, Expletives, and Existence". MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 15, 119-181. Miiller, Gereon & Wolfgang Sternefeld. 1993. "Improper Movement and Unambiguous Binding", in Linguistic Inquiry 24.3, 461-507. Newmeyer, Frederick. 1986. Linguistic Theory in America, 2nd ed. Academic Press, San Diego. Nygaard, Marius. 1906. Norrfin Syntax. H. Aschehoug, Kristiania. Obenauer, Hans-Georg: 1976. Etudes de syntaxe interrogative dufranfais. Max Niemeyer, Tubingen.

References

279

Obenauer, Hans-Georg. 1984. "On the Identification of Empty Categories". Linguistic Review 4.2, 153-202. Ott6son, Kjartan. 1989. "VP-Specifier Subjects and the CP/IP Distinction in Icelandic and Mainland Scandinavian". Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 44, 89-100. Paul, Hermann. 1919. Deutsche Grammatik, Vol. III. Max Niemeyer, Halle. Penner, Zvi & Thomas Bader. 1990. "On Licensing V2 and VI Embeddings in Bernese Swiss German", ms, University of Berne. Penner, Zvi & Thomas Bader. 1991. "Main Clause Phenomena in Embedded Clauses: The Licensing of Embedded V2-Clauses in Bernese Swiss German". Linguistic Review 8.1,75-95. Perlmutter, David. 1978. "Impersonal Passives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis". Berkeley Linguistics Society 4, 157-189. Pesetsky, David. 1987. "W/i-in-situ: Movement and Unselective Binding", in Eric Reuland & Alice ter Meulen (eds.), The Representation of (In)definiteness. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. pp. 98-129. Pintzuk, Susan. 1991. "Phrase Structures in Competition: Variation and Change in Old English Word Order", Ph.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania. Platzack, Christen 1983. "Existential Sentences in English, Swedish, German and Icelandic", in Fred Karlsson (ed.), Papers from the Seventh Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics. University of Helsinki, Helsinki, pp. 80-100. Platzack, Christer. 1986a. "COMP, INFL, and Germanic Word Order", in Lars Hellan & Kirsti Koch Christensen (eds.), Topics in Scandinavian Syntax. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 185-234. Platzack, Christer. 1986b. "The Position of the Finite Verb in Swedish", in Hubert Haider & Martin Prinzhorn (eds.), Verb Second Phenomena in Germanic Languages. Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 27^17. Platzack, Christer. 1987a. "The Case of Narrative Inversion in Swedish and Icelandic". Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 31, 9-14. Platzack, Christer. 1987b. "The Scandinavian Languages and the Null-Subject Parameter". Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5.3, 377-401. Platzack, Christer. 1988. "The Emergence of a Word Order Difference in Scandinavian Subordinate Clauses" in Denise Fekete & Zofia Laubitz (eds.), McGill Working Papers in Linguistics, Special Issue on Comparative Germanic Syntax, McGill University, Montreal, pp. 215-238. Platzack, Christer & Anders Holmberg. 1989. "The Role of AGR and Finiteness". Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 43, 51-76. Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. "Verb Movement, Universal Grammar, and the Structure of IP". Linguistic Inquiry 20.3, 365-424. Prince, Ellen. 1988. "The Discourse Functions of Yiddish Expletive ES and Subject-Postposing". /. Pr. A. Papers in Pragmatics 2.1/2, 176-194. Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, & Jan Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. Longman, London. Radford, Andrew. 1988. Transformational Grammar. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Reinholtz, Charlotte. 1989. "V-2 in Mainland Scandinavian: Finite Verb Movement to Agr". Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 44, 101—117. Reuland, Eric. 1983. "On the Subject of Nonargument Subjects" in Werner Abraham (ed.), On the Formal Syntax of the Westgermania. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp 1—46. Reuland, Eric. 1985. "Representation at the Level of Logical Form and the Definiteness

280

References

Effect", in Jacqueline Gueron, Hans-Georg Obenauer, & Jean-Yves Pollock (eds.), Levels of Grammatical Representation. Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 327-362. Rizzi, Luigi. 1982. Issues in Italian Syntax. Foris, Dordrecht. Rizzi, Luigi. 1989. "The New Comparative Syntax: Principles and Parameters of Universal Grammar". Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure 43, 65-78 Rizzi, Luigi. 1990a. Relativized Minimality. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Rizzi, Luigi. 1990b. "Speculations on Verb Second", in Joan Mascard & Marina Nespor (eds.), Grammar in Progress, GLOW Essays for Henk van Riemsdijk. Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 375-386. Rizzi, Luigi. 1991a. "Proper Head Government and the Definition of A-Positions", talk given at GLOW 14, Leiden. Abstract in GLOW Newsletter 26,46^17. Rizzi, Luigi. 1991b. "Residual Verb Second and the Wh-Criterion". Technical Reports in Formal and Computational Linguistics 2, University of Geneva. Forthcoming in Adriana Belletti & Luigi Rizzi (eds.), Parameters and Functional Heads. Essays in Comparative Syntax. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Rizzi, Luigi & Ian Roberts. 1989. "Complex Inversion in French". Probus 1.1, 1-30. Also forthcoming in Adriana Belletti & Luigi Rizzi (eds.), Parameters and Functional Heads. Essays in Comparative Syntax. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Roberts, Ian. 1987. The Representation of Implicit and Dethematized Subjects. Foris, Dordrecht. Roberts, Ian. 1993. Verbs and Diachronic Syntax. Kluwer, Dordrecht. Rognvaldsson, Eirikur. 1984. "Icelandic Word Order and />ad-Insertion". Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax?:, 1-21. Rognvaldsson, Eirikur & Hoskuldur Thrainsson. 1990. "On Icelandic Word Order Once More", in Joan Maling & Annie Zaenen (eds.), Modem Icelandic Syntax. Syntax and Semantics 24. Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 3^0. Rohrbacher, Bernhard. 1994. "The Germanic Languages and the Full Paradigm: A Theory of V to I Raising", Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Ross, John R. 1967. "Constraints on Variables in Syntax", Ph.D., M.I.T. Ross, John R. 1984. "Inner Islands". Proceedings of Berkeley Linguistics Society 10. pp. 258-265. Safir, Kenneth. 1982. "Syntactic Chains and the Definiteness Effect", Ph.D., M.I.T. Safir, Kenneth. 1984. "Missing Subjects in German", in Jindrich Toman (ed.), Studies in German Grammar. Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 193-229. Safir, Kenneth. 1985. Syntactic Chains. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Safir, Kenneth. 1987. "What Explains the Definiteness Effect?", in Eric Reuland & Alice ter Meulen (eds.), The Representation of(In)definiteness. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass, pp. 71-97. Sandquist, Carin. 1981. "Nagra karakteristiska drag i HeSin Bnis sprak". Bokatidindi 1,1932. Santorini, Beatrice. 1988a. "Against a Uniform Analysis of All Verb-Second Clauses", ms, University of Pennsylvania. Santorini, Beatrice. 1988b. "Variable Rules vs. Variable Grammars in the History of Yiddish". Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik 29, 63-73. Santorini, Beatrice. 1989. "The Generalization of the Verb-Second Constraint in the History of Yiddish", Ph.D., University of Pennsylvania. Santorini, Beatrice. Forthcoming. "Some Similarities and Differences Between Icelandic and Yiddish", in Norbert Hornstein & David Lightfoot (eds.), Verb Movement. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Schane, Sanford. 1968. French Phonology and Morphology. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

References

281

Schwartz, Bonnie D. & Sten Vikner. 1989. "All Verb Second Clauses are CPs". Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 43, 27-49. Shlonsky, Ur. 1988. "Complementizer-Cliticization in Hebrew and the Empty Category Principle". Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6.2, 191-206. Shlonsky, Ur. 1992a. "The Representation of Agreement in Comp and Subject Clitics in West Flemish", ms, University of Geneva. Shlonsky, Ur. 1992b. "Semitic Resumptive Pronouns, the Representation of Agr in CP and Aspects of V2", talk presented at GLOW 15, Lisbon. Abstract in GLOW Newsletter 28, 44^5. Sigurflsson, Hallddr Armann. 1985. "Subordinate V/l in Icelandic. How to Explain a Root Phenomenon". Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 18, 1-58. Sigur5sson, Halld6r Armann. 1989. "Verbal Syntax and Case in Icelandic", Ph.D., University of Lund. Sigur9sson, Halldor Armann. 1990. "VI Declaratives and Verb Raising in Icelandic" in Joan Maling & Annie Zaenen (eds.), Modern Icelandic Syntax. Syntax and Semantics 24. Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 41-69. Sigurdsson, Halld6r Armann. 1991. "Icelandic Case-marked PRO and the Licensing of Lexical Arguments". Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9.2, 327-363. Sigur8sson, Halldor Armann. 1992. "Syntactic Structure and Case in Icelandic", ms, University of Iceland. Sobin, Nicholas. 1987. "The Variable Status of Comp-Trace Phenomena". Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5.1, 33-60. Sportiche, Dominique. 1988a. "Conditions on Silent Categories", ms, UCLA. Sportiche, Dominique. 1988b. "A Theory of Floating Quantifiers and Its Corollaries for Constituent Structure". Linguistic Inquiry 19.3, 425-449. Stowell, Tim. 1981. "Origins of Phrase Structure", Ph.D., M.I.T. Szabolcsi, Anna & Frans Zwarts. 1991. "Unbounded Dependencies and Algebraic Semantics", ms., UCLA & University of Groningen. Taraldsen, Tarald. 1986. "On Verb Second and the Functional Content of Syntactic Categories", in Hubert Haider & Martin Prinzhorn (eds.), Verb Second Phenomena in Germanic Languages. Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 7-25. Thiersch, Craig. 1978. "Topics in German Syntax", Ph.D., M.I.T. ThrSinsson, Hoskuldur. 1979. On Complementation in Icelandic. Garland, New York. Thrainsson, Hoskuldur. 1986. "VI, V2, V3 in Icelandic", in Hubert Haider & Martin Prinzhorn (eds.), Verb Second Phenomena in Germanic Languages. Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 169-194. Tomaselli, Alessandra. 1990a. "COMP0 as a Licensing Head: An Argument Based on Cliticization", in Joan Mascar6 & Marina Nespor (eds.), Grammar in Progress. GLOW Essays for Henk van Riemsdijk. Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 433-445. Tomaselli, Alessandra. 1990b. "Review of Weerman (1989)". Journal of Linguistics 26.2, 518-524. Tomaselli, Alessandra. 1990c. La sintassi del verbofinito nelle lingue germaniche. Unipress, Padua. Travis, Lisa. 1984. "Parameters and Effects of Word Order Variation", Ph.D., M.I.T. Travis, Lisa. 1986. "Parameters of Phrase Structure and V2 Phenomena", ms, McGill University. Presented at the Princeton Workshop on Comparative Syntax, March 1986. Travis, Lisa. 1991. "Parameters of Phrase Structure and Verb Second Phenomena", in Robert Freidin (ed.), Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. pp. 339-364.

282

References

Trosterud, Trond. 1989. "The Null Subject Parameter and the New Mainland Scandinavian Word Order: A Possible Counter Example from a Norwegian Dialect", in Jussi Niemi (ed.), Papers from the llth Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, Vol. 1. 87-100. Tsimpli, lanthi. 1990. "The Clause Structure and Word Order of Modern Greek", in John Harris (ed.), UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 2. University College London, London, pp 228-255. Uldaler, Nelly & Gerd Wellejus (eds.). 1968. Gammeldansk Lcesebog. Gyldendal, Copenhagen. van Haaften, Ton, Rik Smits, & Jan Vat. 1983. "Left Dislocation, Connectedness, and Reconstruction", in Werner Abraham (ed.), On the Formal Syntax of the Westgermania. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp 133-154. van Riemsdijk, Henk. 1978. A Case Study in Markedness: The Binding Nature of Prepositional Phrases. Foris, Dordrecht. van Riemsdijk, Henk & Edwin Williams. 1986. Introduction to the Theory of Grammar. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Vikner, Carl. 1986. "Aspect in French: The Modification of Aktionsart", in Finn S0rensen (ed.), Aspects of Aspect. CEBAL 9. Nyt Nordisk Forlag Arnold Busck, Copenhagen, pp. 58-101. Vikner, Sten. 1987. "Case Assignment Differences Between Danish and Swedish", in Robin Allan & Michael Barnes (eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh Conference of Scandinavian Studies in Great Britain. University College London. London, pp. 262-281. Vikner, Sten. 1988. "Modals in Danish and Event Expressions". Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 39, 1-33. Vikner, Sten. 1989. "Object Shift and Double Objects in Danish". Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 44, 141-155. Vikner, Sten. 1991. "Relative der and other C° Elements in Danish". Lingua 84.2/3, 109136. Vikner, Sten. Forthcoming. "Scandinavian Object Shift and West Germanic Scrambling", in Norbert Corver & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.), Scrambling. Foris/de Gruyter, Berlin. Vikner, Sten & Bonnie D. Schwartz. Forthcoming. "The Verb Always Leaves IP in V2 Clauses", in Adriana Belletti & Luigi Rizzi (eds.), Parameters and Functional Heads. Essays in Comparative Syntax, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Vikner, Sten & Rex A. Sprouse. 1988. "Have/Be Selection as an A-Chain Membership Requirement". Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 38, 1—48. Voegelin, Charles F. & Florence M. Voegelin. 1977. Classification and Index of the World's Languages. Elsevier, New York. Webelhuth, Gert. 1992. Principles and Parameters of Syntactic Saturation. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Weerman, Fred. 1989. The V2 Conspiracy. Foris, Dordrecht. Wilder, Chris. 1988. "On the German Infinitival Marker zu and the Analysis of Raising Constructions". Lingua 76, 115-175. Zaenen, Annie, Joan Maling, & Hoskuldur ThrSinsson. 1985. "Case and Grammatical Functions: The Icelandic Passive". Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3.4, 441483. Reprinted in Joan Maling & Annie Zaenen (eds.). 1990. Modem Icelandic Syntax. Syntax and Semantics 24. Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 95-136. Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 1991. "Clitics in Dutch: Evidence for the Position of Infl", Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik 33, 71-92.

Language Index

Afrikaans (Af.) 39n, 48, 152, 158, 168, 271 Alvdalsmalet; see Swedish Anglo-Frisian 5

Frisian (Fs.) 5, 7, 39n, 41,48, 66,66n, 67, 80, 84, 152, 153,157, 158, 168, 271

German (Ge.) 3-33, 39-77, 81-86, 90, 10310, 114-35, 152-59, 168-75, 181-206, 209, 212, 216, 217, 221^7, 252-55, 263-71 Bavarian (Ba.) 7, 55, 59,119 Danish (Da.) 5, passim High German 5 13th century Danish 59, 60 Low German 5 Middle Danish (MD) 119-27, 135,160-62,272 Swiss German (SG) 7, 68n, 71, 119, 152, 153, Dutch (Du.); see also Flemish; 3, 5,7, 39n, 41157,158, 168, 271 45,48, 50,66n, 68n, 82, 83,90,119,123, Westphalian (Wp.) 122,123 123n, 127, 152, 153, 157, 158, 168, 174, Germanic; see also the individual languages', 199, 206, 217, 218,221, 225-47, 252-57, 3-7, 157 261-68, 270, 271 Gothic 4 Bavarian; see German Burgundian 4

English (En.) 5, passim Middle English (ME) 119-22, 188n Old English (OE) 80,157 Faroese (Fa.) 4, 41,46,48,55, 59, 66, 67, 7274, 84, 109-18, 132-36, 139, 140, 14753, 157-60, 168, 188-212, 222, 223, 227, 243,246n,247n,270,271 Skalavfk 150 Flemish; see also Dutch West Flemish (WF) 7, 13, 55, 59, 60n, 119-22, 153, 157, 168, 221, 228, 271 French (Fr.) 13, 39-41, 48, 49n, 56-62, 75n, 94n, 116, 131-38, 140, 142, 145, 147, 153, 158, 168-70, 178, 181n, 184, 18804, 209-12, 222, 223, 225, 228, 243, 270

Hallingdalen; see Norwegian Hausa 49 Hebrew 7, 60n High German; see German Icelandic (Ic.) 3,4, 41,46-48,55-60, 65-118, 122-29, 132-^tl, 144-53, 157-63, 16876,182-228, 243, 246n, 247n, 269-71 Old Icelandic; see Old Norse Irish 60n Italian (It.) 15, 58, 60, 62, 75, 75n, 76, 87, 111, 170, 172, 182, 184, 212, 212n, 225, 236 Kikuyu 49 Kinyande 60n

284

Language Index

Kronoby; see Swedish Low German; see German Middle Danish; see Danish Middle English; see English Moore 49 Norwegian (No.) 4, 5, 40n, 41, 46,48, 53, 5760, 66, 67, 70n, 84, 116,132-35, 14047, 151, 151n, 157-61, 168, 181n, 182, 201, 225, 227, 234, 246-53, 255, 271 Dano-Norwegian 4 Hallingdalen (Hd.) 134,135,135n, 140,147 New-Norwegian 4 Northern Norwegian (NN) 53 Old English; see English Old Norse (ON) 4,58-60, 87, 126, 127, 157, 160-63 Palauan 49 Romance; see also French; Italian; 39n, 58-61, 158,167, 168, 174,178,211,222, 225, 270

Scandinavian; see also Danish; Faroese; Icelandic; Norwegian; Swedish; 4, 5, 39n, 46, 56, 57, 78n, 81,97, 132-36, 139, 140, 145^7, 246n Mainland Scandinavian; see also Danish; Norwegian; Swedish; 4, 5,46 Slavic 7,158 Swedish (Sw.) 5, 15, 40-48, 52, 53, 57, 58, 66, 67, 70n, 80, 84, 90, 90n, 103-7, 111, 116, 128, 129, 132-37, 140-47, 150, 151, 151n, 157-62, 168, 181n, 186, 188n, 201, 207, 208, 216-21, 225, 227, 234, 246-55, 271 Alvdalsmalet (Ad.) 134,135,150 Kronoby (Kb.) 135, 137, 162 Malmo 90 Swiss German; see German West Flemish; see Flemish Westphalian; see German Yiddish (Yi.) 3, 6,7,19, 39n, 41,46-48, 56, 60, 65-116,124, 127, 129, 133-41, 153, 157-59,168,174n, 184-212,221-28, 243,269-71 East Yiddish 7, 158 West Yiddish 7,158

Name Index

Afarli, Tor 248n Adams, Marianne 58, 60 Andrews, Avery 173n Authier, Jean-Marc 67, 72, 80

Cook, Vivian 11 Cooper, Kathrin 7 Coopmans, Peter 19, 25n Corver, Norbert 22,199

Bader, Thomas 7, 71, 119 Baker, Mark 28, 29, 201, 207, 247n Barnes, Michael 56, 118,149-51, 201, 246n Bayer, Josef 55, 119, 122n Belletti, Adriana29n, 102n, 124, 169-76, 180, 197, 212n, 237 Bennis, Hans 55, 60n, 122n, 167, 224, 228-33, 240n, 244,253, 253n, 256, 262-68, 270 Borer, Hagit 55, 64 Brink, Lars 119 Browning, Marguerite 49 Brii, Hedin 150 Burzio, Luigi 172n, 178, 196,202, 204, 208, 213, 216, 220, 222, 256, 257 Buscha, Joachim 7 In BuBmann, Hadumod 6

Dahlback, Hans 90 deHaan, Germen 59, 66n, 67, 80 den Besten, Hans 42,44, 90, 199 Diderichsen, Paul 59, 128 Diesing, Molly 73, 76, 78, 80-83, 88, 90, 91, 97,108,112

Cardinaletti, Anna 81, 86n, 116,161,174n, 186,228n,236,244,255 Chomsky, Noam 7n, lln, 19, 25, 27, 29, 29n, 42,49, 52, 94, 97, 102n, 103, 104, 108, 111, 114, 121n, 124, 133, 151n, 163, 16770, 177-180, 203, 204n, 213, 217, 223, 224, 261, 262, 270, 271 Christensen, Kirsti Koch 18In, 182 Chung, Sandra 60n Cinque, Guglielmo 20, 23, 24, 241n Cole, Peter 56, 173

Eitle, Hermann 122 Ejerhed, Eva 70n Emonds, Joseph 40, 52, 56, 97, 99, 132, 133, 137, 142, 145, 151n Engdahl, Elisabet 15, 60, 70n Eskenazi, Andre 228 Faarlund, Jan Terje 4 Falk, Cecilia 47, 170, 171, 220-22 Falk, Hjalmar53, 122, 127, 160, 162, 253n Fanselow, Gisbert 7n, 11, 20n, HOn, 200, 228 Felix, Sascha 7n, 11, HOn Fritzenschaft, Agnes 81 Gawlitzek-Maiwald, Ira 81 GeilfuB, Jochen 68n Giusti, Giuliana 19 Grange, Corinne 170, 228 Grewendorf, Gunther 23, 23n, 71n, HOn, 200 Grimshaw, Jane 156, 201, 237

286

Name Index

Haegeman, Liliane 7,11, 55, 60n, 66n, 119, 122, 122n, 228, 244n, 264 Hagstrom, Bjorn 151 Haider, Hubert 19, 71n, 153 Haik,Isabelle49 Hall, Beatrice 68n Hansen,Aagell9, 122 Hansen, Erik 260,260n Haugen, Einar 5,6 Helbig, Gerhard 71n Henriksen, Jeffrei 150, 246n Herslund, Michael 246 Herzog, Marvin 68n Heycock, Caroline 80, 83, 88-90, 110 Hoekstra, Eric 66n, 82,119,120n, 123 Hoekstra, Teun 167,224, 228, 229, 233,237, 244, 268, 270 Hohle, Tilman 106 Holmberg, Anders 42-45, 51-59,63,64, 67, 80,97, 106, 116, 128n, 132-35, 143^16, 151, 162, 170-74, 188n, 201 Hutterer, Claus Jiirgen 6 Hyams, Nina 7n latridou, Sabine 67, 72, 80-83, 105, 126 Jaeggli, Osvaldo 201,220 Johnson, Kyle 204n Jonsson, J6hannes Gfsli 102, 116, 161 Kayne, Richard 51, 58,182, 243n Koopman, Hilda 54, 94n, 177, 178 Kosmeijer, Wim 132 Koster, Jan 238n Kroch, Anthony 67, 68n, 72, 80-83, 105, 126 Lasnik, Howard 11, 108, 111, 114, 121n, 17073, 179n, 180, 211, 21 In, 223, 255 Levander, Lars 134 Lightfoot, David 7n, 119, 143^17, 163 Linebarger, Marcia 123 Lockwood, W.B. 132n, 147, 149 Lowenstamm, Jean 79 Lund, J0rn 119 Maling, Joan 116, 116n, 161,218-20 Marantz, Alec 173n May, Robert 49,169 McCloskey, James 60n Mikkelsen, Kristian 59, 119, 127, 128, 160 Milsark, Gary 197 Moritz, Luc 145 Moro, Andrea 264-68 Muller, GereonSl

Newmeyer, Frederick 179n Nygaard, Marius 59,160, 162 Obenauer, Hans-Georg 95 Ottdson, Kjartan 116,116n, 117 Paul, Hermann 62,90 Penner,Zvi7,71,119 Perlmutter, David 196, 220 Pesetsky, David 23, 24 Pintzuk, Susan 80 Platzack, Christer 5,42-45, 54, 57-59, 67, 80, 90, 105, 116, 132-35, 151, 161,162, 188n, 201, 203,216, 219, 220 Pollock, Jean-Yves 29, 29n, 40,49, 56,58, 102n, 132-36,145,151n, 209, 217 Prince, Ellen 68n, 76 Quirk, Randolph 167, 258 Radford, Andrew 11 Reinholtz, Charlotte 71n, 72, 80, 82, 87, 120n, 124-30 Reuland, Eric 209, 216-19 Rizzi, Luigi 7n, 11-35, 39,48-50, 57, 60-64, 72-80, 92,95, 98, 107n, 108, 114, 133, 151n, 178-81,204n, 210, 237, 269 Roberts, Ian 14, 50,58-64,72, 80, 81, 86n, 95, 116, 134-36, 142, 150-52, 161-63, 178, 195n, 201, 210, 253n, 270 Rognvaldsson, Eirflcur 72, 76, 78, 80-83,9194,97, 116n, 117, 161 Rohrbacher, Bernhard 132n, 135,136,142, 147, 151, 152, 163,270 Ross, John R. 20 Rutten, Jean 66n Safir, Kenneth 51n, 169-71, 173, 176n, 180, 197, 209,216, 219, 255 Saito.Mamuroll, 108, 111, 114 Sandquist, Carin 150 Santorini, Beatrice 68, 68n, 76-83, 87-90,110, 115,116,138,157,158 Schane, Sanford 135n Schwartz, Bonnie 5 In, 81, 103, 153, 155n Shlonsky, Ur 60n, 81,122n Sigurdsson, Halld6r Armann 56,68n, 87, 88,93, 116n, 160n, 173-76,182,185,214,215 Sobin, Nicholas 60n Sportiche, Dominique 94n, 177, 178 Sprouse, Rex 155n, 182, 195n, 216 Sternefeld, Wolfgang 23, 23n, 81, 200 Stevenson, Suzanne 19 Stowell, Tim 55 Szabolcsi, Anna 21

Name Index Tappe, Thilo 122,155n Taraldsen, Tarald42,51, 53,181n, 182 Thiersch, Craig 42 Thrainsson, Hoskuldur 48, 56,68n, 72, 74n, 76, 80-83, 91-94, 97, 116n, 117, 122, 161, 173 Tomaselli, Alessandra 42,55-61,107n, 185, 212n Torp, Alf 53, 122, 127, 160, 162,253n Tracy, Rosemarie 81 Travis, Lisa 29, 5In, 81, 95n, 153 Trosterud, Trond 134 Tsimpli, lanthi 81, 86 Uldaler, Nelly 162, 272 Uriagereka, Juan 11 Vamling, Karina 90 van Haaften, Ton 239 van Riemsdijk, Henk 70n, 253

287

Vikner, Carl 202n Vikner, Sten 13, 23,27n, 45n, 5In, 60n, 78n, 81, 82, 97, 100,103,121-23,153,174n, 178, 178n, 182,195n, 200, 201, 207, 216, 247n, 259n Voegelin, Charles 6 Voegelin, Florence 6 Webelhuth, Gert 200 Weerman, Fred 56-59,66n, 67, 80 Wegmuller, Ursula 7 Wellejus, Gerd 162, 272 Wilder, Chris 19 Williams, Edwin 70n, 253 Zaenen, Annie 172, 173 Zanuttini, Raffaella 102n Zwart, Jan-Wouter 51n, 81, 153 Zwarts, Frans 21

Subject Index

A-bar-; see non-argument agreement; see also inflection; 13,14, 34, 51, 55-64,77, 90n, 100-102, 126, 127, 132, "aboutness" relation 52, 53 151, 161, 162,176n, 179-82, 188n, 221 acceptability 21n, 23,189n [+Agr] 57-59 accusative 55, 60n, 89, 90, 171-78, 182, 201, AgrlP and Agr2P 86n, 116 202, 208-17, 234, 236, 239-62 Agr°-elements 151n acquisition 7-9, 158-62, 271 AgrP-spec 100, 126-28 adjacency 45, 54, 55, 59, 61, 64, 100,103,107, agreement, singular, forced by expletive sub107n, 248n ject 181n adjective 51, 234-41, 252, 256-62 agreement in C° 55, 59-64, 122, adjunct 35,108-14,118 subject-verb agreement 86, 100-103, 124-29, adjunction 52, 91-100,107, 111, 116,128, 135,181 129, 144, 147, 156, 180, 206,209,229-33 alternative licensing 60n, 173n, 178-80,183, adjunction to AgrP 127 196,201-3,208,211, 217,227,233, 234, adjunction to CP 46, 86, 103-5, 111, 127, 129 240-52, 257-62, 265, 268,270 adjunction to IP 86, 103-8, 111, 114, 128, 129, antecedent 15-33, 77, 92,167 144,154, 156,230, 232 antecedent-trace link 15-21, 24-27, 34, 35 adjunction to TP 23,145,147 antecedent government 12,15-35, 74n, 75-79, adjunction to VP 15, 17, 23n, 34, 40, 94n, 145, 92,108-14,117n, 181, 182, 188n 147, 154-56, 163, 171-73, 205-7, 231-33 apposition 231, 233, 237-58, 263-66 adjunction to X-bar 93-99, 143^*7 argument; see also external argument; internal adjunction to ZP 105 argument; thematic role adverbial 17-24, 27, 40,45-^7, 51, 57, 73, A-chain 181, 183 74n, 77, 86, 91-108, 125-29, 136, 144, A-element 26, 27, 33 220 A-movement 12, 25-28, 33-35, 77, 179n incorporation of adverbials into C° 106 A-position 16, 28, 77-82, 90, 110, 113, 181, manner adverbial 94n 217 medial adverbial 40,46,47, 57, 93, 97, 135, A-specifier 27n, 85, 182, 186 136, 140, 144-47, 150, 161 A-traces 27 sentence adverbial 67, 79, 86, 91-100,129, argument extraction 77, 108, 112-17 145, 147 argument principle 51 VP-adverbial 92, 93, 98, 99 argument/non-argument distinction 229 affix hopping 133, 151n argument/quasi-argument distinction 225

Subject Index aspect 211,212 associate; see also expletive-associate chain; 177-97, 201-3, 208-15, 223, 233-36, 239-45, 250, 260 auxiliary verb 13, 29-32, 51, 67, 68n, 141, 142, 172, 173, 187-202, 206, 211, 212, 216-18,222, 235n, 256, 260 non-auxiliary 173 avoid pronoun principle 186 barrier 11, lln, 12, 16-19,29-31, 111, 11418, 188n inherent barrier lln, 19, 111 binding 11, 15-27, 32-35, 52, 77, 79, 108, 169, 170, 180, 181n, 262 binding theory 169, 170, 262 bounding; see subjacency bridge verbs 46n, 70, 70n, 71, 79, 85, 126, 143 49, 159, 160n non-bridge verbs 69-71, 80, 125, 143, 148

289

agreeing complementiser; see agreement in C° [+C] 61-63 C°-feature51,64 CP-recursion 65-67, 80-87, 101-13, 116, 120, 124, 128-30, 139, 159, 269 CP-spec 13-23, 27, 46-53, 60n, 67-70, 7392, 101, 108-14, 118-23, 127-31, 144, 149, 154-56, 160, 184-87, 214, 216, 224-31,238-60,265 incorporation of adverbials into C° 106 conditional clause 43,44 control 56 copula 193, 196, 210-15, 223, 242 coreference; see also coindexation; 52 dative 56, 173, 173n, 174 dative object 98n, 173n definiteness 170, 171, 200, 208, 212n, 216, 260 deflexion 56, 57 deletion 50, 55, 261 determiner 156 D°61 DP 52, 61, 86 D(iscourse)-linking 23 D-structure 50, 50n, 56, 66n, 75, 89, 94, 119, 155, 177,203 dummy subject; see also expletive subject; 228, 233

case; see also accusative; dative; genitive; nominative; quirky case; 4, 28, 51,54-57, 62, 64, 75, 88-90, 100, 107, 109, 114n, 116, 169-87, 191, 192, 196, 201-4, 208, 214-18, 221-23, 229, 233,242-50, 25355, 259n, 262, 265, 267, 270 case assignment 55, 62, 64, 89, 90,100,103, 104, 107, 171, 178-86,191, 192, 207, 209, 213-16, 221-23,228^12, 246-55, embedded clause 13, 17, 18,40-49, 54, 65-88, 258, 260, 262, 265-70 92, 102, 105-19, 123, 123n, 124, 128-30, case clash 233, 246, 247, 251-55, 270 135^19,151n, 153-56, 160,161, 186, case filter 178, 179n, 233 186n, 187n, 213, 228-33, 236n, 244n, exceptional case marking (ECM) 89, 90, 252, 255-61, 265, 268-70 172n, 176, 183, 210-17, 223, 265, 266 empty category 11,12,62, 108, 226 inherent case 171, 173n, 21 In structural case 171-74, 196, 197,201, 202, 213 empty category principle (ECP) 11-15, 51n, 108,112-18,155 c-command 12, 15-18, 24, 27, 29-31, 34, 169, en-cliticisation 222 201, 222 ergative; see also expletive construction; 168chain; see also argument; non-argument; 26, 71, 175, 187-91, 195-213, 216, 217, 220, 27, 34, 35, 57, 108-14, 169-88,196, 197, 222, 241n, 243, 246, 256-60 202, 203, 209, 209n, 210,214-18, 223, event 16,61, 170 242, 247, 258,260, 262, 270 exceptional case marking; see case clitic 55, 59, 61, 64, 107n exclamations 53, 63 clitic subject 66n experiencer role 16, 215, 216, 219 cliticisation 56, 107n coindexation 13, 17-20, 29-31, 167, 169, 182, expletive subject 3,62,68-70, 73, 76-80, 84, 91,96,152,167-271 207 empty expletive (expletive pro) 69n, 118, 186, complement 3, 16, 39n, 40,43,46, 51,54, 70221,222,226n 72, 84, 85, 94, 94n, 124, 168-71, 176-78, expletive-associate chain 179-83, 187, 196, 183-89, 195-209, 213-24,230, 230n, 202, 203, 208-11, 215, 218, 223, 233, 235, 235n, 236, 240-70 235n, 239^5, 251, 256-62, 270 complementiser 13,41^6, 51-57, 60-70, 74, 80, 82, 84, 86, 103-5, 107n, 118-22, 126expletive ergative construction 169, 170, 31, 269 187-89, 196, 197, 222, 223

290

Subject Index

expletive intransitive construction 170,18992,202-9,221,271 expletive passive intransitive construction 168-70, 180, 195, 209, 210, 218, 222, 223, 243n, 247, 270, 271 expletive passive transitive construction 168, 168n, 169, 175, 187-92, 195-202, 20913,222,223, 227,246, 257,258 expletive subject base-generated in CP 185 expletive subject base-generated in IP 186 expletive subjects which force singular agreement 181n expletive transitive construction 77, 153,18992, 197-201, 222, 271 extended projection principle 217, 218 extended projections 156 external argument 56,60,172n, 177,178,196209, 213-20, 223, 234-43,247, 247n, 257, 262, 270 extraction; see also non-argument movement; object; question; subject; topicalisation; wfc-movement; 13-27, 34, 35,60,66n, 70n, 73-78, 87, 88, 108-19, 123, 130, 229-33, 268 extraposition 68n, 95n, 154-56, 227,230, 234, 237 factive 244n feature 50, 50n, 51, 55-66,75n, 158, 168, 182, 217, 221,222,258 finite 3, 9,10,13,13n, 14,18,19, 31, 32, 3968, 73-83, 86-95,100, 102, 104, 107n, 109, 114,116, 124, 128-33, 136, 138-51, 154, 162, 163, 167,172, 176, 181, 186, 187n, 190,195n, 210, 213-17, 221, 230, 235n, 269, 270 [+F] 51,57-59, 64 non-finite 93, 96, 155 full interpretation, principle of 167,177-80, 183,209,217 functional 51, 86, 91,120n, 127,156, 203 "gamma"-marking 11, 108 genitive object 173n government; see also antecedent government; head government; proper government; 11, lln, 23n, 57-64, 102, 178-93,196,197, 202,203, 208-10, 214,215,218,221-23, 233, 234, 246,260, 262,270 grammaticality 21, 113,162, 195 head (X°); see also specifier-head agreement; X-bar theory; 16, 28-35, 42, 52-55, 5861, 91, 100, 102, 108, 114, 119, 120,

120n, 127,131,136,151n, 155,186,19095,201, 203,207, 248n, 265 head government; see also proper government; 57, 90, 100, 172, 173, 195 head movement constraint 29, 33,55, 131 X°-chain 16 X°-movement 12,28, 34, 35, 151n heavy NP shift; see also extraposition; 200, 201, 206 hvad-for split; see what-for split idioms 16 imperative 134,135,152,152n impersonal passive; see expletive passive intransitive construction incorporation 248n incorporation of adverbials into C° 106 indefinite; see also associate; 89, 91,96, 117, 168-77, 180-82, 188n, 195, 195n, 199, 200, 205, 208, 214-22, 270 indefmiteness 170-73, 177, 180, 214, 216, 219, 260 indirect object 27n infinitival clause 176, 213, 215, 255 inflection, verbal 40, 57, 101, 102, 126, 13136,141,142,145,151,152,156,157, 162, 163, 173, 217, 221, 270 [+1] 51, 61-64, 82,107n P 13-18, 28-33, 39-42,46-62,66-68, 76, 77, 80-85, 88-91, 95,101-3,107,116,120n, 131-38, 141-48, 151n, 153-58, 163, 168, 178-223, 227,230-45, 251, 259, 260,270 I-bar 221 IP 1 In, 16, 19,25n, 26, 30-34,40-42, 53-56, 61, 63,67, 74n, 75, 80-86, 91, 100-107, 111, 120-22, 126, 131, 144,153, 154, 183, 187, 190-94, 198-200, 204, 206, 230-38,262,267, 268 IP-recursion 91 IP-spec 12-20, 27, 34,46, 47,54-62,67-69, 70, 74-90, 93-118,121n, 129, 144, 14850, 160, 171, 176-78, 181-87, 197,202, 210, 213-20, 224-27,232,236-41, 24467,270 P-to-C° movement 75n, 210 poor vs. rich inflection 57, 132-36, 162, 163, 188n inherent case; see case inheritance; see barrier, inherent innateness 7-9, 271 inner island; see island intermediate trace; see trace internal argument 56, 178, 196-204, 208, 209, 213, 217-20, 237, 243n, 247n, 257-60

Subject Index intransitive; see also expletive construction; 51,146,168-70,177,180,188-91,196, 199,202-11, 216-18,220,223, 227, 246, 270 inversion; see also verb second complex inversion 62 stylistic inversion 58, 116n, 119 island 123 inner island; see negative island negative island 20-25, 28, 91, 95, 98 w/i-island 15-21 kanske 45, 46 language universal 8,9 least effort principle 162, 163 left dislocation 52, 84, 234,239,242, 245, 246, 249-57, 265-67 lexical 32, 33, 49,51, 54-57, 64, 88, 90, 139, 156, 178, 190, 191, 198, 201-5, 222, 23336,240, 251, 259,261 licensing; see also alternative licensing; 56-61, 89, 90, 171-205, 208-10, 213-15, 223, 234-36, 239-45, 250-52, 265, 267 logical form (LF) 50, 66n,h, 119,15 In, 169, 170, 177-80, 203, 207, 217, 218, 243n, 247n LF-adjunction 167 LF-element 177 main clause 13, 14, 29, 30, 33, 39,41,44,45, 52-56, 64-68, 72, 78n, 82-88, 104,108, 121, 125, 131, 137, 138, 142-49, 160, 161,231, 235n, 237-50, 254, 260, 260n, 269 matrix 17-19, 26, 50, 50n, 63, 66n, 67,72, 73, 85,106n, 109-14, 126,139,143,148, 149, 155, 176, 214,229-39, 255-57, 261, 262, 267 maximal projection 42,52, 53,94-99, 129, 131,239,242,245,249,267 modal verb 131,141,142,147 modifier principle 51 man 45, 45n, 46 movement; see also argument; left dislocation; non-argument; 11-20,25-33, 39-44,4952, 55, 56,62, 65,66, 73,75-83, 87, 90, 97, 108, 116-19, 127-31, 145, 151n, 163, 168, 169, 172n, 174n, 178-79, 179n, 18796, 200-205, 222, 223, 230, 251, 260, 269-71 downwards movement 3In, 15In movement to C° 50n, 65n

291

narrative inversion; see VI declarative negation 20-24, 28, 33,40,46,47, 91-100, 110,123,125,136, 140,143-47,151n, 161, 163 [+neg] 49 negative island; see island negative polarity items 123 nominative 55-59, 102, 170-76, 182, 184, 188n, 209, 217, 237,245, 248-51 nominative case assignment 51-64, 86n, 89, 90, 102, 103, 171, 176-79, 184-88, 197, 202, 209, 210, 216, 218, 223, 236, 23960, 263, 267 nominative object 102 non-nominative case; see quirky case non-argument 108,170, 179n, 224, 229 A-bar-chain 16, 181 A-bar-element 22, 27, 75, 79 A-bar-movement; see also question; topicalisation; w/i-movement; 11,12, 21, 25-28, 33, 75, 77, 92, 151n, 201, 239, 239n, 242, 245, 249 A-bar-position 16, 21, 49, 82, 83, 95, 96, 109-14 A-bar-specifier 16,20,27,85,86,110-14,151n A-bar-X°-movement vs. A-bar-XP-movement 151n non-argument extraction 12-27, 35, 96, 108, 109,116,117,117n null subject (pro) 3,15, 34, 57-61,69, 69n, 70, 150,170,176,182,185,185n, 188,189, 192-203,209, 214, 225-13, 255, 264-70 non-referential pro 47, 58-61, 150 number; see also agreement; 55-59, 77, 100103, 126-27, 132-35, 151, 176n, 182 object; see also complement; 13, 16-22, 34, 41,42, 50n, 68n, 69n, 79, 80, 89, 92-102, 106n, 108, 116, 117, 121n, 136, 137,14547,168, 171-77, 182,185n, 198, 200, 203-5, 211, 221, 226n, 229-36,245, 252, 257-62 object extractions 15-19, 27, 34 object shift 68n, 86,93, 97-100, 128n, 129, 145^7, 173n, 174n, 178n, 259n oblique case; see quirky case operator 26, 27, 57, 78n, 90,123n bare operators 53 empty operator 15,49,69n, 76,78n, 118, 121-23,226n, 238n parameter 9, ll,230n participle 68n, 91, 94, 96, 104-7, 116, 136, 162, 168n, 176n, 182, 191-95, 204n, 217 particle 207, 208

292

Subject Index

partitive case 171-76,180,21 In, 217, 220-23 morphological realisation of partitive case 174, 175 passive; see also expletive construction; 68n, 116, 118,168-71, 174, 175, 180, 187-96, 199-202,209-14,218-23, 227, 229, 24249, 255-58,270 person; see also agreement; 55-59,77,100103, 126-27,132-37, 140,147, 151, 152, 163 phonetic form (PF) 177, 179n predicate 52, 53, 61,94n, 170,239, 242, 244, 249, 264 bare predicate 170 predicate principle 51, 51n, 170,170n, 180 predicate subject 52,53 predication 52,61,64, 89,90,170, 233, 237 stripped predicate parameter 170 preposition (P°) CP as complement of P° 246-55 preposition stranding 246n, 247, 253 principle; see also the individual principles', 9, 11, 51,167, 169, 177-80, 183,186,209, 217 pro; see null subject projection 80,156 projection principle 14,50,55,66n, 119,198208,217-19, 223, 236, 270 pronoun; see also expletive subject; object shift; subject; expanded pronouns 128n proper government 12,14, 29, 34,108,114, 118, 121n, 131 proper head government 12-35,60n, 112,113 proposition 61,64 pseudo-opacity 95 pseudo-passive 246-255 quantifier raising 169 quasi-argument 58,59, 167, 218, 224-28,255, 268, 270 question; see also non-argument movement; wfc-movement 13n, 24, 25n, 30, 39,42, 48,51, 62,69n, 76, 89,118,127, 141, 142,210 embedded question 19,20,41,48-51, 55, 66n, 67,69, 73-80, 84-88,119-24,130, 139, 140, 146, 149, 157 object question vs. subject question 13n yes/no-question 44, 49-51, 69n, 76, 78n, 87-90, 120-24, 127, 131, 185n, 226n quirky case 55-58, 173, 173n, 174n

raising 25-27, 34,170,183,186,204,205,21116,223,224,255-58,261-64,267-70 non-raising 256,261,262,268,270 raising to object 204, 205 super-raising 25 referential 16-26, 35, 58-60,169, 170, 180 non-referential 16,170 referential index 15-22, 25n, 27, 29, 34, 35, 79,92, 108, 180 referentiality 25 reflexive 167,169,211, 260 relative clause 50n, 78n, 118, 121n, 149 relative pronoun/complementiser 15, 82, 118, 122n, 123 relativised minimality 3,11-35,69, 75, 76,95, 108-20,269 resumptive pronoun; see also left dislocation; 14, 34,237, 258-60, 265 root clause; see also main clause; 159 non-root clause 159, 160 S-bar; see also complementiser S-bar deletion 261 S-bar recursion 66n scope 76,91-99,233 scrambling 23, 23n, 68n, 98n, 200 selection 85 small clause 94n, 262-68 small clause complement 256,262-68 small clause predicate 264,266 small clause subject 264,265 specifier (spec); see also argument; non-argument; and the individual constituents', 16, 21, 26,43,60, 77, 90, 91, 96-102, 109, 114, 121n, 123, 123n, 127, 171, 173, 177, 181-89, 195,195n, 196, 203,204n, 208, 212,213,235n, 265,266 specifier-head (spec-X°) agreement 13, 49, 60, 62, 75, 90, 100-103, 126, 178, 18287, 209, 210, 221-23 S-structure 50,50n, 56, 66n, 89, 90, 108, 119, 155, 167, 170, 177, 179n, 198, 201, 203, 207,218 strong verb; see also inflection; 132n, 147 structural case; see case structure preserving principle 52,97,99 stylistic fronting 56,116-18,136,161-63 stylistic inversion; see inversion subcategorisation 50,59,66n subjacency 11, lln, 19,20,25, 108, 114,116, 117n, 121n, 262 subject; see also expletive subject; null subject; 3, 12-20, 23n, 27, 33, 34,40-48, 55-62, 67-69, 73-120, 124-29, 144, 149, 150,

Subject Index 167-87, 200, 201, 210,213-18, 224, 22729, 233, 236, 237, 243n, 245, 249-70 non-pronominal subject 128 pronominal subject 44,45, 54,55, 59, 61,64, 103, 107n, 128 subject extraction 12-20, 27, 34,59,60 subject-verb agreement; see agreement subset 72, 85, 124, 160n, 168, 169 super-raising 25 tense 51, 59-63, 107n, 132-36,163, 202n, 233, 244n, 259n past tense 147 present tense 135-37,140,147,152 T° 15-18, 21, 28-31,40n, 77, 81, 100, 131, 145, 151n, 196n thai-trace phenomena; see also empty category principle; 12, 121n thematic role (theta-role); see also argument; experiencer; non-argument; non-theta; lln, 16-29, 34, 35, 56, 60, 61, 77, 89, 167, 172-74, 177-80, 183, 187, 188, 192, 195-224,229-33, 237-58, 262-70 theta-criterion 26, 177, 178, 183,253n theta-; see thematic role topicalisation; see also non-argument movement; w/i-movement; 42,48, 52, 66n, 6890, 95-100, 102n, 107-19, 124, 129, 138, 142, 143, 148, 154-56, 159, 160n, 265-67 negative topicalisation 30,42,48-51, 141 topicalisation to AgrP-spec 124,129 topicalisation to IP-spec 80-88, 91,95-97, 100-113, 124, 129, 130 TP-spec 21, 22, 91-100, 107-10, 113, 124, 128 trace; see also movement; 11-34,47, 55, 60, 62, 74n, 75-78, 89-92, 97-99, 108-14, 118-23, 151n, 178n, 179n, 186-94, 198, 203, 229-60 intermediate trace 17, 108, 114,154 transitive; see also expletive construction; 3, 51, 168, 169, 175, 177, 187-91, 196-223, 234-37, 242, 259, 260, 269, 270 Transparency Principle 162 typical potential cc-governor; see also relativised minimality; 16-18,29-31 unaccusative; see ergative unergative; see intransitive universal grammar (UG) 3, 7, 9 VI declarative 69n, 86-90, 129, 185n, 226n V2; see verb second verb; see also auxiliary; bridge verb; copula; inflection; modal verb [+V] 51-54, 61,267

293

verb movement 3, 9-13, 39-41, 88, 137,156, 167, 168, 269 verb stem 101,102,135,152,162 VP-adjunction 94n VP-internal subject 94n, 171, 177, 217 VP-spec 60, 60n, 91-102,107-14,172-77, 182-95,198, 203-9, 217, 221-23, 23538,259,260 VP-topicalisation 155, 230-33 V°-to-F movement 3, 29-32, 39-41, 46, 47, 57-59, 66-68, 73, 90n, 110, 131-63, 167-69, 178, 178n, 179, 187-96, 222, 223, 270, 271 V0-to-I°-to-C° movement; see verb second V°-to-r29n, 31n V°-to-T0-to-Agr° movement 40n verb second (V2) 3,14, 30, 39-91,116-51, 157-69, 178-88, 196, 202-10, 216, 218, 222,223,241,269-71 embedded V2 46, 46n, 47, 53, 54, 63, 65-131, 139-43,148-50,269,271 general embedded V2 65, 68, 70, 72, 80, 86, 90, 105, 106, 124, 126, 129, 132, 140, 150, 157-63, 269-71 limited embedded V2 65, 70, 72, 80, 84-86, 105, 126, 129, 132, 269 non-V2 46, 51, 57, 60-63, 67, 73, 81, 87, 119, 124, 128, 130, 139, 143, 148, 161, 178, 184, 187,208, 222 residual V2 39, 42,48-51,62, 64, 113, 269 visibility 178-181, 208, 236, 243n, 247, 253n, 262, 266, 267 was-fiir split; see what-for split wat-voor split; see what-for split weak verb; see also inflection; 132n weakening 161 weather expression 16, 227, 228 what-for split 22, 23, 92, 199,217 wto-movement; see also extraction; non-argument movement; question; topicalisation; 15-20, 26, 27,79, 88, 246n [+wh] 48-51, 55, 64, 66n, 75, 75n, 119-21, 127 tv/i-criterion 13n, 27, 49, 51, 64, 75, 119, 120, 121n w/j-element 20-23, 27,49, 50, 50n, 73-80, 87, 108, 117-22, 127, 130,185 wfc-element base-generated in Cp-spec 75, 76 wfc-island; see island tv/i-operators 23,49 word order adverbial-object order 98

294

Subject Index

adverbial-subject order 95 complementiser-adverbial-subject order 44 complementiser-subject-adverbial order 44 T-VP order 42, 67, 68, 73, 81, 107n, 110, 132, 136-53, 157, 230n, 235n, 270, 271 non-subject-initial clause 67,69,74, 81, 82, 88-91,110,113,125,138 object-adverbial order 98 subject-adverbial order 95 subject-initial clause 46,48,67,68, 81, 125, 149 subject-object-verb (SOV) order; see also VP-I° order; 39n, 42, 48, 168, 185n, 187n, 198,230n, 235n, 271

subject-verb-object (SVO) order; see also I°VP order; 5, 39n, 42,48,168,187n, 198, 230n, 235n, 271 verb-adverbial-subject order 44 verb-particle-object order 246n verb-subject order 88 verb-subject-adverbial order 44 VP-I" order 42,68, 81, 132, 152-158, 230n, 235n, 271 X-bar theory 42, 94-98, 144-47, 203 X0-; see head ZP (maximal projection below CP and above IP) 80-87,105,110-13, 124, 129, 130 ZP-spec 80, 81, 86, 109, 110, 113-16, 129