Verbal Projections (Linguistische Arbeiten) 3484304200, 9783484304208

Table of contents :
Introduction
I. Verbal Categories in Syntax and Lexicon
Don’t Call it “X” or: Why X does not Represent Grammatical Categories
Functional Affixes and Downward Percolation
The -ing-Affixes: towards a Classification
One Be: One Syntactic Function
II. Verb Classes, Lexical Representations, and Syntactic Reflexes
Intransitive Verbs as Case Assigners
English Particle Verbs: Particles as Functional Categories
The Lexical-Conceptual Structure of English Verbs of Possession
Subject-there as an Adverb
III. Verb Positions and Movement
Aspectual Complement Clauses and the (Un-)Availability of Verb Raising
Verb Second, Alternatives, and Economy
Types of VP-Preposing
List of Contributors

Citation preview

Linguistische Arbeiten

420

Herausgegeben von Hans Altmann, Peter Blumenthal, Hans Jürgen Heringer, Ingo Plag, Heinz Vater und Richard Wiese

Verbal Projections Edited by Hero Janßen

Max Niemeyer Verlag Tübingen 2000

Die Deutsche Bibliothek - CIP-Einheitsaufnahme Verbal projections / ed. by Hero Janßen. - Tübingen : Niemeyer, 2000 (Linguistische Arbeiten; 420) ISBN 3-484-30420-0

ISSN 0344-6727

© Max Niemeyer Verlag GmbH, Tübingen 2000 Das Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlages unzulässig und strafbar. Das gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen, Übersetzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und die Einspeicherung und Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen. Printed in Germany. Gedruckt auf alterungsbeständigem Papier. Druck: Weihert-Druck GmbH, Darmstadt Einband: Industriebuchbinderei Nadele, Nehren

Table of Contents

Introduction

vii

I. Verbal Categories in Syntax and Lexicon Gisa Rauh Don't Call it "X" or: Why X does not Represent Grammatical Categories

1

Hildegard Farke Functional Affixes and Downward Percolation

23

Jelena Krivokapic The -ing-Affixes: towards a Classification

45

Stefanie Bode One Be: One Syntactic Function

65

II. Verb Classes, Lexical Representations, and Syntactic Reflexes Anja Wanner Intransitive Verbs as Case Assigners

85

Nicole Dehe English Particle Verbs: Particles as Functional Categories

105

Joachim Tuschinsky The Lexical-Conceptual Structure of English Verbs of Possession

123

Alexander Kaiser Subject-there as an Adverb

141

III. Verb Positions and Movement Claudia Felser Aspectual Complement Clauses and the (Un-)Availability of Verb Raising

163

Hans Thilo Tappe Verb Second, Alternatives, and Economy

195

Hero Janßen Types of VP-Preposing

223

List of Contributors

257

Introduction

The prominent role of the category "verb" is a well-known, perhaps even trivial fact in linguistic research. This not only includes the central status and function of the verb in a sentence, but must be extended to include the determination of its propositional content and thus to many types of configurations and structures based on the verb. Both of these depend on lexical information and morphological processes that often provoke reorganisations as changes of original categorial and context-sensitive properties. Therefore, examining the verb and its formal configurations always entails the discussion and evaluation of linguistic theories in general and of grammatical and lexical principles and mechanisms in particular. Thus, the object of research into verbal configurations has to cover syntactic, morphological and semantic structures whose formal nucleus determining the categorial status of the entire constituent is a verbal element (i.e. a verbal head), analysed as words, affixes, or semantic predicates. The notion of a verbal projection, neutral with regard to the linguistic level of examination, refers to structures derived ("projected") from the properties of verbs. The collection of articles presented here examines some central lexical and grammatical aspects of verbal elements and phrases in the context of recent generative research. The three main topics are a) the categorisation of verbal and related items, b) the internal representational structures of verb classes and c) the external distribution of verbal projections in word patterns and phrases. As a general descriptive aim, the majority of the articles focus on aspects of lexical representations of specific verb classes and the principle-driven interactional processes between their lexical properties and syntactic behaviour. The analyses provide evidence for general mechanisms of a lexicon-syntax interface valid both for the syntactic reflexes of lexical-semantic representations and the realisation of syntacticmorphological features by lexical material. Although the data are mainly drawn from English, a general theory-determined comparative perspective, especially on other Germanic languages, is as inherent in many articles as are questions of grammatical theory and lexical semantics. This also implies the treatment of the verb phenomena data from a more dynamic perspective (language development, historical stages of English, language style). There are at least three prominent prerequisites underlying the structural analyses presented in this book. First, X-bar-theoretical assumptions constitute the foundation of all analyses presented here. Grammatical and lexical configurations are structured according to X-bar-theory, even lexical representations specifying the semantic properties of verbal elements. Secondly, the categories attributed to verbal elements are based on the distinction between lexical and functional categories, which is considered a significant contribution of generative inquiry to the classification and typology of parts of speech. Thirdly, all analyses presuppose the Principles-and-Parameters framework as the minimal basis of consent. However, the descriptive results can easily be adapted to other grammatical models.

VIII

1. Questions of Categorisation

The first set of articles deals with general questions of linguistic categorisation. General questions of categorisation concern a) the classification of verbal elements in terms of lexical or functional categories and b) the redefinition of some verb-related (ad-verbal) elements as functional categories, and c) the processes and principles determining verbal affixation in the lexicon, including procedures of lexical category change. A fundamental and method-oriented question concerns the mode of constructing and defining lexical categories in generative linguistics. There are several problems not only with the common cross-categorial (sometimes even super-categorial, we may add) notion of a category variable X but also with the practice of an empty and vague use of the features [N] and [V], first proposed by N.Chomsky. If features are assumed to have empirical impact, the common use of N and V is rather problematic. This objection also holds for the postulation of additional artificial features. Before valid classification of e.g. verbal elements is permitted, these methodological questions have to be solved. In "Don't call it "X"! or: Why X does not represent grammatical categories", Gisa Rauh argues for a strictly feature-based categorial treatment of the parts of speech. She distinguishes between lexical and grammatical categories. Grammatical categories are bundles made of finite sets of features, whereas lexical categorisation concerns the lexical items which may contain the defining features of a certain grammatical category (usually as a subset of the overall set of the grammatical category). Lexical items, however, often consist of more than one set of category-defining features and, accordingly, may belong to several distinctive grammatical categories. This approach may be transferred even to the content-oriented determination of thematic roles, and consequences for a restrictive theory of functional categories - with an innovative impact on the category verb (with all its variants) - have still to be worked out. The approaches to lexical representations in the second part of the book point in this direction. From such a methodological perspective, the classification of verbal and adverbial elements such as the "verbal", "gerundive", and "nominal" -ing-forms, or the English auxiliaries, or the particles in phrasal verbs - all of them are well-known problematic instances of the shortcomings of standard systems of grammatical categories - seems to be more successful and explanatorily adequate than standard approaches. However, such classifications, which we may call primary or original categorisation, do not suffice as long as regular processes of category change are excluded. As demonstrated in the articles by Hildegard Farke ("Functional affixes and downward percolation") and Jelena Krivokapic ("The -ing affixation: towards a classification"), the analysis of affixation as a central morphological process in the lexicon offers a promising way of categorising "post hoc". Participles, gerunds, adjectival and other -/«g-forms, adverbs, etc. are subject to very regular principles of percolating lexically inherent features to complex words, a process that looks like a secondary categorisation. The basic mechanism of percolation (also known as feature attraction) applied in the articles mentioned (re-)attaches lexical and/or syntactic features of a specific category to another one which is higher (or even lower) in the hierarchical structure of words or phrases or sentences.

IX

Such secondary categorisations are based on the representational structures of a Lexical Conceptual/Semantic Structure (LCS) and Predicate-Argument-Structure (PAS) in the lexical entry of specific lexemes and mean the transference or change of the "categorial signatures" in the lexical entry to other configurations. For three occurrences of the affix -ing in nominal, gerundive, and/?os.y-/Hg-constructions Krivokapic develops a set of derivations based on lexical representation and extended by general procedures of theta-identification between lexical items and upward percolation of lexical information. The concept of identification is based on the formal relation of antecedent government or some version of (lexical) thematic government. An empty category or a contentless formative is provided with lexical and/or grammatical content (including morphological information, categorial status, theta-roles, etc.) and thus determined by the properties of the antecedent. Theta-identification seems to be the only relation that functional categories can enter into. Connected with evidence that functional categories do exist even in the lexicon, Krivokapic is able to establish a more differentiated feature-based classification of the -wg-affixes than unifying "singl-ing" approaches. Progressive aspect is based on the general representational levels of LCS and PAS and derived by linking the specific positions in these structures and distributing the feature sets via backup- and head percolation. However, such a derivational approach cannot account for the categorial treatment of English affixes and derived words that pose well-known problems by their shift of category classes (adverbs with -ly, adjectival participles, etc.). Farke suggests that this shift can be accounted for by a third type of categorial feature transmission, downward percolation - on the assumption that these affixes are neutral with regard to their status as elements subsumed under functional categories. As neutral functional affixes, they extract a categorial feature from their contexts; by downward percolation, which applies at the lexicon-syntax interface, the categorial content of the projection (as a categorial signature) is completed. This approach avoids the postulation of artificial inherent features common in several approaches and allows paradoxes in their classification to be explained: Is the formation of gerunds, for example, based on derivation or on inflection? Or, are gerunds nominal or verbal projections? Based on the inflectional side of the concept of identification, a different aspect of (primary) categorisation is discussed by Stefanie Bode in "One be - One Syntactic Function". Facing the traditional problem of classifying English auxiliaries as verbal items or as examples of a separate part of speech "auxiliary", she argues that the auxiliary be cannot be analysed as the head of a lexical-verbal projection but has to be classified as the (lexical) realisation of a single functional category. Be serves as the carrier of verbal information in AGR(eement) and is inserted into a verbal AGR head-position whenever necessary for the satisfaction of the abstract grammatical function of AGR-identification, a function between the functional heads Tense, AGR and other grammatical categories, especially verbal elements. This unique grammatical function accounts for the different syntactic positions of be, thus motivating both the claims that be is not a lexical category and that there is only one be. While Bode's assumptions conflict with Alexander Kaiser's view that auxiliaries (have, be) constitute a fifth class of lexical categories (see below), the relevance of AGRidentification for the movement of verbal constituents is demonstrated in the context of VPPreposing in another article.

So far, the lexicon in a generative grammar consists of levels of representation (PAS and LCS), of lexical entries with categorial signature neutral or specified for a category and of interactional procedures such as percolation and identification. The word-internal configurations are structured according to X-bar-theory, feature-based percolation and projection (word-syntax approach) and are connected with the lexical representations of PAS, LCS and thematic grids. The validity of identification procedures is motivated by the parallel application on the morphological and functional-syntactic levels.

2. The Lexicon-Syntax Interface From a word-semantic perspective on verbal projections, the second set of articles refines especially the lexical-semantic levels, their precise internal structures and processes of semantic interpretation, of lexicalization on the basis of semantic properties typical of these levels and the specific syntactic reflexes. Paradigmatically, the meaning of selected verb classes is compositionally analysed with regard to their aspectual (e.g. telicity,) and syntactic reflexes (e.g. case assignment, licensing of aspectual complements). Anja Wanner 's paper ("Intransitive verbs as case assigners") deals with syntactic constructions in which intransitive (unergative) verbs, i.e. verbs without overt complements, nevertheless occur transitively, i.e. with an object. These alternations are found specifically in the cognate/reaction object construction (smile a happy smile/smile one's thankyou) and in the resultative construction (smile oneself tired). The NP/DP following the verb is shown to be in the position of a direct object, which is structurally case-marked by the verb. Referring to the representational level of verbal aspectual semantics, Wanner argues that the syntactic capacity of unergative verbs to license this kind of non-argument NP complement (by the assignment of case) follows from their capacity to license the object aspectually. Evidence is found in the particular aspectual structure of the verbs under examination. Therefore, the NP complements in question are aspectual arguments and differ from common structural complements (objects) in their grammatical status. As this also implies a process of aspectual type shifting towards a telic event, examples of secondary categorisation (in the sense mentioned above) seem to be existent in the semantic areas of the lexicon. Such projections from lexical structures also make arbitrary observational statements like "Burzio's generalisation" at least superfluous and questionable in more cases. The syntactic reflexes of the verbal aspectuality is also the subject of the analysis of English transitive phrasal verbs proposed by Nicole Deho ("English Particle Verbs: Particles as Functional Categories"). Whereas Wanner considers the aspectual category (aktionsart) telicity [tel] to be a property derived from more fundamental semantic primitives (of the aspectual verb structure), Dehe" uses telicity as a primitive feature [tel] that constitutes the corresponding functional category and may syntactically project to a Telicity Phrase (TelP). According to her analysis, particles do not belong to a distinct word class, but are lexicalizations of the feature [tel] inside a functional projection dominating VP or are directly adjoined to the verbal head inside the VP, marking telicity in the continuous and the discontinuous particle construction.

XI The articles by Bode, Dehd, and Wanner present arguments and empirical evidence for the general assumption that functional information (functional categories or semantic-aspectual primitives) must obligatorily be realised by lexical material. Auxiliary be carries the information of clausal functional categories (AGR or tense), and the particles of phrasal verbs are lexical realisations of a functional Telicitiy. The structural position may be heads which project the functional information or are bound (identified) by antecedent heads. Alternatively, functional categories can explicitly be realised as separate syntactic phrases: as a Telicity Phrase (Dehe") or as an aspectual complement (Wanner). The fact that suffixes like -ing are obligatory lexical carriers of aspectual functional information [Aspect] which project both inside the internal structure of the lexical verb (Krivokapic) and in clausal structures (Felser, cf. below) completes the picture. These various grammatical occurrences of functional categories (or to be precise: of specific features constituting functional categories) are by no means idiosyncratic, but can always be explained by the general processes presented in the approaches just mentioned. Additional aspects of the lexical representational levels of PAS and LCS are discussed in the articles by Joachim Tuschinsky and Alexander Kaiser. Selecting particular lexical classes of verbs, they are able to describe general matching processes that are determined lexically but nevertheless in a general way. In his paper "The Lexical-conceptual structure of English verbs of possession" Joachim Tuschinsky presents an account of the lexical-conceptual properties of stative possessive verbs and their syntactic behaviour. The semantic components represented on the lexicalconceptual structure LCS are subject to lexicalization processes determined by X-bartheoretic assumptions and by a (modified) hierarchy of thematic roles as a central interface principle. Thus quite a number of otherwise puzzling facts about the syntactic behaviour of possessive STATES and their conceptual subcategories are explained. The overall validity of representational levels of semantic information as well as their interaction with other grammatical components are demonstrated in a principled way. Focusing on the PAS side of semantic-syntactic descriptions, Alexander Kaiser presents in his proposal of a "Subject-fAere as an adverb" a special case as to the syntactic behaviour of certain verb classes (unergative verbs, among others) and functional projections (like progressive constructions). Sentence-types projected by these verb classes display a lot of descriptive and theoretical problems. Thus, there-constructions appear to constitute an interesting area to which general interface and matching principles discussed in the other articles cannot be applied (e.g. the Thematic Hierarchy). As an alternative to the perhaps natural assumption of mere lexical and syntactic idiosyncrasy Kaiser suggests a modification of the theoretical framework which allows a classification of there as a locative adverb in all positions. His analysis provides immediate consequences both for the argument structure of the selected verb classes in the lexicon and for the general syntactic categorisation of English auxiliaries (e.g. be and have as lexical verbs). The semantic analyses in this section provide descriptive evidence that general mechanisms of a syntax-semantics interface including principles of matching (linking rules, thematic hierarchy) apply in a regular and predictable way and are compatible with important restrictions imposed on linguistic theories. Thus, projections of semantic properties from the lexical representations to syntactic structures are responsible for various phenomena of verb syntax and semantics which have not been explained in earlier approaches. Based on these descriptions, several hypothesis of current approaches to semantic representations

XII

(levels of conceptual semantics, of lexical semantics, of the logic of events, or of the thetatheory of semantic-aspectual and argument structure) can be evaluated better.

3. Verb Positions and Movement Purely syntactic phenomena of verb positions, i.e. the external distribution, item arrangement and movement, constitute the third complex of topics: Verb Second (V2), Verb Raising (VR), VP-Preposing (VPP), the arrangement of preverbal elements. The syntactic analyses of V2 and VR touch more or less classic word order phenomena, whereas other constructions such as VPP and preverbal elements are often neglected in generative grammar. With a focus on the verbal positions in clausal structures, some articles continue the attempt of the other sections to integrate functional categories and their descriptive use into more adequate analyses of languages in a well-reflected way. A broader perspective is developed by extending the discussion a) to comparative, developmental/diachronic, and stylistic data, and b) to theoretical questions of optional verb configurations and obligatory movements confronted with claims of grammatical economy. The principle of economy (combined with several subprinciples) requires that phrasal projections, transformational (and other) derivations and the corresponding representational structures should contain as few constituents and syntactic operations as possible. Informally, such a principle may be read as a general descriptive maxim: "Only what needs to be done may be done." It seems evident that this maxim can be viewed from two sides: 1. as a LAST RESORT PRINCIPLE: "Postulate structures and operations that must be present or applied." (e.g. for the necessary lexical realisation of abstract features (feature attraction)); and 2. as a LAST EFFORT PRINCIPLE: "Do not postulate structures and operations that need not to be present or applied." The latter causes problems for stylistic or optional movements and positions. As a basic theoretical restriction on grammatical derivations, economy, however, it is an essential explanatory tool which must not be violated in an adequate linguistic analysis. Claudia Felser ("Aspectual complement clauses and the (un-)availability of Verb Raising") examines the verb positions at D-structure and movements of verbal and aspectual heads. She focuses on the English construction of the type We saw it raining last night and their equivalents in Dutch and German. These constructions are analysed as aspectual complement clauses, i.e. as projections of a functional head Aspect. It is shown that the internal structures are analogous in the languages under examination. Language contrasts concern above all the headedness of the AspP (Aspect Phrase) and the properties of verb movement found in these constructions (e.g. VR), which differ in their direction and in their obligatory or variable status. The additional condition that functional heads undergo VR only if they are not associated with overt morphological material shows implicit parallels to Bode's proposal of the syntactic function of marking verbal AGR information and is also supported by the analysis of VP-Preposing (below). Thus, this article contributes to an advanced syntactic theory of functional categories.

XIII In "Verb Second, Alternatives, and Economy", Hans Thilo Tappe analyses verb second data in Old English. He provides evidence for his hypothesis that V2 and the verb final position are optional alternatives in Old English and discusses the concept of optionality from the perspective of the Minimalist Program, which does not allow true optionality because of the prominent status of a set of economy principles. The line of argumentation presented by Tappe leads to the hypothesis that this type of optional choice between alternative verb positions can be accounted for better by ranking the various economy principles in the sense of recent optimality theory (OT). "Types of VP-Preposing" presented by the editor also discusses questions of optionality on a descriptive basis of VP positions. Some types of VP-Preposing appear as if they are stylistically motivated, another type is obligatory. However, there are focus-oriented and prosodical restrictions of VP-Preposing which change the alleged optional status of the movement into processes that are subject to a principle of economy for non-syntactical reasons . Furthermore, it is shown that it is not the VP that undergoes proposing but the AspP and that the lexical realisation of functional categories mentioned above is responsible for the blocking conditions of preposing. The extended projections, including a lexical projection and functional projection, are subject to movement parallels with Felser's analysis of AspP. A concluding comparative view makes it clear that the superficially similar preposing structures in English and German contrast to a significant extent. All contributors not only have in common work with generative theory and methodology, but also their academic roots in the Linguistics section of the English Department at Goettingen University. Their academic mentor is Thomas Jefferson Gardner, to whom this book is dedicated. A large number of the papers were presented as first versions at the Goettingen Generative Colloquium in honour of Thomas J. Gardner's 65th birthday. Numerous other papers from the colloquium did not relate to the topic of this book and could not be included here: among them papers by Hans-Ulrich Boas, Dafydd Gibbon, Bettina Harriehausen, Rosemarie Tracy. All contributors, speakers and participants of the colloquium wish to express their deep gratitude to Thomas J. Gardner. Finally, the editor would like to thank Howard Shaw (Goettingen) and Claudia Ideler (Braunschweig) for their careful and constructive support during the editing of this book.

Braunschweig, February 2000

Hero Janßen

Gisa Rauh

Don't Call it "X"! or: Why X does not Represent Grammatical Categories

1. Introduction In X-bar theory as initiated in Chomsky (1970), developed as a sub-theory in the Principles-and-Parameters Theory (PPT) (cf. Chomsky 1981, 1986a, b) and still considered relevant in the Minimalist Program (MP) (cf. Chomsky 1995) "X" is assumed to represent grammatical categories which, on the basis of specific properties, are divided into lexical and functional ones. In this context, as is well known, N(oun), V(erb), A(djective) and P(reposition) are considered lexical categories and D(eterminer), Q(uantifier), T(ense) or Asp(ect) and others functional categories. It is the aim of this paper to show that the categories represented by X are not grammatical categories. As a consequence, structural descriptions of the familiar kind which represent phrasal projections as NP, VP, etc. and heads as N, V, etc. are inadequate and misleading. To represent heads, individual sets of features must be assumed rather than categories like N, V, etc. The sets of features are computed in order to generate complex syntactic structures. These insights are not new. In fact, they are essential to assumptions made in the MP. In practice, however, they are not followed.1 It is therefore the aim of this paper to make explicit the problems related to X as a grammatical category2 and at the same time to point out the advantages of representing lexical elements by individual sets of features. The argumentation is structured as follows: Section 2 is concerned with the assumed properties of X as a variable for grammatical categories in those approaches in which X-bar theory is considered relevant. In section 3 it is argued that X; cannot fulfil the function required of a grammatical category. Section 4 demonstrates that it is necessary to replace X( as a grammatical category label by individual sets of features if the category label is to predict the grammatical properties of a lexical item. Grammatical categories are then defined as natural classes on the basis of single features or feature combinations. Section 4 shows which features are category-defining and also discusses the advantages of replacing X: by individual sets of features. Section 5 is dedicated to the question whether X( as a grammatical category can in fact be dispensed with and a positive answer is argued for. In a concluding outlook in section 6, an explanation is provided for the expectation that, despite all insights, X; will continue to be treated as if it were a grammatical category.

Thus, for example, it follows from Chomsky's (1995) statements concerning the Minimalist Program that lexical items are represented by sets of features. Nevertheless, introductions to the Minimalist Program present tree diagrams which make use of category labels like N, A, V, P, etc. rather than sets of features. See, for example, Cook/Newson (1996) or Radford (1997). To preclude any misunderstanding it should be emphasized that the claim is not that grammatical categories must not be represented by the variable X. What is claimed is that in X-bar theory the variable X does not represent a grammatical category. In section 6 it will be argued that X represents a different type of linguistic category.

2

Gisa Rauh

2. "X" as a Variable for Grammatical Categories According to X-bar theory the categories represented by X share the property of representing potential heads of grammatical constructions. Within the PPT this means that they are obligatory constituents of phrasal categories, that is Ν of NP, V of VP, D of DP, Q of QP, etc. In this respect they are part of the grammatical description and thus "grammatical" categories. "Grammatical" in this context should not be confused with "functional". "Grammatical" here simply means "having relevance for the grammar" and applies to both lexical and functional categories in the same way. Having relevance for the grammar is one of two essential properties of X. The second essential property of X is related to the lexicon. X, and therefore N, V, A, P, D, Q, etc., are considered to be category labels which determine the grammatical category a lexical item belongs to. Thus, for example, it is lexically determined that boy is an N and consequently may be the head of an NP or that this is a D and may be the head of a DP. These two properties characterize X as an interface between the lexicon and the grammar. In the lexicon X determines the elements which constitute the extension of a category and in the grammar it determines which constructions these elements may be integrated into. Thus, X has to fulfil an important task. From this perspective X seems not only useful, but even indispensable. However, for X to be able to fulfil this task, certain prerequisites are required: For an adequate description of a language L, it should be guaranteed that each of the lexical items of L, is assigned to at least one category X,. This, however, creates an as yet unsolved problem and - as we will see - a problem that cannot be solved.

3. The Problem of Assigning Lexical Items to X, In order to assign lexical items to Χρ two questions need to be answered: 1. What are the properties of X,? and: 2. What are the properties lexical items must exhibit in order to be assigned to In order to answer these questions, the following points must first be clarified: 1. What properties are relevant for the definition of grammatical categories in general? 2. Into how many X; categories is the category space of a language Lt to be partitioned in order to assign each lexical item of L, to at least one category X^ 3. What are the conditions for assigning lexical items to grammatical categories? I.e.: Is an Aristotelian or a prototypical structure of categories appropriate? As will be demonstrated below, up to now these prerequisites are far from being fulfilled.' It will be argued, however, that this unsatisfactory situation is not due to the inability of the analysts. It is, rather, inherent to the subject matter: It is not that the methods of analysis are insufficient - though they may be capable of improvement - but that the goals need to be redefined. The following argumentation attempts to clarify the matter.

See also Sasse (1993) and Rauh (1998) and the references given there.

Don't Call it "X"

3

Let us start by looking at what properties are considered relevant for the definition of grammatical categories and let us start with [±N, ±V], It has become a tradition for these features to be used to specify the major grammatical categories N, V, A and P. What do these features stand for? Stowell (1981) suggests a morphosyntactic interpretation with, for example, [-N] specifying case assigners and [+N] specifying case receivers. This characterization has been widely accepted (e.g. Chomsky 1981, 1986a, b, 1989, Aoun 1981, van Riemsdijk 1983). On the other hand, Muysken and van Riemsdijk (1985) point out that Chomsky's original motivation for the identification of these features was semantic in nature, [±N] being interpreted as [±substantive] and [±V] as [±predicative]. In principle this is confirmed by Chomsky and Lasnik (1993: 517) which states: The feature [+N] is the traditional substantive, the feature [+V] predicate.4

However, neither interpretation leads to an adequate assignment of lexical items to the categories defined. To give just two examples: Intransitive verbs like snore and raising verbs like seem are not case assigners (but see Wanner, this volume). Nevertheless they are identified as elements of the category V and inadequately represented by [-N,+V]. Also, as Becker and Arms (1969) and others convincingly argue (lexical) prepositions are predicates. Therefore, just like verbs, their feature representation should include [+V] rather than [-V]. Other problems arise with the more recent feature specifications Chomsky (1995: 230ff.) suggests in the framework of the MP, which, in addition, relate only to N and V. According to this suggestion formal features, i.e. categorial features on the one hand and intrinsic as well as optional morphosyntactic features on the other, are relevant for the specification of categories. Different morphosyntactic features may be relevant for different languages. As far as English is concerned, N is specified by a combination of the categorial feature [nominal] and the intrinsic features for person, e.g. [3 person], and gender, e.g. [-human], as well as the optional features for number, e.g. [-plural], and case, e.g. [accusative]. The category V is specified by a combination of the categorial feature [verbal] and an intrinsic case feature, e.g. [assign ACCUSATIVE], optional φ-features, and an optional feature tense, e.g. [+past]. It remains unclear on what basis the categorial features [nominal] and [verbal] are identified. If it is on the basis of intrinsic and optional features, then the categorial features are redundant. On the other hand, intrinsic and optional features will not identify, for example, infinitives of intransitive verbs as elements of the category [verbal]: Infinitives of intransitive verbs are specified neither by case features nor by φ- or tense features. It also remains unclear how the categories A and Ρ are specified. That a simple specification such as [adjectival] or [prepositional] would be problematic rather than adequate can be seen from Zimmermann's (1990) description of adjectives and descriptions of prepositions by Rauh (1996, 1997a) and Wege (1997). For German, Zimmermann classifies attributive and predicative adjectives as two distinct categories due to differences concerning inflectional properties. The fact that forms like mere or southern and sorry or /// can be

A similar description is suggested by Reuland (1985), who introduces the feature [+A] for those items which always represent arguments and [+F] for those which always take arguments.

4

Gisa Rauh

used only attributively or predicatively,5 respectively, indicates that a similar distinction is also relevant for English.6 On the basis of extensive empirical investigations, Rauh and Wege demonstrate that the traditional category of prepositions is grammatically heterogeneous and that various categories must be distinguished. These examples show that is has not even been clarified for the four major lexical categories what features are relevant for the definition of grammatical categories, what specific combinations of features represent each major category and on what basis lexical items are identified as members of one of these categories. The prototype approach of, for example, Taylor (1989) is unfortunately of no help here. Taylor suggests identifying category membership on the basis of prototypical category structures. According to this approach members of a category are identified via family resemblance to a prototype. This allows items to belong to the same category although they do not share a single property at all as long as they are linked by a chain of items with each adjacent pair sharing some property or properties. That two members of a category do not share any property is of course to be excluded if category membership is to predict the grammatical behavior of the members of a category. And this is what we expect of grammatical categories.7 If there are already serious problems with the description of the four major lexical categories and the identification of their members, it turns out that the problems related to the so-called "minor" categories - which include amongst others the functional categories - are even greater. Apart from C, I or T and D, whose specification is unproblematic,8 Chomsky himself has nothing to say on the matter (cf. Chomsky 1989, 1995). And those who do have something to say, do not provide convincing solutions, and this is not only due to the fact that grammatical theory has progressed since their suggestions were made. Thus Jackendoff (1977: 3Iff.) refers to a version of the X-bar scheme and uses the features [iSubject], [±Object], [±Complement] and [±Determiner]9 as a basis of analysis to partition the categorial space for the lexical items of English into the four major categories N, V, A and P and into six minor ones: M(odal), Prt (Particle, e.g. up), Art(icle), Q(uantifier), Deg(ree) and Adv(erb). It is immediately obvious, however, that within his own system of analysis the categories identified are not sufficient. For example, by analogy with Art, which represents nominal determiners, Jackendoff identifies Deg as representing adjectival determiners, e.g.so, too and as. But no category is provided for prepositional "determiners"

5 6 7

8

9

Note, however, that sorry and ill can be used attributively in a few fixed expressions like a sorry sight or ill health. Concerning differences between attributive and predicative adjectives in English see, for example, Winter (1965) and Bolinger (1967). Compare in this context the following definition of a grammatical category: "A grammatical category is a class of expressions which share a common set of grammatical properties." (Radford 1997:29) An important fact in this context is that functional categories like C, D, T, or Q are defined by exactly one (dominating) feature, i.e. C by [±wh], D by [±definite], T by [±tense], Q by [±count]. Therefore, these categories are in fact grammatical categories in the sense understood here, and they must be distinguished from the remaining lexical inventory. [±Subject] refers to the property of licensing a subject, [±Object] to that of licensing a direct object, [±Complement] to that of licensing complements which are not direct objects, [±Determiner] refers to the property of being a potential determiner.

Don't Call it "X"

5

like right or straight"' or for category neutral "determiners", i.e. focus particles such as even or only. We would expect that if relatedness to a specific category is category defining in two cases, then it should be so in others, too. A further criticism is that (some) determiners are distinguished categorially but quantifiers are not, which results in lexical items as different as, for example, many (books) and far (away) both being categorized as Q(uantifiers). And, finally, the very detailed analysis of adverbs in Jackendoff (1972) shows that it is impossible to allocate the members of this traditional category to P, Prt, Deg, Adv or Q exhaustively: No category is provided for the so-called "sentence adverbs", which - to make things even worse - as Jackendoff (1972) shows, need themselves to be assigned to a number of different grammatical categories according to their grammatical behavior. As a consequence, the identification of major and minor categories in Jackendoff (1977) is far from being complete. If all the lexical items of a language, in this case English, are to be assigned to at least one category whose properties predict the grammatical behavior of its members, then many more categories need to be identified. It is therefore not surprising that Zimmermann (1990), who, like Jackendoff, adopts X-bar theory but who uses different features, identifies 21 categories for German. And even these can be shown to be not sufficient. This even holds for the 51 grammatical categories identified for German by Bergenholtz/Schaeder(1977). The discussion so far has shown that if X represents a grammatical category, the number of categories Xj is extremely large. This problem is even greater given that some linguistic items exhibit properties of two otherwise distinct categories, resulting in a third category. "Squishes" of this kind, as Ross (1972) called them, have been described as mixtures of two major categories, for example N and V (cf. Lefebvre/Muysken 1988), or as mixtures of lexical and functional categories in the case of prepositional forms (cf. Rauh 1997a) and subordinating conjunctions (cf. Haumann 1997). The newly identified categories have to be added to the already large number of categories. The final scenario, therefore, may very well be as indicated by Wardhaugh (1997: 29), where each of a number of lexical items is "a separate part of speech because each one is unique in its characteristics". Given that it may be necessary to divide the categorial space into an almost infinite set of categories Xi? it might be assumed that the core of the problem is related to the identification of category-relevant or category-defining features: It could be the case that so far the "right" features have not been analyzed, for the number of categories identified certainly is dependent on the features on which the analysis is based." Though this may be true to a certain extent (see section 4.1), it is claimed in this paper that this problem is not the fundamental one. What needs to be realized rather is the fact that the traditional approach to categorizing lexical items as elements of grammatical categories is doomed to failure. Any attempt to partition the categorial space into a finite number of grammatical categories and to assume that each lexical item can in the default case be assigned to one of them on the

Emonds (1985) classifies these items as specifiers of P and thus describes them as analogous to Det and Deg, which are identified as specifiers of N and A. Alternatively it might be assumed that no categories are identified at all, but only individual items. However, this is counter to everything we know about linguistic structures, and structures necessarily presuppose categories.

6

Gisa Rauh

basis of its category label N, V, A, P, etc. or its feature specifications will prove unsatisfactory. This was the approach taken in traditional grammar, which is still reflected in dictionaries. This approach, however, is not compatible with recent theories of grammar which consider X-bar theory in some way relevant. The essential problem is that X.t as a category label of lexical items is held to specify one and only one grammatical category, namely N, A, V, P, etc. However, N, A, V, P, etc. are not grammatical categories, as will be seen in what follows.

4. On Solving the Problem: Replacing X> by Individual Sets of Grammatical Features In section 2 it was pointed out that in theories of grammar which consider X-bar theory relevant, X is defined as a variable for grammatical categories. In this sense X, is on the one hand a category label of lexical items in the lexicon, identifying the members of ΧΓ On the other hand Xj characterizes these lexical items as potential heads in phrase structures and determines on the basis of categorial features into which specific structures the items may be integrated. The problem of assigning lexical items to a category X(, a problem discussed in section 3, in essence results from the postulated categorial character of X^ That is, it is due to the implied assumption that the categorial space is to be partitioned into a finite number of categories, among them N, A, V and P. This assumption needs to be revised. It is not N, A, V or Ρ and further categories or their respective feature representations that ought to be identified as categorial labels but rather individual sets of features which encode the specific grammatical properties of each lexical item. Following this proposal, lexical entries contain sets of grammatically relevant features, amongst others the formal features discussed in Chomsky (1995: 230ff), excluding however, the so-called "categorial" features like [nominal] and [verbal].12 These can either be predicted from other features and are therefore redundant - as is the case with [nominal] and [verbal] for some lexical items - or the individual sets of features do not correspond to grammatical categories at all. Thus, instead of establishing a bi-unique relation with grammatical categories, the sets of grammatical features are considered to represent the specific grammatical properties of a given lexical item, to predict into which complex syntactic constructions it may be integrated. It also need not be the case that the sets of features identify potential heads of constructions. They may equally well represent complex lexical units like idiomatic expressions or fixed

In Chomsky (1995) it is not quite clear whether the features [nominal] and [verbal], which are introduced to begin with (cf. 1995: 230ff.), are still relevant later on since they are not mentioned anymore (cf. 1995: 277ff). It should be noted, though, that they are prohibited in his system, which allows only those features which are either phonetically or semantically interpretable or which become eliminated in the syntactic computational system. This is apparently overlooked by Bierwisch (1997), who discusses the problems related to these features but then nevertheless includes them in his suggestions for lexical entries, represented by the traditional feature combination of [±N] and [±V].

Don't Call it "X"

7

phrases. In all cases, however, the features determine the potential integration of the unit in question into larger syntactic contexts. As a consequence of the revision postulated, tree-structure representations of the familiar kind are no longer justified. Nor can categories like N, V, A or P and others occur as nodes in a tree, because there are no such categories, and consequently there are no projections NP, VP, etc. either. What is represented instead are sets of individual features which are computed in various ways and thereby generate complex syntactic constructions." Naturally, a revision like the one proposed gives rise to a number of questions, above all the following two: 1) What are the features that constitute the set of grammatically relevant features to replace Χ(?, and: 2) In what way is a set of individual features superior to one that represents categories, especially in the light of the problems pointed out in section 3? In addition, it may be asked whether eliminating X as a variable for grammatical categories means that grammatical categories in general are irrelevant. To start with the last question, the answer must be in the negative. The definition of grammatical categories is still relevant. However, it makes sense only if the defining properties of a grammatical category predict uniform grammatical behavior of the members of this category. This is the case if grammatical categories are defined as natural classes over the sets of features of lexical items, just like [-N]-categories were defined as case assignors over the features [±N, ±V]. Thus, for example, it is legitimate to identify functional and lexical categories as grammatical categories if they are defined on the basis of single features or feature combinations contained in the sets of features of the lexical items thus categorized. Numerous additional grammatical categories may be defined in the same way. Since in this way the individual sets of features of lexical items provide the basis for grammatical categorization, the name "categorial label" will be retained in what follows. Categorial labels of this kind do not represent just one grammatical category Xj with a feature specification [F„ ..., FJ, but as individual sets of features [F„ ..., FJ they provide the basis for multiple categorization of individual lexical items. Consequently, a lexical item with the categorial label [F„ F2, F3, FJ might be an element of the categories [F,], [FJ, [F2, FJ, [F2, FJ and of additional ones.

4.1. Grammatically Relevant Features Which Constitute Lexical Categorial Labels An identification of the features which constitute categorial labels of lexical entities depends on their determining the generation of complex syntactic constructions in the way discussed in later versions of the PPT (e.g. Speas 1990) or the MP (e.g. Chomsky 1995). In what follows, four types of features will be introduced which fulfil this condition: 1) Θfeatures in a θ-grid or argument structure, 2) operator features, 3) quantifier features, and 4) formal morphosyntactic features.

n

As already mentioned at the beginning of this paper, this view is not new but is in accordance with suggestions made in Chomsky (1995) as well as with procedures applied in HPSG.

8

Gisa Rauh

A θ-grid may contain features for an external argument (), for internal arguments () and for a referential argument (). Following Higginbotham's θ-theory,14 external arguments in the θ-grid of a lexical item license an external argument in its projection which occupies its specifier position. At the same time they allow for maximal projections of these items to be licensed as modifiers or predicates. Internal arguments in a grid are responsible for the licensing of internal arguments in the projection, and referential arguments for the licensing of modifiers and operators. Therefore, if lexical items license external arguments or if their projections are licensed as modifiers or predicates, then their categorial label contains a θ-grid with an external argument. If they license internal arguments or modifiers and operators, then their θ-grid contains an internal argument or a referential argument. The following examples demonstrate these relations via coindexing of the elements involved in the licensing: external arguments™ (1) a. [the passengers]^ left b. the sailors wanted [the passengers], (2) a.

tall

b. [the boy\

internal arguments (3) a. hit

b. near

off the ship

[boy\ on the bench

[thefence\ [the house]t

referential arguments (4) a. tall

b. left

(5) a. [fAis]j

(5)

b.

[+posf]j

c.

[here]t

d.

[this]i

boy

in the morning

boy

slept [-ext] [assign ACC] on the shelf, on Monday b. on: [assign ACC] on vacation, on fire c. (rely) on: [assign ACC] (13) behind: [+ext,+dir] [assign ACC]

(= "lexical preposition") (= "grammatical preposition") (= "governed preposition") (= "lexical preposition")

In addition to the three categorial variants of prepositional forms analyzed in Rauh (1996, 1997a), Wege (1997) identifies additional ones for over and under. (14) provides examples: (14) a. It costs over 1$ per bottle. b. The number of people included under 8,000 workers. In these examples the forms over and under function as specifiers of numerical expressions and are semantically equivalent to more than or less than. They themselves may be specified by well which is not possible in the context of the other grammatical variants: (14) a1. It costs well over 1$ per bottle. b'.The number of people included well under 8,000 workers. For these forms the following categorial labels may be assumed: (15) a. over: [+ext,+dir,vert+] b. under: [+ext,+dir,vert-]

=>[x>n] :r> [x < n]

These representations show clearly the features which allow over and under to be used in the functions specified. We will come back to this. The observations made with respect to prepositional forms can be made in a similar way with respect to adjectival and nominal forms. Consider the following examples concerning the form long: (16) a. This wire is very long. b.This is a very long wire. c. I saw him long ago. Compared to (16a) and (16b) the form long in (16c) exhibits different category features, as is shown by the ungrammaticality of (16c'): (16) c'. *I saw him very long ago.

These differences are captured by the following feature representations: (17)

a., long: b.long:

[+gradable] [SEMANTIC FEATURES: SPECIFIED EXTENSION AND DIRECTION] (= 16a, b) [+extension,+direction][+temporal] (= 16c)

The significant difference between the two representations is that long as in (16c) and as represented in (17b) does not contain a θ-grid with an external argument and is therefore licensed only via the features [+extension,+direction] and [+temporal].2" Of these, the quantifier features [+extension,+direction] are derived from the semantic features

19 20

The subscripts "1" and "t" of S signify that the referents are locative or temporal spaces. It is assumed that the licensing is based on Spec-Head Agreement. See Rauh (1996) for further details.

Don't Call it "X"

13

[EXTENSION] and [DIRECTION] specifying long in (17a) which, as semantic features, are not included in the categorial label. Whether the category features for the predicative and the attributive variants of long - as in (16a) and (16b) - are identical is a question which cannot be decided simply on the basis of these examples. For the German equivalents Zimmermann (1990) postulates a differentiation on the basis of morphosyntactic features: Attributive adjectives are specified for inflection, predicative adjectives are not, as is demonstrated by (18): (18) a. Dieser Draht ist sehr lang. b. Dies ist ein sehr langer Draht.

The attributive variant contains optional φ-features in the sense of Chomsky (1995), the predicative variant does not. The examples under (19) show that the grammatical properties of the attributive and the predicative variants of adjectival forms in English vary as well: (19). a. The president was anxious about his reputation, b. *The anxious about his reputation president...

As Abney (1987) already pointed out, in English attributive adjectives, unlike predicative ones, never license an internal argument. Accordingly, under the present analysis, the two variants should be represented by different categorial labels: (20). a. anxious [+gradable][assign about [assign ACC]] b. anxious [+gradable]

Abney himself (1987: 323ff.) goes beyond this and suggests that attributive adjectives should be classified as elements of a functional category whereas predicative adjectives are classified as elements of a lexical category. The formal consequences of this suggestion need not be clarified here, since only the resulting necessity of a category distinction is of relevance. The hypothesis is therefore that what is involved is not simply a matter of language use which does not correlate with grammatical properties.21 Evidence in favor of this hypothesis may be seen in the fact that some "adjectives" are exclusively licensed in attributive positions and others exclusively in predicative positions. Members of the first set are, for example, mere and southern and of the second one /// and sorry, as illustrated in section 3. A uniform representation as members of the category label A (or [+N,+V]) does not capture this difference. On the contrary, it implies grammatical identity. Examples of nominal forms with diverging categorial properties are provided under (21) and (22): (21) a. Bill bought a new car b. Bill came by car. b'.*Bill came by his new car.

It is however possible that other principles are responsible for the fact that in English prenominal adjectives cannot license complements. If so, this property is not due to categorial differences of the adjectives involved. See in this context Williams (1982), who proposes a "head-final filter" which posits that premodifying expressions must be head-final. But see also the discussion of prenominal adjectives by Radford (1993: 78ff).

14

GisaRauh (22) a. He would always do his duty. b. That day he was on duty. b'.That day he was on his duty.

The ungrammaticality of (21b') and (22b') demonstrates that nominal forms in fixed constructions have lost their referring properties. Their categorial labels do not include a referential argument. Therefore, neither operators nor modifiers are licensed. (23) and (24) suggest representations for the nominal variants in (21) and (22): (23) a. car.

b. car. (24) a. duty:

b. duty:

[3 person,-human]

[SEMANTIC FEATURES: SPECIFIED MEDIUM OF TRANSPORT] [3 person,+abstract]

[SEMANTIC FEATURES: SPECIFIED KIND OF SERVICE]

(23b) and (24b) do not represent categorial labels. In these cases the phonological matrix is associated only with semantic features. This explains why in the context of such fixed expressions elements may occur in the position of a complement which are excluded in generated syntactic constructions, for example, now m for now. The only relevant factor in the fixed construction is the semantic contribution. The observations concerning nominal forms may seem trivial, since it is evident that elements in fixed constructions cannot have the properties of autonomous forms because these properties are prerequisites for licensing, and licensing would mean that the constructions are not fixed. Apparently, however, it is not trivial to point out these matters, as may be seen from the suggestions made by a committee of experts that was constituted to reform German orthography. Based on the claim that they represent nouns, the committee suggested that the nominal forms in expressions like in bezug auf or von seiten ought to be written with a capital letter. Thus, in these cases, the phonetic form - or rather the orthographic form - is considered to represent grammatical properties, i.e. properties of a grammatical category: such a misinterpretation can easily arise if category labels like N, A, V, P, etc. occur in the lexicon rather than individual categorial labels. The next problem to be considered is that of category change. Examples where there is a one-to-many relationship between a phonological matrix and individual sets of grammatical features can be considered members of sets which are related by category change. If a phonological matrix is related to a category Xi5 category change can only be identified and described if both the source and the target category have been identified, as is the case with the major categories N and V and examples like (to) hit and (a) hit or (a) face and (to) face. Category change cannot be identified if the extension of a category inadequately signified by Xj is so great that grammatically distinct elements are classified as identical, as is the case, for example, with the prepositional and nominal forms discussed above ((12)-(13) and (21)-(24)) which, under the X, analysis, are all represented as P and N. Nor is it possible to identify category change if only the source category but not the target category is identified at least by a category name of its own. This problem arises with respect to long or over and under as discussed above ((16c), (14)), because specifiers of temporal prepositions and numerical expressions are not yet identified as members of specific categories. These problems disappear if instead of a category X( individual categorial labels are provided. On the basis of the two labels involved, the change can be made explicit and perhaps

Don't Call it "X"

15

explained. A description of the category change involving the variants of on, over and long discussed above is provided under (25), (26) and (27):22 (25) on: => => (26) over. ^> (27) long: ^>

[-ext] [assign ACC] [assign ACC] [assign ACC] t> [+ext, +dir, vert+] [assign ACC] [x>n] / η [+count] ([+ext, +dir, vert+] = INCREASE) [+gradable] [SEMANTIC FEATURES: SPECiFrED EXTENSION AND DIRECTION] [+extension,+direction] [+temporal]

The three categorial labels for the form on in (25) illustrate the gradual loss of features which finally results in a change from a lexical category (defined on the basis of a θ-grid) to a functional category (defined on the basis of a lack of the θ-grid). The two categorial labels for over in (26) show in addition to the loss of the θ-grid and of the case assigning feature a re-interpretation of the quantifier features: the features [+ext, +dir, vert+], which characterize a directed extension in the domain of the upper part of the vertical axis, are re-interpreted as an "increase" on a scale. In this sense they represent a quantification of amount as "larger than" relative to a constant number n, which is specified by over. In this re-interpretation over is synonymous with more than. The feature combination of the source category of over illustrates how this interpretation is derived. The categorial labels identify the first form as an element of a lexical category (=> θ-grid) and the second as a quantifier over a numerical expression ("n"). A loss of features on the one hand and a re-interpretation on the other is also illustrated by the category change of long in (27). The first category label describes long as a member of a lexical category (=> θ-grid) with the quantifier feature [+gradable], which traditionally classifies linguistic units as adjectives. The second category label describes long as a quantifier over expressions which are specified by the feature combination [+extension, +direction] and [+temporal]. Whereas long as a member of a lexical category combines with expressions for concrete objects, the quantifier long is restricted to temporal expressions. The semantic features of long, which correspond to the quantifier features in (27), are transferred and re-interpreted accordingly. The third area to be considered is concerned with phonological forms which exhibit double category membership. The classical example is that of gerunds which are described as nominal and verbal at the same time. Whereas knocking in (28a) is only verbal, in (28b) the operator John 's shows its nominal and the quantifier repeatedly its verbal character: (28)

a. I heard [John knocking on the table repeatedly]. b. [John 's knocking on the table repeatedly] annoyed me.

According to the approach suggested here, the nominal character is described by the referential argument , which in (28b) is bound by John 's. The verbal character is described by the feature [-duration], which has to be respected by a potential quantifier, repeatedly in (28a) and (28b). As opposed to knocking in (28b), knocking in (28a) does not exhibit

22

Category change means in this case, of course, that the categories involved are defined on the basis of a single feature or a set of features. In this sense the representations of on exhibit a change from a lexical category (including a θ-grid) to a functional category (without a θ-grid).

16

GisaRauh

nominal properties. It does not license an operator which binds . Nor does it license an operator which binds either, i.e. a tense element. Therefore its θ-grid does not contain any referential argument, as is shown in (29a): (29) a. knocking: b. knocking:

[-dur] [-dur] [3 person, -human]

With respect to prepositional forms it was demonstrated in Rauh (1997a) that the members of the category of grammatical prepositions exhibit properties of functional and lexical prepositions at the same time. Therefore they too are examples of elements with double category membership, and this can be explicitly described on the basis of individual categorial labels but not on the basis of Xr Haumann (1997) shows that for subordinating conjunctions the members of one of three identified classes exhibit properties of the other two. Examples of members of the three classes are if, that and -whether; before, after and while; and although, because and unless. Whereas the categorial labels of the members of the if-class contain morphosyntactic features but no θ-grid, which thus characterizes them as functional elements, the categorial labels of the members of the before-class contain a θ-grid and quantifier features, which characterizes them as members of the category of lexical prepositions with a sentential argument. The categorial labels of the members of the although-class, however, contain features of both of the others: an external argument as well as morphosyntactic features. (30) presents examples of each class: (30) a. before: b. if: c. although:

[+ext, +dir] [-def, +fin, +Q] [+fin]

The two types of features in (30c) for although and the other members of this class identifies them as lexical and functional elements at the same time. A categorization as either P or C would not capture this double category membership. Finally consideration will be given to the consequences of the present approach for the problem of the partitioning of categorial space. What is important in this context is the fact that the grammatical representation of lexical items by means of individual categorial labels goes hand in hand with a definition of grammatical categories which strictly follows the principle of natural classes. Accordingly, lexical items with a categorial label [Fp ..., Fn] are classified, for example, as elements of the categories [FJ, [FJ or [F„ FJ, etc., but not of the single category [F,, ..., FJ. Therefore, there is no need to assign a lexical item to just one grammatical category on the basis of its grammatical properties and to identify this category as being on an equal footing with N, V, A, etc. The question how many minor categories there are and what these are is therefore irrelevant. Under these new conditions category space is not partitioned into discrete parts to which lexical items are assigned in toto. Instead, the association of lexical items with various grammatical categories on the basis of single features or combinations of features based on their categorial labels allows various overlappings which describe the similarities and differences between the items. It is not surprising that in this type of categorization the number of categories may be rather large, depending on the number of feature combinations which are identified as category-defining.

Don't Call it "X"

17

5. Is Xi as a Grammatical Category Really Dispensable?

The discussion in section 4 has demonstrated that several problems can be solved if X, - in the sense defined in section 2 - is replaced by an individual categorial label. Just to play the devil's advocate, it should nevertheless be asked whether X, - in the sense defined - is really dispensable. To answer this question it should first be clarified why X: was defined as a grammatical category within generative grammar, i.e. why it was needed. Three areas should be mentioned, namely 1) phrase-structure rules, 2) lexical insertion and 3) strict subcategorization, the latter related to syntax as well as word-formation. Phrase-structure rules, as introduced in Chomsky (1957)," are rewrite rules that convert grammatical categories into their immediate constituents, for example, NP into Det and Ν or VP into V and NP. It is immediately evident that in a grammar which contains rules of this kind grammatical categories like Ν and V are indispensable. The same holds for rules of lexical insertion of the type developed - in two versions - in the standard theory (Chomsky 1965). In both versions the insertion of a lexical item into a phrase marker generated by the phrase-structure rules requires a comparison of the category specification. Thus, for example, a lexical item specified as [+N] can only be inserted in a position labeled N in the phrase marker, and a lexical item specified [+V] only in one labeled V. Does this mean that, as a consequence, Xs as a grammatical category is indispensable? In view of the changes which generative grammar has gone through, especially since the development of later variants of the PPT (cf. e.g. Speas 1990, Chomsky 1986a, 1995), the answer must be no. Today, neither phrase-structure rules nor lexical insertion are of any relevance. Syntactic structures are no longer described as an interaction of these two types of rules but on the basis of general principles operating on the specific grammatical features of lexical items. What is relevant, therefore, are general principles and individual sets of features of the kind discussed in section 4. The changes in the mechanisms of syntactic description thus not only allow us to dispense with X: but at the same time they make individual categorial labels necessary. The same conclusion can be drawn concerning strict subcategorization. In Chomsky (1965) categorial contextual properties are described by strict subcategorization features of the type +[ XP]. Verbs which license an NP-complement, for example, are specified as +[ NP], Lieber (1981) suggests an analogous approach for the description of affixation in word-formation: Affixes are subcategorized for the grammatical category of their potential bases. Thus, for example, the -er involved in the derivation of agent nouns like baker is specified for ]v ]N. For both types of subcategorization X{ is relevant. However, in both cases it can be shown that instead of X. single features either serve the same purpose or even have to be preferred. Thus, for example, the case feature [assign ACC] in combination with the θ-feature licenses the same projections as complements of lexical items as +[ NP] does. For the licensing of potential complements of for and that, on the other hand, a subcategorization based on XP, like +[ IP] (or +[ TP]), would not be specific enough, since these items differ with respect to the selection of pro-

23

It is certainly possible to develop different types of phrase-structure rules. However, the argumentation given here focusses on those types which make use of categories.

l8

Gisa Rauh

jections specified by either [+finite] or [-finite]. Similarly, the specification of the base of the affix —er by V in ]v ]N can efficiently be replaced by and on the other hand, a subcategorization by ]v ]N is too general since it does not exclude overgeneralizations like * stayer or *kno\ver. These can be excluded by the restriction that for the derivation of agent nouns the lexical item which is selected as the base must contain the θ-feature "Agent" in addition to in its θ-grid. The examples show that in each case X, is dispensable and that, in addition, feature representations which include not only "formal" features but θ-features as well represent the more adequate variant.

6. Why Individual Sets of Features will Probably Always be Referred to by Category Names like "X," The preceding sections have shown that the categorial labels of lexical items do not represent a grammatical category Xi5 i.e. a category N, V, A, P, etc., and that grammatical categories have to be defined on the basis of single features or feature combinations out of the individual sets of features which constitute categorial labels. Although the arguments are convincing, it is to be expected that category names like N, V, A, P, etc. will presumably continue to be used in the future, even by the present author. There are two reasons for this. The first one is technical in nature. In the daily practice of syntactic analysis it would be extremely complicated to draw tree diagrams with complex feature representations instead of using simple category names like N, V, etc. Therefore, simple category names will be preferred to feature representations. In addition, it is impossible to talk in terms of feature representations. Natural languages need names to name things. "Naming", however, means either coining proper names and thus identifying individuals or categorizing by means of names. The latter case is the second, more relevant reason why category names like N, V, A, P, etc. will continue to be used. This second reason is psychological in nature: Human processing of information is essentially based on categorization. This is the case with respect to various domains, concerning perception as well as cognition. In categorization, entities in toto are categorized, resulting in a structuring of domains. These may relate to animals, plants or pieces of furniture - and, as seems to be the case, to lexical items as well. And as, following Rosch (1977, 1978), the categorization of animals, plants or pieces of furniture does not reflect an Aristotelian but rather a prototypical category structure, this is the case with the categorization of lexical items as well.24 This means that the process of categorization follows the principle of family resemblance. Accordingly, categories are not defined on the basis of finite sets of features which each member of the category must exhibit, but with reference to a prototype and family resemblance to this prototype. As a consequence, not all the members of such a category share the same features. But each member of the category

For further arguments see Rauh (1999).

Don't Call it "X"

19

shares at least one feature with one other member of the category. Rauh (1999) provides evidence for the claim that N, A, V, P, etc. are names for categories of this type. The prediction that individual sets of features of lexical items will continue to be referred to by category names like "N", "A", "V", "P", etc., is therefore based on the insight that this is related to a categorization - and thus a structuring - of the lexical inventory of a language on the basis of prototypes. From this perspective the use of these category names is legitimate. It is problematic, however, if this lexical categorization is mistaken for the grammatical categorization. This is obviously the problem with research on parts of speech, which despite numerous and intensive efforts has not yielded satisfactory results.25 The consequences to be drawn from the preceding argumentation must be that two types of linguistic categorization have to be distinguished: lexical and grammatical categorization. Lexical categorization follows the desire to structure the lexical inventory of a language and to assign each lexical item to just one category in the default case. This is done with reference to prototypes and family resemblance. This type of categorization is,however, of little use in a generative grammar because here it is to be expected that category membership will predict the grammatical behavior of the members of a category. Since it is possible for two members of a prototype category not to share any properties at all, the required predictions are impossible on this basis. A grammatical categorization must therefore be based on an Aristotelian category structure, as has been claimed in the preceding sections. Grammatical categories are therefore defined in terms of finite sets of features, for example as [], [ [-dur] [assign ACC]], [ [+count]], etc. Lexical items which contain the defining features of a grammatical category as a subset of their individual set of category features are accordingly identified as members of that category. Since in general an individual set of category features contains several sets of categorydefining features, a lexical item typically belongs to several grammatical categories at the same time. If therefore in the future Xs is used to categorize lexical items and to represent N, V, A, P, etc. this is legitimate as long as lexical categorization is referred to. As a grammatical category - and therefore as a constituent in a tree diagram - X.t is not legitimized. That it nevertheless can be used there apparently without any problems is due to the fact that subsets of the sets of the lexical categories (in the sense defined here) are at the same time grammatical categories. In this sense the grammatical categories [], [], [] and [] or grammatical categories which are defined on the basis of morphosyntactic features like [Tense] or [Case] represent at the same time subsets of the lexical categories N, A, V and P. The discrepancy between the two types of categorization therefore causes problems only if items are involved which are located outside these four categories - for example all those traditionally classified as "adverbs" - or if a closer look is taken at the elements which are generally considered to be members of one of these categories, as was done concerning the category P in Rauh (1991, 1993b, 1995, 1996, 1997a, b). If the preceding argumentation in favor of the claim that X does not represent a grammatical category draws attention to the necessity of distinguishing lexical and grammatical categorization in the sense defined and if, as a consequence, tree diagrams containing cate-

See, for example, Sasse (1993) and Rauh (1993a, 1998) and the references cited there.

20

Gisa Rauh

gory labels like N, A, V, P, etc. are in future presented only with reservation, then the major aims of this article will have been achieved.

References Abney, S. P. (1987): The English Noun Phrase in Its Sentential Aspects. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Aoun, Y. (1981): Parts of speech: a case of redistribution. In: A. Belletti (ed.): Theory ofMarkedmss in Generative Grammar. Proceedings of the 1979 GLOW Conference, 3-24. Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa. Bergenholtz, H., Schaeder, B. (1977): Die Wortarten des Deutschen: Versuch einer syntaktisch orientierten Klassifikation. Stuttgart: Klett. Bierwisch, M. (1997): Lexical information from a minimalist point of view. In: C. Wilder, H.-M. Gärtner, M. Bierwisch (eds.): The Role of Economy Principles in Linguistic Theory, 227-266. Berlin: Akademie Verlag (= Studia Grammatica XL). Solinger, D. (1967): Adjectives in English: attribution and predication. In: Lingua 18, 1-34. Chomsky, N. (1957): Syntactic Structures. The Hague, Paris: Mouton. - (1965): Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. - (1970): Remarks on nominalization. In: R. Jacobs, P. Rosenbaum (eds.): Readings in English Transformational Grammar, 184-221. Waltham, MA: Blaisdell. - (1981): Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris. - (1986a): Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use. New York: Praeger. - (1986b): Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. - (1989): A generalization of X-bar-theory. In: A. Borg, S. Somekh, P. Wexler (eds.): Studia Linguistica et Orientalia Memoriae Haim Blanc Dedicata, 86-93. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz Verlag. - (1995): The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, N., Lasnik, H. (1993): The theory of principles and parameters. In: J. Jacobs, A. von Stechow, W. Sternefeld, T. Vennemann (eds.): Syntax: Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung, 506-569. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Cook, V., Newson M. (1988, 19962): Chomsky's Universal Grammar. An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. Emonds, J. E. (1985): A Unified Theory of Syntactic Categories. Dordrecht: Foris. Haumann, D. (1997): The Syntax of Subordination. Tübingen: Niemeyer. (= Linguistische Arbeiten 373). Higginbotham, J. (1985): On semantics. In: Linguistic Inquiry 16, 547-593. Jackendoff, R. S. (1972): Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. - (1977): X' Syntax. A Study of Phrase Structure. Cambridge, : MIT Press. - (1983): Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Lefebvre, C., Muysken, P. (1988): Mixed Categories: Nominalization in Quechua. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Lieber, R. (1981): On the Organization of the Lexicon. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Linguistics Club. Löbel, E. (1989): Q as a functional category. In: C. Bhatt, E. Löbel, C. Schmidt (eds.): Syntactic Phrase Structure Phenomena in Noun Phrases and Sentences, 133-158. Amsterdam: Benjamins. - (1990): D und Q als funktionale Kategorien in der Nominalphrase. In: Linguistische Berichte 127, 232-264. Muysken, P., Riemsdijk, H. van (1985): Projecting features and feature projections. In: P. Muysken, H. van Riemsdijk (eds.) (1985), 1-30. - (eds.) (1985): Features and Projections. Dordrecht: Foris.

Don't Call it "X"

21

Radford, A. (1993): Head-hunting: on the trail of the nominal Janus. In: G. G. Corbett, N. M. Fräser, S. McGlashan (eds.): Heads in Grammatical Theory. 73-113. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. - (1997): Syntax: A Minimalist Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rauh, G. (1991): Prepositional forms in the lexicon: problems and suggestions. In: G. Rauh (ed.): Approaches to Prepositions, 169-223. Tübingen: G. Narr. Rauh, G. (1993a): Grammatische Kategorien. In: Arbeiten des SFB 282: Theorie des Lexikons 39. Wuppertal: Bergische Universität - Gesamhochschule Wuppertal. - (1993b): Kasus und Präpositionen im Englischen. In: Indogermanische Forschungen 98, 252-292. - (1995): Präpositionen und Rollen. In: Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 20, 123-167. - (1996): Zur Struktur von Präpositionalphrasen im Englischen. In: Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 15, 178-230. - (1997a): Englische Präpositionen zwischen lexikalischen und funktionalen Kategorien. In: E. Löbel, G. Rauh (eds.): Lexikalische Kategorien und Merkmale, 125-167. Tübingen: Niemeyer (= Linguistische Arbeiten 366). - (1997b): Lokale Präpositionen und referentielle Argumente. In: Linguistische Berichte 171, 415442. - (1999). Adverb oder Präposition? Von der Notwendigkeit einer Abgrenzung von Wortarten und grammatischen Kategorien und der Gefahr einer terminologischen Falle. In: E. Eggers, J. Becker, J. Udolph, D. Weber (eds.): Florilegium Linguisticum. Festschrift für W. P. Schmid zum 70. Geburtstag, 367-392. Frankfurt a.M, Berlin, Bern, Bruxelles, New York, Wien: P.Lang. Reuland, E. (1985): A feature system for the set of categorial heads. In: P. Muysken, H. van Riemsdijk (eds.) (1985), 41-88. Riemsdijk, H. van (1983): The case of German adjectives. In: F. Heny, B. Richards (eds.): Linguistic Categories: Auxiliaries and Related Puzzles, Vol. 1, 223-252. Dordrecht: Reidel. Rosch, E. (1977): Human categorization. In: N. Warren (ed.): Studies in Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 1, 1-49. London: Academic Press. - (1978): Principles of categorization. In: E. Rosch, B. B. Lloyd (eds.): Cognition and Categorization, 27-48. Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ross, J. R. (1972): The category squish: Endstation Hauptwort. In: Papers from the Eighth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago Linguistic Society, 316-328. Sasse, H.-J. (1993): Syntactic categories and subcategories. In: J. Jacobs, A. von Stechow, W. Sternefeld, T. Vennemann, (eds.): Syntax. Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung, 646-686. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter. Speas, M. (1990): Phrase Structure in Natural Language. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Stowell, T. (1981): Elements of Phrase Structure. Diss. Cambridge, MA. Taylor, J. R. (1989): Linguistic Categorization. Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Clarendon. Wege, B. (1997): Skalare Präpositionen - grammatikalisierte Varianten? In: D. Haumann, S.J. Schierholz (eds.): Lexikalische und grammatische Eigenschaften präpositionaler Elemente, 19-45. Tübingen: Niemeyer (= Linguistische Arbeiten 371). Wanner, A. (this volume): Intransitive verbs as Case assigners. Williams, E. (1981): On the notions 'lexically related' and 'head of a word'. In: Linguistic Inquiry 12,245-274. Winter, W. (1965): Transforms without kernels?. In: Language 41, 484-489. Zimmermann, I. (1987): Syntactic categorization. In: W. Bahner, J. Schildt, D. Viehweger (eds.): Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Congress of Linguists. Berlin, August 10-15, Vol. 1, 864-867. Berlin. Zwarts, J. (1992): X'-Syntax - X'-Semantics. On the Interpretation of Functional and Lexical Heads. OTS Dissertation Series, Utrecht.

Hildegard Forke

Functional Affixes and Downward Percolation

0. Introduction While in English the affixes [-rnent}^, [-able]A or [ -ize]v can clearly be identified in respect of their syntactic category and are therefore classified as category changing derivational affixes, the suffixes -ing, -ed, -ly, the category changing prefix en- (to enslave) as well as particles in phrasal verbs (to look up) pose a problem for the distinction between derivational and inflectional affixes. A first hint of a lack of a category feature or a "category neutral" status is the occurrence of -ing as a progressive marker on verbs (he is singing), as present participle marker on verbal adjectives (the singing boy) as well as a nominalization marker on deverbal nouns (the frequent singings of the anthem.). Beyond that, it is characteristic of gerundive nominale (John's singing the anthem, John singing the anthem) that the verb maintains its verbal features whereas the syntactic distribution of the phrase is nominal. Similar mismatches can be observed with verbal adjectives and with adverbs derived from adjectives. In order to be used in a syntactic structure every item needs a complete categorial specification or categorial signature in the sense of Lieber (1980, 1992). Most approaches have accounted for the distributional behaviour of the derivates by assuming an inherent category feature for -ing, -ed, -ly, others by assuming different morphological processes. The accounts are based on one of the following assumptions: - there are homophonous affixes with different category features (e.g. nominal vs. verbal -ing), or - the affix is attached either to the head or to a projection of the head (head affixation vs. phrasal affixation), or - affixation takes place on different levels of representation (lexical vs.syntactic affixation), or - the affix is specifier vs. head of the construction. However, these approaches either stipulate a category feature or they do not cover the behaviour of the affixes adequately. As an alternative, we analyze the affixes as category neutral, i.e. as affixes without an inherent category feature. These category neutral affixes share a number of features of the functional categories C, INFL, DET, or DEG, and we therefore classify them as the functional elements of morphology, whereas lexical elements -free or bound morphemes- have a category feature as well as thematic or referential relevance. Functional affixes, on the other hand, are able to extract a category feature from syntactic context which percolates into and completes the categorial signature of a projection. This process takes place at the interface between lexical and syntactic projection und can thus account for syntactically determined, i.e. external morphological processes.

24

Hildegard Farke

l. Inflection and Derivation Stump (1998: 15) gives the following five criteria which are commonly used to distinguish inflection from derivation: -change of lexical meaning or part of speech -syntactic determinism -productivity -semantic regularity -closure

Inflection + + + +

Derivation +

Even if these criteria do not apply to all inflectional and derivational affixes, they nevertheless provide a diagnostic tool to delimit prototypical inflectional from prototypical derivational processes: Generally, inflectional processes are obligatory, regular, productive, category maintaining and apply after derivational processes.1 Their function is to realize grammatical categories like tense, number or case. Inflectional morphology as that part of word structure which interacts with phrase structure, i.e. "is what is relevant to syntax" (Anderson 1982: 587). On the other hand, derivational processes are less regular, less productive, apply before inflection, can change syntactic category as well as meaning. Besides, derivational morphology can change the argument structure of lexical items: e.g. o«/-prefixation to the intransitive verb swim results in the transitive verb outswim. Following Anderson's definition of inflectional morphology being everything that is syntactically relevant, the suffix -ion or the prefix out- should be classified as inflectional affixes. Moreover, the generalization that inflection follows derivation and compounding (*trucksdriver) cannot be maintained since inflected forms can indeed be input for derivation and compounding (uninhabited, salesorientated). Bybee (1985: 81) therefore modifies the criterion of syntactic relevance in defining inflectional morphemes as those morphemes which are obligatory in a certain syntactic position. But this is true only for contextual inflection, not for inherent inflection, a distinction adopted by Booij (1995):2 "Inherent inflection is the kind of inflection that is not required by the syntactic context, although it may have syntactic relevance. Examples are the category number for nouns, comparative and superlative degree of the adjective, and tense and aspect for verbs (...). Contextual inflection, on the other hand, is that inflection that is dictated by syntax, such as person and number markers on verbs that agree with subjects and/or objects, agreement markers for adjectives, and structural case markers on nouns." (Booij 1995: 2)

Whereas number marking on verbs is determined by the subject of the sentence, the choice between a singular or a plural noun, the feminine or masculine form of a referent or a com-

'

2

These criteria only apply to synthetic inflection, i.e. inflectional processes which make use of bound morphemes. However, inflectional categories are also realized by cliticization, lexicalization or other kinds of word formation. For example, a progressive aspect can be expressed by a local PP as in German Er baute an einem Haus. (He was building a house). Anderson (1988) gives four classes of inflectional properties: inherent, conßgurational, agreement, and phrasal properties.

Functional Affixes and Downward Percolation

25

parative form of an adjective is independent of the syntactic position. The change in number produces a change in the entity or entities being referred to, while case signals the relation of the noun to other constituents in the sentence, and definiteness shows the place of the noun in the discourse. Case and definiteness have no effect on the inherent qualities of the entity or entities being referred to, while number or gender do. Inherent inflection controls lexical meaning and is in this respect more similar to derivation than to inflection. That these processes are still regarded as inflection follows from the fact that the affixes "participate in the syntactic structure that they form part of, something which prototypical derivational categories never do." (van Marie 1995: 65). A device for making the inherent inflectional categories accessible to syntax is the assumption of functional projections (e.g. Abney 1987) or extended projections (following Grimshaw 1990) of lexical projections: IP (or TP, AspP) for the inherent features of V, DP (or Number-Phrase, Gender-Phrase) for inherent features of N, and DegP for the inherent feature 'grade/degree' of A. Beyond that, there is another analogy of inherent inflection and derivation: it is inherent inflection that may be followed by compounding, derivation, or further inflectional elements (sales (pl)oriented, actress (fern)- es (pl)). Whenever a change of syntactic category (as a typical feature of derivational morphology in the majority of frameworks) takes place, this is also syntactically relevant, it being a defining feature of inflectional morphology. These few statements about the coincidence and overlapping of the above mentioned criteria show that the inflection/derivation distinction cannot be definitely established. This is why Haspelmath (1995), following Bybee (1985), assumes that inflection and derivation are gradual terms: "Formations are inflectional to the extent that they are regular, general and productive ... Formations are derivational to the extent that they are irregular, defective and unproductive." (Haspelmath 1995: 47)

2. Inflection and Derivation in Word Syntax Most grammars restrict the interaction between syntax and morphology: Within the Strong Lexicalist Hypothesis all word-forming processes, i.e. inflection, derivation and compounding take place in the lexicon. In a strong lexicalist approach an affix is assumed to have much the same status as a word: it has a lexical listing which specifies its phonological form, its semantic content, its subcategorization restrictions, and its morpho-syntactic properties. The Transformational Hypothesis regards the lexicon more or less as an inactive store and places all morphological processes onto the syntactic level. A recent approach which follows basic assumptions of the Transformational Hypothesis at least for inflectional morphology is the Functional Head Approach to morphology, taking its orgins in the proposals of Pollock (1989), who argues that INFL, the syntactic locus of tense, subject agreement, and negation in English, should be broken down into three distinct functional categories, each of which heads its own functional projection. At the core of Pollock's discussion is the assumption that verbs generally acquire their inflectional properties by moving from one head position to the next. Developing this assumption further it has been pro-

26

Hildegard Farke

posed that the order of inflectional formatives in a verb's morphology arises through the gradual accretion of affixes during a verb's movement. On this view, the order of inflectional markings follows the sequence in which functional categories are nested in syntactic structure. So this approach suggests that inflection is not a morphological phenomenon at all, but rather a syntactic one; indeed it calls into question the very claim that morphology exists as an autonomous grammatical component in natural language. In Remarks on nominalization (1970) Chomsky proposed a more modular distinction between lexical and syntactic processes, known widely as the Weak Lexicalist Hyposthesis (WLH). According to this approach, words are derived in the lexicon and emerge with an internal structure to which syntax has no access. Inflection on the other hand is relevant only to syntax and follows lexical operations, so inflectional markers will always occur outside of derivational markers. Anderson (1982) adopts Chomsky's WLH, but he puts inflection into the phonological component allowing inflectional processes to react to late syntactic processes. Subsequently split morphology approaches arose, in which derivation takes place in the lexicon, i.e. before lexical insertion, whereas regular inflectional processes take place postsyntactically. If lexical operations, however, precede syntactic ones, interactions between morphology and syntax cannot be adequately described: if derivation is a lexical process, inflectional operations must apply subsequently to lexical ones. Assuming again an isomorphic relation between form and function, it follows that inflectional markers will emerge in surface structure outside all derivational markers. However, inflectional markers occur widely inside derivational markers (heldendom, salesoriented).3 As derivation and inflection can both influence the lexical-semantic and the syntactic dimension of a word, the two processes must be applicable pre- as well as postsyntactically. This is the case in approaches of parallel morphology (Borer 1984) and distributed morphology (Halle/Marantz 1993). The core assumption of distributed morphology says that morphemes exist as terminal nodes associated with bundles of morphosyntactic feature specifications but lacking any association with phonological feature specification. These abstract morphemes may undergo various kinds of specification and modification. Vocabulary insertion takes place at the intermediate pre-phonological level of Morphological Structure (MS); it is through this process that the abstract morphemes supplied by the syntax acquire their phonological feature specification. The inserted morphs are then subject to readjustment rules operating on the level of Phonological Form. An advantage of these approaches to inflection is that they do not entail non-occurring interactions between morphology and syntax, but they still see inflection as a syntactic phenomenon:4 Inflection cannot change the lexical category of a word, derivation can. In the following we will question this assumption and examine whether the form of a word may underdetermine its morphosyntactic properties. Morphological approaches which apply X-bar syntax to words arguing that word structure is very much like phrase structure, attribute the distinction between inflection and derivation to the head status of certain affixes. Most advocates of Word Syntax are lexi-

3 4

For more evidence against split morphology see Booij (1993) and Stump (1998). In Chomsky's Minimalist Program (1995) there is no distinction between derivation and inflection or lexemes and grammatical morphemes: words are copied from the lexicon "fully inflected".

Functional Affixes and Downward Percolation

27

calists, i.e. they assume that affixes are regular lexical entries, like stems.5 There is a word internal hierarchical structure below X°, which in no way differs from syntactic structure, so that words contain specifiers, heads, and complements, just as phrases and clauses do. If affixes are regular lexical items like stems, they may be selected for word structures as fully derived words are selected for phrase structures. Affixes are able to serve as heads. A major contention of X-bar theory is that the head of a phrase (X) determines the category of the whole phrase. Since the outermost affix of a word is often associated with the category of the whole word, affixes are analyzed as heads projecting their categorial feature. Williams (1981) advanced the simplest account of affixes as heads, due to the observation that in English it is generally the suffixes that determine the word's category: the head of a word is its rightmost element. The Right Hand Head Rule says that derivational as well as inflectional suffixes are heads bearing a category feature. Thus the head of winner would be -er which, under the premise that affixes are lexical items, is a noun in the same sense that bridge is in drawbridge. As prefixes usually do not change syntactic category, they are never heads. Those prefixes which can change the category, e.g. en- (enslave) or be- (becalm) are exceptions in Williams' framework. In order to account for these prefixes Selkirk (1982) relativizes the RHHR; that is, some features, which are not specified in the head, can be raised from non-heads. This can account for those constructions in which the category is determined by another element but the rightmost (to enslave) and for those in which features of categories present in the stem but not on the right affix, determine the lexical categorization of the derived word (to grow up). (1) Right Hand Head Rule RHHR (revised): In a word-internal configuration X"

P Xm Q where X stands for a syntactic feature complex and where Q contains no category with the feature complex X, Xm is the head of X n . (Selkirk 1982: 20) For example, in grow up the particle does not bear a category feature, so the category of the whole word is determined by the verbal stem. Within Selkirk's approach inflectional affixes are not specified for a category and according to the revised RHHR are never heads of words. "One nice result of (the generalization that inflectional affixes are never heads) would be the apparently universally attested fact that inflectional affixes are not "category changing". If the inflectional affix is not the head, then its sister category is, and hence always shares category features with the mother node." (Selkirk 1982: 77)

Unfortunately, the main presumption of Selkirk's modification, namely that some affixes are unmarked for certain features which allows features from the next node (relativized morphological heads) to be inherited by the derivate, renders them radically different from phrasal heads, which are absolute and never relative. Relativizing morphological heads defeats the original purpose of postulating affixal heads.

Lieber (1980, 1992), Selkirk (1982), Williams (1981), Di Sciullo/Williams (1987)

28

Hildegard Farke

Therefore Lieber (1980, 1992) does not relativize the head status of affixes, but rather argues for two different percolation processes: stems and derivational affixes have a categorial signature, which contains specifications of several morphosyntactic features, among them the category feature. Inflectional affixes do not have a categorial signature and thus cannot be head of a word. By means of head percolation the head passes its categorial signature to a dominating node. Should this node remain unspecified for certain features, backup percolation takes place. By means of backup percolation features can also be raised from nonheads to complete the categorial signature. Backup percolation is a purely additive process, mainly involved in inflectional processes. In prefix verbs like enslave the stem as the head of the derivate propagates its features via head percolation, but the category feature [+V] has its origin in the prefix. Head percolation once again raises the categorial signature of en- to the dominating node where it overrides the feature [+N]. (2)

[cat=N; 3.pers; pi]

[cat=N; 3 pers; μ num] [cat=A] false [cat=A]

\

\χ

(ΒΡ)

(HP) hood [cat=N; 3pers. μ num]

s [num=pl]

In the word falsehoods in (2) the affix -hood is the head which first passes its categorial signature to a dominating node (headpercolation HP). This node remains unspecified for the feature number (μ num), and a second percolation process takes place: backup percolation (BP) supplements the specification for number which completes or closes the categorial signature. This model accounts for leftheadedness by assuming individual specifications for affixes: the prefixes en-, be- have a categorial signature which causes a change of category (to becalm). The prefix counter- does not bear a category feature, so that the category of the stem is maintained (counterevidence^ counter intuitive„ counteract J. Like syntactic heads, affixes which bear a category feature also have a subategorization feature to establish the correct concatenations.

3. Categorial Specification of-ly Categorial specification is not only relevant for words but also for affixes. Whereas traditional grammar defined lexical categories primarily on the basis of formal (morphological) and semantic criteria, recent approaches are based on features that determine distribution, projection and function of linguistic items and thus comprise lexical as well as functional elements (cf. Radford 1997, Rauh 1999). Since Chomsky (1970) the lexical categories N, V, A and P are defined by the two features [+N], [+V], which leaves the category of ad-

Functional Affixes and Downward Percolation

29

verbs as the only lexical category outside of the matrix as "an item that does not fit the definition for any other word class" (Greenbaum et al. 1985: 438). Adverbs are first of all classified by their syntactic distribution, but the variety of positions in which adverbs can occur (cf. Jackendoff 1972, Alexiadou 1994), their function as modifier of all lexical categories except N, and the identification of syntactic function and syntactic category renders the establishment of an autonomous class questionable.6 But even the group of lexical adverbs (usually, inside, extremely, yesterday, soon) is syntactically as well as morphologically heterogenous to an amount which caused some linguists to recategorize them.7 In the following, these items, as well as double duty items in (3) and adverbial only items in (4), will not be considered any more. (3) (4)

a. b. a. b.

the trains are fast/rapid/* rapidly the train runs fast/rapidly/*rapid. he'll leave soon he sees his dentist very often

The inflection/derivation distinction will be applied only to adverbs which bear the suffix -ly (frankly, carefully, cleverly), which show a regular and productive relation to adjectives, and which are -putatively- complementarily distributed to the underlying adjective. (5)

a. she responded rapidly/*rapid b. her rapid/*rapidly response

Concerning syntactic relevance, productivity and transparency the affix -ly behaves like an inflectional affix. "-ly can be very generally added to an adjective in a grammatical environment requiring an adverb, so that it could almost be regarded as inflectional" (Greenbaum et al. 1985: 1556).

Emonds (1985) and Radford (1988) also subsume these adverbs under the adjectival class, having no separate representation in the lexicon. So the categorization of adverbs as a subclass of adjectives is based on morphological relatedness, complementary distribution as well as semantic and syntactic similarities: the formation of comparative forms of adverbs (synthetic or inflectional vs. analytic or periphrastic comparison) is subject to the same conditions as that of adjectives (cf. Zwicky 1989: 164f). Monosyllabic adjectives and adverbs and those ending in -y form their comparison inflectionally (cf. big - bigger, happy happier, holy - holiest, fast -faster), disyllabic or longer ones take periphrastic forms (cf. rapidly - more rapidly, beautiful - more beautiful, beautifully - more beautifully). Disyllabic adjectives, which are derived from nouns by means of -ly, take inflections: friendly friendlier; lovely - lovelier; as adverbs they take the periphrastic form: friendly - more friendly; lovely - more lovely. Adverbs with adjectival stems cannot form synthetic comparatives *quicklier or *quickliest. This mutual exclusion of a comparative affix and the adverbial marker -ly gives a first hint that -ly is an inflectional affix: when derivation occurs inside of inflection, the inflectional affix -er cannot follow the derivational affix -ly.

"As it turns out, however, the spectrum of adverbial categories is quite broad, including at least PP, AdvP, S1, and NP. [... ] PP, AdvP, S', and NP simply constitute no natural class under any generally accepted set of syntactic features." (Larson 1985: 600). See Jackendoff (1977) and Emonds (1985), who categorize inside, there as intransitive prepositions, or Larson (1985), who analyses tomorrow, yesterday as nouns.

30

Hildegard Farke

Under our assumption that the formation of quickly out of the adjective quick is a process of contextual inflection, the ungrammaticality of the adverb *quicklier arises from a violation against the principle that contextual inflection tends to be peripheral with respect to cases of inherent inflection, i.e. the comparison affix -er as an instantiation of the inherent feature [Degree] of gradable adjectives. (6)

a. I left quickly, *quicklier, *quickliest b. I left quicker than Kim, Robin left quickest of all c. I left more quickly than Kim, I left most quickly (Zwicky 1989: 139)

Frameworks that analyse -ly as a derivational affix (Zwicky 1989) can only formulate a specific restriction to exclude a cooccurrence of synthetic comparison and adverb formation (*slowlier vs. friendlier). Not only the formation of comparatives but also the internal structure of adverb phrases (AdvP) are largely identical with that of adjective phrases (AdjP) with respect to the degree modifier. (7)

a. b. c. d. e. f.

he is so clever he is too fast for us he is as quick as John he ran so quickly that he got there in time you are running too quickly I can run as quickly as you can

This is why Abney (1987) assumes that adjective phrases as well as adverb phrases are both dominated by a functional DegreePhrase (DegP). The licensing of degree modifiers is dependent on the gradability of the corresponding adjective. Most adverbs generated with the suffix -ly are semantically compositional and transparent,8 except for a few forms: (8) (9)

a. b. c. a. b. c. d.

the men were individually asked to leave *the men were asked to leave in as individual a manner as possible * it was individual that the men were asked to leave Irving finally ran away * Irving ran away as finally as possible * Irving acted finally when he ran away *it was final that Irving ran away

These adverbs, which do not show a transparent semantic correspondence with their morphologically related adjectives, are not gradable. Therefore Barton (1990) postulates that they are not dominated by the functional category Degree. Larson (1987) presumes two different affixes of the form -ly as well as two different processes: ungradable adverbs are lexically represented and derived from adjectives1', whereas the gradable ones in -ly are analysed as inflected adjectives. The assumption of two homophonous affixes is supported by the fact that not all adverbs lose the ability to license complements compared to the corresponding adjectives: (10) would be a derivational process which changes argument

8 9

V-adjoined adverbs can be paraphrased as "in as adj a manner as"; sentence adverbs as "it is adj that". It is the type of -ly which derives adjectives from nouns (lovely, friendly), which then take the inflectional comparative. In this case, the generalization that inflection follows derivation can be maintained.

Functional Affixes and Downward Percolation

31

structure, in (11) the argument structure is maintained so that -/y-affixation should be analysed as an inflectional process. (10) a. b. c. (11) a. b.

[Adjp fond of literature] *[AdvP fondly of literature] *[Advp proudly of his son] her decision was independent of mine she decided independently of me

Alexiadou (1997) subdivides adverbs into two classes: specifier-type adverbs (12c, 12d) are equivalent to attributive, prenominal adjectives, which do not take a complement (12a, 12b), while complement-type adverbs (13c, 13d) behave like predicative adjectives, which take a complement (13a, 13b). (12) a. b. c. d. (13) a. b. c. d.

*his more possible than you thought reaction *his immediate towards you reaction 'proudly of his son * fondly of literature he is fond of literature her decision was independent of mine she decided independently of me unfortunately for me

Due to a) this change of subcategorization and theta frame, b) the fact that adverbs are not involved in agreement relations, whereas adjectives are, and c) the fact that not all adjectives can be transformed into adverbs by means of -/y-suffixation, it is argued that -ly is a derivational affix (Jackendoff 1972, 1977, Zwicky 1989). But as we have shown, this is only true for a subgroup of adverbs. Besides, the distribution of adverbs is not so clear-cut as frequently maintained: Zwicky (1995), who had argued for an inflectional relation between adjectives and adverbs in the beginning of his article, then points to adverbial-only items, i.e. adverbs that do not have an adjectival counterpart, taking them as evidence for the existence of an autonomous lexical class of adverbs. Conclusively he analyses -ly as a derivational affix. But Beard (1995: 302) notices that these adverbial-only items are possible as marked adjectives in some dialects, which jeopardizes Zwicky's line of reasoning: (14) a. my birthday is soon b. my dental appointments are too often

On the other hand, in some dialects so-called "-(y-less adverbs" may occur in a postverbal position (15a,b), but not when they precede the verb. It should be noted that in these dialects also those adverbs are preverbally excluded which do not have an -ly-form (16b). (15) a. b. (16) a. b.

John ate quick. Peter ran slow. (Zwicky 1995: 527) we will finish the task rapidly/fast, we will rapidly/*fast finish our task.

(15) shows that the marking with -ly is less systematic postverbally than in preverbal positions. A similar variation can be observed with grammatical comparison: some adverbs can take the inflectional as well as the periphrastic form in a postverbal position (17), but only the periphrastic form when they precede the verb (18): (17) a. we ate more quickly, b. we ate quicker.

32

Hildegard Farke (18) a. it was more quickly eaten, b. *it was quicker eaten.

These examples show that the distribution of -ly is strictly syntactically determined: it is not sufficient to specify that the adverb occurs within the VP. In addition, the position relative to the verb must be specified in order to end up with the correct form.1" Looking at sentences with more than one adverb as in probably, John cleverly frequently avoided Mary carefully, Jackendoff (1972, 1977) divides adverbs into the following classes on account of their distribution: (19) Type la: Type Ib: Type Ha: Type lib: Type III: Type IV: TypeV: Type VI:

INITIAL, AUX (SUBJECT-sensitive) cleverly, clumsily... VP-INITIAL, VP-FINAL (AGENT-sensitive) frankly, honestly... INITIAL, AUX (EVENT-modifying) quickly, slowly,... VP-INITIAL, VP-FINAL (PROCESS-modifying) elegantly, handsomely INITIAL, AUX evidently, probably,... VP-INITIAL, VP-FINAL completely, easily,... VP-FINAL hard, fast,... AUX merely, utterly,...

Roberts (1988) analyses adverbs as predicates: they do not assign theta-roles, but they have selectional properties. He gives the following classification: (20) 1. subject oriented adverbs (carefully) are predicated with INFL and an AGENT 2. aspectual adverbs (frequently) are predicated with INFL or V 3. modal, evaluative adverbs (probably, evidently) are predicated with INFL 4. VP-adverbs (completely) are predicated with V

Rochette (1990) conflates Jackendoff s class I and class II, assuming three base positions of adverbs: due to their selectional properties, adverbs are adjuncts to CP, IP or VP, depending on their modifying the proposition, the event or the action. Group 1 adverbs precede Group 2 and Group 3 adverbs: (21) Group 1: Class III (cf.22): Group 2: Class I und II (cf.23): Group 3: Class IV (cf. 24): (22) a. b. (23) a. b. (24) a. b.

adjoined to TP (or to Agr); adjoined to TP (or to Agr) or to VP adjoined to VP

They probably (1) completely (3) invaded Jupiter *they completely probably invaded Jupiter they frequently (2) completely (3) invaded Jupiter *they completely frequently invaded Jupiter they probably (1) frequently (2) invaded Jupiter *they frequently probably invaded Jupiter

Finally, Valois (1991: 373) applies Rochette's classification to adjectives within the DP, where he finds exactly the same distribution, taking this as evidence for a parallel structure of clause and nominal projection. Between DP/CP (proposition) and DP/VP (action) an-

10

It may be the case that -/y-marking is a processing phenomenon like the deletability of that in embedded clauses (cf. (i) / believe that John had left, (ii) / believe John had left, (iii) that John had left I believe, (iv) *John had left I believe): if the verbal head is processed and the relation between this verbal head and the adverb is established, the marking of the adverb is no longer necessary.

Functional Affixes and Downward Percolation

33

other functional projection (IP or AgrP) is located which transforms an action into an event: (25) a. b. (26) a. b. (27) a. b.

the probable complete invasion of Jupiter *the complete probable invasion of Jupiter the frequent complete invasion of Jupiter *the complete frequent invasion of Jupiter the probable frequent invasion of Jupiter *the frequent probable invasion of Jupiter

Within the clause, adverbs appear as adjuncts to CP, TP or VP; within the DP, adjectives occur as adjuncts to the Case-Phrase or to the NP: (28) Group 1: adjoined to Case-Phrase Group 2: adjoined to Case-Phrase or NP Group 3: adjoined to NP

These semantic classes of adjectives and their corresponding adverbs differ in their ability to specify or modify a proposition, an event, or an action, which resumes Robert's (1987) analyses of adverbs as predicates and refers to those relations which Higginbotham (1985) calls "referential roles". If the referential role of A (adjectives and adverbs) identifies the referential role in the lexical head N or V it is explained why adjectives which precede a deverbal noun take "an adverbial type meaning" and why this meaning is impossible when the adjective is used predicatively: (29) a. a quick calculation = they calculate quickly b. a slow mover = a person who moves slowly

The observation that an adverb may follow the noun within a DP which refers to an event (Alexiadou 1997: 221) provides additional support as it indicates that the referential role of the verbal stem must still be available after the nominalization, since an adverb is licensed only when its referential role identifies the event variable of a verb (cf. Higginbotham 1985, Kratzer 1988). (30) a. b. c. (31) a. b. c. (32) a. b.

the complete destruction of the city *the completely destruction of the city [the destruction of the city completely ]DP the wide distribution of the paper made us happy *the widely distribution of the paper ?[the distribution of the paper widely ]DP * his individual destruction of these documents [his destruction of these documents individually ]DP

These examples testify the thematic and syntactic parallels of adjectives and adverbs. It could be shown that the differences in syntactic behaviour are not category dependent but solely determined by the syntactic position the items appear in. We could not find a single piece of evidence for the assumption that features of the adjective are replaced, supplemented, overwritten or merely changed by features of the affix -ly. Hence we conclude that -ly has no inherent features: neither semantic features nor a category feature. A classification into different syntactic categories is redundant: the adverb is a contextually or syntactically determined, i.e. inflected form of an adjective, the affix -ly being the phonological realization of a positional feature. An affix without an inherent category feature (which, however, can extract a category feature from its syntactic context) should be classified as a

34

Hildegard Farke

functional element: "... the -ly ending is an indication of agreement between an adverb and a verbal head, much like the agreement in number, gender and case between adjectives and nouns" (Alexiadou 1997: 197). Therefore -ly indicates a theta-identification relation between the category A and the verbal head. The category of the lexical head of the projection containing A determines the phonological realization of A as an adjective or as an adverb. Whenever A appears in a verbal projection the feature [+V] percolates into the projection of A, specifies the categorial signature, and triggers the spelling-out of -ly, which is affixed to the underlying adjective.

4. Gerundive -ing Another construction which poses a problem for the identification of the morphological process at issue is the gerund. Acc-/«g-structures (33a) as well as poss-/rtg-structures (33b) have externally, i.e. distributionally nominal features, but internally there is no change of category, i.e. the head of the construction maintains its verbal features after the affixation process: the verbal head assigns structural case to a complement (33a, b) and adverbs are still licensed. (34). Following Felix (1990) "ace-ing andposs-ing simultaneously show both nominal (distribution like DP/NP) and sentential (presence of VP) properties." In -ing ofstructures (35), on the other hand, we find nominal features. (33) a. I remember John [vp smoking cigarettes] b. John's [VPsmoking cigarettes] surprised me (34) John's studying the book thoroughly surprised us (35) John's smoking of cigarettes surprised me

Ace-ing and poss-/«g-structures have simultaneously nominal and verbal features, which is why the affix is analysed differently in regard to its category feature: -ing is analysed as a nominal (Abney 1987, Felix 1990) or as an inflectional head (Baker 1985, Ouhalla 1991, Milsark 1988). Abney (1987) takes -ing in both gerundive constructions as well as in the -ing of- construction as a nominal affix, which directly, i.e. without a projection of its own, adjoins to a verbal projection and converts it into a nominal projection. "-ing has the same basic properties in all three gerund structures -Ace-ing, Poss -ing, -ing-of-, namely it takes a verbal projection, and converts it into a nominal category. The three types of gerund differ only with regard to the point on the s-projection path of V that the conversion to a nominal category occurs: at V°, at VP, or at IP." (Abney 1987: 222)

Abney attributes the differences in the structures of the various types of -ing structures to differences in the "scope" of the nominalizer -ing, i.e. to the fact that the affixation process applies on different levels: adjunction to the head can only take place in the morphological component (-ing of), and adjunction to a maximal projection takes place on the syntactic level. The result of the adjunction of -ing to a verbal head is a nominal head which cannot assign case: o/-insertion is necessary as a consequence. Following the criteria of inflection and derivation listed above, this should be a derivational process. Adjunction to VP or IP, which can in fact be interpreted as a nominalization of the phrase, maintains the verbal

Functional Affixes and Downward Percolation

35

features of the head (poss-/«g und acc-/«g): a direct DP-complement may follow. Since these processes apply on the syntactic level, derivation must either be allowed in syntax or gerund formation must be analysed as an inflectional process. "For the sake of preciseness, let us assume that -ing has the feature [+N]. Assuming V, VP, have the features [-F,-N], adjoining -ing overrides the [-N] value, creating categories of type [-F,+N], i.e. N, NP. Assuming IP has the feature [+F,-N], adjoining -ing produces a [+F,+N] category: i.e. DP (...). -ing is not a D; it simply substitues its [+N] feature into the IP matrix, producing a DP. There is no D° and no D'." (Abney 1987: 224)"

Abney's assignment of the affixation process to different levels of representation indeed covers the phenomenon of internal (V- > N) and external change of category (VP- > NP; IP- > DP), but his proposal has to postulate a defective category in order to explain the difference between a gerundive and a full DP. Moreover, Abney does not give a clear motivation for -ing having the inherent category feature [+N] and for the assumption that the conversion is direct instead of using projection or percolation mechanisms. This is why Felix (1990) analyses gerunds as "determinerized sentences": the affix -ing, which also bears the category feature [+N], is the nominal head in the DP-intemal NP, which appears as an affix to the verb. The nominal head in gerunds selects a VP- (ace-ing) or an IPcomplement (pass -ing), i.e. a sentential complement. Abney (1987) as well as Felix (1990) analyse the affix -ing with its inherent nominal feature as the cause for the internal and the external change of category. However, the classification of the morphological process on the basis of the criteria mentioned above remains unclear. Fabb (1984) concentrates on the productivity and the semantic transparency of the affixation process and analyses -ing as an inflectional affix with an aspectual, i.e. progressive feature, -ing is not a nominal or lexical element, but head of the extended projection of V, i.e. a functional element. Though this explains the verbal behaviour of gerunds it does not account for the nominal distribution.12 Lapointe (1993) proposes a dual lexical category , which projects in a first step as a verb and in a second step a noun. A dual category is derived from a verbal category, assuming that the nominal feauture has its primary source in -ing, i.e. -ing is again analysed as a nominal element. Yoon (1997) compares V-ing in lexical nominalizations (-ing o/-constructions) to nominal gerund phrases (NGPs): While the verbal stem in lexical nominalizations converts into a noun, the verbal element in NPGs remains verbal: lexical nominalizations show nominal inflectional elements (36a) as well as the non-verbal negation element no (36b). Nominal Gerund Phrases do not allow plural marking (37a) and the negation element is the verbal not (37b): (36) a. b. (37) a. b.

the frequent singings of the Marseillaise no/*not recording of the M. can compare to the thrill of a live performance *John's singings the M. John's *no/not recording the M. was expected to cause a furor

This is asumed by Baker (1985), who analyses -ing as the head of the functional category DET, which is the extended projection of N. Milsark (1988) and Ouhalla (1991) also postulate that -ing is the head of a functional projection. Yoon (1997) takes these examples from Pullum (1991).

36

Hildegard Farke

If we assume that -ing is the same element in lexical nominalizations as well as in NGPs, the differences in the constructions have to be accounted for. Yoon (1997) proposes zeroderivation from the present participle for both constructions; in this case -ing is an inflectional affix of the verb which realizes an aspectual feature. Zero-derivations can apply lexically or syntactically/phrasally: NGPs are phrasal nominalizations, i.e. zero-derivation takes place on the phrasal level. This assumption maintains case marking features of the verbal head but accounts for the nominal distribution, whereas lexical nominalizations are zero-derivations of the head, which loses its case marking features. Lexical nominalizations as well as gerunds are the result of two morphological processes: in the first instance a verb inflects into the present participle, subsequently zero-derivation applies either lexically or syntactically. This challenges the generalization that inflection follows derivation. But as Yoon (1997) allows zero-derivation both on the lexical and on the syntactic level, he uses a spftf-mor/7/io/ogy-approach, which allows morphological processes like affixation and zeroderivation within the lexicon and in the syntax. The assumption that gerunds result from a nominalization process on different levels is known from Abney, but in Yoon's approach the nominal feature does not originate in the affix -ing but in the zero affix. Yoon/Yoon (1990) suggest that phrasal affixes are functional heads in syntax, but their presupposition that zero-affixes bear a category feature undermines the status as functional heads. If inherent category features for -ing in NGPs cannot be proved and if zero-affixes bearing an inherent category feature are not available in our approach, only the syntactic context can be the source of the category feature: gerunds occur in subject- and objectpositions (case marked by AGR in INFL and by V). As case marking is necessary for a nominal projection to be visible for theta-marking, we regard case assignment as the assignment of a nominal feature to a structural postion. This nominal feature is conveyed into the projection and completes the specification of the categorial signature which is spelled out as V-ing. So the maximal projection is marked nominal and hence the distribution of the projection is nominal. The nominal feature can percolate down to different levels of the projection. This analysis reminds us of Abney (1987), who attributes the conversion of the verb to -/«^-affixation to different levels of the "s-projection path of V". Unlike in Abney's approach, -ing does not bear an inherent category feature in our approach but, as a functional affix, it is category neutral, yet able to extract a category feature from the syntactic context to specify an incomplete categorial signature. Changes of syntactic categories thus result from percolation processes as in Lieber (1990). In ace-ing constructions the nominal feature only reaches the maximal projection level (XP) maintaining the verbal features of the lexical head as well as the X-bar level (Indonesia annexing East Timor).14 In poss-ingstructures the nominal feature reaches the X-bar level, i.e case assignment to the complement is still possible but in the specifier position genitive case is assigned - indicating that the sister constituent (i.e. X') has nominal features. (Indonesia's annexing East Timor). In o//«g-structures the nominal feature percolates down to the verbal head converting it into a nominal head thus triggering «/^insertion. When downward percolation gets onto lower

14

Bauer (1988: 76) calls acc-iVzg-structures inflectional gerund and -ing o/-structures derivational action nominal. Examples are taken from Bauer (1988).

Functional Affixes and Downward Percolation

37

levels in the projection, the higher levels are equally affected by the conversion. This is the reason why in ing-of structures the subject phrase is marked with the genitive case (Indonesia's annexing of East Timor).

5. Verbal Adjectives Another type of verbal projection, in which the affix -ing occurs, is the present participle used as an adjective: (38) a. the reading boy b. an exciting story

In a NP the present participle of verbs like read or excite can be used as an attributive adjective of a nominal head. The present participle can also be used in a predicative position (39a) and has to be distinguished from the progressive form of the verb, which can occur with an internal argument (39b). In the attributive position the internal argument of the underlying verb cannot be realized (39c). (39) a. b. c. d.

the story is exciting the story is exciting the audience *an exciting the audience story the boy is reading

While (39b) describes an activity, (39a) refers to a constant attribute of the noun, i.e. exciting has lost its original verbal features and describes a quality like an adjective. (39d) is only possible with the progressive form reading, i.e. as a verbal form. This double-faced behaviour of a participle between a verb and an adjective again raises the question which morphological process is involved: "[T]he creation of participles [... ] seems to involve a change of category, and yet the traditional, and in many respects most motivated, view is to regard them as part of the inflectional paradigm of the verb." (Spencer 1991: 193)

As the formation of the present participle from verbs is regular and productive Haspelmath (1995), who proceeds on the assumption of a gradual distinction between inflection and derivation, assumes a process of "category changing inflection" for verbal adjectives in English as well as similar structures in other languages. After comparing prototypical derivation and category changing inflection he gives the following description: "a. In words derived by inflectional word-class-changing morphology, the internal syntax of the base tends to be preserved, b. In words derived by derivational word-class changing morphology, the internal syntax of the base tends to be altered and assimilated to the internal syntax of primitive members of the derived word-class." (Haspelmath 1995: 58)

Whereas category changing derivation has an impact on the internal syntax of the projection as well as on its distribution, category changing inflection only affects the external behaviour, i.e. the distribution of the derivate. Essential for Haspelmath's approach is a distinction between the category of the "lexeme" and the "wordform", which, in our terminology, refers to the difference between internal and external behaviour: category changing

38

Hildegard Farke

inflection only shifts the "wordform category", while derivation has an influence on the "lexeme category" as well as the "wordform category". According to Haspelmath, the outcome of a process of category changing inflection is a dual category [v/Adj sing-ing]. Though Haspelmath convincingly argues that the formation of verbal adjectives is indeed syntactically determined, he neither answers the question about the origin of the nominal feature, nor does he account for the differences between "statal participles" and "actional participles" (Greenbaum 1985). If statal participles are true adjectives, they should be intensifiable by means of very: in the attributive position the participle exciting can be used with an intensifier just like a non-derived adjective. (40) a. b. c. (41) a. b. c.

a very expensive book a very exciting book *a very reading boy the book is very expensive the book is very exciting *the boy is very reading

In (40c) und (41c) reading cannot be intensified by very, which indicates that the verbal features are maintained in the participle used as an adjective. The same difference between statal and actional participles can be observed with reference to the comparative forms. Only if the participle indicates a permanent or characteristic feature is comparison possible in the attributive (42a) as well as in the predicative position (43 a), which again is evidence that only statal participles are true adjectives. (42) a. b. (43) a. b. (44) a. b. c.

a more exciting book *a more reading boy the book is more exciting *the boy is more reading the person is entertaining an entertaining person *an entertaining person (moment of speaking)

In (44a) entertaining can refer to a permanent or to a temporary feature: the verbal force of the participle is explicit when a direct object is present as in The person is entertaining the audience. Sentence (44b), however, can only refer to a characteristic feature. When the participle precedes the noun it is interpreted as a permanent feature, a temporary reading is not possible (44c). This accounts for the fact that only intransitive participles can be used in attributive position.15 Whenever a verb occurs without a complement it refers to a STATE (excite); whenever it occurs with a complement it refers to an ACTIVITY (excite the audience).16

Greenbaum et al. (1985: 1325) speak of a "tendency towards permanence in the interpretation of premodifying participles" in expressions like a working man. They inform us that with -ed participles there appears to be divided usage, with increasing acceptance of the occurrence of very with a Ay-agent phrase containing a personal agent (?The man was very offended by the policeman.). In the absence of any explicit indicator as in The man was offended, the status of the participle form is indeterminate: the participle interpretation focuses on the process, while the adjective interpretation focuses on the state resulting from the process. Cf. Mittwoch (1982).

Functional Affixes and Downward Percolation

39

Action participles, which refer to a temporary feature, still bear the event position of the underlying verb: They are stage level predicates in the sense of Kratzer (1988). Participles which refer to a permanent feature are individual level predicates and do not have an event position. Participles which can be used as adjectives should be classified in two subclasses. One group consists of participles which have lost their verbal force. Like adjectives, they refer to a permanent attribute of a nominal head and they are gradable. Premodification by the intensifier very as well as cooccurrence with items of comparison are explicit indicators that the forms have achieved adjectival status. Like true adjectives, they can be used in attributive and predicative position. The second group contains action participles, i.e. participles which are still verbs, although they can be used in attributive position. That they are not gradable makes their verbal status evident. Again, the -ing affix of this second group does not bear an inherent category feature, because the verbal features are still visible after the affixation. So these verbal adjectives represent another mismatch between internal and external behaviour: externally (i.e. distributionally) the item should be classified as an adjective, internally the verbal features are maintained. According to our approach the formation of verbal adjectives is syntactically driven: the syntactic context, i.e. the nominal projection, triggers the transformation of a verb into a participle, which is still a verbal category. The nominal feature reaches only the maximal projection and does not percolate into the projection; in this case, the verbal features of the head are maintained, whereas the distribution is changed. In the case of verbal adjectives, which are true adjectives, we suppose that the nominal feature percolates down to the verbal head and converts it into an adjective.

6. -ing and -ly as Functional Affixes Applying the criteria of lexical and functional elements in syntax to morphological elements the affixes -ing and -ly can be classified as functional elements. " Lexical affixes bear an inherent category feature and thus have a categorial signature, which is subject to head percolation. Connected to the category features there is a referential position which substitutes the referential position of the lexeme which they are affixed to (to establish --establishment ). Bearing a referential position, lexical affixes are of thematic relevance. For example, they can saturate an argument position in the PAS of the stem they are affixed to (in player the affix -er represents the external theta-role AGENT of the underlying verb). Functional affixes do not have an inherent categorial feature, nor do they have a categorial signature. Rather, they specify morpho-syntactic features in the categorial signature of the lexeme they are affixed to. The most prominent functional affixes are inflectional affixes, but much the same is valid for -ly and -ing. Functional affixes are able to extract a

17

Following a list of criteria from Rauh (1997), Krivocapic (1998) was able to prove the existence of lexical and functional affixes.

40

Hildegard Farke

category feature from the syntactic context which percolates down into a projection closing up the specification of the categorial signature. Following Lieber (1980, 1992) we suggest two classes which correspond to different word internal percolation processes: 1. Derivational affixes, which are lexical affixes, have categorial signatures projecting via head percolation, i.e. they can be category changing. 2. Inflectional affixes, on the other hand, do not have categorial signatures; rather, they transmit features via backup percolation into the categorial signatures of the lexemes they are affixed to. So they cannot change the syntactic category. Head percolation and backup percolation applies only word-internally; thus they do not cover a syntactically determined change of category, a process which must be assumed for adverbs, gerunds and verbal adjectives. Extending Lieber's approach we propose a third percolation process with the characteristic property of applying downwards. This process of downward percolation is necessary for syntactically determined category changes, but also for contextual inflection (agreement).18

7. Internal and External Processes The distinction between internal and external processes cannot only be identified for inflection (Booij 1995) but also for derivation. Examining prefix-verbs in French Di Sciullo (1997) finds adverbial prefixes (re-, de-) and prepositional prefixes (a-, -en). These types of affixes have different properties: Adverbial prefixes precede prepositional prefixes (reapporter, reemporter, *areporter), can be iterated, which is not possible for prepositional prefixes (rerefaire, redefaire, *aemporter, *enapporter), they cannot influence the argument structure of the stem while prepositional prefixes do have an impact on the stem's argument structure being part of the argument structure domain of the verb (VP). (45) il a (re)ferme" le donjon He locked the dungeon (46) il a enferme" le dragon dans le donjon He locked the dragon in the dungeon. Adverbial prefixes can specify the aspectual position in INFL (sentential aspect) but cannot change verbal aspect (aktionsart), which is possible for prepositional prefixes (courir 'to run for five minutes'; accourir 'to hasten up in five minutes'). Adverbial prefixes have scope over the whole event, while prepositional prefixes refer only to a subpart of the event, a fact already pointed out by Di Sciullo/Williams:

According to our analysis, zero affixes are functional affixes, i.e. they do not have an inherent, but a contextually determined category feature which percolates down into the projection (to blanket); their phonological emptiness being a regular feature of functional elements.

Functional Affixes and Downward Percolation

41

"..some affixes have more syntactic relevance than others...affixes more relevant to syntax appear outside affixes less relevant to syntax...syntactically relevant affixes appear on the periphery of words because only there can their features determine the features of the word as a whole, and only when the features of the affix determine the features of the whole can it affect the syntactic properties of the whole." (Di Sciullo/Williams 1987: 70)

On the basis of these properties, Di Scuillo (1997) assumes different structural positions for the two classes of prefixes: adverbial prefixes are external, i.e adjunctions to the maximal projection of V, prepositional prefixes are internal, i.e. adjuncts of the verbal stem. The following generalization can be postulated for internal and external processes:19 Internal inflection (e.g. number, gender, comparison) concerns the head/lexeme, while external inflection refers to agreement relations and syntactically determined change of category, i.e. to the extended projection or to the maximal lexical projection. Internal derivation can change the argument structure as well as verbal aspect, and it can change the syntactic category. This process again refers to the head/lexeme. External derivation changes sentential aspect and refers to the extended projection or to the maximal lexical projection.

8. Concluding Remarks Internal morphological processes work on lexical elements, i.e. stems and affixes with inherent category features and referential relevance, whereas functional elements are involved in external morphological processes. Functional affixes are category neutral, but they are able to extract a category feature from the syntactic context and pilot it into the categorial signature of an underdetermined projection. This is what happens in cases of external, syntactically determined inflection. A change of syntactic category can be induced by internal derivation, i.e. by means of a lexical affix which bears an inherent category feature or by external inflection. External processes apply at the interface between lexical and syntactic representation. Functional affixes are spell outs of functional projections, which are established (a) on the basis of inherent properties of the lexical head and (b) as the result of downward percolation. Functional projections constitute that part of structure where lexical and syntactic projections coincide. Actually, Lieber's percolation processes refer only to the lexeme cate-

19

According to this classification, separable prefixes in German (urn-^, durch-, unter-, über-, hinter-, nach-) should be external prefixes, as in 'um-fahren (= knock down with a car): (i) Er fuhr das Schild um. vs. Er hat das Schild umgefahren. 'He drove the signpost down.1 vs. 'He has the signpost downdriven ge-Verb-perfect· 'He knocked down the signpost with his car.' whereas the prefixes um-2, be-, ver-, er-, ent-, zer- are internal prefixes. They are not separable, have an influence on verbal aspect, and cannot be iterated, e.g. um-'fahren (= drive around something): (ii) Er hat den Platz umfahren, vs. *Er hat den Platz umgefahren, vs. *Er fuhr den Platz um 'He has the square arounddriven.' vs. '*He has the square arounddriven ge_verb-perfect··' vs. '*He drove the square around.' 'He has driven around the square.'

42

Hildegard Farke

gory, i.e. the maximal lexical projection that is only accessible to internal inflection and internal derivation. However, external inflection and external derivation also affect the extended or functional projection, demanding that downward percolation is a necessary device for exchanging information between lexical and functional projections. Extending Lieber's notion of categorial signature and specifying its internal organisation in the sense of Anderson (1988:167) we conclude that every item is specified for • inherent features which reflect inherent and category-specific properties of a word (Number, Gender for N; Tense, Aspect for V, and Degree for A) and which are accessed by agreement rules; • configurational features which are determined by the position or function as a constituent of a phrase or syntactic configuration (Case); • agreement features which are determined by the characteristics of another element in the same projection (Number, Gender, Person, Case etc.) Lexical elements (stems and derivational affixes) have an inherent category feature. But as we have shown, a category feature can also be a configurational feature in the case of gerundive -ing or an agreement feature in the case of —ing in verbal adjectives and —fy in deadjectival adverbs. Since all of these features are of morphosyntactic relevance they must be visible to syntax. The strict ordering of affixes with respect to the base indicates a hierarchical structure of the features: affixes which realize inherent features appear closest to the base, and configurational features are closer than agreement features.

agreement features

X

agreement features

configurational features

configurational features

inherent features

inherent features

So contextual inflection, i.e. agreement, and configurational inflection, tends to be peripheral with respect to inherent inflection: for example, case on nouns is usually external to number, and person and number affixes on verbs are external to tense and aspect markers. When X has an inherent category feature, it is projected via head percolation, whereas configurational or agreement features are spread via backup or downward percolation.

Functional Affixes and Downward Percolation

43

References Abney, S. (1987): The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential Aspect. Ph.D. Diss. Cambridge, MA. Alexiadou, A. (1997): Adverb Placement: A Case Study in Antisymmetric Syntax. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Anderson, S.R. (1982): Where's morphology? In: Linguistic Inquiry 13, 571-612. - (1988): Inflection. In: M. Hammond, N. Noonan (eds.): Theoretical Morphology. 23-44. Orlando: Academic Press. - (1992): A-Morphous Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Baker, M. (1985): The mirror principle and morphosyntactic explanation. In: Linguistic Inquiry 16, 372-416. Barton, E.L. (1990): Asymmetries in theories of extended phrase structure. In: Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society 26, 49-59. Beard, R. (1995): Lexeme-Morpheme Based Morphology. Albany: SUNY Press. Booij, G. (1993): Against split morphology. In: G. Booij, J. van Marie (eds.): Yearbook of Morphology 1993, 27-49. Dordrecht: Kluwer. - (1995): Inherent versus contextual inflection and the split morphology hypothesis. In: G. Booij, J. van Marie (eds.): Yearbook of Morphology 1995, 1-16. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Borer, H. (1984): The projection principle and rules of morphology. In: Proceedings ofNELS 14, 1633. Bybee, J. (1985): Morphology. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Chomsky, N. (1970): Remarks on nominalization. In: R. Jacobs, P. Rosenbaum (eds.): Readings in Transformational Grammar, 184-221. Waltham, MA: Blaisdell Di Sciullo, A.-M. (1997): Prefixed-verbs and adjunct identification. In: A.-M. Di Sciullo (ed.): Projections and Interface Conditions. Essays on Modularity. New York: Oxford University Press. Di Sciullo, A.-M., Williams, E. (1987): On the Definition of Word. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Emonds, I.E. (1985): A Unified Theory of Syntactic Categories. Dordrecht: Foris. Fabb, N. (1984): Syntactic Affixation. Diss. Cambridge, MA. Felix, S.W. (1990): The structure of functional categories. In: Linguistische Berichte 125, 46-70. Greenbaum, S., Quirk, R., Leech, G., Svartvik, J. (1985): A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman. Halle, M., Marrantz, A. (1993): Distributed morphology and pieces of inflection. In: K. Hale, S. Keyser (eds): The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor ofSylvian Bromberger, 111-176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Haspelmath, M. (1995): Word-class-changing inflection and morphological theory. In: G. Booij, J. van Marie (eds.): Yearbook of Morphology 1995, 43-66. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Higginbotham, J. (1985): On semantics. In: Linguistic Inquiry 16, 547-593. Jackendoff, R.S. (1972): Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. - (1977): X'-Syntax. A study of Phrase Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Kratzer, A. (1988): Stage-level and individual-level predicates. Ms. University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Krivocapic, J. (1998): Die '-ing'-Affigierung. Zur Frage funktionaler Kategorien in der Morphologie. unpubl. MA thesis. Göttingen. Lapointe, S. (1993): Dual lexical categories and the syntax of mixed category phrases. In: Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics 1993, 199-210. Larson, R.K. (1985): Bare NP-adverbs. In: The Linguistic Review 16, 595-621. - (1987): Missing prepositions. In: Linguistic Inquiry 18, 239-266. Lieber, R. (1980): On the Organization of the Lexicon. Diss. Cambridge, MA. — (1992): Deconstructing Morphology: Word Formation in Syntactic Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

44

Hildegard Farke

Marie, J. van (1995): The unity of morphology: on the interwovenness of the derivational and inflectional dimension of the word. In: G. Booij, J. van Marie (eds.): Yearbook of Morphology 1995, 67-82. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Ouhalla, J. (1991): Functional Heads and Parametric Variation. London: Routledge. Milsark, G.L. (1988): Singl '-ing1. In: Linguistic Inquiry 19, 611-634. Pullum, G. (1991): English nominal gerund phrases as noun phrases with VP heads. In: Linguistics 29, 763-799. Radford, A. (1988): Transformational Grammar: A First Course. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. - (1997): Syntax: A Minimalist Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rauh, G. (1997): Englische Präpositionen zwischen lexikalischen und funktionalen Kategorien. In: E. Löbel, G. Rauh (eds.): Lexikalische Kategorien und Merkmale, 125-167. Tübingen: Niemeyer (= Linguistische Arbeiten 366). - (1999). Adverb oder Präposition? Von der Notwendigkeit einer Abgrenzung von Wortarten und grammatischen Kategorien und der Gefahr einer terminologischen Falle. In: E. Eggers, J. Becker, J. Udolph, D. Weber (eds.): Florilegium Linguisticum. Festschrift für W. P. Schmid zum 70. Geburtstag, 367-392. Frankfurt a.M., Berlin, Bern, Bruxelles, New York, Wien: P.Lang. Roberts, I. (1988): Subject-predicated APs are in VP. In: Linguistic Inquiry 19/4, 703-710. Rochette, A. (1990): The selectional properties of adverbs. In: Proceedings of Chicago Linguistic Society 26, 379-392. Selkirk, E. (1982): The Syntax of Words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Spencer, M. (1991): Morphological Theory. Oxford: Blackwell. Stump, G.T. (1998): Inflection. In: A. Spencer; A. Zwicky (eds.): The Handbook of Morphology, 1343. Oxford: Blackwell. Valois, D. (1991): The internal syntax of DP and adjective placement in French and English. In: Proceedings ofNELS2\, 367-382. Williams, E. (1981): On the notions 'lexically related' and 'head of the word'. In: Linguistic Inquiry 12, 245-274. Yoon, J. (1996): Nominal gerund phrases in English as phrasal zero derivations. In: Linguistics 34, 329-356. Yoon, J., Yoon, J. (1990): Morphosyntactic mismatches and the function-content distinction. In: Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society 26, 453-467. Zwicky, A. (1989): Quicker, more quickly, *quicklier. In: G. Booij, J. van Marie (eds.): Yearbook of Morphology!, 139-173. Dordrecht: Kluwer. - (1995): Why English adverbial '-ly1 is not inflectional. In: Proceedings of Chicago Linguistic Society 31,523-535.

Jelena Krivokapic The -ing-Affixes: towards a Classification

1. Introduction The different functions of the affix have given rise to many analyses and clear criteria for a classification have not yet been defined. In what follows I will look at certain constructions containing -ing affixes and by applying the percolation mechanisms suggested by Lieber (1988, 1990), by looking at the theta-relations involved and by making use of the notion of functional categories, will propose criteria for the classification of the various -/«g-affixes. The differences between the affixes which will be revealed in the course of the discussion account for the different properties of the -/«^-constructions involved (see 1-3). (1)

the [be + V-ingJ-construction: a. The children are playing football, b He is reading a book. (2) the nominal -ing-construction: a. John's constant playing of football irritates me. b Mary's playing of the piano is driving me mad. (3) the POSS-ing-construction: a. Mary's proving the theorem took 2 minutes. b. John's loudly reading a story surprised us.

The syntactic and semantic behaviour of the V-ing head hi each of these constructions will be the basis for defining the properties of the -ing-affixes involved. There are two salient differences between the affixes, which will be connected with the mechanisms they use to project their features and with the theta-relationships they enter with their complements.

2. The Characteristics of the Affix -ing In what follows I shall give a brief account of the syntactic and semantic properties of the affix -ing in each of the three constructions, i.e.: - the [be + V-ing]-construction (2.1.), - the nominal -ing-construction (2.2.), and - the POSS-ing-construction (2.3.).

46

Jelena Krivokapic

2.1. The [be + V-ing]-Construction The affix -ing in the [be + V-ing] construction (cf. (1) above) marks the progressive aspect (cf. Ouhalla 1991, van Gelderen 1993, Felser 1995).' This follows if we assume that be is a realisation of Infl features (cf. Ouhalla 1991: 76ff). Further proof comes from the fact that -ing marks the progressive in constructions where be does not appear (for example in the constituents which are complements of verbs of perception or catenative verbs). Ouhalla (1990) assumes that this construction is an AspP (cf. van Gelderen 1993).2 The affix -ing is head of the phrase and it has nominal features. As the sentences below show, this is not an acceptable solution in a lexicalist approach since the affix does not change the syntactic category of the lexeme it attaches to (cf. the verbal properties which are preserved: the assignment of structural case, passive, modification by an adverb, do so substitution).1 The sentences also show that -ing does not change the predicate argument structure (PAS) and lexical conceptual structure (LCS) of the base verb, which leads to the conclusion that -ing does not have any thematic positions of its own.4 (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)

[He] reads [a book] every day. [He] is reading [a book]. [He] put [glasses] [on the table]. [He] was putting [glasses] [on the table] when I came home. He was reading a book. The book was being read. Mary won't be playing football tomorrow, but John will. She was quickly skimming through the letters. She was running when I saw her yesterday, and she was doing so again when I saw her today.

The affix -ing subcategorises for verbs and is fully productive, i.e. the affix in these constructions attaches to any verbal stem which obeys its selectional restrictions without further idiosyncratic restrictions. It selects verbs which are not state verbs. Following Brinton (1989) these verbs are characterised here as [+dynamic].5 The affix -ing s-selects the feature [+dynamic],6 and since this feature is related to verbs, the affix will attach to an element of the category [+V,-N] by canonical structural realisation. After -ing is affixed, no

1

2 3 4

3

6

This and similar V-ing constructions are often referred to as participles, a term I will not use since I will look only at this particular construction. Cf. footnote 18 for an argument against -ing as Asp0. This is not a problem for Ouhalla (1991), since in his framework affixation is a syntactic process. Thematic positions' are all positions in the LCS and PAS except for the referential position of nouns and the event position of verbs. For this paper, only the referential position of nouns and the event position of verbs are relevant, so I will not discuss whether similar positions are to be postulated for elements of the category P or A. Cf. Zwarts (1992) and Rauh (1997) for a discussion of these issues. Whether this feature is taken to follow from the LCS of these verbs, or whether it should be explicitly specified, or maybe connected to the event-position of the verb is not relevant for the present purpose. A correction is necessary: although generally speaking, the above generalisation is true, it is well known that -ing attaches to some state verbs, too, cf. Brinton (1988: 39ff). Some finer distinction needs to be made between verbs that can and those that cannot take the progressive marker. Also some changes in the s-selectional properties of state verbs may be found.

The -ing-Affixes

47

further inflectional or derivational affixation is possible (*dancinged, *dancingment), the former being a characteristic of English inflectional affixes, the latter of inflection in general. The transparency of meaning of the V-ing forms is also typical of-ing.

2.2. The nominal -/«g-Construction We shall now take a look at the nominal -/«g-construction (cf. 2, repeated below as 13 and 14), which are to be distinguished from the nominals in (15) and (16):7 (13) (14) (15) (16)

John's constant playing of football irritates me. Mary's playing of the piano is driving me mad. The buildings of the factory are ugly. I've never been to a wedding.

The head V-ing of the nominal -mg-construction has the syntactic properties of a noun, as can be seen from the following examples: they take the definite article or the demonstrative pronoun, V-ing does not assign case, the phrase has to be assigned case, it has the distribution of DPs." (17) This killing of seals has to be stopped. (Hansen 1990: 66) (18) That chairing of the session by John was exciting. (Hansen 1990: 66) (19) a. His quick drawing of the picture surprised me. (Hansen 1990: 66) b. *His quickly drawing of the picture surprised me. (Hansen 1990: 66) c. *His drawing of the picture quickly surprised me. (Hansen 1990: 66) (20) No smoking of cigars in here! (Hansen 1990: 66) (21) a. The singing of old songs irritates him. b. *The singing old songs irritates him.' (22) a. *It was believed the building of the city to take a long time, b. The building of the city was believed to take a long time. (23) a. They criticised his singing of old songs, b. His singing of old songs was criticised.

It can be concluded that the affix -ing in this construction changes the category of the base verb to a noun and therefore has the features [+N, -V]. Other properties of the affix in this construction are that it renders a process reading (cf. for example Bland 1985, Randall 1988, Grimshaw 1990, Hansen 1990) and that it can be attached to all verbs except to state verbs (cf. Fräser 1970, although there are some coun-

7

8 9

As has been noted in the literature (cf. Fabb 1984, Bland 1985, Randall 1988, Hansen 1990) examples like (15) and (16) differ from (13) and (14) in that they allow plural forms and the indefinite article, have a non-process reading and the o/phrase functions as a modifier (Grimshaw 1990). By distinguishing these two constructions the problem of the unclear properties of these 'mixed forms' (Chomsky 1970) is avoided. Cf. Fabb (1984), Bland (1985), Grimshaw (1990) and Hansen (1990) for these and further properties. POSS-ing-constmctions like John's singing old songs irritates him are to be distinguished from nominal - ing-constructions. They will be dealt with shortly.

48

Jelena Krivokapic

terexamples).10 Apparently then, it has the same s-selectional properties as the progressive -ing, namely it s-selects [+dynamic] verbs.11 The affix , however, does not change the LCS of the base verb, as the following examples show: (24) a. The enemy's destroying of the city. b.The enemy destroyed the city. (25) a. John's giving of a book to Mary, b. John gave a book to Mary. (26) a. John's buying of the book from Mary, b. John bought the book from Mary.

The thematic positions of the LCS of the verb are preserved: in all of these cases there are AGENT and THEME and additionally GOAL in (25) and SOURCE in (26). The external argument does not have to be realised (cf. 27). Although PRO could be postulated, as Roeper (1987: 278ff.) does in order to explain the control properties in (28), I will assume that PRO is not generated - in order to account for the violation of Binding-Principle A in (29) and (30), and I will leave unanswered the question how control is achieved. (27) a. He denied the murder. b. The denying of the murder (28) The playing of the game to prove the point. [The PRO playing of the game PRO to prove a point.] (29) a. *The hitting of each other b. Their hitting of each other (30) a. *The hurting of himself b. John's hurting of himself

The syntactic realisation of the arguments is thus as follows: the external argument of the base verb is inherited by V-ing but it is optional. It can be realised in various syntactic positions: in Spec.DP as in (26), in an o/phrase (if the internal argument of the base verb is optional or the verb is intransitive, cf. 31) or as an adjunct in a Ay-phrase (as in 32). The internal argument is realised as a complement to N.12

Some further restrictions have to be mentioned: both double object verbs ( b) and phrasal verbs (a) allow, when nominalized with -ing, only one sequence: a.(i) He looked the information up. - He looked up the information. (ii) *His looking of the information up. - His looking up of the information. b.(i) He gave her the book. - He gave the book to her. (ii) *His giving to her the book. - His giving of the book to her. In addition, like other deverbal nominals, these -mg-nominalizations do not allow small clause complements. Neither do they allow CP complements, which is also true of other deverbal nominals which have a process reading. All of these restrictions seem to be related to casemarking and thetamarking in nominal constructions in general, and not specifically to the affix -ing. There is no agreement as to the precise reason for these restrictions, but for some suggestions cf. Bland (1985) and Hansen (1990) for the nominal -ing-construction and Grimshaw (1990) for deverbal nouns in general. For a detailed discussion of the realisation of the arguments of these nominals, cf. Bland (1985) and Hansen (1990) and for the conditions which have to be met in order for an element to realise its internal argument in [Spec, DP] - which is not possible in the nominal -i«g-construction. Cf. Zubizarreta/van Haaften (1988).

The -ing-Affixes

49

Further affixation is not possible (33, 34). (31) (32) (33) (34)

The singing of the birds (Hansen 1990: 118) The destroying of the city by the enemy (Hansen 1990: 90) *The destroyings of the city *The dancingment in the hall

2.3. The POSS-ing-Construcuon What is particular about the /OSSWflg-constructions (cf. 3 above) is that it has both verbal and nominal characteristics.11 /OSSWng-constructions appear on S-Structure in case-marked positions - therefore typically occupied by DPs. They appear in [Spec, IP] as in (35), as complements of V or P as in (36, 37). The sentence (38)b and the ungrammatical (38)a show that POSS-ingconstructions need case: (38)a is ungrammatical because neither [-tns] Infl nor the passive verb assigns case to the construction. This results in a violation of the Case Filter. In (38)b raising takes place and the constituent gets case from [+tns] Infl of the matrix clause, which results in the construction being grammatical. (35) John's playing football irritates his father. (36) Nobody liked John's playing football. (37) I'm worried about John's playing football. (38) a. *It was believed John's playing football to be the best thing he could do. b. John's playing football was believed to be the best thing he could do. (39) a. John's coming home and Mary's leaving it * bothers/bother me. (cf. Abney 1987: 175) b. That John came and that Mary left bothers/*bother me. (Abney 1987: 175) (40) *The teacher's assignings difficult problems surprised us. The internal structure of the POSS-ing-constmcuon exhibits both verbal and nominal characteristics: (41) The teacher's assigning a difficult task surprised everyone. (42) a. John's loudly reading a story surprised us. b. *John's loud reading a story surprised us. (43) John's not singing well ruined the evening. (44) John's being beaten up by his own friends surprised us. (45) a. John's giving Mary a book delighted her parents. b. John's giving a book to Mary delighted her parents. (46) His believing Mary to be innocent surprised us. (47) a. Do you insist on our looking the information up? (Hansen 1990: 215) b. Do you insist on our looking up the information? The essential characteristics found in the POSS-ing-construction (i.e.: V-ing assigns structural case, modification by adjectives, passive formation, alternation in double object constructions, separable phrasal verb constructions) strongly suggest that V-ing has the catego-

Only the most salient features of this construction will be listed. For more detailed discussions cf. Wasow/Roeper (1972), Horn (1975), Schachter (1976), Baker (1985), Abney (1987), Milsark (1988), Hansen (1990) and the literature cited there. This construction is often referred to as gerund or NP-ing construction, a term which covers more than just the POSS-ing type.

50

Jelena Krivokapic

rial status of a verb. On the other side, it is typical of a nominal that genitive case is assigned to the external argument of V-ing. Since the external distribution suggests that the constituent is a DP, the genitive case can be seen as assigned to [Spec, DP] by D, as it is in other nominal phrases. One may ask whether there are independent arguments for postulating other functional categories in these constructions than DP. The typically verbal properties just mentioned would render IP a potential candidate; however, the fact that Infl-elements do not appear in these constructions and the fact that they do not have a tense interpretation independent of their matrix clause (cf. Shaer 1996: 269f.) are arguments against such an analysis.14 The POSS-ing-constiucuon is a DP, where D licenses a VP as its complement: [DP John's j [VP tj [v, [v reading] [DP a book]]]].15

Other characteristics of the POSS-ing affix are that it is affixed to verbs, that it is fully productive (cf. Abney 1987, Hansen 1990) and that it does not change the LCS of the verb, as illustrated in (48) and (49): (48) a. b. (49) a. b.

John put the book on the table. John's putting the book on the table. John bought the picture from Mary, John's buying the picture from Mary.

An important criterion of classification that has to be added is the fact that further affixation (to be more precise: inflectional affixation) is impossible, cf. the following examples: (50) * John's p\ay'mged football (51) * John's playings football

To summarise, the affix in the [be + V~ing] construction does not change the category of the verb and preserves its LCS and PAS. It marks the progressive aspect. The affix in the nominal -ing construction is a nominalising affix and renders the external argument optional. Both attach to [+dynamic] verbs. In POSS-ing constructions, the affix preserves the argument structure, attaches to all verbs, does not change the category of the verb, but V-ing has a DP as its functional category.

14

For a discussion of the perfective have, which can appear in the POSS-ing construction, cf. Hansen (1990: 322ff.). Hansen's main point is that the perfective have in these constructions is a) semantically redundant and b) if there is any perfective information in it, then it is inherent in have and not dependent on a tense operator. Cf. also Shaer (1996: 269f.). " This is the structure Shaer (1996) assumes. Abney (1987) argues for a similar construction with the difference that he takes -ing to be nominal and that it is affixed in the syntactic component. There is an obvious problem here, namely that D takes VP as a complement, which I will discuss in 3.2.

The -ing-Affixes

51

3. The Analysis

The following questions will be central for determining the properties of the affixes: 1. Does the affix contain grammatical features (syntactically relevant features in the sense of Anderson 1992)? 2. What kind of LCS and PAS does the affix contain? Does it contain one position in its LCS and PAS which is discharged by thetaidentification with the referential position of the lexical complement, or does it contain at least a referential position in its LCS and PAS which substitutes the referential position of the lexeme it attaches to? 3. Does the affix have a categorial signature and therefore determine the category of the word? 4. How does projection take place? Does the affix project its features by backup percolation or by head percolation? The answer to this question will follow from the questions 1 and 3. In order to answer these questions, percolation processes and theta-relations between the affixes and their complements have to be examined.16

3.1. Percolation The category and the morpho-syntactic features of heads are determined by percolation processes. Di Sciullo/Williams (1987) define 'head' relatively, thereby allowing more than one head in an X° element: A head for a feature is the rightmost morpheme which contributes this feature. " This definition allows that inflectional affixes need not be specified for category features (as opposed to derivational affixes) because they do not change the category of the lexeme they attach to. An inflectional affix projects the feature it specifies (for example, in dog-s, the morpheme -s projects only [+plural]) and the stem projects its category features. In Lieber's (1988, 1990) framework, which I have adopted here, inflectional affixes project their features by backup percolation, while stems project their features by head percolation." Inflectional affixes project grammatical features that are syntactically relevant (in the sense of Anderson 1992), and head percolation is used for the projection of the

For the theoretical framework see esp. Di Sciullo/Williams (1987), Lieber (1988, 1992), Speas (1990), Higginbotham (1985), Grimshaw (1990) and Rauh (1997). Di Sciullo/Williams's (1987: 26) definition of "head F" (read: head with respect to feature F): "The head F of a word is the rightmost element of the word marked for the feature F." Each language sets the parameter for 'head F' on 'rightmost' or 'leftmost'. The problems that arise if, as is the case, we do not assume rewriting rules (for example for category changing prefixes) cannot be discussed here. I have kept the terms 'head' and 'backup percolation' although, following Di Sciullo/Williams (1987), I classify inflectional affixes as heads and, in addition to that, I assume that projection takes place only in the morphological component.

52

Jelena Krivokapic

categorial signature. The categorial signature is understood as a frame containing morphosyntactic features relevant for a particular category. Only stems and category changing affixes have a categorial signature.19 The affix -ing in the [be + V-ing] construction marks the progressive aspect, therefore I assume that it contains the feature [+progressive], which has to be projected. Since -ing does not change the category of the verb, there is no need to assume that it has any category features and consequently no categorial signature either. The affix only needs to project [+progressive]. The verb projects its categorial signature. The percolation processes taking place are therefore the following (cf. the diagram in 55): the verb projects its categorial signature by head percolation (step 1 and 2) and the affix projects its feature by backup percolation (step 3). The resulting X° element (V-ing) is a verb.2" In the case of the affix -ing in the nominal -ing construction we have an affix which determines the category of V-ing and therefore does have category features ([+N, -V]) and a categorial signature. In this case, the verb projects its categorial signature by head percolation (step 1, cf. the diagram in 57) and the affix also projects its categorial signature by head percolation (step 2). Since V-ing in the nominal-//?^ construction does not allow plural forms, the categorial signature of-ing will not contain a slot for this feature. I will discuss the affix -ing in the POSS-ing construction in more detail shortly. For now, suffice to say that, since it does not contain any grammatical features, backup percolation should be excluded.

3.2. Theta-Relations The next question concerns the type of theta-relations which the affixes constitute with their complements. Speas (1990) adapts Higginbotham's (1985) framework and defines three modes of theta-discharge: theta-marking (typically the relation of a verb with its arguments), theta-identification (for example the relation of an adjective with the noun it modifies) and theta-binding (the relation between a functional element and its lexical complement). The progressive -ing marks the progressive aspect. Aspect expresses the speaker's point of view on a situation as regards its internal temporal qualities, i.e. whether a situation is considered to be completed or not (cf. Comrie 1976)). Aspect can therefore be taken to modify the internal temporal structure of a situation as it is specified by the -position of

Cf. Lieber (1992: 92). a) Head Percolation: Morphosyntactic features are passed from a head morpheme to the node dominating the head. Head Percolation propagates the categorial signature, b) Backup Percolation: If the node dominating the head remains unmarked for a given feature after Head Percolation, then a value for that feature is percolated from an immediately dominated nonhead branch marked for that feature. Backup Percolation propagates only values for unmarked features and is strictly local. The categorial signature is a frame of morphosyntactic features headed by the category features [±N], [±V] that are of syntactic relevance for a particular category in a particular language. (Lieber 1992: 88f.). In the framework of strong lexicalism the question whether -ing is the head of a syntactic projection AspP does not arise. But one could postulate that V-ing is Asp0, instead of V°, as assumed here. The main reason against Asp0 is that V-ing behaves like a lexical head, most notably by assigning theta-roles such as AGENT, THEME (cf. the examples 4-7).

The -ing-Affixes

53

the verb (cf. Gallon 1984, Felser 1995). Syntactic modifications (through adjuncts) are taken to be a theta-identification relation between the referential position of the element to be modified and the external position of the adjunct (cf. Higginbotham 1985, Speas 1990, Rauh 1997). Since aspect modifies the internal temporal structure and therefore has a function parallel to that of other modifiers, the relationship between V and -ing can be taken to be theta-identification.21 In order for theta-identification to be possible, we also have to assume that the progressive -ing has a position in its LCS and PAS. As to how the LCS and the PAS are related, I will adopt Speas' (1990) idea for the LCS and PAS of functional elements: she postulates that functional elements, too, have an LCS and PAS containing one position. But in contrast to the positions in the PAS of lexical elements, which are linked to referential variables in their LCS, the position in the PAS of functional elements is linked to a predicate variable in LCS. If we adopt this suggestion, the progressive -ing will have a variable in its LCS which is predicated of the progressive aspect (cf. the lexical entry in 54). The affix s-selects the -position of the verb. This is plausible not only since aspect modifies the situation specified by the verb, but also because -ing was said to be sensitive to the semantic feature [dynamic] of the verb. Wherever this feature is to be located, it seems likely that the -position will in some sense reflect this characteristic, since refers to the situation, event, etc. given by the verb, and [dynamic] specifies this situation. The position in the PAS of the affix is discharged by theta-identification with the referential position of the base verb. An alternative approach should be mentioned: Ouhalla (1991: 209f.) suggests that -ing in this construction theta-binds and that the tense operator binds the position of be. This does not seem plausible because be, as a realisation of Infl-features, and without semantic content, is not likely to have an position at all, since this position refers to the situation the verb describes. Therefore, if -ing binds of the base verb and be does not have an position, the tense operator will not be able to operate on and will not be able to discharge the position in its PAS. The only possibility left is to assume that -ing theta-identifies with . Also, it is for this reason that theta-binding of a referential position in the morphological component should be excluded, because the referential position of a lexeme will always have to be bound by the functional element in the syntax. The affix -ing in the nominal construction has no thematic positions in its LCS, but since it turns V-ing into a verb, it has to contribute the referential position. One of the characteristics of this construction is that it allows neither plural nor the indefinite article. This can be explained if we adopt Grimshaw's (1990) suggestion, who proposes a differentiation between nominals with respect to their argument structure. She distinguishes between nouns which have an - and those which have an -position. Only those with an position allow plural and the indefinite article, which is achieved by assuming that the plural morpheme and the indefinite article do not select .22 (This also means that the categorial signature of such nouns will not contain a slot for [plural]). The differences between these two kinds of nominals as regards the determiners and the plural correlate with another difference, namely the process and result reading - - position nominals have a

21 22

The same suggestion, in a syntactic affixation approach, has been made by Schmidt (1995) and Felser (1995). This is not exactly what Grimshaw suggests but very similar to it (cf. Grimshaw 1990: 67f.).

54

Jelena Krivokapic

result reading, whereas nominals have a process reading. Both of these properties characterise the nominal -ing construction discussed here." I will therefore assume that -ing has the -position in its LCS and PAS. When affixed to the verb it substitutes the referential position of the verb with this position and the thematic positions of the LCS of V are inherited by V-ing. Next we turn to the POSS-ing construction. The properties of the affix -ing in this construction are the following: it does not contain category features (since it does not change the category of the verb), it does not change the LCS of the verb, it is fully productive, and V-ing cannot be affixed further. These characteristics correlate with the characteristics of the progressive -ing. But unlike the progressive -ing, the -ing in the POSS-ing construction does not contain any grammatical features. The obvious problem is how the word formation process takes place under the present approach, i.e. what is the contribution the affix makes to the construction. Under the present approach, an affix should either contribute a grammatical feature or the referential position. It cannot contribute a grammatical feature and since it does not change the category of the verb, a referential position might seem an unlikely contribution. But if -ing did not contribute a referential position, D would have to operate on - the referential position of verbs. This would be an unsatisfying solution and would raise the problem why there are no constructions like * John's played football, or * John's plays football. This leads to the assumption that V-ing in the POSS-ing construction has a referential position different from that of other verbs. This position has to be attributed to the affix -ing. It has to be a unique position, which is in accordance with the unique status the POSS-ing constructions have. In the following I shall refer to this position as .24 does not get selected, either by inflectional or by derivational affixes. As in the case of the nominal-/>ig construction, this explains why no further affixation takes place. The obvious problem with the DP-VP analysis is that D selects a VP. Part of the solution is that -ing contributes a unique referential position, but another problem remains: D specifies the grammatical features of its lexical complement. It is therefore to be expected that its complement will have nominal grammatical features, such as case, for example. Though morphological case cannot be proved for the English construction, Turkish gerund constructions (cf. Baker 1985, Abney 1987), which, according to Abney, are parallel to the English POSS-ing constructions support this hypothesis. The characteristics of the POSS-ing construction are derived in the same way as in Abney (1987) and Shaer (1996). The complement gets case from V-ing, the specifier DP from D. Adverbs are licensed in the same way verbs license them, although a further assumption

23

24

Grimshaw (1990) actually uses the nominal -ing construction as an example for the nominals. Another very important distinction she makes between and nominals is that only the former inherit (and therefore have) the argument structure of the verb. This point makes no difference to the present approach; so it will not be pursued further. This is unfortunate for two reasons: a) G is the position sometimes taken for the referential position of adjectives and b) the referential position should express the reference of the element it belongs to, which does not. Since a proper characterisation of the referential position of the POSS-ing head would require more research than can be conducted here, I will leave it as . A good candidate might be , if the analyses of Schachter (1976) and Hansen (1990) are correct with their suggestion that POSS-ing constructions have a factive interpretation.

The -ing-Affixes

55

needs to be made, namely that their external position can undergo theta-identification not only with the referential position , but also with . The processes taking place when -ing in the POSS-ing-construction is affixed (cf. 59) are parallel to those taking place when -ing in the nominal construction is affixed: the categorial signatures of V and of -ing are projected by head percolation (step 1 and 2 respectively). Backup percolation does not take place, since V does not contain any syntactically relevant features, and in any case, these would not be able to project into the categorial signature of-ing, since it contains slots for nominal features. The thematic positions in the LCS of the verb are inherited by V-ing and the referential position is substituted by the referential position of the affix. We have looked at the main processes taking place during word formation: percolation processes define the syntactic category and grammatical features of a lexical element and the argument structure of a lexical element is defined by inheritance and in some cases by the substitution of the referential position.25 I suggest that these are the processes to be looked at when the various -ing constructions are classified and that the properties which cannot be derived by these processes have to be attributed to syntax.

4. -/«g-Affixes as Functional Elements The properties of the three /«^-affixes discussed in the previous section will now be correlated with the properties of functional and lexical elements as they are defined for syntactic categories (cf. Abney 1987, Grimshaw 1991, Ouhalla 1991, Rauh 1997, 1996, Speas 1990, Wunderlich 1992, Haumann 1997, etc.) Of the three -mg-affixes mentioned the progressive -ing is most likely to be a functional element since it contains a grammatical feature, i.e. [+progressive]. This is the main characteristic which makes it 'eligible' for the class of functional elements. The fact that -ing does not change the syntactic category, the LCS, PAS and subcategorization frame of V can be related to the relevant properties of functional elements (i.e., like functional elements -ing is transparent for the content of V and its category features are not different from those of V). Also, like functional elements, it does not have any thematic positions in its LCS and PAS. What might be considered problematic is that -ing s-selects its complement, whereas functional elements are not supposed to select their lexical complement. As already mentioned, Speas (1990) suggests that functional elements have a position in their LCS and PAS, which according to the theta criterion (Higginbotham 1985) has to be discharged.K This in turn means (contrary to Grimshaw 1991) that they do select their lexical comple-

25

26

In other cases of derivational affixes, which in contrast to this -ing will usually change the thematic part of the LCS of the lexeme they attach to, other operations will be performed in addition to the substitution of the referential position. Speas' (1990) assumption has also been taken up by Felser (1995) and Schmidt (1995). Cf. especially Felser (1995) who argues for s-selectional properties of functional elements.

56

Jelena Krivokapic

ments. In the same vein, -ing was said to have a position in its PAS and LCS, which selects the -position of verbs. In the syntactic component the only theta-relation that functional elements enter with their complements is theta-binding (Speas 1990),27 and furthermore functional elements are the only elements that can bind a referential position. Theta-binding in the syntactic component is therefore an indicator of a functional element. In the morphological component theta-identification is likely to be the only possible theta-relation a functional affix can enter with its complement: theta-marking can be ruled out, since functional elements do not have thematic positions and theta-binding can be ruled out since the referential position of a lexical element is bound by a functional element in the syntactic component. Furthermore, since functional affixes are the only affixes likely to theta-identify with a referential position (because lexical affixes will substitute the referential position), theta-identification in the morphological component can be taken to be a characteristic of functional affixes. From the characteristics given so far it is likely that -ing is a functional element, a common assumption in the literature. Still, the question might be raised whether it is plausible to take an aspect marker to be a functional element in the first place. Different views are taken in the literature: whereas an AspP is assumed by Ouhalla (1991), van Gelderen (1993) and Felser (1995), to name a few, the opinion that such a functional category is not conceptually plausible, since aspect is a purely semantic category, is expressed for example in Wunderlich (1992). In the present approach, the plausibility of aspect as a functional element is assumed. Aspect can be seen as being analogous to D and Infl, which also contain semantic operators (determiner and tense, for example). Besides, the meaning of -ing is grammatical in the sense that it specifies a verbal category, as opposed to the more conceptual meaning of derivational affixes. Another aspect of functional elements is that they form extended projections with their lexical complements (cf. Grimshaw 1991). In order to define an extended projection, Grimshaw introduces the feature F. This feature specifies the status of an element as lexical or functional and assures the right order of the syntactic projections. The conditions set for an XP to be an extended projection of YP are: XP dominates YP, the F value of XP is one higher than of YP, the category features in an extended projection XP are identical to those of the lexical projection YP it dominates, and nodes intervening between X and Υ share all category features (cf. Grimshaw 1991). By specifying VPs as [F 0], IPs as [F 1] and CPs as [F 2], and by allowing only projections where the value of F rises, she makes sure that VP is dominated by IP and both are dominated by CP. If, as has been done above following Speas, the order of syntactic projections is assumed to follow from s-selectional properties of the elements involved, then F is redundant. Still, since the notion of'extended projection' is useful in defining the domain of percolation and projection, I would like to keep it and to extend it to X", in this case to V-ing. Turning first to the feature F: In Grimshaw's approach, apart from assuring the ordering of syntactic projections it also signals the functional or lexical status of an element. [F 0] is the value for lexical elements, higher values are reserved for functional elements. A lexical head X" always has the value [F 0]. Since V-ing was shown to involve a functional affix, I

Cf. Felser (1995) for a different approach.

The -ing-Affixes

57

suggest that -ing (and V-ing) have the value [F 1] and that the mechanism for specifying the feature F is the following: Each element has a slot for the feature F in its categorial signature. Lexical elements are not specified for F. This differs from Grimshaw's assumption (that they are [F 0]) but is necessary - if -ing, as a functional element, has the value [F 1], it has to percolate this feature, and can only do so if the slot in the categorial signature of the lexeme to be affixed is not specified already. All inflectional affixes (for the English language) are [F I].28 The categorial signature of a lexeme has only one slot for [F] (again, for English lexemes) thereby allowing only one inflectional affix. More than one inflectional affix is excluded since each inflectional affix has to project its F feature, and the slot for F will be specified by the first affix. If no inflectional affix is attached, the slot will be specified [F 1] by default rules, which is, according to Lieber (1990), the mechanism generally applied for features not specified by any of the percolation processes. In this case, the specification of all lexical heads as [F 1], latest at the D-structure, makes the distinction between lexical and functional elements less obvious, but is in accordance with the notion that every element in a sentence has a grammatical function. Therefore, the value [F] specifies the lexical vs. functional status of an element and prevents further affixation of inflectional affixes. Derivational affixation (after inflection) is prevented by the fact that a derivational affix has a categorial signature different from the categorial signature of the lexeme it attaches to. Its categorial signature will not allow the information of the already attached inflectional affix to project into it, since backup percolation can only take place if there is a slot for the feature to be percolated. Since derivational affixes generally change the syntactic category, they cannot have slots for the same features as the lexeme they attach to. In [X - inflectional affix - derivational affix] the information specified by the inflectional affix would not be visible any longer, so it would be redundant. This should be ruled out by economy principles, and the sequence [X - inflectional affix - derivational affix] is therefore not possible. It can be seen that the conditions for the formation of extended projections are satisfied for V-ing and V: the category features of V and V-ing are identical, V-ing dominates V and the value of [F] increases. V-ing is the extended projection of V. It differs from syntactic extended projections in that only one functional element is allowed in X" (in English) whereas more than one functional projections is allowed in a syntactic extended projection. All the characteristics mentioned show that the progressive -ing is a functional affix. Below are the lexical entry (54) and a diagram (55) of the affixation process illustrating the lexical base and the morphological derivation of a progressive -ing. (54) Lexical entry of the progressive -/«g-affix . ine 1 + progressive Fl PAS LCS

progressive(x) and B(x) B = referential position of [+dynamic] verbs

28

This assumption is based on the possibility that all inflectional affixes are functional elements and therefore have the value {F > 0}. Since in English a lexeme can have at the most one inflectional affix, the value of an inflectional affix should always be {F 1}.

58

Jelena Krivokapic

(55) V Tense I Person + Progressive

step 2:

theta-identifi cation 1,(2)) , ( x, y )

head percolation

Fl

, (x, y)

Tense I Person Progressive

step 1: head percolation

step 3: backup percolation

ing - I

play _ I V , (x, y)

Tense Progressive I Person p

+ progressive Fl Affixation processes

The characteristics of the affix -ing in the nominal construction are the following: it has category features and a categorial signature, it has a referential position which substitutes the referential position of the verb, and it does not contain grammatical features (in the the sense already mentioned). This last property is relevant for determining its status as a lexical element, since the central property of functional elements is that they specify a grammatical feature. Therefore, -ing in the nominal construction has to be a lexical element. We will now look at other properties of this affix to see how it correlates with the lexical vs. functional distinction. Since it changes the syntactic category of the lexeme, the affix cannot form an extended projection with the verb: it is nominal, and thereby it does not satisfy the condition of categorial identity (in the sense of Grimshaw 1991). Also, since it does not contain a grammatical feature, it cannot have the value [F 1] but must be unspecified for F. This in turn means that the second condition for the formation of extended projections (the raising of the value [F]) cannot be met. On the other hand, the fact that V-ing is semantically transparent displays one of the general characteristics of functional elements in the syntactic component but cannot be seen as a relevant and crucial criterion, since transparency of the semantic content of the complement is common in the morphological component. As to the thematic relations, the affix -ing in the nominal construction does not change the thematic positions in the LCS of the verb, which is parallel to the progressive

59

The -ing-Affixes

-ing. The fact that V-ing inherits all thematic positions of the verb V is unusual for a lexical affix and generally an indicator of a functional element. The lexical base and the crucial parts of the affixation processes involved in order to form the nominal -wg-construction are shown in (56) and (57). (56)

Lexical entry of the nominal -ing-affix -ing [ N, Case, -I Person, -II Person, -masc, -fern, F ] PAS , ((_),) LCS , (thematic positions of the LCS of [+dynamic] verbs)

(57) N , ((1),2) , ( x, y ) Case -I person -II person - masc - fern

F

•^ΚΛΙ!, AI \ (χ, y) \ Tense I Person

\ \

- F

step 1:

\

head percolation

step 2:

\

head percolation \ -ing

take

1

, (1, 2) , (x, y)

V

,((_), ) , ( )

N Case

tense I Person

— P

—

- 1 person - II person - masc - fern — F

—·

Affixation processes

Nevertheless, this nominal -/«g-affix differs from the progressive -ing in an important way: the progressive -ing enters theta-identification with the referential position of its complement, i.e. the connection between the verb and the functional affix occurs mainly via the referential position of the verb, whereas the nominal affix substitutes the referential position of its complement - which is the minimal distinction to be expected between lexical and functional elements. The POSS-ing-construction, containing the third type of -ing, does not contain a grammatical feature; so, by definition, the affix is a lexical element. For this reason, it cannot have the value [F 1] either, since this feature specification is related to a syntactically relevant feature. By using F, further affixation could be prevented, but this has already been excluded (by the hypothesis that no affix selects in English). As in the case of the other lexical -ing, the slot for F gets the default specification in the syntactic component.

60

Jelena Krivokapic

Due to its category features [-N, +V], V-ing could form an extended projection with V. This could be justified by the transparency of V-ing for the content of V, but, as has been mentioned before, this is not a criterion in the morphological component. Also, since the value of F does not rise, V and V-ing cannot form an extended projection. The fact that -ing has a referential position, category features and a categorial signature correlate with its status as a lexical element. The entry of the affix and the affixation process are given in (58) and (59). (58)

Lexical entry of the POSS-ing-nffix -ing [ V, Case, -I Person, -II Person, -masc, -fern, F ] PAS,((_, ),) LCS , (thematic positions of the LCS of the verb)

(59) V I , (1,2) Case , ( x, y ) -I person -II person - masc - fern

F

.^

X

|

—v — , (x, y) \ Tense I Person

\ \

F step 1: head percolation

\ \

step 2: head percolation

-ing

find ,(1, 2) , (x, y)

V tense I Person —F

—

V Case - 1 person - II person - masc - fern ·_

F

,(_ , (

) )

^^™

Affixation processes

The present approach has led to a clear status of the affix in /"OSSWrtg-constructions. As in other approaches, it has a special status but unlike other approaches, its special status derives from its unique referential position and a unique categorial signature, and not from its category features (see Milsark 1988, Hansen 1990).29

29

Milsark (1988) assumes that the special status of -ing generally, and also for this particular construction, derives from the fact that -ing does not contain any category features and Hansen (1990) assumes that -ing in this case contains [N, +V], i.e. with a neutral [N]-feature.

The -ing-Affixes

61

5. Conclusions

The three -ing constructions under investigation contain different affixes - each with separate lexical entries. The distinctive properties of the affix -ing can be summarised as follows: The affix -ing in the [be + V-ing\ construction marks the progressive aspect. It does not contain a categorial signature and it possesses only one position in its LCS and PAS, which is not thematic. The position in the LCS is predicated by the progressive aspect and linked to the position in the PAS, analogous to Speas' (1990) suggestion for the LCS and PAS of the functional categories D and Infl. The position in the PAS is discharged by thetaidentification with the position of the verb, -ing contains a grammatical feature, i.e. the feature [+ progressive], and is therefore marked as [F 1]. V projects its categorial signature by head percolation and the features [+ progressive, F 1] of the affix are projected by backup percolation (into the categorial signature of the verb). V-ing inherits the LCS and PAS of V. The affix and the verb form an extended projection (V-ing).These were argued to be characteristics of functional elements in the morphological component. The affix -ing in the nominal construction has category features ([+N,-V]), a categorial signature and an LCS and PAS. The PAS and LCS contain a referential position (similar to Grimshaw 1990) which substitutes the -position of the verb. Its LCS specifies that the thematic positions of the verb are to be inherited. The percolation processes are as follows: the verb projects its categorial signature by head percolation, in the next step the affix projects its categorial signature also by head percolation. Backup percolation does not take place. The affix does not possess the feature [F] since it does not contain grammatical features. It does not form an extended projection with the verb. This affix is a lexical element. The affix -ing in the POSS-ing-construcuon was also shown to be a lexical affix. It is the only affix which contains the referential position and a categorial signature which contains verbal category features [+V,-N] and slots for nominal features [Case, Person, ...] in it. Its LCS and PAS contain a specification that the thematic positions of the LCS of the verb are inherited by V-ing. Since -ing does not contain grammatical features, it is not specified for [F]. It does not form an extended projection with the verb, since the value of [F] does not increase. The word-formation processes are the same as in the case of the affix in the nominal-/«g construction. Semantic transparency was shown to be irrelevant for the status of an affix as lexical or functional, as all of the 3 affixes examined derived semantically transparent elements, regardless of the lexical or functional status of the affix involved. Also, both kinds of affixes are specified for s-selection only, c-selection was shown to be redundant, which corresponds to the trends in syntactic research. The properties the different type of affixes exhibit according to the present approach are those usually ascribed to them, namely the syntactically relevant features listed in the categorial signature or projected. Additionally, the LCS and PAS have been elaborated. The remaining characteristics (percolation processes, the feature F, theta-relations) follow from these properties. As a result, a small number of features allows us to establish different affixes.

62

Jelena Krivokapic

Further elaboration of the approach will be needed, for example with regard to the unsatisfactory status of the feature F, argument structure inheritance, and the semantics of the progressive marker in relation to state verbs, where the lack of a refined analysis in the present approach is obvious. Also, the addition of the referential position () might seem problematic because, although there is a correlation between the referential position and the categorial signature, which somewhat restrains the possibilities for the addition of new referential positions, clear restrictions have not been specified. Still, the properties listed above may serve as a starting point for the classification of the various -ing constructions and affixes.

References Abney, S. (1987): The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential Aspect. Diss. Cambridge, MA. Anderson, S. R. (1992): A-Morphous Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Baker, M. (1985): Syntactic affixation and English gerunds. In: Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 4, 1-11. Bland, S. K. (1985): The Action Nominal in English. Diss. New York, Cornell University [microfilm]. Brinton, L. J. (1988): The Development of English Aspectual Systems. Aspectualizers and Postverbal Particles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chomsky, N. (1970): Remarks on nominalization. In: R. Jacobs, P. S. Rosenbaum (eds.): Readings in English Transformational Grammar, 184-221. Waltham, MA.: Blaisdell. Comrie, B. (1976): Aspect. An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Di Sciullo, A.-M., Williams, E. (1987): On the Definition of Word. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press Fabb, N. (1984): Syntactic Affixation. Diss. Cambridge, MA. Felser, C. (1995): The Syntax of Verbal Complements: A Study of Perception Verbs in English. Diss. Göttingen. Fräser, B. (1970): Some remarks on the action nominalization in English. In: R. Jacobs, P. S. Rosenbaum. (eds.): Readings in English Transformational Grammar, 83-98. Waltham, MA.: Blaisdell. Galton, A. (1984): The Logic of Aspect. An Axiomatic Approach. Oxford: Clarendon. Gelderen, E. van (1993): The Rise of Functional Categories. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Grimshaw, J. (19902): Argument Structure. Cambridge; MA.: MIT Press. - (1991): 'Extended Projection'. Ms. Brandeis University. Waltham, MA. Hansen, F. (1990): Die Syntax nominalisierter '-ing'-Konstruktionen im Englischen. Diss. Göttingen. Haumann, D. (1997): The Syntax of Subordination. Tübingen: Niemeyer (= Linguistische Arbeiten 373). Higginbotham, J. (1985): On semantics. In: Linguistic Inquiry 16, 547-593. Horn, G. M. (1975): On the nonsentential nature of the POSS-ing construction. In: Linguistic Analysis 1, 333-387. Krivokapic, J. (1998): Die '-ing' Affigierung. Zur Frage funktionaler Kategorien in der Morphologie. M.A. thesis. Göttingen. Lieber, R. (1989): On percolation. In: G. Booij, J. van Marie (eds.): Yearbook of Morphology 2, 95138.. Dordrecht: Kluwer. - (1992): Deconstructing Morphology. Word Formation in Syntactic Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Milsark, G. L. (1988): Singl -ing. In: Linguistic Inquiry 19, 611-634. Ouhalla, J. (1991): Functional Categories and Parametric Variation. London/New York: Routledge.

The -ing-Affixes

63

Randall, J. H. (1988): Inheritance. In: W. Wilkins, (ed): . Syntax and Semantics, vol. 21: Thematic Relations, 129-146. New York/San Diego: Academic Press. Rauh, G. (1996): Zur Struktur von Präpositionalphrasen im Englischen. In: Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 15 (1996), 178-230. - (1997): Englische Präpositionen zwischen lexikalischen und funktionalen Kategorien. In: E. Löbel, G. Rauh (eds.): Lexikalische Kategorien und Merkmale, 125-167. Tübingen: Niemeyer (= Linguistische Arbeiten 366). Roeper, T. (1987): Implicit arguments and the head-complement relation. In: Linguistic Inquiry 18, 267-310. Schachter, P. (1976): A nontransformational account of gerundive nominals in English. In: Linguistic Inquiry 7, 205-241. Schmidt, C. M. (1995): Satzstruktur und Verbbewegung. Eine minimalistische Analyse zur internen Syntax der IP (Inflection-Phrase) im Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer (= Linguistische Arbeiten 327). Selkirk, E. (1982): The Syntax of Words. Cambridge, .: MIT Press. Shaer, B. (1996): Making Sense of Tense: Tense, Time Reference, and Linking Theory. Diss. McGill University Montreal. Speas, M. (1990): Phrase Structure in Natural Language. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Szabolcsi, A. (1994): The Noun Phrase. In: F. Kiefer, K. E. Kiss (eds): Syntax and Semantics, vol. 27: The Syntactic Structure of Hungarian., 170-224. New York/San Diego: Academic Press. Wasow, T., Roeper, T. (1972): On the subject of gerunds. In: Foundations of Language 8, 44-61. Wunderlich, D. (1992): 'Funktionale Kategorien im Lexikon'. Theorie des Lexikons. Arbeiten des Sonderforschungsbereichs 282, 24. Wuppertal. Zubizarreta, M. L., Haaften, T. van (1988): English '-ing' and Dutch '-en' nominal constructions: a case of simultaneous nominal and verbal projections. In: M. Everaert, A. Evers, R. Huybregts, M. Trommelen (eds.): Morphology and Modularity: in honour of Henk Schultnik, 361-393. Dordrecht: Foris. Zwarts, J. (1992): X'-Syntax - X'-Semantics. On the Interpretation of Functional and Lexical Heads. Diss. Utrecht.

Stefanie Bode One Be: One Syntactic Function

1. Introduction

The syntactic status of be in a structural representation needs to be clarified: Is be a lexical or a functional category? It does not seem satisfactory to consider be as a kind of defective verb. The purpose of this paper is to propose a uniform account of be within the Principles and Parameter framework. The paper is organized as follows. First, I will argue that a stacked-VP-analysis of the αΜχ/7/ary-complex does not draw the right distinctions. Second, I will address the question whether different types of be exist. It should be clear that considerations about economy favor an analysis that treats be as a single category. If it can be shown that the function of be is the same in every structure, the analysis will be simplified. Ideally, every occurrence of be should be a consequence of a more general principle that does not mention specifically copula, progressive, passive or modal use. The next step is to provide empirical evidence against an analysis of be as a lexical category. Variants of this approach are very often found in literature. An alternative possibility that comes to mind is that be can be treated as a functional category. Here, I will discuss Ouhalla's (1991) supportive-tense analysis, which cannot achieve the desired result, namely to predict every occurrence of be in a uniform way. In what follows, I will show that it is nevertheless possible to analyze be as a single functional category. Every use of be is determined by the syntactic structure and can be predicted by the system developed below.

2. Non-solutions 2.1. Stacked-VP In the Principles-and-Parameters framework terms like auxiliary verb or light verb have been used to describe the syntactic behavior of the element be. What these terms seem to suggest is that be has a dual status, namely between a lexical and a functional category. It is surprising, however, that the differences between be and main verbs have widely been ignored in generative grammar. According to X-bar-theory, phrases are hierarchically structured projections of their heads. Since a head position cannot be multiply filled, could, have and be should project their own maximal phrases. Chomsky (1986: 77), for instance, proposes the following structure:

66

Stefanie Bode (1) a....[ IP I 0 [ V pV*NP]] b. ...[jp could/to [yp have [yp been [yp working]]]]

(1) implies that one must distinguish functional categories from main verbs/lexical categories, including auxiliary be and have. But this analysis is in direct conflict with the evidence showing that be and have differ syntactically from main verbs. Consider the wellknown contrasts in (2) (2) a. Is John kind? /*Does John be kind? b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i.

Has John seen Mary?/*Does John have seen Mary? "Likes John Mary?/Does John like Mary? John is not angry. John has not left. *John not left. John is a nice person, isn't he? John has worked, hasn't he? *John likes Mary, likes not he?

The following data provide further evidence against the structure in (1). (3)

*John [[p could [VP be [VP had [yp worked]]]].

(4)

* John [jp could [yp had [yp be [yp been [VP elect]]]]].

The structure in (1) cannot serve as a basis on which grammatically relevant distinctions can be worked out. To rule out (3) and (4) something more must be said. Obviously, there is a strict hierarchical order. We could represent this by simply listing the types as in (31): (3') could [vp., Perf-have [VP_2 Prog-be [vp_3 Pass-be [VP4 main-V]]]]

But this would not really explain much. To predict the possible combinations, we also have to formulate complex selectional restrictions: (5)

a. INFL°

b. V°/perf-have c. V°/prog-be d. V°/pass-be

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

[VP perf-have] [VP Prog-be] [yp pass-be] [Vp main-V] [yp prog-be] [Vp pass-be] [yp main-V] [yp pass-be] [yp main-V] [yp main-V]

Note that we would be forced to conclude that every VP (V* in (1)) has a different syntactic status. In particular, this approach entails the assumption that there exist different types of be, a point I will take up in more detail below. (4) further complicates the matter since inflections have no independent syntactic status in (1). It is therefore necessary to specify the morphological form of the complement as a peculiar property of could, perf-have, prog-be and pass-be: (4') could —» infinitive/ have —> participle/ been -> -ing/ being -> participle/ elected

Thus, one of the questions to be answered is how the hierarchical arrangement of the heads relative to each other can be accounted for. Rather than stipulate a peculiar property of

One Be: One Syntactic Function

67

some item, we should seek a strictly syntactic solution and try to eliminate additional specifications.

2.2. Different Be 's? A related question concerns the various uses of be which have led to the assumption that there are several distinct items with the form be: (6)

a. [NP John] is [^p kind].

copula/predication be

b. c d. e. f.

copula/identificational be copula/existential be passive be progressive be

[def NP The winner] is [^p John]. texpiet.NP Therel « [indef.NP a g°dl· [NP John] is tvp(v-ed) e'ected]. [NpJohn] is [yp (v.ing) singing]. [up John] is [to-i„finitive to work hard]·

modal be

It is reasonable to ask whether it is plausible to claim that different he's are involved. As one can observe from the list above, there is a striking similarity among these examples: they all contain the same form of be and one can even argue that they have the same structure: (7)

[χρ...]

IS

[γρ...]

The categorial status and the internal structure of XP/YP (see (6)) are responsible for the distinctive properties and it seems strange to relate the difference to be, the category the examples above have in common. Empirical evidence comes from the following observation: "[...] it was pointed out to me by T. Wasow that there is a positive syntactic argument for unifying them: If three he's exist, which one appears in the sentence Pat is a liberal Democrat, running for Mayor and expected to win ?." (Falk 1984: 499)

Moreover, any analysis which assumes that different types exist would not be able to predict that they behave syntactically alike: (8)

a. Is John kind/elected/singing/to work hard ? (position in C°) b. *Does John be kind/be elected/be singing /be to work hard ? (do-support)

In addition, one might wonder why different he's can occur in the same hierarchical position: (9)

been (10) a. John has beetip^^ elected, b: John has beenp^.^ singing, c. John has been,.,,^ kind.

68

Stefanie Bode

To analyze be adequately, it is now necessary to answer the following questions: A. Is it possible to derive the various uses of be in a uniform way ? B. How can one predict the syntactic positions of this element ? C. Can this category be assigned a uniform syntactic status ?

3. Relevant Distinctions 3.1. Be- Modals - Perfective have I would like to present some distinctive properties of be now which call for an explanation. Be is the only category (vs. modals, perfective have and main verbs) which can occur more than once in a simple sentence: (11) a. John might have been being kind, b. * John might can like Mary.1 * John have had been met. *John met likes Mary. Moreover, the following syntactic contexts show that there is a sharp contrast between modals, perfective have and be: (12) a. b. c. (13) a. b. c.

There is someone working. *There can someone work. * There has someone worked. Mary expected John to be happy. Mary expected John to have solved it. *Mary expected John to can come.

THERE: be vs. perf. have/ modals INFINITIVE: bei perf. have vs. Modals

It should be noted here that perfective have is to be distinguished from main verb have. If one does not draw a syntactic distinction, (14) will not be predictable:2

The occurrence of more than one modal is ungrammatical in English, but well-formed in German. The restrictions in German need further investigation (cf.(ii)/(iii)): (i) Hans muß gut singen können. 'John must can sing well' = 'John must be able to sing well.' (ii) "Hans kann gut singen müssen. 'John can must sing well' = ""John is able to must sing well.' (iii) Hans hat gut singen wollen/*geH>o///. 'John has modal-infinitive of will / * modal past participle of will' = 'John has wanted to sing well.' A similar argument for a syntactic distinction is provided by the behavior of supportive do vs. main verb do: (i) Do they work ? (supportive do) (ii) *Do they their homework ? (main verb do) (iii) They don't work. (supportive do) (iv) *They don't their homework, (main verb do) (v) Don't work too much ! (supportive do) (vi) *Don't your homework ! (main verb do)

One Be: One Syntactic Function (14) a. b. c. d.

69

Does John have a good time ? *Does John have liked Mary ? Have a good time ! *Have been happy !

main verb perfective have main verb perfective have

In addition, it should be pointed out that be is special in having eight distinct forms. Compare the following paradigms: (15) a. BE: b. perf. HAVE: c. CAN:

(to) be, am, is, are, was, were, been, being (to) have, has, had, (having) can, could

Thus, it seems that there is a close relationship between be and inflectional phenomena. This observation is supported by languages such as Russian and Arabic, where be is not used in present tenses but expressed in other tenses (see Jespersen 1924: 120f, Bach 1967: 478, Napoli 1993: 141). In view of this, a main verb analysis of be can hardly be maintained.

3.2. Be vs. Lexical Heads In the Govemment-and-Binding framework the class of lexical heads (V°, N", A", P°) is distinguished from functional heads such as C", Γ/Γ', AGR" (e.g. Pollock 1989). In the following I will discuss evidence showing that be should not be treated as a lexical/verbal projection. As mentioned earlier, the auxiliary properties (cf. movement to C" etc.) fail to receive a proper explanation if be is analyzed as a main verb. A second piece of evidence has to do with the following contrasts: (16) a. b. c. d.

* John is resembling his brother. John is working. *Mary is being tall. Mary is being nasty.

These examples show that the relevant restrictions have to be formulated with respect to the lexical categories, that is V" resemble, A° tall cannot appear in the progressive form. What should be clear is that the ungrammaticality of (16c) vs. d. has nothing to do with be. This conclusion is confirmed by further examples: (17) a. b. c. d. (18) a. b. (19) a. b. c.

* Resemble your brother ! Work\ *Be tall! Be kind! Mary was busy when he came home yesterday. *Mary was tall when he came home yesterday. John went to the library to work. John went to the library to be busy. *John went to the library to be intelligent.

IMPERATIVE

TEMPORAL-WHEN PURPOSE-CLAUSE

Moreover, it is widely recognized that be does not make any contribution to the overall meaning of the sentence. This can be illustrated by the examples in (20) and (21):

70

Stefanie Bode (20) a. b. c. (21) a. b.

The door was locked. The door was locked by Mary accidently. The door was locked when Mary arrived. The door got locked. The door remained locked.

(= state or event) (= event) (= state) (= event) (= state)

The structure with be is open to an interpretation as a state or an event, contrary to the sentences with the main verbs get and remain. Furthermore, it should be noticed that be seems to lack c- and s-selectional properties. Consider the wide range of categories following be and compare this to the main verb seem? (22) a b. c. d. e.

John is/seems [KP/DP a verv £°°d friend]. John is/seems [^ very nice]. John is/*seems [PP in his office]. John was/*seems [yp seen by Mary]. John is/*seems [yp singing].

A further problem for the main verb analysis arises when the following structures are considered: (23) a. The boy in the corner laughed. b. He left the room angry about the weather. c. We consider him kind.

(The boy was in the corner.) (He was angry about it.) (He is kind.)

Reduced relatives, secondary predicates and small clauses provide syntactic contexts which lack a form of be. Two points need to be borne in mind: First, this can be shown for be in general, which implies that it doesn't make any sense to distinguish one be from the other. Second, in contrast to be main verbs cannot be omitted.4 The relevant examples are given in (24). (24) a. We expected [John in his office]. b. We saw [John standing in the garden]. c. We often heard [it said that...] d. We expected [Mary *(to read) this book].

John copula-was in his office. John prog-was standing there. It paw-was said that...

In view of the differences between be and main verbs, there is apparently no empirical reason to motivate the assumption that be should be analyzed as a lexical category. Notice that ΎΡ'-deletion (cf. 25) cannot be used as an argument for the main verb analysis. Since there are main verb projections which cannot be deleted (e.g. 26, 27), the categorial status of the empty position does not seem to be crucial.

3

4

Unlike lexical categories, be does not influence the theta structure of a sentence: (i) *John (no θ-pos.) seems [that he will come]. (ii) Johnk seems [t,, to come]. (Raising) (iii) seem: propositional θ to complement (CP/lP/small clause). Considering be as a raising verb, c-selecting a small clause and assigning a propositional role to its complement, would not explain much: (i) John is [sc7 ^ being [sc ·, ^ elected t,, ]]. (ii) *John seems [sc? k being [sc? t), elected tj]. Neither main verbs, nor modals, nor perfective have can be omitted. This observation provides additional motivation for the different status of be among these heads.

One Be: One Syntactic Function

71

(25) John could have been studying Spanish and Bill could (have (been (studying))) too.5 (26) *John regretted leaving the room and Mary regretted too. (27) "John is being invited and Mary is being too.

3.3. The Syntactic Function of be - a First Approximation It should be clear now that any analysis which treats be as a main verb fails to capture the contrasts between be and lexical heads.6 This conclusion raises an immediate question, namely: is it possible to analyze be as a functional head? Before answering this question, let us see how the syntactic function of be can be described. As a first approximation it is reasonable to assume that be connects the subject of a sentence with its lexical predicate. Agreement can be argued to be the visible reflex of this relation. It should be stressed that - unlike structures with main verbs - the agreement relation in sentences containing be can be more extensive: in (28) subject and predicate agree in number (b), gender (c) and case (d). There may even be a kind of categorial agreement, cf. (28e,f) vs. (28g): (28) a. SUBJECT (XP) is PREDICATE (YP) b. Theyk arek [my friends]k/*my friend. c. Hek isk [a nice man]k /*a nice girl. d. Erk istk [ein netter MannJ^einen netten Mann. e. To see]k is [to believe]]/* [believing]. f. [Seeing]k is [believing]^*[to believe] g. [To see] means [believing].

In the foregoing, it was claimed that there is a close relationship between be and inflectional phenomena in general (see section 3.1.). This fact will be shown below to receive a principled explanation once be is assigned a uniform status.

4. Be as a Supportive Tense Marker Ouhalla (1991: 9-19) assumes that functional categories have the following properties: (29) a. c-selection b. morphological-selection (bound or free forms) c. no s-selection

5 6

Akmajian/Steele/Wasow 1979: 22 The various approaches to be can be roughly summarized as follows: (i) categorization as a verb (Emonds 1976, Iwakura 1977, Akmajian/Steele/Wasow 1979, Chomsky 1986, 1995), (ii) main verb analysis of the copula use versus auxiliary be (Chomsky 1957, Akmajian/Wasow 1975), and (iii) be as a functional category (Ouhalla 1991). For a critical discussion of the criteria for auxiliaries and a detailed review of specifier- vs. head-analyses see Janßen (1993).

72

Stefanie Bode

To deal with the data in (30), he proposes that be and have differ in that be is inserted into TNS, whereas have can realize the functional category ASP (p. 80ff). The relevant substructures are given in (31): (30) a. *John has working. b. * John is worked. (31) a. ...[AGR [^p TNS havek [ASPP ASP tk [VP V ]]]] b. ... [AGR [TOSP TNS be [ASPP ASP -ing [VP V ]]]]

vs. John has worked, vs. John is working. (perfective ASP) (progressive ASP)

This analysis seems to permit a unified treatment of be as α supportive tense marker. Consider the copula use: (32) ...[AGR [TOSP TNS be [AP kind]]]

But there are further complications which cast serious doubt on this approach. First, Ouhalla (1991: 100) needs a special descriptive coindexing rule for the passive construction to ensure that the thematic object surfaces as the subject: (33) Coindex PASS with the direct object of the verb (34) ...[AGR [TOSP TNS be [PASSP PASSk [w PRO [v, V NPk]]]]]

But this coindexing can neither be subsumed unter X-bar-theoretical relations (Spec-Head, Head-Compl), nor under chain relations (Χ^-Χ™", Head-Head). So why should a head be coindexed with the complement of its complement ? What prevents coindexing of PASS with VP or PRO ? Second, his analysis implies that one has to list various c-selectional possibilities for each functional head. To take a concrete example, consider TNS: (35)

TNS _[MODP] / _[ASPP] / _[NEGP] / _[PASSP] / _[VP] / _[AP] / _[PP]

/ _[NP]

Third, the supportive-tense analysis cannot account for (36): (36) a. John has been kind. ...AGR [TOSP hask [ASPP ASP tk [? been [^ kind]]]] b. John could have been being elected. • -AGR [JNSP couldk [MODP tk [ASPP have [ ? [ASPP -ing ? [PASSP PASS [VP V ]]]]]]

c. Mary wants to be happy. -[TNSP to l ? UP haPPy 11

Since the TNS-node is already occupied by has (36a), could (b) and to (c), the occurrence of be is totally unexpected under a TNS-analysis. Being in (36b) seems to be inserted into ASP or PASS, and there is no position left for been in (36a./b) and be in (c). The last problem concerns the distinction between be and supportive do, which Ouhalla also inserts into the TNS-node. Here, he must stipulate that TNS and ASP are operators (1991: 209). Moreover, he claims that be, like main verbs, differs from do in that it has an open position to be bound by an operator (209f)· The general picture thus looks as follows: (37) a. b. c. d.

.. TNSk (be+Vark) NEG ASPj (V+Varj) ... TNSk do NEG (V+VARk) ... TNSk (be+Vark) NEG (V+Var) ... TNS do NEG ASPk (V+Vark)

(John is not leaving.) (John does not leave.) ("John is not leave.) (»John does not leaving.)

Hence, (37c) contains an unbound variable and (37d) an operator but no variable. One should wonder at this point why be, as the realization of a functional head, should have the same property as main verbs. In addition, it would be necessary to determine the

73

One Be: One Syntactic Function

status of such variables or open positions and operators. Obviously, there is no correlation such as Operator/functional category - open position/lexical category':

OP

(38)

lexical category functional category functional realizations

TNS, ASP

+VAR No specification V Α,Ν,Ρ NEG, MOD, COMP, PASS be do, have, -ing, not , can, that

Consequently, it is hard to see how this distinction could be motivated within a purely syntactic framework. Nevertheless, generalizations about syntactic structure should be statable independently of considerations about, for instance, interpretation.

5. An Alternative Proposal

5.1. The Functional System According to standard assumptions syntactic categories are classified as lexical or functional categories. This distinction is supported by considerations about language acquisition. Radford (1990: 54) points out that "children at the stage of categorization develop lexical category systems (more specifically, an Nsystem, V-system, P-system and Α-system) but no functional category-systems (viz. no D-system, C-system or I-system)."

In what follows he shows that children at this stage neither use do (p. 151), nor to (p. 140), nor perfective have (p. 161), nor be (p.l56ff). Therefore, the empirical evidence strongly suggests that these forms should be treated as realizations of functional categories. The distinctive properties of lexical and functional categories can be summarized as follows (cf. Felix 1990, Ouhalla 1991): (39) a. Lexical categories (Α,Υ,Ν,Ρ) manifest a specific s(emantic)- and c(ategorial)-selection and can be associated with a semantic content, whereas functional categories only have c-selectional properties. b. Functional categories are specified for grammatical features which determine the grammatical relations in a syntactic representation [CP WH-phrasek C [+WH] [...tk ...]] / ...[AGRP subjectk AGRk [+number +person] [jp...]]7

Moreover, Ouhalla (1991: 4) notes that"[...] certain functional categories which generally appear as affixes attached to the verb are indeed syntactic categories in their own right." The affix -s (3rd person singular) can therefore be regarded as the realization of the functional category AGR:

For AGR/T and the Split-Infl hypothesis see Pollock (1989).

74

Stefanie Bode (40) a. b. c. d.

Everybody needy a place to rest. He has done all that is necessary. John is beyond all blame. He does not stop working.

If an affix can realize a functional category, it is reasonable to assume that inflections in general have a functional status, i.e. -ed/en, -ing and infinitive, or more specifically abstract features of these forms could be heads of maximal projections. Taking this perspective, we might say that - parallel to the c-selectional relationship between C° and AGR° [+num(ber), +pers(on)] - a given functional category may c-select a specific functional AGR-category. Thus, I will propose the following substructures: (41) a. [CP C [AGRP AGR [+num, +pers] [TO ...]]] b.... [-rpT [+fin] [AQKP^GR [±past] [yp works/worked]]] c.... [τρίο [-fin] [AGRP^GA [infinitive)] [γ? work]]]

d.- [MOOP can UGRP^GA ['«/I ivp work]]]

e.... [PerfP have [AGRP AGR f-ed/-en] [VP worked]]] Recall that modals and the perfective have, unlike main verbs, can occur in the C"-node. By analyzing them as functional categories, the following generalization (42) can be stated: (42)

Lexical heads cannot appear in functional positions.

cf. (42a) vs. (42a'): (42) a. *[CP likesk [John tk Mary]] ? a'. [CP Couldk [John tk like Mary]]?

By assuming that functional categories c-select AGR-categories, the ungrammatically of (43) follows in a straightforward way. (43) a. *He has working, b. *He can worked.

(43 a) is ruled out, since Perf have does not c-select AGR [-ing] but AGR [-ed/-en] and (43b) violates the c-selection of Mod can, which takes an AGRP with an infinitive feature as a complement. What remains to be determined is the relation of AGR-categories to other elements in the ic su structural ui/iui αϊ representation. icjjicscmmiuii. ^uuijjmc Compare the me auuauuiauica substructures 111 in (44): v.' (44) a. John ... [Modp could [AGRP AGR [infj [PerfP have [...]]] b. John ... [Modp could [AGRP AGR [inf] [vp sing ]]] hi» functional fiinr«tir»nsi1 h^ T > (Mod) > (Perf) > (ASP) > V

The necessity of such a hierarchy follows from considerations about economy. By assuming (45), we can dispense with additional c-selectional restrictions, that is (46a): (46) a. AGRfinf] _ [PerfP]/ _ [VP] b. could have worked (... Mod > Perf > V) / could work (... Mod > V)

The interaction of the heads involved can now be formulated as follows: (47) a. Functional categories c-select AGR-categories. AGR-categories c-command the head which carries the AGR-information b. Mod c-selects AGR [infj - AGR [infj c-commands Perf => have carries AGR [infj-(could- AGR-have...) / Mod > Perf

Consider now (48), which involves a violation of the hierarchy of syntactic categories. (48) *John has could worked.

->

*Perf > Mod

In addition, it must be explained why constructions such as (49) are ungrammatical: (49) a. *work-ed-ing b.*have-ed c. *sing-s-ed

(V-ed-ing) (Perf-inf-ed) (V-s-ed)

Roughly speaking, a syntactic head cannot carry more than one AGR-information unit in English. This can be expressed as follows: (50)

1:1 Principle: For every AGR-category there must be a unique syntactic category which can carry the verbal AGR-information.

The restriction to verbal AGR-information will be explained below. I would like to turn next to a closer examination of the nature of AGR-information. Consider (51): (51) a. [AGRP John AGR f3.ps.sg.J/fcaseJ [jp T [+fm] [AGRP AGR [-past] [yp sees Mary ]]]]. b - UGRP John AGR ß.ps.sgj/fcase] [jp T [+fm] [AGRP AGR [-past] [Perfp has met Mary ]]]]. c. [AGRP They consider [AGRP J°nn AGR^ [case] [^ kind]]].

Since I claim that the 1:1 relationship concerns only verbal AGR-categories, it follows that sees and has can be inflected for the nominal AGR-information [+num,+pers] and the verbal AGR-information [-past] without violating the principle stated above. Furthermore, the fact that the nominal AGR-head in small clauses is not filled receives a natural explanation: only verbal AGR needs a head it can be attached to. The following picture emerges: (52)

nominal AGR-information [+num, +pers], ([case])

verbal AGR-information [±past], '-ed/-en', 'infinitive', '-ing'

A reduction of AGR-information in terms of syntactic features will be suggested later on.

76

Stefanie Bode

5.2. Case Marking Before presenting a unified account for be, I will suggest a modification of case theory. The standard explanation for exceptional case marking implies the assumptions in (53): (53) a. Specifiers except the SPEC of C are accessible to case assignment from outside (cf. expect [jp case 1° ...] vs. expect [CP no case C° [jp...]]). b. Some verbs assign case in syntactic contexts in which other verbs do not assign case (cf. expect [jp case 1° ...] vs. seem [jp no case 1° ...]). c. Some verbs c-select CP, IP, AGRP, DP/NP while others c-select only CPs as complements (cf. believe vs. say).

The question arises whether it is possible to reduce case assignment to c-selection of a nominal AGR-category [case]: (54) a. case context: V [AGRP SPEC AGR [case] [XP ...]] (cf. I expect [AGRP him AGR [jp to win]]) b. no case: V [xp X ...] (cf. Hek seems [jp to tk win])

This would yield the substructures in (55):' (55) a. [CP [AGRP nom AGR [+num,+pers]/[case] [jp ...]]] b. [Cp for IAGRP ACC AGR c

· tvp v UGRP ACC AGR

d. [VP V [AGRP ACC AGR [case] [^ ...]] e- [Vpv UGRP AGR tcase] [NP/DP··]]

(small clause) (transitive verb)

The difference between (55d) and (55e) can be phrased in the following form: (56) A subject is licensed in the specifier of an AGR-category. The complement of an AGR- category counts as a predicate if the specifier of AGR is occupied.

Examples are given in (57): (57) a. I consider [AGRP J°nn AGR [NP/DP a f"end ]] (a friend = predicate) b. I met [AGRP AGR [NP/DP a friend ]] (a friend* predicate/spec of AGR empty) The empirical evidence shows that the selectional domain of the verb must include the category following AGR: (58) a. I consider [AGRP J°nn AGR UP kind ]]. b. *I consider [AGRP J°nn AGR [PP in his office ]]. c. I like [AGRP AGR [^lOV John 11-

d. *I like UGRP AGR [AP kind]].

This issue needs further investigation and has implications which are well beyond the scope of the present paper.

9

The question remains how to analyze double-object constructions. For an interesting investigation of this issue and related questions see Gardner (1980).

77

One Be: One Syntactic Function 5.3. The Syntactic Status of Be

The main question to be answered now is how the system outlined above can regulate the distribution of be. The central idea is stated in (59): (59) Be is inserted into a verbal AGR-category if there is no element which can carry the AGR-information. Notice that (59) implies that be is the functional realization of a verbal AGR-category. Moreover, the necessity of (59) can be viewed as a consequence of the 1:1 Principle (50). The various uses of be, i.e. progressive, passive, copula and modal, can now be analyzed in a uniform way. Consider first the progressive: (60) a. Mary is singing. b - [CP C UGRP Marvk [+num,+pers]/[case] [„> [+fin] [AGW>AGR [-past] [ASPP ASP 0 UGRP AGR f'insJ tvp singing ]]]]]]] if is The ASP 0-node cannot carry the verbal AGR-information [-past]. This corresponds to the observation that an affix cannot be attached to an empty element. The 1 : 1 relationship between verbal AGR and a head carrying the AGR-information requires the insertion of be into AGR [-past]. AGR [-ing] can be attached to V (1 : 1). Let us turn next to the passive: (61) Mary was informed. It was argued above that a transitive verb can be assigned the structure (62), where V carries the higher verbal AGR-information . (62)

...[AGRP AGR [+past] [VP informed [AGRP AGR [case] [j^p Mary]]]]

Suppose that (63) represents the passive counterpart with V carrying the lower AGRinformation:

(63)

«

AGRR I informed

I 1:1

AGR I [-ed]

NP/DP I Mary

78

Stefanie Bode

The difference between active and passive sentences with respect to subject selection ("absorption of the external θ-role in passives") can now be structurally described along the following lines: (64)

The specifier of a c-commanding AGR-category is accessible to subject-selection by V if V carries the AGR-information of this AGR head.

Thus, the two distinctive properties of passive structures can both be correlated with the verbal AGR-category [-ed/-en]: (65) a. A verbal AGR-category cannot assign case. b. AGR^ [-ed/-en] carried by the verb in the passive does not c-command the verb.

In addition to that, notice that the higher spec of AGR is not accessible, because be carries the AGR-information of this head. Therefore, the subject-selection of V is "suppressed". There might be better ways to handle transitivity versus intransitivity, but an immediate advantage of this suggestion is that it is not necessary to assume that the affix -ed/-en receives the external theta-role of the verb (cf. Jaeggli 1986) or that participles are neutralized verb-adjectives with the feature [+V] (Chomsky 1981). Notice that such assumptions cannot explain the difference between passive and perfective structures: (66) a. b. c. d.

*John was informed Mary. John has informed Mary. Mary was informed (by John). *Mary has informed (by John).

In the present system the distinctive properties are a consequence of the hierarchical arrangement of the verbal AGR-categories (AGR -ed is higher than V in (67a) and lower than V in (67b)): (67) a. Johnk ... [AGRP AGR [-past] [PerfP has [AGRP tk AGR [-ed] [w informed [AGRP AGR [case] [NP/DP her ]]]]]. 1:1 1:1 b. Shek ... [AGRP AGR [-past] is [yp informed [AGRP AGR [-ed] [^^ρ tk ]]]] 1:1 1:1

The 1 : 1 Principle also forces the insertion of be in the copula construction. The data in (68) illustrate the fact that adjectives, prepositions and nouns cannot carry verbal AGR-information. Again, the insertion of be is required: (68) a. *John ...AGR f+past] [AP/PP/NP/DP kindW/inW the garden/a fnend-ed]. b. John k ... [jp T [+fin] [AGRP tk [AGR, AGR [±past] is/was [^ kind]/PP/NP/DP]]]. 1:1

Note that the hierarchy of syntactic categories in (45) must be slightly revised: (45') Hierarchy of syntactic categories C > T (Mod) > (Perf) > (ASP) > Xlex

To see how the system works let us now look at a more complex case. In (69) the 1:1 relationship holds between the AGR^ and one syntactic head carrying the verbal AGR-information: (69)

John could have been being kind.

One Be: One Syntactic Function

79

(70)

CP \ AGRP SPEC AGR1 John ^x^\ AGR TP [+num,+pers] [case] T

AGRP

AGR 1:1

ModP

Mod could

AGRP

AGRP 0 |\ AGR AP /-««/ I H being A 7:7 kind

First, the hierarchy of syntactic categories is respected: C > T > Mod > Perf > ASP > X^. Second, every occurrence of be is predictable from the 1:1 Principle (50) and determined by the structure: Perf c-selects AGR [-ed/-en] and ASP c-selects AGR [-ing]. Since the 0-node ASP and adjectives cannot carry the verbal AGR-information, the insertion of be into AGR [-ed/-en] and AGR [-ing] is forced (see (59)). In both cases the function of be is the same. The other verbal AGR-information ([+past] and [-infj) involved in this structure can be carried by Mod could and Perf have respectively. If, for instance, Perf were not present, be-insertion into AGR [infj would have to take place (with the resulting structure John could be being kind). Given that be is a verbal AGR-category, the subject-predicate relation can be generalized as (71):

(71)

AGRP

AGR1

SPEC subject (subject-trace)

AGR

predicates:

VP, AP, NP/DP, PP The following examples in (72) suggest that even CP can function as a syntactic predicate:

80

Stefanie Bode (72) a. The claim is [CP that be is a functional category]. b. The problem is [CP how to analyze be]. c. The problemk ...T [AGRP tk [AGR. AGR [-past] is [CP= synt

pred

how...]]]

However, this analysis faces a theoretical problem, since (72) should violate the hierarchy of syntactic categories (45'):

(73)

*... T > C...

The problem is overcome if we define a domain in which the hierarchy must be respected: (74) The boundaries of the relevant domain are marked by the highest (C) and the lowest (X|ex) category of the hierarchy of syntactic categories.

(75) illustrates the effect of (74): (75) a. The idea... [Perfp has [AGRP been [CP that...]]] C > T > P e r f # C > T.... b. John knows [cpthat...] C > T > F# C > T...

It remains to be determined whether the analysis proposed above can account for the modal be: (76) a. John is to work hard. b. The world outside is to be forgotten. c. There is to be no secret between them.

Up to this point, we have seen that VP, AP, PP, NP/DP and CP, that is every non-optional category of the hierarchy, except TP, can function as a syntactic predicate. If the toinfinitive in (76) is analyzed as a TP-predicate, the following generalization can be stated: (77) a. Only obligatory categories can function as syntactic predicates, b. obligatory = C, T, Xlex optional = Mod, Perf, ASP

Consider now (78) as the resulting structure of (76): (78) [CP [AGRP John AGRnom IIP T [+fm] [AGRP AGR [-past] is [π . ^„, pred [-fin] to work]]]]].

Suppose that it is possible to have two TPs in one structure as long as different values (cf. [+fin] vs [-fin]) are involved. This suggestion is supported by the ungrammaticality in (79). (79) *John believes [AGRP Bill AGR„om [„ [-fin] to [AGRP be [TO [-fin] to work hard]]]] Moreover, the data in (80) receive a principled explanation: (80) a. b. c. d. e.

*John will be to arrive. *John had been to close the door. *Mary is being to survive. You are to be working when I come back. He was to have arrived yesterday.

The ungrammaticality of (80a-c) can be attributed to a violation of the hierarchy of syntactic categories. In accordance with (74) the CP makes up the relevant domain:

One Be: One Syntactic Function

81

(80) a'. *[CP C [AGRP J· AGRnom IIP [+finl UGRP [-past] [ModP wi// [AGRP be [π /ο arrive]]]]]]]. -> *Mod > Τ (vs. Τ > Mod) b '· *tcpc UGRP J· AGR^om [TP Km] [AGRP [+past] [PerfP W [AGRP been [^ /o V]]]]]]]. -+*Perf>T

(vsT>Perf)

c'. *[CPC ... AGR^Jjpt+fm] [AGRP[-past] is [MPPASP [AGRPbeing [jp/o survive ]]]]]]] -> MS/> > Γ (Vi. Γ > /IS1/») 1 d . [CP C ... AGR [-past] are [„ [-fln] to [AGRP be [ASPP ^[AGRP [-ing] [yp working ]]]]]]]]] -+T>ASP e1. [CP...AGR [+past] was ^[-Γιη] to [AGRP[inf] [PerfPhave [AGRP[-ed/-en] [VParrived]]]]]]]] -+T>Perf Notice that more evidence for the hierarchy postulated above comes from (81): (81) a. "John ... [yp [+fin] [AGRP is [ASP ASP [AGRP [-ing] [PerfP having worked]]]]] -> *ASP > Ρ erf (vs. Perf> ASP) b.*John ... [jp [-(-fin] [AGRP is [ASPfASP [AGRP [-ing] [ModP «qying work]]]]]. In addition, the system predicts that no well-formed representation is associated with (82): (82) a. * John is [ASPP ASP [AGRP being [ASPP working]]] b. *John was been/* John was being/* John will be being, etc. c. *John was been killed/killing (Mary). Example (82a) involves two ASPPs, but contrary to the case illustrated above (2 TPs [+fin]/ [-fin]), no different values can be assigned to ASP 0. The structures in (82b) lack a predicate. Furthermore, since every AGR-category has to be selected by a functional category, it is impossible to derive structures in which one AGR-head immediately c-commands the other (see 82b and c): (83) *-. [AGRP AGR [+past] was [AGRP [-ed/-en] been [XP...]]] Without going into a detailed analysis of do-support, I will show now that the system developed can capture the difference between be and do. Do can be treated as a functional projection c-selecting a verbal AGRP: (84) [punctp do UGRP AGR [inf] [γρ V...]]] Do is inserted into the structure if negation intervenes or if the C-node must be filled. Recall that main verbs cannot appear in functional positions. Be cannot be used here, because V (vs. for instance the category A) must carry a verbal AGR-information (1:1 Principle): (85) a. John doesk NOT [FunctP tk [AGRP [inf] [vp leave}}}. b. John zik NOT [AGRP [-past] tk [^ angry]]. c. * John isk NOT [AGRP [-past] tk [yp leave}} d.*John could [AGRP [inf] UP kind]]. e. * John doesk NOT [FuncP tj, [AGRP [infj be [^ kind]]

(1:1) (1:1) (* 1 : 1 ) (*1:1)

Therefore, (85c) is ungrammatical because V lacks verbal AGR-information, AGR^b in (85d) is without a carrier. (85e) contradicts considerations of economy, i.e. two insertions (do/be), although one (be) would be sufficient (cf. 85b).

10

To exclude combinations such as *to can (T > Mod), an additional specification must be made: T [+fin] > Mod.

82

Stefanie Bode

A last point should be mentioned. [±past], [-ed/-en], [inf] and [-ing] have been presented as verbal AGR-information and distinguished from nominal AGR-information such as [+num,+pers] (and [case]). We can simplify this system by using syntactic features. The feature system in (86) gives rise to eight distinct forms of be: (86)

syntactic AUK,,,,,,, AGR„om AGR AGR AGR

features [+num,+pers] + AGR [-past] [+num,+pers] + AGR [+past] [+past] [-past] [-num,-pers]

morphological realization is, are, am was, were been be being

6. Conclusion It has been argued that be cannot be analyzed as a verbal projection, but can be treated as the realization of a single functional category. The analysis developed rests on two fundamental claims: First, the functional categories C, T, Mod, Perf, ASP c-select AGR-categories." Second, in accordance with the 1:1 Principle (50), be must be inserted into a verbal AGR-head if there is no other category which can carry the verbal AGR-information (59). Thus, the function of be determines the possible syntactic positions of this element.

References

Akmajian, A., Wasow, T. (1975): The constituent structure of VP and AUX and the position of the Verb 'be'. In: Linguistic Analysis \, 205-245. Akmajian, A., Steele, S.M., Wasow, T. (1979): The category AUX in Universal Grammar. In: Linguistic Inquiry 10, 1-64. Bach, E. (1967): 'have1 and 'be1 in English syntax. In: Language 43, 462-485.

The consequences of a more articulated clause structure for chain formation must be worked out. Adopting Rizzi's (1990) relativized minimality, it could be argued that chains are sensitive to potential governors. In the system outlined above the following configuration might be stated if spec-head agreement is restricted to the nominal AGR projection:

• L - V(i)- U i - I - e agreement, k - ] ] ] (ii) X = no spec-head agreement, (iii) X = head of a projecwhere X =- X spec-head tion. See (i) - (iii) (i) *Johnk AGR,,,,,,,^ seems that itj AGR,,™,.! is likely to ^ win. 00 * [CP Howk C do [AGRP y°u wonder [CP whatj to do tk ]]]? (iii) *Havek John couldj ^ left ?

One Be: One Syntactic Function

83

Burzio, L. (1986): Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Reidel. Chomsky, N. (1957): Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton. - (1981): Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris. - (1986): Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. - (1995): The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT. Declerck, R. (1983): 'It is Mr Y' or 'He is Mr Y'. In: Lingua 59, 109-246. Drijkoningen, F. (1989): The Syntax of Verbal Affixes. Tübingen: Niemeyer. (= Linguistische Arbeiten 231 ). Emonds, J. E. (1976): A Transformational Approach to English Syntax. New York, San Francisco, London: Academic Press. Fabb, N. A. J. (1980): Syntactic Affixation. Diss. Cambridge, MA. Falk, Y. N. (1984): The English auxiliary system: A lexical-functional analysis. In: Language 60, 483-509. Felix, S. W. (1990): The structure of functional categories. In: Linguistische Berichte 125, 46-71. Fiengo, R., May, R. (1994): Indices and Identity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Gardner, Th. J. (1980): Case-marking in English. Akademie der Wiss. u. d. Literatur. Mainz, Wiesbaden: Steiner Iwakura, K., (1977): The auxiliary system in English. In: Linguistic Analysis 3, 101-136. Janßen, H. (1993): Verbstellung und Satzstruktur im Englischen. Tübingen: G. Narr. Jaeggli, O. (1986): Passive. In: Linguistic Inquiry 17, 587-622. Jespersen, O. (1924): The Philosophy of Grammar. London: Allen and Unwin. - (1933): Essentials of English Grammar. London: Allen and Unwin. Nakajima, H. (ed.) (1991): Topics in Small Clauses. Tokyo: Kurosio. Napoli, D. J. (1993): Syntax - Theory and Problems. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Olsen, S., Fanselow, G. (1991): Del - Comp - Infl. Zur Syntax Funktionaler Kategorien und Grammatischer Funktionen, 1-15. Tübingen: Niemeyer (= Linguistische Arbeiten 263) Ouhalla, J. (1991): Functional Categories and Parametric Variation. London, New York: Routledge. Pollock, J. Y. (1989): Verb movement and the structure of IP. In: Linguistic Inquiry 20, 365-424. Radford, A. (1990): Syntactic Theory and the Acquisition of English Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell. Rizzi, L. (1990): Relativized Minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Stoweil, T. (1983): Subjects across categories. In: The Linguistic Review 2, 561-570. Van Gestel, F. C. (1986): X-Bar-Grammar, Attribution and Predication in Dutch. Dordrecht: Foris.

Anja Wanner

Intransitive Verbs as Case Assigners

l. Introduction This article will examine the grammatical status of a class of elements that would normally not be expected to exist: nominal complements of intransitive verbs. In contrast to transitive verbs, which take an NP/DP complement,1 intransitive verbs are traditionally characterized by not taking a complement at all, let alone a direct object, cf. Quirk et al. (1985: 53f): "[Intransitive verbs] are followed by no obligatory element and occur in type SV."2 The data in (1), however, illustrate that intransitive verbs can indeed be followed by an NP, which will be shown to be a complement of the verb, i.e. a direct object. (1)

a. b. c. d. e. f.

She smiled her sardonic smile. She nodded her agreement. She ran herself breathless. He yawned the sleep away. She worked her well-earned -way into the committee. He coughed the hell out of his lungs.

Since the verbs in question do not belong to a common semantic class, the licensing of an NP complement by an intransitive verb does not seem to be a purely semantic phenomenon. It will in fact be argued that all intransitive verbs are potentially transitive verbs. Thus, the object-oriented traditional syntactic classification of verbs - transitive verbs take a nominal complement, while intransitives don't - will be challenged. The article is organized as follows: After clarifying the notion of intransitivity in section 1 I will focus on two constructions in which intransitive verbs occur transitively: Section 2 will examine the grammatical status of cognate and reaction objects (smile a happy smile/ smile one's thankyou), while section 3 is concerned with the resultative construction (smile oneself tired). The NP/DP following the verb is shown to be in the position of a direct object, which is structurally Case-marked by the verb. In section 4 it will be argued that the syntactic capacity of unergative verbs to license this kind of non-argument NP complement (by the assignment of Case) follows from their capacity to license the object aspectually (by allowing for aspectual type shifting towards a telic event). Therefore, the NP complements in question will be called aspectual arguments. Section 5 will position aspectual

1

2

See also Williams (1981: 96), according to whom transitive verbs take a nominal or a sentential complement. (For the purposes of this paper it will not make any difference if one refers to nominal projections as NP or DP.) An alternative approach is presented by Hale/Keyser (1993), who assume that intransitive verbs like smile are formed by noun incorporation (Baker 1988) into a light verb, cf. "minimal pairs" like give a kiss/kiss. Within this analysis intransitive verbs always have a complement on some level of representation ("L-Syntax"), i.e. there are no truly intransitive verbs.

86

Anja Wanner

arguments in a general overview over different forms of licensing of nominal complements.

1.1. The Problem In GB-Theory NPs must be doubly licensed: Semantically, they are licensed as the argument of a predicate; syntactically, they are licensed by the assignment of (inherent or structural) Case. The interdependency of these licensing mechanisms is stated in the Visibility Condition. The problem involving the NPs marked in italics in (1) does not lie within Case Theory: Intransitive verbs are potential Case assigners, it just happens to be the case that their ability to assign Case is not used up by any NP yet. However, those NPs constitute a problem for Theta Theory and X-bar-Theory, compare Chomsky's original claim that every constituent in complement position should be an argument of the verb: "[I]n the terminology of X-bar theory, each complement position is a θ-position. [...] all complements of a head are θ-positions apart from examples restructured by idiom rules." (Chomsky 1981:36)

While the subject position need not be a θ-position, there is a 1:1 correspondence between the position of a complement and the status of an internal argument. The Extended Projection Principle demands that the subject position must be filled even when there is no subject argument (see the ungrammtical example in (2b)). There are two ways to fulfill this claim: either by insertion of an expletive element (as in (2c)) or by NP-Movement (as in (2d)).3 (2)

a. b. c. d.

They expected that she would explain the problem. * Was expected that she would explain the problem. It was expected that she would explain the problem. [-KjasejShej was expected [ Regrettably, John walked away), b. *Today, I saw her buy(ing) some flowers yesterday. (O Today, I saw that she had bought some flowers yesterday).

As noted by Bowers (1993) and Alexiadou (1997), there are at least two different types of VP or "manner" adverb, which may co-occur but which are not normally interchangeable, which indicates that they are licensed by distinct syntactic heads. (21) a. b. (22) a. b.

Bill slowly recited his lines poorly. Mary confidently played the violin beautifully. *Bill poorly recited his lines slowly. *Mary beautifully played the violin confidently.

Adverbs of this type may also co-occur in direct perception complements: (23) a. We heard Bill slowly recite his lines poorly.

b. We saw Mary confidently playing the violin beautifully. On the assumption that adverbs are licensed by semantically compatible functional heads (see Alexiadou 1997, and references cited there), the unavailability of sentence adverbs like those in (20) above suggests that the relevant licensing heads, C (or Mood) and T, are absent from non-finite perception complements. The two manner adverbs in (22a, b) and (23a, b), then, would appear to be licensed by v and by some higher functional head located between T and v, respectively. (v) Temporal simultaneity: Contrary to full infinitives and certain types of verbal gerund, non-finite perception complements do not appear to be independently specified for tense; instead, the event perceived is obligatorily interpreted as occurring simultaneously with the act of perceiving (compare e.g. (14d) and (20b) above). (vi) The stage-level constraint: For a direct perception interpretation to be available, the non-finite clausal complement of a perception verb must contain a stage-level predicate in the sense of Carlson (1980). Individual-level predicates (i.e., true states), on the other hand, are excluded. This restriction is illustrated by the following examples: (24) a. We've never seen so many people drunk/ * intelligent, b. I saw him buy / *like flowers.

The above set of characteristics suggest that direct perception complements are clausal constituents that are syntactically reduced in that they lack both the C- and the T-system. There is evidence, however, that they contain at least one functional projection above vP,

2

I follow Chomsky (1995) in assuming that transitive and intransitive verb phrases comprise an outer \P shell as well as an inner or "core" VP, with thematic subjects originating in the specifier of the abstract light verb v. Where the internal structure of the extended verb phrase is irrelevant, I will, however, continue to use the label VP.

1 68

Claudia Felser

whose head serves as a target for verb movement and is capable of licensing aspectual or manner adverbs. Semantically, non-epistemic perception verbs select for episodic, or stagelevel, complements only, which depend on the matrix clause for their temporal interpretation. Given that infinitival and participial complements pattern alike in all major respects, we might ask what distinguishes them. The answer originally suggested by Fillmore (1963), and later defended by Declerck (1981), is that participial complements are the progressive counterparts of bare infinitival complements, an assumption which has been dubbed the progressive hypothesis (PH). (25) Progressive Hypothesis Infinitival and participial perception complements differ minimally with respect to their specification for the aspectual feature [progressive].

That the interpretative difference between participial and infinitival perception complements is indeed best characterised as one between progressive (or imperfective) and nonprogressive (or perfective) aspect is confirmed by the contrast between (26a) and (26b) below (from Kirsner/Thompson 1976: 215): (26) a. I saw her drowning, but I rescued her. b. *I saw her drown, but I rescued her.

Example (26b) is incoherent because the drowning event is understood as being already completed. Exactly the same difference is found between the progressive and nonprogressive main clauses as in (27): (27) a. She was drowning, but she was rescued. b. *She drowned, but she was rescued. Further evidence supporting the PH can be found in Declerck (1981), van der Leek/Jong (1982) and Felser (1999), and will not be repeated here. I have suggested in Felser (1998, 1999) that both types of non-finite perception complement are best analysed as projections of an aspectual head located intermediate between T and the verb (cf. (28) below). Infinitival and participial complements differ only with respect to the value assigned to the aspectual feature [±pr ogress ive] in Asp, as stated in (25). (28) Isaw[ AspP [fop, Asp [vf him[ v , v [vp buy(ing) some flowers ]]]]]

I further assume that the embedded subject DP checks case in the same way as subjects of ECM complements do, that is, by raising - either overtly or at LF - into the checking domain of the matrix verb (compare e.g. BoSkovic 1996). (29) I . . . / J / O T J . . . saw[ A ρ // [Asp'Asp[vP

t{ [v v [ VP buy(ing) some flowers ]]]]]

In sentences such as (17a, b) above that contain a floating quantifier, the lower subject appears to have moved overtly at least as far at [Spec,AspP]. Short verb movement of the type observed in (19) above can then be thought of as targeting the functional head Asp, motivated by the requirement that inflectional features carried by the verb must be checked against the corresponding features on functional heads.

Aspectual Complement Clauses

169

(30) I saw [AspP himj [Asp. [Asp buyfing)-} ] [vP some flowersk [v, t( [v, v [VP t- tk ]]]]]] In sum, I have shown that English non-finite perception complements are neither full IPs nor verbal "small clauses" in the sense of Stowell (1983). It was argued that the syntactic properties of direct perception constructions are best accounted for if they are analysed as projections of an inflectional head lower than T but higher than v, which I have suggested is most appropriately labelled Asp(ect).

3. ACI Perception Complements in German and Dutch This section examines the syntax of ACI constructions of the type illustrated by (2) and (3), repeated below. (2) Wir sahen ihn schlafen. we saw him sleep-INF (3) Ik hoor Kaatje zingen. I hear K. sing-INF

(Go) (Du)

Like their English counterparts, Dutch and German ACIs prove to be single clausal constituents. Consider the following data (the Dutch (b) examples have been adapted from de Geest 1970, 1980, and Declerck 1982a). (31) a. Ich sah es schneien, b. Ik zag hetsneeuwen I saw it snow-INF (32) a. Ich habe es oft passieren sehen dass Kinder so verunglückten. I have it often happen-INF see-INF that children thus had.an.accident b. Ik heb het vaak zien gebeuren dat kinderen zo verongelukten. I have it often see-INF happen-INF that children thus had.an.accident both: have often seen it happen that children had an accident in this way' (33) a. Ich sah den Glauben Wunder vollbringen, b. Ik zag geloof wonderen verrichten. I saw (the) faith miracles accomplish-INF both: saw faith accomplish miracles' The fact that the postverbal DP can be a quasi-argument, an expletive, or a thematic expression denoting something that is not itself open to sensory perception (such as Glauben/ geloof 'faith' in (33)) demonstrates that it functions as the subject of the lower predicate, and not as a matrix object.3 Like English bare infinitive complements, ACIs fail to admit the infinitival marker zulle 'to', aspectual auxiliaries, or copular sein/zijn 'be'; they require an overt subject that is marked for accusative (in German) or objective case (in Dutch), and

3

Further evidence in support of the clausal status of ACI complements can be found in Cloment (1977), Hyvärinen (1984), Grewendorf (1983) and Declerck (1982a), to name but a few. German ACIs have recently been discussed in Abraham (1995: Ch.8), Haider (1993: Ch.9), and Steube (1994).

170

Claudia Felser

the embedded predicate must have stage-level properties.4 The following examples might serve to illustrate these facts: (38) a. *Wir sahen Hans zu schlafen. we saw H. to sleep-INF b. *Ik hoor Kaatje te zingen. I hear K. to sing-INF (39) a. *Wir sahen Hans geschlafen haben. we saw H. slept have-INF b. *Jan ziet Piet zijn auto verkocht hebben. J. sees P. his car sold have-INF (40) a. *Wir sahen schlafen. we saw sleep-INF b. *Ik hoor zingen. I hear sing-INF (41) a. *Wir sahen Hans gross (sein). we saw H. tall (be) 'We saw John (be) tall' b. *Hij zag Piet docter (zijn). he saw P. doctor (be) 'He saw Piet (be) a doctor'

(Ge) (Du; de Geest 1970) (Ge) (Du; Ruyter 1988)

(Ge) (Du; Ruyter 1988)

Epistemic modals are also excluded from German and Dutch ACI complements, and sentential adverbs that appear inside an ACI will normally be assigned matrix scope (compare e.g. Bayer 1986 for German, and Ruyter 1988 for Dutch). The latter restriction is illustrated by the incoherence of the following examples. (42) a. *Jan zag gisteren Piet zijn auto morgen verkopen. (Du; Ruyter 1988) J. saw yesterday P. his car tomorrow sell-INF b. *Ich habe ihn vor zwei Stunden seiner Frau den ganzen Vormittag helfen sehen. I have him before two hours his wife the whole morning help see-INF Two hours ago, I saw him help his wife the whole morning' (Ge; Bierwisch 1963)

Independent modification of an ACI by aspectual or manner adverbs, on the other hand, is possible. The complements in (43 a) below, for example, contain two non-interchangeable manner adverbs, both of which have scope over the complement clause only. (43) a. Wir sahen Maria schnell perfekt Französisch lernen. We zagen Maria snel perfect Frans leren. we saw M. quickly perfectly French learn-INF both: 'We saw Mary quickly learn French perfectly' b. * Wir sahen Maria perfekt schnell Französisch lernen. * We zagen Maria perfect snel Frans leren. we saw M. perfectly quickly French learn-INF

(Ge) (Du) (Ge) (Du)

According to Alexiadou (1997), all adverbs are either merged into, or else must raise to, a specifier of their licensing head; a subset of what are traditionally called VP adverbs originate in the complement position of V. Under this view, only perfekt!perfect 'perfectly', but not schnelllsnel 'quickly' in (43a), can plausibly be analysed as a VP or complement-type

4

For arguments that German zu is an Infl element associated with Tense or Mood, see Evers (1988, 1990).

Aspectual Complement Clauses

171

adverb. All higher adverbs must be licensed by functional heads superior to v (or Voice, in Alexiadou's system). Finally, consider the possibility of DP raising in ACI structures. While the ability of object DPs to undergo complement-clause internal scrambling is well known, floating quantifier data show that the ACI subject is also capable of raising overtly. (44) a. Ich habe (die Männer) gestern (die Männer) beide eine Rose kaufen sehen, b. Ik heb (de mannen) gisteren (de mannen) beiden een roos kopen gezien. I have (the men) yesterday (the men) both a rose buy-INF see(n) both: saw the men both buy a rose yesterday'

Evidence that movement of the ACI subject die Männeride mannen 'the men' in (44a, b) can optionally target a position within the superordinate clause comes from the fact that it can precede the adverb gestern!gisteren 'yesterday', which is understood as modifying the matrix event. In sum, the above data illustrate that ACI perception complements in German and Dutch share all the major characteristics of English bare infinitive complements mentioned in section 2 above: They lack overt complementisers and inflectional elements, they must contain a lexical subject, they admit aspectual or VP adverbs only, and they observe both the simultaneity condition and the stage-level constraint. In addition, there is evidence for complement-internal subject raising. Hence, I propose that ACI complements of the type under consideration should also be analysed as projections of a (phonetically null) aspectual head, whose basic internal structure conforms to the abstract schema in (45). (45) [Aspp - U* UP DPsu tv IVP DP am) (aan het > aan'i)

However, a closer look at the syntax of prepositional infinitives reveals that they exhibit none of the typical characteristics of prepositional phrases. Bhatt/Schmidt (1993) have shown that in many Northwestern varieties of Standard German, prepositional infinitives with am behave differently from genuine PPs - such as those headed by the semantically similar preposition bei - in that they fail to admit prenominal or postnominal modifiers, and require non-incorporable (i.e., definite or other fully specified) DP objects to precede the preposition rather than follow the infinitive (compare Bhatt/Schmidt 1993: 79f.).7 (52) a. *Er ist am lauten Vorlesen. he is at.the loud read.out-INF b. Er ist beim lauten Vorlesen, he is at.the loud read.out-INF 'He is reading out loud' (53) a. *Er ist am Vorlesen (von) der Bibel. he is at.the read.out-INF (of) the bible

7

Note, however, that speakers of Southern dialects of German may find some or all of the starred examples in (52)-(54) quite acceptable (thanks to Werner Abraham for pointing this out to me). This is in fact what we would expect given Bayer's (1993) claim that in Bavarian German, infinitives have largely retained their nominal character (compare also Bhatt/Schmidt 1993: 94 n. 11).

174

Claudia Felser

(53) b. Er ist beim Vorlesen (von) der Bibel. he is at.the read.out-INF (of) the bible 'He is reading out from the bible' (54) a. Er ist die Bibel am Vorlesen. he is the bible atthe read.out-INF 'He is reading out from the bible' b. *Er ist die Bibel beim Vorlesen, he is the bible atthe read.out-INF

The fact that the direct object DP in (54a) carries accusative case suggests that the infinitive has retained its verbal property of being able to check structural accusative. Parallel facts obtain in Dutch (though judgements may, again, be subject to some degree of dialectal variation): (55) a. Hij is aandachtig aan't luisteren. he is rapt at.the listen-INF 'He is listening raptly' b. *Hij is aan't aandachtig luisteren. he is at.the rapt listen-INF (56) a. Hij is de bijbel aan't voorlezen. he is the bible at.the read.out-INF 'He is reading out from the bible' b. *Hij is aan't de bijbel voorlezen. he is at.the the bible read.out-INF c. *Hij is aan't voorlezen van de bijbel. he is at.the read.out-INF of the bible

What is more, while PPs headed by identical prepositions cannot normally be stacked, both languages permit ordinary (i.e., locative) anlaan PPs to co-occur with prepositional infinitives, as in (57). (57) a. Er ist [PP an einem Haus] am Bauen. he is at a house atthe build-INF 'He is building a house' b. Hij is [Pp aan zijn boek] aan't schrijven. he is at his book at.the write-INF 'He is writing his book'

(Ge; Bhatt/Schmidt 1993) (Du)

Finally, observe that am in German prepositional infinitives furthermore differs from the homophonous preposition am in that it must always form a single phonological unit, that is, it cannot optionally be split up into its original components an and dem (cf. (58b)). In spoken Dutch, all instances of aan het will normally be contracted to aan't as well. (58) a. Er arbeitet am /an dem Projekt He works atthe / at the project 'He's working on the project' b. Er war am / *an dem Arbeiten. He was at.the / *at the work-INF 'He was working'

To summarise the discussion so far, I have shown that Bhatt/Schmidt's (1993) main arguments against a PP analysis for prepositional infinitives in German carry over to Dutch,

Aspectual Complement Clauses

175

supporting the claim that both am and aan't have become, or are in the process of becoming, grammaticalised as aspectual markers in many varieties of the two languages.8 Next, I will examine the internal structural make-up of prepositional infinitives in some more detail.9

4.2. Prepositional Infinitives in Root Clauses We saw above that the infinitives preceded by am or aan't in sentences such as (6) and (7) share the properties of verbs, not nouns, and thus cannot be analysed as nominalised forms. In root clauses, am and aan't must normally appear adjacent to the infinitival verb, and the am + infinitive complex is located at the right periphery of VP. Like fully specified DP objects, adverbs or adjunct predicates are not allowed to intervene between amiaan't and the infinitival verb. These properties are illustrated by the following data from colloquial Northwestern varieties of Standard German (compare also Bhatt/Schmidt 1993: 77). (59) a. Er war die Suppe am Kochen. he was the soup at.the cook-INF 'He was cooking the soup' b. *Er war am die Suppe Kochen, he was at.the the soup cook-INF (60) a. Peter ist das Buch sorgfältig am Lesen. P. is the book carefully at.the read-INF 'Peter is reading the book carefully' b. * Peter ist das Buch am sorgfältig Lesen. P. is the book at.the carefully read-INF (61) a. Sie ist ihre Pizza kalt am Essen. she is her pizza cold at.the eat-INF 'She is eating her pizza cold'

Van Gelderen (1993: 182) cites the following example as grammatical, which suggests that aan hetl't may not yet have become fully grammaticalised in Dutch: (i) Ik ben harden aan het wassen en het drogen. I am plates at the wash-INF and the dry-INF am washing and drying plates' Bhatt/Schmidt (1993: 90ff.) also suspect that German aspectual am still has "a residual P-status", which according to the authors helps account for otherwise unexpected restrictions on prepositional infinitives such as their inability to combine with certain types of locative expression: (ii) *Maria ist in die Schule am gehen. M. is in the school at.the go-INF 'Mary is going to school' (Bhatt/Schmidt 1993: 73) Note, however, that even speakers who accept PICs in the context of perception verbs consider them quite unacceptable if embedded under a PP-small clause taking verb such as erwischen 'catch' or antreffen 'meet': (iii) * Wir haben Maria das Auto am Waschen erwischt l angetroffen. we have M. the car atthe wash-INF caught / met 'We caught/ met Mary washing the car' Historically, the English progressive has also developed from prepositional phrases headed by on or in, which was first weakened to a-, and finally disappeared altogether (compare e.g. van Gelderen 1993: Ch.8). Progressive forms prefixed by a- are still common today in a dialect of English spoken in the Appalachian Mountains.

176

Claudia Felser

(61) b. * Sie ist ihre Pizza am kalt Essen. she is her pizza at.the cold eat-INF

The only elements that may (and usually, must) intervene between the aspectual marker and the infinitive are verb particles, bare indefinite objects, and certain types of secondary predicate such as predicative adjectives (Bhatt/Schmidt 1993: 78). (62) a. Ich bin das gerade am Aufschreiben. I am it just at.the down.write-INF am just writing it down' b. *Ich bin das gerade auf am Schreiben. I am it just down at.the write-INF (63) a. Peter ist am Radfahren. P. is at.the bicycle.ride-INF 'Peter is riding a bicycle' b. * Peter ist Rad am Fahren. P. is bicycle atthe ride-INF (64) a. Maria ist am müde Werden. M. is at.the tired become-INF 'Maria is getting tired' b. %Maria ist müde am Werden. M. is tired at.the become

The word order facts illustrated by (59)-(64) above are essentially parallel in Dutch, save for the fact that many Dutch speakers seem to prefer the ordering of (64b) over that in (64a)."' Notice that the data in (62)-(64) rule out the possibility that am (or aan't) is a verbal prefix that is base-generated in V, along with its verbal host (see also Bhatt/Schmidt 1993: 82f.)." In short, the data reviewed thus far suggest that am and aan't head an inflectional projection of their own that forms part of the extended V-system. As to how the above facts are best accounted for, let us consider two alternative possibilities. The first is the analysis originally proposed by Bhatt/Schmidt (1993) for German, and extended to Dutch by Felser (1999), according to which prepositional infinitives are head-final AspP constituents. This proposal is in line with traditional assumptions on clause structure in these languages according to which both VP and IP are head-final (compare e.g. Grewendorf 1988, and references cited there). Under this view, the verb- together with its incorporata, if there are any - obligatorily adjoins to the right of the aspectual head. An SOV-based analysis of prepositional infinitive structures is illustrated for example (59a) Er war die Suppe am Kochen in fig. (65) below (for expository reasons, "small" vP, as well

10

That is, the predicative adjective moe 'tired' must precede aspectual aan't: (i) Marie is moe aan't worden. M. is tired at.the become-INF 'Mary is getting tired' (ii) * Marie is aan't moe worden. M. is at.the tired become-INF The word order in (i) is also possible in Colognese German (see Bhatt/ Schmidt 1993). " The phenomenon of am reduplication that is found in Colognese German (the example below is cited by Bhatt/Schmidt 1993: 78) could be taken to suggest that am is on its way to developing into a genuine verbal prefix, (i) et Marie is am mod am wade. the M. is at.the tired at.the become-INF 'Mary is getting tired'

Aspectual Complement Clauses

111

as other inflectional projections potentially intervening between AspP and CP have been left out, which has been indicated by a broken line). The structure of the corresponding Dutch example, Hij was de soep aan't koken, will be identical.

(65)

CP C

D

I

£rk

AspP

C

war was

X^^

"Asp1

Spec

^-^ VP

D

1 'k

Asp

V

X^\

DP

die Suppe de soep

^_

V \ 1

Asp

V

1

1

am Kochen aan 't koken 1

The above analysis correctly predicts that am and aan't should always be adjacent to the verb, and that the Asp + infinitive complex should appear at the right-hand boundary of the verb phrase. As to the possible motivation of V-to-Asp raising, it might be that the aspectual head has affixal properties and thus cannot be stranded (cf. Baker's 1988 stray affix filter), or that it contains a strong verbal or aspectual feature that requires checking (but see section 5 for an alternative idea). The analysis in (65), however, is incompatible with Kayne's (1994) Antisymmetry hypothesis, which demands that complements should universally follow heads, and that all movement should be to the left. Clearly, Kayne's proposals are theoretically attractive as they heavily constrain the set of parametric options provided by Universal Grammar. Let us therefore consider an alternative possibility consistent with Zwart's (1994) hypothesis that Dutch and German are uniformly head-initial languages. Within a Kayne-style framework, the prepositional infinitive in example (59a) will have to be assigned a structure along the lines of (66) below (again, an intervening vP shell has been omitted for the sake of clarity, and the label IP is used to remain neutral as to the precise categorial status of the functional projection that hosts the subject and the auxiliary).

178

Claudia Felser

(66)

die Suppe de soep

Asp \ am aan 't Kochen koken

Under this view, we must assume that the direct object die Suppelde soep 'the soup' has undergone overt raising to some higher specifier position, perhaps (though not necessarily) to a specifier of Asp." Bare indefinites and other incorporate elements, by contrast, are integral to V and thus are not eligible to undergo A-movement. Attractive as the analysis in (66) might seem, it does in fact face a number of empirical problems. First, the fact that all direct objects precede rather than follow the aspectual marker forces us to assume that object shift across Asp is obligatory for both definite and indefinite DPs (cf. (67) below). This assumption, however, is difficult to reconcile with Diesing's (1992, 1996) observation that scrambling or object shift is normally restricted to definite or specific DPs (see Zwart 1994: 395ff., 1997: 90-96) for some discussion of this issue). What is more, it appears that indirect or prepositional objects must also raise across the aspectual head overtly (compare the examples in (68) and (69) below). (67) Er war eine Suppe am (*eine Suppe) Kochen (*eine Suppe) Hij was een soep aan't (*een soep) koken (*een soep) he was a soup at.the cook-INF both: 'He was cooking a soup' (68) Ich war (Maria) das Buch (Maria) am (* Maria) Vorlesen Ik was (Maria) het boek (Maria) aan't (* Maria) voorlezen I was M. the book at.the read.out-INF both: Ί was reading the book to Maria' (69) Er ist an seinem Buch am (*an seinem Buch) Schreiben Hij is aan zijn boek aan't (*aan zijn boek) schrijven he is at his book at.the write-INF 'He is writing his book'

(Ge) (Du) (Ge) (Du) (Ge) (Du)

Secondly, under the assumption that AspP is head-initial, there would seem to be no obvious reason why VP adverbs should not be allowed to intervene between the aspectual marker and the verb. Given Alexiadou's (1997) theory of adverb placement, we would

12

Object raising can plausibly be motivated by the requirement that DPs must check case in an appropriate Spec-Head configuration with a case-assigning functional head, if it is assumed that objective case is checked by Asp, or by some higher functional head (compare Alexiadou 1997).

Aspectual Complement Clauses

179

expect complement-type manner adverbials to be able to appear either immediately before or after the main verb in sentences such as (70) below. Contrary to what the analysis in (66) predicts though, (non-incorporable) VP adverbs are generally barred from intervening between aspectual amlaan't and the verb, and never occur in clause-final position either (compare also example (60b) above). (70) Sie war fest am (*fest) Schlafen (*fest) Ze was diep aan't (*diep) slapen (*diep) she was deep at.the sleep-INF both: 'She was sleeping deeply'

(Ge) (Du)

One could argue, of course, that the verb must adjoin to Asp overtly, thereby preventing any non-incorporated material from intervening between the two - but given Kayne's claim that adjunction must be uniformly left-adjunction, the fact that the aspectual marker precedes rather than follows the infinitive would still remain unaccounted for. Another potential problem for an SVO-based analysis arises from the fact that prepositional infinitives always precede the finite verb or auxiliary in non-V2 contexts. (71) a. ob sie (*war) das Auto am Waschen war if she the car at.the wash-INF was '...if she was washing the car' b. of he (*was) weer aan't verven was if he again at.the paint-INF was '... if he was painting again'

(Ge) (Du)

In order to account for the word order observed in embedded clauses such as (7la, b), it must be assumed that the entire AspP complement of the finite auxiliary war/was 'was' obligatorily moves leftward across the auxiliary -a movement operation that lacks any obvious morphosyntactic trigger (but see Koster 1994: 266-269, for a possible solution to this problem). Finally, notice that the SVO/Antisymmetry approach has difficulty accounting for the possibility of verb particle stranding of the type found in the dialect spoken in the Cologne area (see Bhatt/Schmidt 1993: 78, and references cited there): (72) a. Ich ben dat jrad am opschrieve. I am that just at.the down.write-INF b. Ich ben dat jrad op am schrieve. I am that just down at.the write-INF both: Ί am just writing that down'

On the fairly innocuous assumption that separable verbs are formed by (syntactic or presyntactic) incorporation (Evers 1975, Koopman 1995, among many others), and that the verb may - or even must - excorporate under certain conditions, the observed word order in (72b) strongly supports a rightward movement analysis along the lines of (65) above. From an Antisymmetry perspective, however, it would appear that the preposition has moved to the left, crossing the aspectual head and leaving the verb stranded - an operation which, again, seems difficult to motivate syntactically. To conclude, I have shown that the analysis in (66), while being consistent with Kayne's (1994) views on phrase structure and directionality, does not offer a particularly straight-

180

Claudia Felser

forward account for the data under consideration.13 As we shall see in section 5 below, it also fails to provide a satisfactory account for the syntax of ACI and prepositional infinitive complements.

4.3. PICs as Aspectual Complement Clauses As noted earlier, prepositional infinitives also occur in the context of sensory perception verbs in many dialectal varieties of German and Dutch. Semantically, they serve to portray the event perceived as being in progress. The following examples might suffice to demonstrate that PICs, like their ACI counterparts, are indeed clausal constituents. (73) a. Ich habe es noch nie so stark am Regnen sehen. b. Ik heb het nog nooit zo hard aan't regenen gezien. I have it PRT never so heavy atthe rain-INF see(n) both: 'I have never before seen it raining this heavily' (74) a. Ich kann Maria die Glocke am Läuten hören. b. Ik kan Maria de bei aan't luiden hören. I can M. the bell at.the ring-INF hear both: heard Mary ringing the bell'

(Ge) (Du) (Ge) (Du)

Example (73) contains a quasi-argument, which cannot possibly be construed as the direct object of see. In (74), it is clear that what is perceived is the ringing of the bell, not Maria. Notice that null subjects are also disallowed: (75) * Wir haben am Singen hören. *We hebben aan't zingen gehoord. we have at.the sing-INF hear(d)

(Ge) (Du)

Further evidence for the clausal status of PICs has been presented by Ruyter (1988), who points out that the subject-object asymmetry exhibited by the so-called wat-voor split in Dutch is also found in aan't complements (the examples in (76) and (77) have been adapted from Ruyter 1988: 27If). (76) a. Watj heb je [tj voorboeken] gekocht? what have you for books bought 'What kind of books have you bought?' b. *Watj hebben [tj voormensen] die bocken gekocht? what have for people those books bought

As the above examples illustrate, the interrogative pronoun wat 'what' may be selectively extracted from objects, but not from subject expressions. The ungrammaticality of (77b) below thus confirms the hypothesis that the noun phrase wat voor mensen functions as the subject of a complement clause, and not as a matrix object: (77) a. [Wat voor mensen], zag je [ tj aan't fietsen]? what for people saw you on.the cycle-INF 'What kind of people did you see cycling?'

13

Further problems with an Antisymmetry approach to Dutch and German word order have been pointed out by Neeleman/Weerman (1996).

Aspectual Complement Clauses

181

(77) b. *Watj zag je [[t; voormensen] aan't fietsen]? what saw you for people on.the cycle-INF

Similar observations can be made with regard to the availability of the -was-fur split in German prepositional infinitive complements: (78) a. [Was für Kinder]j hast du [ tj das Auto am Demolieren] sehen? what for children have you the car at.the demolish-INF see-INF 'What kind of children did you see demolishing the car?' b. ?*WaSj hast du [[^ für Kinder] das Auto am Demolieren] sehen? what have you for children the car at.the demolish-INF see-INF

The fact that adjectival modifiers are excluded from PICs, and that direct objects carry accusative rather than genitive case, as demonstrated by the German examples below, further corroborates the claim that the infinitive is a verbal rather than a nominalised form. (79) a. Wir haben Hans fest am Schlafen sehen. we have H. deep at.the sleep-INF see-INF 'We saw John sleeping deeply' b. *Wir haben Hans am festen Schlafen (ge)sehen. we have H. atthe deep sleep see(n) (80) a. Wir haben Maria das Buch am Lesen sehen. we have M. the book atthe read-INF see-INF 'We saw Maria reading the book' b. * Wir haben Maria am Lesen des Buches (ge)sehen. we have M. at.the reading [the book]GEN see(n)

Next, observe that auxiliary seinlzijn 'be' is excluded from PICs as well: (81) a. * Wir sahen Hans am Schlafen sein. we saw H. at.the sleep-INF be b. *Janziet Piet aanhetverven zijn. J. sees P. on the paint-INF be

(Ge) (Du; Ruyter 1988)

While being consistent with the idea that PICs do not project a T-system, the absence of auxiliary seinlzijn could also be a consequence of the fact that PICs in German and Dutch generally obey the stage-level constraint. That is, just like progressive -ing in English, aspectual am and aan't combine with episodic-predicates only. (82) a. * Ich habe Hans seine Schwester am Hassen sehen. b. *Ik heb Hans zijn zuz aan't haten gezien. I have H. his sister at.the hate-INF see(n) both: saw John hating his sister'

(Ge) (Du)

On the basis of the above observations, I propose that PIC structures such as the German example Wir haben ihn die Suppe am Kochen sehen have the basic (simplified) structure of (83) below, with the lower verb being obligatorily incorporated into the aspectual head.14

For independent arguments in favour of permitting right-adjunction of heads, see Barbosa (1996). Notice that while according to the traditional SOV view, the word order observed in PIC structures such as (83) Wir haben ihn die Suppe kochen sehen 'We saw him cook the soup' more or less reflects the basic order, deriving it from an underlying SVO structure such as (i) below via leftward movement proves fairly complicated, (i) ... [ypi wir [ haben [ypj sehen [ASPP om [yps ihn die Suppe kochen ]]]]]

182

Claudia Felser

(83)

D

ihn

V

DP die Suppe

Asp

V am

V

Kochen

ti

In sum, I have shown that the major syntactic and semantic properties of German and Dutch prepositional infinitive complements mirror those of English participial perception complements. It was suggested that like their ACI counterparts, PICs should be analysed as clausal constituents headed by an aspectual category intermediate between T and vN. If this analysis is correct, then the sole difference between ACI perception complements and PICs is one between progressive and non-progressive aspect, represented here as different values of the feature [progressive] in the functional head Asp. Dutch and German PICs differ only with regard to the possible ordering of verbal elements at the right periphery, which is normally associated with the phenomenon of Verb Raising. These differences will be examined in the next section.

5. Restrictions on Verb Raising

Verb Raising (VR) is traditionally thought to involve adjunction of one (or more) verb(s) to a higher verb or auxiliary, resulting in the formation of a clause-final verbal cluster (Evers 1975).15 For illustration, compare the Dutch ACI examples below (from den Besten 1989). (84) a. %dat ze [ mij het lied zingen ] hoorden that they me the song sing-INF heard b. dat ze mij het lied [ hoorden zingen ] that they me the song heard sing-INF both: '.. .that they heard me sing the song'

(= VR configuration)

For lack of space, I shall not be concerned with the superficially similar phenomenon of Verb Projection Raising here (see den Besten/Edmondson 1983, Haegeman/van Riemsdijk 1986, vanden Wyngaerd 1989, or den Dikken 1996 for some discussion).

Aspectual Complement Clauses

183

In (84b), the embedded verb zingen 'sing' appears to have moved out of the ACT into the main clause, and adjoined to the right of the finite verb hoorden 'heard'. Examples like (84a) are not uniformly accepted by all speakers of Dutch, suggesting that VR in Dutch ACIs is (near-)obligatory.16 Notice that the use of a past participle instead of an infinitive seems to block Verb Raising, as the following examples (from Declerck 1982a) show. (85) a. Ik heb Jan zien zwemmen. I have J. see-INF swim-INF have seen Jan swim' b. *Ik heb Jan gezien zwemmen. I have J. seen swim-INF German differs from Dutch in that the evidence for VR is less obvious. Den Besten/Edmondson (1983: 188) observe that for simpler cases, the relative ordering of verbs within the clause-final verbal cluster is as in (86) (where AUX 2 can be a modal or auxiliary, or one of a small set of ACI-taking verbs such as sensory perception verbs or permissive lassen 'let'): (86) GERMAN: DUTCH:

Tensed AUX Tensed AUX

- Main Verb - AUX 2

- AUX 2 - Main Verb

This difference is illustrated by the examples in (87) below: (87) a. dass ich ihn das Lied habe singen hören that I him the song have sing-INF hear-INF b. dat ik hem het lied heb hören zingen that I him the song have hear-INF sing-INF both: '...that I have heard him sing the song'

(Ge) (Du)

In both, (87a) and (87b), the infinitive form of hören/hören 'hear' must be used in place of the past participle gehört/gehoord, which would normally be required in the context of a perfective auxiliary. Following suggestions made by Evers (1975), the word order difference between (87a) and (87b) can be accounted for by assuming that the most deeply embedded verb singenlzingen 'sing' adjoins to the left of the higher verb hören/hören 'hear' in German, but to its right in Dutch. Given my earlier claim that Dutch and German ACIs are head-final aspectual phrases headed by a non-progressive null counterpart ofam/aan't, as indicated in fig. (88) below, the derivation of both (87a) and (87b) will involve the following steps: (i) the verb singenlzingen 'sing' adjoins to Asp, (ii) the complex aspectual head thus formed subsequently adjoins to hören/hören 'hear', and (iii)the resulting verbal complex finally adjoins to the finite auxiliary habe/heb 'have'.

The unavailability of VR in English has been linked to the observation that verb movement in English is generally more restricted, a fact which in turn has been attributed to the relative "weakness" of inflectional heads in English, and/or to the paucity of the inflectional paradigm (compare e.g. Bennis/Hoekstra 1989: 38, fn.6).

184

Claudia Felser

(88)

IP

VP

I habe heb

AspP

VP D

ihn hem

Asp l 0

V

hören hören

DP

das Lied het lied

singen zingen

Assuming that in Dutch, adjunction to V is uniformly right-adjunction, successive applications of head movement will ultimately yield a complex verbal head with the internal structure of (89), which corresponds to the word order observed in (87b) above.

(89)

A standard argument in favour of a rightward movement analysis of VR derives from the syntax of separable prefix verbs in Dutch. As the following examples show, verb raising can optionally leave the particle stranded (examples cited by Bennis 1992: 38). (90) a. dat hij mij weg zou kunnen hören rijden b. dat hij mij zou kunnen hören -weg rijden that he me (away) would can-INF hear-INF (away) drive-INF both: '.. .that he would be able to hear me drive away' Under the traditional view of VR, the particle weg 'away' in (90a) marks the base position of the verb, whereas in (90b), it has been carried along as the verb rijden 'drive' adjoined to the right of the higher verb hören 'hear'.17

In addition to the examples cited in the main text, Bennis (1992) claims that some speakers of Dutch also accept the following versions of (90): (i) dot hij mij zou (weg) kunnen (weg) hören rijden that he me would (away) can-INF (away) hear-INF drive-INF '.. .that he would be able to hear me drive away' Although Bennis admits that acceptability judgements for examples such as (i), where the particle appears in intermediate positions inside the verbal cluster, tend to be somewhat instable, a theory

Aspectual Complement Clauses

185

The situation in German appears to be a little more intricate. On the assumption that the finite auxiliary habe 'have' in embedded clauses heads a head-final inflectional projection, it appears that raising of the singen hören complex to the finite auxiliary in (87a) above is normally possible only if the infinitive is used in place of the participle (IPP).18 (91) a. dass ich ihn das Lied that I him the song b. dass ich ihn das Lied that I him the song

singen gehört l hören habe sing-INF heard / hear-INF have habe singen hören l *gehört have sing-INF hear-INF / heard

If the above analysis of VR in Dutch is along the right lines, then the contrast between (87a) and (87b) might be accounted for as follows. In the German example (87a), the verb singen 'sing' has first adjoined to the right of a (null) aspectual head, which has subsequently adjoined to the left of hören 'hear'. Finally, the resulting verbal complex has adjoined to the right of the finite perfective auxiliary habe, yielding the configuration shown in (92) (from which small vP has been omitted).

(92)

That singen adjoins to the right rather than to the left of Asp is suggested by the ordering of amlaan't and V that is found in prepositional infinitives. As we saw above, the presence of a past participle tends to prevent (one or more steps of) VR from taking place. Note that in (91b), the basic order Main Verb - AUX2 - Tensed A UX has been preserved. This suggests that VR has either not taken place at all, or, in the IPP variant, has only moved the verb singen as far up as hören, without subsequent adjunction of the singen hören complex to the finite auxiliary.

of VR ought to be able to account for them. Bennis's analysis of VR encompasses the idea that the particle can enter the verbal cluster at different points in the derivation. Some speakers of German, however, also accept intransitive (but not transitive) VR structures without IPP such as (i): (i) dass ich ihn habe singen gehört that I him have sing-INF heard This confirms that at least as far as the German data are concerned, the IPP phenomenon cannot be taken as a reliable indicator of VR (compare also (91a), and fig. (93) in the main text).

186 (93)

Claudia Felser

IP

VP

habe Asp | 0

gehört/ hören

singen

To summarise the preceding discussion, it seems that at least as far as the comparatively simple cases under discussion are concerned, the main difference between VR in German and in Dutch lies in the direction of head adjunction: In Dutch, verbs will uniformly adjoin to the right of their host, whereas in German the direction of adjunction seems to be variable. However, the direction of head adjunction in German might actually be less arbitrary than it appears. The above data suggest that in German VR configurations, adjunction to a lexical verb is generally to the left, whereas adjunction to a functional head (such as perfective haben) is to the right." Alternatives to the traditional view of VR have been suggested by Zwart (1994, 1997) and den Dikken (1996). Their analyses are based upon Kayne's (1994) hypotheses that all languages are underlyingly SVO, and that rightward movement is universally prohibited. Den Dikken proposes that a typical VR configuration such as the one found in the West Flemish example (94) involves a stacked VP, and is derived by leftward movement of the direct object across both verbs, as indicated in (95) below (den Dikken 1996: 71, 75): (94) da Jan dienen boek wilt kuopen that J. that book wants buy-INF '...that Jan wants to buy that book'

19

Note that under this view, German modals (other than the future auxiliary werden) differ from the perfective auxiliary haben in that they must be analysed as lexical verbs. Though a comprehensive analysis of VR in German is far beyond the scope of this paper, the following examples (which each represent the most natural ordering of verbal elements) provide some preliminary support for the idea that lexical and functional head differ with regard to their incorporation properties: (i) dass ich ihn nicht [werde [haben [singen hören]]] that I him NEG will have-INF sing-INF hear-INF '...that I will not have heard him sing' (ii) dass ich ihn nicht [ werde [[singen hören J können ]] that I him NEG will sing-INF hear-INF can-INF '... that I will not be able to hear him sing' (iii) dass ich ihn nicht [[[singen hören] können] muss] that I him NEG sing-INF hear-INF can-INF must '... that I need not be able to hear him sing'

Aspectual Complement Clauses

1 87

(95) UgrOP fopdienen boek\i Ugio· AgrO Ivpi '« Iv wilt fvp2 kuopen /j ]]]]]

I_

,

Under this view, the VR effect results not from verb movement, but from overt raising of the subject and object DPs to their case positions ([Spec.AgrSP] and [Spec,AgrOP] in den Dikken's system). It is difficult to see, however, how an analysis along these lines would account for Verb Raising in ACI structures, or for its absence in PIC sentences (see below). ACI perception sentences differ from simple root clauses such as (94) in that they are biclausal structures, and ACIs in German and Dutch invariably precede, rather than follow, the theta-marking verb in non-V2 environments (but see Koster 1994 and Zwart (1994: 398f., 1997: 102) for some ideas as to how this problem might be solved). Applying a leftward movement analysis to ACI structures such as the Dutch example (87b) will yield the (partial) representation in (96). (96) hem^... [DP het Lied\{... [yp, tsul [v, heb [y^ hören [ A P

/k zingen t{ ] ]]]

J In order to derive the observed word order, it is necessary to assume that both the subject and the direct object of the most deeply embedded verb zingen must raise into the main clause overtly. Raising of the lower subject may be triggered by the requirement that its objective case feature must be checked in a Spec-Head configuration with the higher verb, as is generally the case in ECM structures. Why movement of the embedded object into the main clause should also be obligatory - regardless of whether the object is definite/specific or not - remains unclear though, given that its case can presumably be checked complement-internally. The fact that adverbs or particles are never found inside the verbal cluster also remains unaccounted for, as does the possibility of stranding a separable verb particle to the left of the finite verb or auxiliary (compare example (90a) above). Deriving the word order typically found in German ACI structures via leftward movement proves somewhat more complicated. Within an Antisymmetry framework, the basic structure of (87a) will look roughly as in (97). (97) ... [yp| ich [ , habe [yj>2 hören [ A P ihn singen das Lied] ]]]

For the derivation to yield the word order observed in (87a), it would seem that first of all, the entire AspP complement of hören must obligatorily undergo raising, as indicated below.20 (98) ... [yp] ich [y. habe [yp2 [AspP ihn singen das Lied ]s hören tj ]]]

1

,

Next, both the embedded subject and the direct object of singen must raise into the matrix clause, to yield the configuration Tensed AUX- Main Verb - AUX 2.

211

A possible target for this movement might be the specifier of PredP, along the lines suggested by Koster (1994) and Zwart (1997) for other types of fronted constituents.

188

Claudia Felser

(99) ihnj... [DP das Lied\ ... [ypj tsul [v- habe [y^ [AspP t· singen / k ]; hören tj ]]]

T

T

,

Although theoretically possible, the analysis sketched above seems considerably more cumbersome, i.e. computationally costly, than the traditional rightward movement account. Again, the Antisymmetry approach offers no obvious explanation why objects should scramble obligatorily into the main clause, or for the fact that adverbials or other nonincorporable material may never appear inside the verbal complex. Notice that a prohibition against rightward movement further compels us to assume that prepositional objects and adjunct predicates must also raise into the main clause overtly: (100) a. dass ich ihn gegen die Mauer habe fahren sehen that I him against the wall have drive-INF see-INF '...that I have seen him drive against the wall' b. dass ich sie das Zimmer wütend habe verlassen sehen that I her the room angry have leave-INF see-INF '...that I have seen her leave the room angry'

Next, recall that VR is impossible if the complement clause contains a prepositional infinitive. Consider the following paradigms. (101) a. dat ikhem hetlied [aan't zingen] hören /gehoard heb (Du) that I him the song at.the sing-INF hear-INF / heard have '...that I have heard him singing the song' b. *dat ikhem hetlied heb [aan't zingen] hören / gehoord that I him the song have at.the sing-INF hear-INF / heard c. *dat ikhemhet lied heb hören /gehoord [aan't zingen} that I him the song have hear-INF / heard at.the sing-INF d. dat ik hem het lied [aan't zingen] heb ??horen /gehoord that I him the song at.the sing-INF have hear-INF / heard (102) a. dass ich ihn das Lied [am Singen] hören / gehört habe (Ge) that I him the song at.the sing-INF hear-INF / heard have '.. .that I have heard him singing the song' b. *dass ich ihn das Lied habe [ am Singen ] hören /gehört that I him the song have at.the sing-INF hear-INF / heard c.*dass ich ihn das Lied habe hören /gehört [am Singen] that I him the song have hear-INF / heard at.the sing-INF d. * dass ich ihn das Lied [ am Singen] habe hören /gehört that I him the song atthe sing-INF have hear-INF / heard

The data above show clearly that in both languages, the amiaan't + V complex is unable to undergo rightward movement across a hierarchically superior head. Notice further that Dutch (but not German) permits the participle gehoord 'heard' to adjoin to the right of the finite auxiliary heb 'have', provided that the aan't + V complex is not pied-piped along with it (cf. (10 Id); an option which is only marginally available if the infinitive form hören is used instead). Of particular interest is the minimal contrast between PIC structures and the corresponding ACI structures with respect to the availability of VR, which is illustrated by (103) and (104) below. (103) dat ikhem het lied heb hören (*aan't) zingen that I him the song have hear-INF atthe sing-INF

(Du)

Aspectual Complement Clauses (104) dass ich ihn das Lied habe (*am) singen hören that I him the song have at.the sing-INF hear-INF

189 (Ge)

Given the analysis of ACIs and PICs in (83) and (88) above, the prohibition against VR out of PICs suggests that the complex aspectual head formed by V-to-Asp movement cannot subsequently incorporate into a higher verb if the functional head Asp contains overt aspectual morphology. Where Asp is phonetically null, on the other hand, as has been proposed for perception-ACIs, then further head movement is possible, or even necessary. But why should head movement of the Asp + V complex be prohibited if Asp is instantiated overtly, but possible otherwise? It is tempting to attribute this observation to a general constraint against functional heads being incorporated into lexical ones, as has been proposed by Li (1990). (105) Functional heads can incorporate into other functional heads, not into lexical heads. (den Dikken 1996: 75)

Condition (105) was originally motivated by the observation that cross-linguistically, verb incorporation never carries along any overt inflectional material (see Li 1990 for further illustrative examples). Notice that if (105) is correct as it stands, then it seems that in view of the fact that VR is possible out of ACI complements, the analysis of ACIs advocated above must be abandoned in favour of a "bare VP" analysis. However, a verbal small clause analysis is hardly compatible with the evidence presented above in favour of the existence of at least one functional head above V (or v) in these constructions. What is more, even if we were to deny the existence of an AspP (or equivalent) functional layer in ACIs, there are independent reasons for why (105) cannot be correct as stated: At least those ACIs which contain a transitive or intransitive verb will necessarily project a functional layer that provides a position for objective case to be checked, such as vP or AgrOP. By virtue of the head movement constraint (Travis 1984), verbs raising across the ACI boundary must first of all adjoin to v (or AgrO) before the resulting complex functional head can raise any further. Hence, I propose that the generalisation in (105) should be revised as follows: (106) Functional heads containing overt inflectional material cannot incorporate into lexical heads.

The revised condition (106) seems to cover the same range of empirical facts as (105), while being compatible with more recent assumptions regarding the structure of verbal projections (Chomsky 1995), and allowing us to maintain our original analysis of German and Dutch ACI structures. Notice that under an Antisymmetry approach (where VR configurations are derived without assuming verb movement) there is no obvious reason why the presence versus absence of the aspectual marker should have such a dramatic effect on word order, given that ACIs and PICs pattern remarkably alike otherwise. Of course, (106) is little more than a descriptive generalisation at present, and should ultimately derive from more fundamental principles of syntax. Conceivably, (106) could be attributed to a requirement that non-finite verbs in languages like Dutch and German must

190

Claudia Felser

be 'identified' by overt inflectional morphology in some way.21 In contexts in which more than one non-finite verb form need to be identified by a single inflectional morpheme (as in ACI structures), this requirement can be met through incorporation (i.e., VR). In PIC structures, by contrast, raising of the most deeply embedded verb to Asp will suffice to identify the verb, and economy constraints will prevent the complex aspectual head from raising any further that necessary. For lack of space, a fuller elaboration of this hypothesis must await future research.

6. Conclusion I started out by reviewing the major syntactic and semantic properties of bare infinitival and participial perception complements in English, which differ only with respect to their aspectual character. I then argued that both types of complement have fairly direct analogues in Dutch and German, which I have labelled ACI and prepositional infinitive complements (PICs) respectively. After presenting evidence that German am and Dutch aan't in prepositional infinitive structures function as aspectual markers rather than prepositional determiners in many colloquial varieties of the two languages, I showed that complements of this type are neither nominal or prepositional gerunds, nor verbal small clauses in the sense of Stowell (1983), but instead are best analysed as clausal projections of an aspectual head located lower than T, but higher than V (or v). Direct perception complements in German and Dutch differ from their English counterparts only with regard to the headedness of AspP, and in the way that progressive aspect is marked - by a lexical formative in German and Dutch, and morphologically in English. In sum, I have argued that despite some superficial differences, the structure of aspectual complement clauses in English, German and Dutch is essentially analogous. I further examined certain differences between Dutch and German on the one hand, and between ACIs and PICs on the other, with respect to Verb Raising. VR structures in Dutch differ from those in German in that the direction of V-adjunction is uniformly to the right in Dutch, whereas it is variable in German. As regards the availablility of VR, it appears that functional heads are capable of undergoing VR only if they are not themselves associated with any overt inflectional material. Thus VR is possible out of ACIs, but not out of PICs. I have tentatively suggested that this restriction may be due to certain morphosyntactic requirements of non-finite verbs in languages like German and Dutch. In Modern English, by contrast, verb movement is much more restricted generally, and given that English is a head-initial language, we do not expect to find clause-final verbal clusters of the type discussed above.

This idea is reminiscent of Evers' (1988, 1990) claim that non-finite verbs must be governed by INFL (similar proposals have been made by Fabb 1984, Bennis/Hoekstra 1989, and Janßen 1993). In Felser (1999), I consider an alternative explanation for the absence of VR in PICs in terms of a feature mismatch. To the extent that am and aan't still have a residual P status (cf. Bhatt/Schmidt 1993), this could also explain why the Asp + infinitive complex is not eligible to undergo VR.

Aspectual Complement Clauses

191

Last but not least, I have highlighted some of the problems of an SVO/Antisymmetry approach to Dutch and German ACI and PIC structures, which I argued can be accounted for more elegantly under a more traditional SOV approach.

References Abraham, W. (1995): Deutsche Syntax im Sprachenvergleich. Tübingen: G.Narr. Alexiadou, A. (1997): Adverb Placement. A Case Study in Antisymmetric Syntax. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: Benjamins. Baker, M. (1988): Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Barbosa, P. (1996): In defense of right-adjunction for head movement. In: A.-M. DiSciullo (ed.): Configurations, 161-183. Somerville: Cascadilla Press. Bayer, J. (1986). The role of event expressions in grammar. In: Studies in Language 10, 1-52. - (1993): Zum in Bavarian and scrambling. In: W. Abraham, J. Bayer (eds.): Linguistische Berichte, Sonderheft 5: Dialektsyntax, 50-70. Bennis, H. (1992): Long head movement: The position of particles in the verbal cluster in Dutch. In: Linguistics in the Netherlands 23, 37-47. Dordrecht: Foris. Bennis, H., Hoekstra, T. (1989): Why Kaatje was not heard sing a song. In: D. Jaspers et al. (eds.): 21-40. Besten, H. den (1989): Studies in West Germanic Syntax. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Besten, H. den, Edmondson, J. A. (1983): The verbal complex in Continental West Germanic. In: W. Abraham (ed.): On The Formal Syntax of The Westgermania, 155-216. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: Benjamins. Bhatt, C., Schmidt, C. M. (1993): Die am+Infinitiv-Konstruktion im Kölnischen und im umgangssprachlichen Standarddeutschen als Aspekt-Phrasen. In: W. Abraham, J. Bayer (eds.): Linguistische Berichte Sonderheft 5: Dialektsyntax, 71-98. Bierwisch, M. (1963): Grammatik des deutschen Verbs. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. (= Studia Grammatica 2). BoSkovic, Z. (1996): Exceptional case-marking and Greed. In: University of Connecticut Working Papers in Linguistics 5, 1-23. Bowers, J. (1993): The syntax of predication. In: Linguistic Inquiry 24, 591-656. Carlson, G. (1980): Reference to Kinds in English. New York: Garland. Chomsky, N. (1995): The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Cement, D. (1971): Satzeinbettungen nach Verben der Sinneswahmehmung im Deutschen. In: D. Wunderlich (ed.): Probleme und Fortschritte der Transformationsgrammatik, 245-265. München: Hueber. Declerck, R. (1981): On the role of progressive aspect in nonfmite perception verb complements. In: Glossa 15, 83-114. - (1982a): On the derivation of Dutch bare infinitives after perception verbs. In: Theoretical Linguistics'), 161-179. - (1982b): The triple origin of participial perception verb complements. In: Linguistic Analysis 10, 1-26. Diesing, M. (1992): Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. - (1996): Semantic variables and object shift. In: H. Thräinsson, S. Epstein, S. Peter (eds.): Studies in Germanic Syntax II, 66-84. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Dikken, M. den (1996): The minimal links of verb (projection) raising. In: W. Abraham, S. Epstein, H. Thräinsson, C. J. W. Zwart. (eds.) (1996): Minimal Ideas: Syntactic Studies in the Minimalist Framework, 67-96. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.

192

Claudia Felser

Evers, A. (1975): The Transformational Cycle in Dutch and German. Ph.D. Dissertation University of Utrecht [Distributed by the Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington, Ind.]. - (1988): Non-finite verb forms and subject theta role assignment. In: M. Everaert, A. Evers, R. Huybregts, M. Trommelen (eds.): Morphology and Modularity, 105-128. Dordrecht: Foris. - (1990): The infinitival prefix 'zu1 as INFL. In: G. Grewendorf, W. Sternefeld (eds.): Scrambling and Barriers, 217-238. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Fabb, N. (1984): Syntactic Affixation. Ph.D. Dissertation MIT. Felser, C. (1998): Perception and control: a minimalist analysis of English direct perception complements. In: Journal of Linguistics 34, 351-385. - (1999): Verbal Complement Clauses: A Minimalist Study of Direct Perception Constructions. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: Benjamins. Fillmore, C. (1963): The position of embedding transformations in a grammar. In: Word 19, 208-231. Gee, J. (1977): Comments on the paper by Akmajian. In: P. Culicover, T. Wasow, A. Akmajian (eds.): Formal Syntax, 461-481. New York: Academic Press. Geest, W. de (1970): Infinitiefconstructies bij verba sentiendi. In: Studio Neerlandica 3, 33-59. - (1980): Naar een beter begrijp van 'kale infmitiefconstructies'. In: GLOT 3, 29-46. Gelderen, E. van (1993): The Rise of Functional Categories. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Grewendorf, G. (1983): Reflexivierung in deutschen A.c.I-Konstruktionen - kein transformationsgrammatisches Dilemma mehr. In: Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik 23, 120196. - (1988): Aspekte der deutschen Syntax. Tübingen: G.Narr. (= Studien zur deutschen Grammatik 33) Haegeman, L., Riemsdijk, H. van (1986): Verb projection raising, scope, and the typology of rules affecting verbs. In: Linguistic Inquiry 17, 417-466. Haider, H. (1993): Deutsche Syntax Generativ. Tübingen: G.Narr. Hyvärinen, I. (1984): Zur Satzgliedanalyse der A.c.I.-Konstruktion bei den deutschen Verben der Sinneswahrnehmung. In: Deutsche Sprache 12, 303-325. Janßen, H. (1993): Verbstellung und Satzstruktur im Englischen. Tübingen: G.Narr. Jaspers, D., Klooster, W., Putseys, Y., Seuren, P. (eds.) (1989): Sentential Complementation and the Lexicon. Dordrecht: Foris. Johnson, K. (1991): Object positions. In: Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9, 577-636. Kayne, R. (1994): The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Kirsner, R. and Thompson, S. (1976): The role of pragmatic inference in semantics: a study of sensory verb complements in English. In: Glossa 10, 200-240. Koopman, H. (1995): On verbs that fail to undergo V-second. In: Linguistic Inquiry 26, 137-163. Koster, J. (1975): Dutch as an SOV language. In: Linguistic Analysis 1, 111-136. - (1994): Predicate incorporation and word order in Dutch. In: G. Cinque, J. Koster, J.-Y. Pollock, L. Rizzi, Zanuttini, R. (eds.): Paths Towards Universal Grammar: Studies in Honor of Richard S. Kayne, 255-276. Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University Press. Leek, F. van der, Jong, J. (1982): The complement structure of perception verbs in English. In: Linguistics in the Netherlands 13, 103-114. Dordrecht: Foris. Lehmann, C. (1991): Grammaticalization and related changes in contemporary German. In: EC. Traugott, B. Heine (eds.): Approaches to Grammaticalization, vol. II, 493-535. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Li, Y. (1990): X° binding and verb incorporation. In: Linguistic Inquiry 21, 399-426. Neeleman, A., Weerman, F. (1996): Flexible Syntax: A Theory of Case and Arguments. Ms. University of Utrecht/OTS. Ruyter, L. (1988): Bare infmitivals, INFL and pseudo-progressives in Dutch. In: McGill Working Papers in Linguistics: Special Issue on Comparative Germanic Syntax, 260-279. Sportiche, D. (1988): A theory of floating quantifiers and its corrolaries for constituent structure. In: Linguistic Inquiry 19, 33-60. Steube, A. (ed.) (1994): Zur Satzwertigkeit von Infinitiven und small clauses. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Stowell, T. (1983): Subjects across categories. In: The Linguistic Review 2, 285-312. Travis, L. (1984): Parameters and Effects of Word Order Variation. Ph.D. Dissertation MIT.

Aspectual Complement Clauses

193

Vikner, S. (1990): Paper presented at the Workshop on the Logical Form of Perceptual Reports. Gargnano, Italy, September 1990. Wyngaerd, G. vanden (1989): Verb projection raising and the status of infinitival complements. In: D. Jaspers et al. (eds.), 423-438. Zwart, C. J.-W. (1994): Dutch is head-initial. In: The Linguistic Review 11, 377-406. - (1997): Morphosyntax of Verb Movement: A Minimalist Approach to the Syntax of Dutch. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Hans Thilo Tappe

Verb Second, Alternatives, and Economy

1. Optionality Much of recent syntactic inquiry has taken the notion of economy as a cornerstone of theory construction. This decision has made traditional "optionality" a marginal concept: any implementation of the idea that different ways of doing things are not just different, but different in value and to be chosen accordingly presupposes that equal values for different ways don't occur1 or at least do not occur very often.2 But despite the somewhat plausible assumption endorsed by economy-based theories that human systems don't do things without a good reason, there appear to remain certain "free choices" in syntactic systems, for instance with effects as in (1), where either member of each of the pairs seems to be constructive under otherwise similar circumstances, with no apparent way for us to predict the choice in any but stylistic terms: (1)

a. I know I forgot to call him. I know that I forgot to call him. b. a man is in the garden there is a man in the garden c. wen meinst du, daß Franz hauen möchte? was meinst du, wen Franz hauen möchte? 'who/what think you that/who F. hit wants?'

In this paper, we are going to look at some such "free choices" and consider ways of dealing with them. So for argument's sake let's suppose that the pairs in (1) indeed illustrate possible choices among syntactic "optional alternatives", and try to make syntactic sense of that notion. The variants in question contain different lexical material, and lexical material is of course something one is "free" to choose. But such freedom is obviously not what we focus upon when we talk about "optional alternatives": a pair of sentences made up of (la) and a sentence identical but for a her instead of a him wouldn't plausibly fall under this designation. For "optional alternatives" to have any content beyond "free choice", we must restrict the kind of choice involved. Insofar as we are interested in syntactic properties only, we may require "optional alternatives" to be similar in interpretation. One way to achieve this

1

J

Minimalist approaches as in Chomsky (1995) provide a particularly clear statement in this respect: the mappings from numerations to pairs of phonological and interpretive interface structures are defined in such a way as to make them functions. While the concept of "constraint ranking" in Optimality theory minimally provides an algebraic constraint structure < C, ^ > and therefore incorporates a restriction against equally valued outputs, it is now considered necessary to loosen that restriction, i.e. provide a relational constraint structure that allows "tied constraints" (cf. Grimshaw 1997, attributing the idea to Pesetsky; cf. Pesetsky 1998); however: "ties" still are a special case.

196

Hans Thilo Tappe

is to place a requirement on their LFs: for our present purposes we will restrict the predicate "optional alternative" to cases where there are two or more equally successful structures which are different in their PFs, yet identical in their LFs.3 Syntactic theories provide a variety of treatments for such "alternatives". Considering the minimalist derivation of phonological interface structures π and interpretive interface structures λ from lexical numerations num, namely D {mini) = , and our contention that λ be identical and π different in the cases in question, optionality must reside in the choice of lexical material for the numeration num. Since it is furthermore obvious that only some of the information in any num, call it L (num), is relevant to λ, optionality can be described by sets of numerations {num{... numj for which L( num.) = L (num.).* Optimality theory is somewhat more flexible in its syntactic applications.5 Although "optional alternatives'" cannot be anything but equally "optimal" outputs related to the same input,6 there are two ways to achieve that, resulting from the interaction of the two basic functions, namely a) GEN, which maps inputs to sets of syntactic structures, and b) the evaluative function, which maps constraint structures and sets of syntactic structures (now called sets of candidates) to subsets of the latter (called sets of optimal candidates). The situation that the set of optimal candidates has more than a single element (so that there are are several equally "optimal" outputs) can arise in one of two ways: either the optimal candidates all violate the very same constraints, or they violate different constraints, but the difference of the violated constraints is neutralized in the given constraint structure (i.e. these constraints are "tied", cf. footnote 2). These two conceptions make different empirical claims concerning "optional alternatives". Minimalist approaches are happy with all and only those kinds of optionality ultimately reducible to a lexical distinction in phonological and/or syntactic properties. Optimality approaches can account for optionality in a semi-lexical way, namely in terms of GEN's potentially unchecked power of adding phonological and/or syntactic information within the bounds set by a given index. Or they can integrate optionality in a more structural, clearly non-lexical way through the possibility of "tied" constraints. Given our characterization of "optional alternatives" and these potential treatments, we now have to look at clear cases of this phenomenon in order to decide which is the best way to deal with them: a truly non-lexical alternative would be crucial. Clear cases are not as easy to find as one might hope, though. The strategy of explaining away "alternatives" as only irrelevantly "optional" has been successfully applied to quite a number of constructions, not the least some of our data in (1). (la) for instance cannot be

Note that "identical LF" is a criterion for interfaces, not for interpretations (thus ruling out synonymy based on different LFs, even if there is a substantial overlap in lexical content). Partly because of phenomena of the kind in (1) (discussed e.g. in Frampton 1996), there seems to be a strong tendency towards a "same LF" criterion for the notion numeration in the literature. Cf. M ller (1996, 1997), Sternefeld (1996). Cf. Grimshaw (1997) for an exposition. Syntactic inputs are numeration-like arrangements of lexical information conforming to certain criteria relevant to the syntax-semantics interface: Grimshaw (1997) uses predicate-argument structures, Legendre et al. (1998), who call inputs "indices", enhance these with operator and scope information. So the "same input" criterion for "optional alternative" is somewhat similar to the "same LF" criterion above.

Verb Second, Alternatives, and Economy

197

considered a very good example of "free choice", because closer scrutiny reveals several asymmetries between ίΛαί-containing and that-\ess forms which must be due to some deeper constructional difference between the two than any description in terms of "optional alternatives" could account for.7 Nonetheless we won't despair. We will consider "optional alternatives" in the context of Verb Second (V2) phenomena highly unlikely a candidate though this property may seem:8 V2 clearly is not optional in well-studied cases like present day English, German and a host of others. As a case in point consider the German case with its well-known root-non-root asymmetry: (2)

a. jetzt will der Franz den Fritz verhauen 'now wants thenom F. theacc F. beat-up' *jetzt der Franz den Fritz verhauen will b. Paul findet es unklug, da der Franz den Fritz jetzt verhauen will 'Paul considers it unwise that theTOm F. theacc F. now beat-up wants' *Paul findet es unklug, der Franz den Fritz jetzt verhauen will *Paul findet es unklug, der Franz will den Fritz jetzt verhauen

Of course there are a couple of factors on the fringe that obscure the simple asymmetry like in other languages with the same phenomenon - and some of the exceptional situations these factors create may indeed look a little as if they involve "optional alternatives". Prominent examples of this kind are declarative V2 clauses appearing as complements to certain heads, as in (3a), and V2 clauses with empty conditional operators as in (3b) (3)

a. Paul findet, der Franz soll den Fritz jetzt verhauen 'P. thinks thenom F. shall theacc F. now beat-up' Paul findet, da der Franz den Fritz jetzt verhauen soll b. hat er ihn gehauen, mu er bestraft werden 'has he him hit, must he punished become' wenn er ihn gehauen hat, mu er bestraft werden

Standard German V2 nonetheless is not "optional" in any interesting way, because these alternatives are again best dealt with in terms of different lexical choices. The alternative exemplified in (3a) is not so much a V2-option as one involving the choice of properties of the higher verb: the selected construction is either one that requires V2 or one that prohibits it. Something closer to V2, yet similarly lexical, holds for (3b): empty operator conditional Cs strongly attract the finite verb, while phonologically realized ones do not. So despite the apparent "options" in (3), we can still predict V2 in German in a very strict way.

7 8

Just consider different possibilities for topicalized adjuncts, which may occur in f/iaf-clauses with or without accompanying verb movement, yet are impossible in ίΛαί-less ones. In the tradition of den Besten (1983) we will assume V2 to be the movement of the finite verb (in)to the position of the highest functional head, usually called C. As a preliminary characterization in minimalist terms, we will call a verb movement V2 whenever the head of the functional projection carrying the features of sentence type interpretation strongly attracts the finite verb, typically through strongly attracting the tense element, which in turn draws the V. That V2 is indeed "Verb Second" is attributed to the fact that the head in question typically strongly attracts relevant operators to its specifier (as suggested e.g. by Manzini 1994), a fact previously captured by various criteria such as the WH-criterion (Rizzi 1991) the NEG-criterion (Haegeman/Zanutti 1991) and others covering foci and topics.

198

Hans Thilo Tappe

In the present paper we will consider a system of verb placement that does not allow us to do so at all, despite claims commonly forwarded: Old English shows a very high degree of flexibility in this respect and thus may supply us with "optional alternatives" that cannot easily be reduced to obvious lexical properties, which is both interesting from the comparative point of view and, considering the V2 properties of Modern English, from the angle of language change. In the next section, we will try to establish V2 as an "optional alternative" of verb placement in Old English, and we will return to a discussion of the optimal treatment of this kind of this property in the final section.

2. The Position of Finite Verbs in Old English It is well known that Old English (OE) allows finite verbs to show up in a variety of sentential positions. Received opinion is that there is a root-non-root asymmetry of German dimensions in OE.9 Although there is doubtless an asymmetry in frequency, we take issue with the claim that there is a basic syntactic reason for that, and we will show that OE V2 is indeed optional in both contexts, which we will look at separately.

2.1. Root Clause Possibilities Depending on the subtlety of one's criteria, one can distinguish at least five and probably more superficially different verb placement types in OE root clauses. We will reduce this plethora to the two we are interested in, namely those clauses that more or less obviously have something to do with V2, and those that we think probably don't.

2.1.1. Root Structures involving Verb Second The most obvious candidates for V2 of course are structures with the finite verb in second position. It seems to be sensible, though, to distinguish two subtypes: standard V2 and apparent V2. Standard V2\ There are quite a number of root clauses where the finite verb is preceded by exactly one maximal projection of arbitrary category, the subject following the verb: (4)

a. Her haet Ecgferö cining gehalgian Cuobert to biscope 'Here ordered E. king to-hallow C. to bishop' b. In bare beode wees in ba tid Saeberht cyning ... 'In that province was in that time S. king'

(ASC Bodl. 685) (Bede 104.18)10

For a recent statement see Hulk/van Kemenade (1995: 224). A note on notation: we simply follow our sources, even though they show the effects of different editing strategies. To enhance readability, we add italics in relevant positions and occasionally insert (labelled) brackets to mark constituent boundaries.

Verb Second, Alternatives, and Economy

199

OE obviously does not have as restrictive a spectrum of checking relations between the Tattractor and its specifier as Modern English does: instead it appears to share the option of allowing topical and/or focused material in pre-V2 position with several other Germanic languages. Attraction of WH material is possible, too, as one would expect: (5)

a. Hwaeöer moton twegen aewegebroöer twa geswustor in gescipe onfon, ba... (Bede 68.23) 'Whether may two full brothers two sisters in marriage take, who ...' b. Hwst wilt bu bast ic be do? (Blickl. 15.22) 'What want you that I you do'

It appears that the overwhelming majority of non-embedded question word questions have V2 structures." Apparent V2: There are numerous cases of finite verbs in second positions preceded by subject DPs, either a full-fledged as in (6a) or a pronominal as in (6b): (6)

a. Se ealdormonn sceal laetan hine selfne gelicne his hieremonnum (CP 107.8) 'the ruler must let him self equal his subjects' b. ba cwädon ba Scottas [ we magon eow hwaebere raid geläron ] (ASC Cott. Tib.B. iv. b.C.) 'there said the Scots [:] we can you nevertheless council advise'

While the subject's initial position may be due to the features responsible for initial XPs in (4), it may also be a classical Extended Projection Principle effect. Assuming the latter would make the position of the finite verb that of the attractor of the subject, not that of the attractor of other initial XPs.12 Suspicion that (6) indeed involves a different verbal position is fostered by the existence of question structures like (7), where the finite verb does not move up to the question head but stays in a post-subject position:13 (7)

to hwon bu sceole for owiht bysne man habban ungelaeredne fiscere bone leasostan & nawber ne on worde ne on gebyrdum mid naenigre mihte gewelgode? (Blickl. 179.12) 'for what you should for anything this man have unlearned fisher this falsest (= this unlearned, falsest fisherman) and neither not in words nor in manners with no ability endowed'

We will not enter into a debate here as to whether the EPP should be considered among the criteria that help determine the V2 landing site (see footnote 8), or discuss the question of the status of subject-initial root clauses in V2 languages,14 but settle for being cautious in using structures of the form [Subject VriB ...] to support our arguments. However, whether true or debatable instances of V2, constructions with the finite verb in second surface position rather unsurprisingly account for the majority of non-embedded clauses in OE data.

11 12 13 14

Cf. van Kemenade (1987) for arguments that Old English WH and non-WH root structures are indeed parallel. Cf. Hulk /van Kemenade (1995: fn. 23). Note that moving the finite verb one "notch" higher in (7) would not produce unacceptability. Leaving it where it is therefore must be considered an "optional alternative" to V2. Cf. Zwart (1996) and, from a different point of view, Grimshaw (1997).

200

Hans Thilo Tappe

2.1.1.1. Verb First There are Verb First (VI) structures with the finite verb in initial position: (8)

a. Woes oa Hassten basr cumen mid his herge ... Hcefde Hasten aer geworht baet weorc aet Beamfleote (ASC Cott. Tib. B iv. 894) 'Was there H. there come with his army... Had H. before build fortification at Benfleet.' b. Lcerde he Scs Paulinus se biscop eac swelce Codes word in Lindesse (Bede 142.31) Taught he St. Paulinus the bishop (= the bishop St. Paulinus) also such God's word in Lindsey'

Here the finite V is doubtless attracted to the sentence head in accordance with our conception of V2. Therefore it must be the absence of a visible specifier that constitutes the defining property of the construction. Considering the absence of a visible specifier to be the presence of an invisible one would make it lexically "optional". And that is indeed a plausible approach: (8a) might just as well have had an initial pa to form pa wees da Hasten peer cumen mid his herge" making it a plain V2 case of (4)-form without altering anything in the inner sentence, so that focus and topic properties would have been entirely unchanged. VI structures constitute a sizable minority among declaratives.16 In non-declaratives, the opposite situation obtains. VI structures are predominant in non-embedded sentential questions without question words as well as in imperatives of various kinds, as one might expect on the basis of comparative evidence:17 (9)

a. Wilt 9u wit unc abidde ondrincan? 'want you we nom dual usdat>al ask drink' b. wuton we well paere tide bidan 'let we indeed the time await (= Let's await the hour)'"

(Bede 392.32) (Bede 348.15)

2.1.2. Structures Clearly not Involving Verb Second There are root clauses with the finite verb in "final" position relative to infinitival verbs, particles, etc., with or without further extraposition,19 i.e. in positions that are indeed final,

15

Such "double pa" forms are common, so that this insertion does not result in an obscure construction. " To various degrees in different sources, cf. Bean (1983). 17 This is not to say that they are obligatory in such questions. As a rare counterexample, consider (i). Here the yes-no-question-type property apparently does not strongly attract the finite verb, as it would have to in related languages, e.g. Standard German: (i) Ac ge ne leornodon: "quia intonuit..."? (Bede 268,25) 'but you not learned (= haven't you learned):"..."?' The lexical material does not allow for much variation, of course, yet something like "ne leornodon ge:..." does not seem at all impossible. 18 We ignore our source's non-agreeing verb form (dual subjects normally agree with plural verbs. " This entire classification is merely surfacist and observational; hence using this term is not meant to imply that there is anything like Extraposition!

Verb Second, Alternatives, and Economy

201

as in (lOa), or in positions that follow whatever other verbal or particle forms there are in that same clause, as in (lOb): (10) a. On pys geare [ p waes embe XII. monaö baes be hie on bam east rice geweorc geworht haefdan ] Norbanhymbre Eastengle Alfrede cinge abas geseald hafdan ... (ASC Cott.Tib. A. vi. 894) On this year that was about 12 months thatgen [= after] that they in the east kingdom fortifications build had Nothumbrians and East Anglians fc. king hostages given had' b. Da Wilferö biscop adrifen wees of his biscopscire lange geond monige stowe ferende waes he Rome gesohte eft hwearf to Breotone. (Bede 300.25) 'There [=at this time] W. bishop expelled was from his see and long through many places travelling was and he R. visited and after returned to Britain.' The verb-final type is not very frequent with non-embedded declaratives, but nonetheless clearly not rare enough to ignore it as an option for the formation of such sentences. It also occurs in questions:20 (11) a. Hwaeoer ou nu faegerra blostmaena/cEm'ge on eastran, swelce bu hie gescope? Hwaeöer ou nu swelces aunt wyrcan mcege, oööe geworhtes habbe? (Boeth. 29.20) 'Whether you now beautiful blossoms rejoice-in on Easter as-if you them made?' 'Whether you now such also make want, until madegen havesubj?' b. jErest bi biscopum, hu hy mid heora geferum drohtian 1 lifgan sculonl (Bede 64.5) 'First to bishops, how they with their companions behave and live shall' Note that neither sentence in (11) is anything but a true question, as we can gather from their respective contexts. So there is no special "musing question" interpretation involved, as there would be for comparable structures e.g. in German. It also has to be noted that OE V-fmal questions are even less frequent than V-final declaratives, and that (lib) seems quite isolated.21 Our point here is that we see no contextual reason to treat it as anything but a root question: the inital topic makes it pretty clear that there is no other way. So (1 Ib) is not an oddball, but an instance of a systematic possibility, and hence a counterexample to Allen's (1977) claim that there are no verb-final WHquestions.

In Boethius there seems to be a strong preference for V-final structures with hwcefrer, yet not with other question words. This suggests a lexical description. Yet since other sources do not share this preference (cf. for instance (5a) from Bede, where there are also V-final cases), considering it an individual stylistic preference seems more plausible. Actually, this is the first of three such questions in a row, with several other V2 and V-final ones close by in the same context. Although its position in the text might be taken to give this clause a caption-like quality, hence singling it out from standard question forms, we point out that preference for a particular verbal position cannot be part of that quality, hence must be part of a more generally available option.

202

Hans Thilo Tappe

2.1.3. Miscellaneous Cases A large subset of OE root clauses we have not mentioned so far may also bear on our problem insofar as they clearly involve verb movement. We will briefly look at their properties and conclude that they should in fact be treated as non-V2. Consider declarative structures where the finite verb occupies the third position. First, there are cases where it is preceded by an XP and the subject DP, full-fledged as in (12a) or pronominal as in (12b) (the declarative correspondent to (7)):22 (12) a. Ί by ilcan geare Tatwine wees gehalgod to arcebiscop 'the same year T. was hallowed to Archbishop' b. Ί by ilcan geare man gehalgode Tatwine to arcebiscop

(ASC Corp.Chr. 731) (ASC Bodl. 731)

Secondly, there are "V3" declaratives where the preverbal material does not include the subject: (13) a. Her hine bestcel se here into Wsrham Westseaxna iyrde (ASC Bodl. 876) 'here him refl stole-away themasc army to Wareham West-Saxon fortress' b. Hine \>a.forlel se costigend, and his englas him pa to eodan & him pegnedan (Blickl. 27.19) 'him there left the temper and his angels him to came and him ministered'

Cases involving XPs and subjects are quite common, those with two non-subjects are not as frequent. Under the reasonable assumption that the initial XP in (12) and (13) occupies the specifier of a functional head, i.e. is not adjoined to the clause, all these examples are instances of the finite V moving up to the head of the second-highest among the easily detectable functional projections. So are these instances of V2? There are two interpretations: first, there is V2 movement to C, yet there is another projection on top ofthat, whose head is at best a weak attractor for C features; secondly, V2 is not involved: whatever verb movement there is does not target the C (which is the topmost head and remains invisible), but instead some other, lower position, so that there are specifiers enough in and below the C projection to accommodate whatever XPs there may be. Depending on our assumptions concerning the position of post-subject finite Vs, we can also blend the two: (12) may have the finite V lower than C, while (13) may have it in C. Kiparsky (1995) proposes to assume an optional Topic projection on top of sentential projections. The specifier of such a projection could be used to house the inital XPs in (12) or (13), and it could account for the inital topic in (1 Ib) Given the multitude of proposals for a split-CP analysis and the inevitable assumption that topicalization may have more

22

We assume that clusters of temporal (or local) adverbials in this position indeed form one constituent, as marked in the following example: (i)a. [ her on pissum geare ] Swegen geendode his dagas ... (ASC Cott.Tib.B. I. 1014) '[ here in this year ] S. ended his days...' b. [ Betweoh as oing pa ] se halga wer Augustinus ferde ofer sa? '[ In the meantime then ] the holy man A. travelled over [the] sea'

Verb Second, Alternatives, and Economy

203

than one realization in any sentence, this approach makes some sense, although unresolved problems remain." Since there indeed seems to be a second, outer position for adjunct clauses, left-dislocated elements etc., this "superstructure" approach may have its uses in contexts we won't be able to go into here. Assuming a top projection as a "free" addition to any root clause on the other hand seems too heavy a tool to accommodate (12), at least if we assume that postsubject verbs in subject inital clauses are not in C. Under this assumption, structures of the form [XP subject V fin ...] may involve "internal" topicalization within a clause headed by a weak C: [C [ XP TOP [subject Vfill ...]]].24 And since internal topicalization is there anyway, no "outer" TOP projection is needed in any of these cases. This leaves us with (13). At least as far as (13b) is concerned, the Spec of a TOP projection won't do us any good either, since the initial pronoun clearly is not a topical element in this sentence. So a different description seems to be called for in any case. There are V3 clauses where the preceding constituents are the mirror image of (12b), namely (14a), and there are structures where the V occupies a position even further down, asin(Hb): (14) a. hig pa forlettan bone wall 1 heara burh 1 flugan onwaeg (Bede 46.20) b. Hi pa ealle glaed-mode begunnon to ceorfanne {xmne heagan pin-beam GELS xxxi.406) 'They then all with-glad-minds began to cut-down the high pine-tree'

" Standard German for instance is well known to allow the use of this position just in case there is a Spec-C link between the item in question and the inner CP (hence not in WH-clauses, cf. (i), unless the item in question is an adjunct clause (where C may be declarative or WH): (i)a. den Paul, den hat er gesehen 'the Paul, him has he seen' b. *der Paul, wer hat mit ihm gesprochen? 'the Paul, who has with him spoken' c. wenn er ihn sieht, was wird er ihm sagen? 'if he him sees, what will he say him?' While OE also has left dislocation type in (ia) (cf. (32) below), it also allows for links through resumptive pronouns (hence allows questions even with DP topics). Adjunct clause treatment corresponds to German: (ii)a. Oöbo in bam lacum geleafsumra be heo to wigbedum 1 to Codes cirican bringaö, hu monige daelas bara beon scyle? (Bede 64.7) 'And the gifts faithfulgen REL they to altars and to God's church bring, how many shares themgen be shall' b. Foroonbe nan craft nis to laeronne oaem be nine aer geornlice ne leornode, forhwon beoö aefre swae öriste oa ungelaeredan past he underfön pa heorde öaes lareowdomes. bonne se craft bass lareowdomes bio craeft ealra craefta? (CP 24.15) 'Since no art not-is to teach [for] him^, REL it before diligently not learned, why are ever so rash the unlearned that they undertake the care [of] the teaching, when the art [of] the teaching is art [of] all arts.' This proposal does not supply an insightful way to deal with these language internal and comparative asymmetries. Initial adjunct clauses at least may receive a completely different treatment (see below). 24 Internal topicalization is topicalization involving a projection immediately below C, as proposed for Standard German in Müller/Sternefeld (1993). Note that there are various and non-exclusive ways to topicalize constituents, only some of which involve otherwise unused projections, and we consider this one of them.

204

Hans Thilo Tappe

(14a) wouldn't easily fit into a TOP-over-C analysis for the same reason we noted with respect to (13b). Therefore it makes more sense not to take the position of the finite V to mark C and then exploit CP superstructures, but to assume V in a much lower position, hence not subject to V2. There are of course various types of non-V2 constructions with the finite verb at least two heads down, yet not final, i.e. not following infinitval verbs, particles, etc.: (15) a. Her Theodorus mon hadode to ercebiscope (ASC Corp.Chr. 686) 'Here Th. one hallowed to Archbishop' b. Her Cnut kyning binnan Ludene on See Paulus mynstre scealde fülle leafe /Eöelnoöe arcebiscope Bryhtwine biscope (ASC Cot. Tib. B. IV. 1023) 'Here C. the king in London in St. Paul's church gave full leave RL. archbishop and B. bishop' c. Hwilce wilddeorswypostge/e/z.sipu? (jEColl 65) 'which deer most catch you'

(15a) probably involves a double internal topicalization, (15b) exemplifies the Verb Projection Raising possibility extensively used in several variants of present-day West-Germanic languages as well as in OE, and (15c) shows us that such options are also used in non-declaratives. We won't look at these options in any detail - however we analyze them, it appears evident that V2 is not involved in whatever verb movements there are: there are too many projections above the verbal landing site to plausibly assume that this landing site is a functional head containing sentence type information, and there do not seem to be any of the relevant specifiers either.

2.2. Distribution of Root Possibilities Our observations have shown us the following variants: 1. Visible movement of the finite verb to the functional head with sentence type features which - doesn't have a visible specifier (VI), and - licenses a visible specifier (V2), 2. Visible movement to some functional head that does not have sentence type features, namely - the attractor of the subject, and - a functional head further down the line of extended verbal projections, 3. No visible movement of the finite verb. We already noted at various points that neither form shows any kind of predictable distribution, except on the level of different frequencies of types in different texts. We hold that such differences cannot be exploited in syntactic argumentation. First, the sources do not seem to exhibit distinct patterns of verb placement possibilities identifiable in terms of Labovian styles or Hallidayan registers: given their similarly formal nature, one would not expect that anyway. Secondly, a mixture of verb placement choices without clear stylistic triggers could mean that there is a system of styles with different verb placement preferences and a "code-switching" pattern - well known as a possibility, yet rather implausible

Verb Second, Alternatives, and Economy

205

again in the light of the formal nature of the sources. So we are left with what is indeed also the simplest assumption: that there are syntactic verb placement options within the style of our sources, and they are either syntactically or interpretively triggered or they are untriggered. We opt for "untriggered", i.e. for a lack of syntactic or interpretive predictability, which is what we find in cases of lexical alternatives (i.e. VI vs. V2): some sources seem to prefer VI in certain lexical contexts, e.g. with verbs of saying, yet though they do, there is always (at least) the />a-V2 alternative, too.25 Interpretive properties don't allow us to say anything more precise: since initial phrases in V2 sentences of other V2 languages are often topical, one might suspect VI structures to be reserved for basically non-topical information, and sometimes this may indeed be a reason for their use.26 But again this must be a pretty soft criterion: we find VI in cases where we cannot use topicality at all, namely cases where VI appears to be just rhetorically triggered: sometimes, a VI structure may initialize a succession of similar constructions without any evident interpretive effect.27 All in all there appears to be no combination of syntactic features that would force us to use (or hinder us from using) VI in a declarative. One may safely assume that the examples cited would not have suffered any interpretive change if one of the other potential verbal positions had been used. The "missing trigger" property evidently carries over to the V2 distribution, i.e. nonlexical contexts. We find an abundance of instances of alternative verb positions in what should be similarly conceived sentences of parallel texts, for instance in the different manuscripts of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Here follows a rather arbitrary list of alternative verbal positions. (16) contains instances of V2 and late V: (16) a. Her for se myccla here be we gefyrn XT ymb spraecon eft of bam east rice weastward to Bunan (ASC Bodl., 892) b. Her se micla here be we fyrn emb spaecan tftferde of ban east rice west to Bunan (ASC Cott.Domit.A.vm 892) 'Here the great army that we long-ago (before) about spoke again came from the east kingdom westward to Boulogne' (17) has alternative V2 and post-subject V: (17) a. Hergercedde se cing eft baet man scolde gauol gildan pan flotan (ASC Cott Domit.A.vni.1002) b. Her on pissum geare se cyng gercedde Ί his witan pact man sceolde gafol gyldon bam flotan (ASC Bodl., 1002) 'Her on this year the king decided and his counsellors that one should tribute pay the fleet' (18) has post-subject V and final V:

25 26 27

Bede is a case in point: there are scores of sentences beginnning c\vcef) he... and scegde he..., followed by a quote or an embedded clause. (8b) is the first sentence of a new chapter, where the last reference to Paulinus is five chapters back. Just compare (8a) with two VI sentences; Bede (144.11 ff.) even has six of them in a row.

206

Hans Thilo Tappe

(18) a. Her Centwalh adrifen wees from Pendan cyninge (ASC Corp.Chr. 645) b. Her Cenwalh \vces adrifen of his rice fram Pendan cininge (ASC Bodl. 645) 'Here Centwalh was expelled by Penda king'

And most impressively, (19) shows the three options V2, post-subject V, and final V: (19) a. On bysson geare [...] hcefdon Nor anhymbre Ί Eastaengle Alfrede cyninge abas geseald Ί ... (ASC Cott.Tib. B. iv. 894) b. On bys geare [...] Norbhymbre 7 Eastengle hcefdon Alfrede cyninge abas geseald Ί... (ASC Corp.Chr. 894) c. On bys geare [...] Norbanhymbre Ί Eastengle Alfrede cinge abas geseald hcefdan Ί ... (ASC Cott.Tib.A.vi.894) (=(10)

Although we haven't given example pairs for all options, an overall picture emerges that strongly suggests untriggered, non-lexical optionality in the choice of the verb's position, hence a fortiori optionality of root V2 in OE.

2.3. Verb Second and Embedded Contexts If there were a clear root-non-root asymmetry in verbal positions, one might be tempted to nonetheless treat V2 optionality as a basically lexical phenomenon. But if non-root verb placement has optional alternatives on a scale comparable to root V2, a different view is more plausible. This will indeed be our claim, though it turns out to be more difficult to argue than one might expect.u

2.3.1. Complement Clauses It is well known that V2 in OE is not confined to root contexts. Like in the German case of (3 a) there is a subclass of verbs that allow complement declaratives not to be headed by complementizers and then to have forms like their corresponding non-embedded sentences (cf. Mitchell 1985: §1983 ff.). There are all sorts of verbal positions under these conditions, among which there may be V2 structures: (20) a. saegde he, he hit gehyrde from bam seolfan Uttan maessepreoste.. (Bede 200.25) 'said he, he it heard from the himself Utta priest (= the same priest Utta himself)...' b. ... and cwaeb he wolde wi -sacan his criste and gelyfan on hine ... (/ELS IH.373) '... and said he would renounce his Christ and believe on him ...'

Clear cases of clause-initial non-subjects with immediately following finite verbs are hard to come by, though, and so is a genuine answer to the V2 question for this construction. The standard case of an embedded declarative clause introduced by the potential comple-

28

Kiparsky (1995) suggests treating it in terms of numerations: in non-V2 structures relevant strong heads are missing. By taking (1 Ib) to be a credible example, we have already provided a paradox for this approach, which we therefore consider untenable.

Verb Second, Alternatives, and Economy

207

mentizers frcet or fraelle (probably from frcet pe) seems to have V-final properties, as in (21 a), or at least V-late properties, as in b. (21) a. Ί Burgraed Miercena cyning Ί his wiotan basdon Ebered Westseaxna cyning Ί Alfred his brobur [ ba?t hie him gefultumadon ] [ bast hie wib bone here gefuhton ] (ASC Corp. Chr. 868) 'B. Mercian king and his counsellors asked E. West-Saxon king and AL. his brother [ that they them helped ] [ that they with that army fought ]' b. Hwast we gehyrdon [ baet se godspellere cwasb [ [ pffit se Haslend \vcere gelaeded on westen ] & [ bst he ware costod from deofle ] ] ] (Blickl. 29.12) 'So we heard that the evangelist said that the Saviour was led to wilderness and that he was tempted by devil' Some arrangements suggest the possibility of a higher position for the finite verb, though. Consider (22a) and (22b) (the latter pointed out in Mitchell 1985: §3934): (22) a. bu come hider maure to uncuoum earde and wendest [ bat ou mihtest us aweg drifan of urum wunungum ] (/ELS vi.307) 'You come here Maurus to strange land and think that you could us away drive of our dwellings' b. ... gebann [ past wcere on gewritum asett call ymbhwyrft ] (jECHom i.30.1) '... order [ that was in writing set-up all world ]' Depending on our decision as to the complementizer character of pcet we might consider (22b) a case of V2, too, although it is again impossible to argue strongly for that position because of the presence of the postposed subject. Clearer cases (i.e. with a subject in between the finite auxiliary and the participle) I am not aware of. Embedded questions fare much like embedded declaratives. Standard cases are V-fmal or V-late: (23)

...1 man sceolde bonne redan hu man bisne card werian sceolde. (ASCCorp.Chr. 1010) '...and one should then consider how one this country defend should'

Yet again there are a few instances of finite verbs appearing far to the left: (24) a. Frugon heo hine Ί and ahsodon, [ hwasoer heo sceoldon to Agustinus lare heora gesetenesse Ί heora beawas forlston ] (Bede 100.21) 'Asked they him and inquired whether they should to A.'s teaching their ordinances and their usages give-up' b. ... and axondon oa oone Haelend [ hwa wcere fyrmest manna on heofonan rice ] GECHom. i. 512.7) '... and asked the Saviour who was first man on heaven kingdom' (24a) has the finite verb occupy the position of the pronoun attractor, which may be the subject attractor. (24b) is comparable to (22b). And just as with embedded declaratives there are instances of embedded V2 questions as

in (25): (25) a. & be bissum bingum eallum gebenc, bu dysega man hwaet yfela behead Drihten aefre, bast his l r nasre wyrbe bast hi mon gehyrde? ] (Blickl. 41.1) 'and by all these things consider, you foolish man, what evils enjoined the-Lord ever that his teaching not-were worth that it one obeyed'

208

Hans Thilo Tappe

(25) b. Hwast cweöe we öonne [hwelce sien ba ingeöoncas monna buton swelce sumre hearpan strengeas aöenede] (CP 174.5) 'What call we then which be t the thoughts of-men but such some harp strings streched' (25a) contains a plain V2 question depending on the verb gepencan, with the questioned object preceding the finite verb preceding the subject and whatever else there is in that clause. (25b) is a bit of a structural problem. We suggest that it is of an overall form much like the Standard German (Ic) above. What is interesting here however is that the clause in question is embedded below matrix cwepan (as not only subjunctive sien clearly shows) and isofV2 form. Both matrix verbs in (25) are among those that allow embedded declarative V2 structures, so it may be that this property carries over to embedded questions in OE (as opposed to Standard German).

To sum up then: as far as complement clauses are concerned, there seems to be some verb movement, but it remains unclear whether V2 is among the options. 2.3.2. Adjunct Clauses Adjunct clauses that contain lexical material in C of course cannot be instances of V2. This appears to hold e.g. for ^/clauses, which are verb-final or late, with an occasional finite verb in an immediate post-subject position. (26)

Gif Crist for us eallum dead -wees, öonne weoröaö ealle men deade (CP 42.9) 'If Christ for us all dead was, then will-be all men dead'

When we turn to adjuncts that do not necessarily involve a lexical C, optionality of V2 comes up again, though. One famous case is the pa-pa construction exemplified in (27a), where the first pa-clause is suggested to be the adjunct: (27) a. Da he oast gedon hcefde, pa sette he pa reliquias in heora cyste,... (Bede 382.29) 'When he that done had, then set he the relics in their box,...' b. Da \vces he mid baere adle gecwaeced geswenced, ba gebohte he on his mode nytte gebeahte,... (Bede 378.28) 'When was he with this infirmity affected and distressed, then thought he on his mind useful thought,...' This looks pretty much like an optional V2 situation for the initial adjunct clause. On the other hand, scholarly opinion concerning the pa-pa construction has it that it is unclear whether an adjunct-matrix relation can be ascertained, or whether one should assume two independent clauses related by what one might call sequentiality operators. So even in this field of apparently clear cases we cannot be sure of V2 optionality. And since this construction type occurs with other lexical items, too, we are thus actually deprived of a quite substantial data base. Fortunately, there is one case of adjunct clauses in OE that allows us to argue for optional non-root V2, which is particularly productive and hence interesting, namely OE relative clauses.

Verb Second, Alternatives, and Economy

209

2.4. V2 in OE Relative Clauses 2.4.1. Relative Clause Properties As in so many other languages, OE relative clauses are nominal adjunct clauses headed by characteristic items or combinations of such items, with a gap in the clause bound by an operator related to that characteristic item and ultimately linked to the nominal expression to which the clause is adjoined, as in (28a), for which we assume a traditional structural description as in (28b): (28) a. Her feng to Deame rice Osric [ bone Paulinus aer gefullode...] (ASC Bodl. 634) 'Here took to DeiraA reign Osric [ whom acc Paulinus previously baptized ]' b. Her feng to Dearne rice [ Osric [CP bonej C [ Paulinus XT tj gefullode...] ]

The chains involved in the formation of OE relatives have - at least as far as the data tell us - the properties that we would expect them to have, i.e. we find long relativization out of clauses, no strong island violations, and we find P stranding options to the extent they exist in other constructions of the language:29 (29) a. Ic seolfa cuoe sumne brobar [ bone ic wolde [ pact ic naefre cuoe ...] ] (Bede 442.9) (my)self knew some brother [ who I would [ that I never knew ...]]' with the structure: ... [ sumne brobar [ bone ] C [ ic wolde [ t] bast c [ ic naefre tj cuoe ...] ] ] ] ] b. ... on bam daele [be Decius on ofslagen wses ] (Oros. 84.31) '... in the part [ that D. in killed was ]' with the structure: ... on [ bam dasle [ OP] bec Decius on tj ofslagen wass ] ]

OE relative clauses appear in either adnominal or "extraposed" position, i.e. at the end of the clause their related nominal is in. As to the possibilities for relative markers there are a number of options involving C or the Spec of C:

29

There are some cases of gap-less relatives, which occur comparatively frequently with relativization into locative phrases as in (i), and rarely with relativization into DP islands as in (ii): (i) a. Da be cing hine west wende mid paere fyrde wiö Exanceastres ... 1 be here pa burg beseten hasfde [ pa he /xzrfo gefaren waes ] pa eoden hie to heoran scipum. (ASC Cott. Tib. A. 894) 'there the king them west sent with their army against Exeter... and the army the town beset had [ which he there-to gone was ] there went they to their ships' b. Da for he foro bi ba;m screfe [ bast he oninnan wass ] (CP 197.12) 'there went he forth ofthat den [ that he therein was ]' (ii)a. Se Drihten, [ se öass sell ys on heofenum ] (cited by Allen 1977: 93) 'the Lord, [ who the throne is in heaven,]' b. se God [ be bis his beacen waes ] (cited by Kiparsky 1994: 151) 'the God [ REL this his token was ]' Resumptive Pronoun constructions like this do not contribute anything particular to the problem of verbal position and hence will be ignored in the present context.

210

Hans Thilo Tappe

l. There is the (very popular) OE version of the Indo-European relativizer, namely pe (the exact origin of which need not concern us here): (30) a. ...1 Osred [ be waes Norbhymbra cyning ] sefter wrecsibe ham cumenum gelseht was ofslagen ... (ASC Corp.Chr. 792) '... and O. [ Rel was Northumbria king ] after exile home come seized was and killed ...' b. ... he ofslog bone aldormon [ be him lengest wunode ] ... (ASC Corp.Chr. 755) '... he killed the alderman [ REL him longest remained ] and ...' c. ... on bam daele [ be Decius on ofslagen wass ] (Oros. 84.31 = (29b)) d. ... ure gearnedan pa yrmoa [ be us on sittaö ] (Wulfstan Sermo 18) '... us deserve the miseries [ REL us on sit ]'

As shown in (29b), we take pe to be an element of the traditional category C; hence we also assume an empty operator in all these cases. We do so not only because of its uninflectedness, but also for distributional reasons that will become evident in 3. below. 2. There are items sometimes called "weak demonstratives" (WDs).3" Here are a few WD-inital relatives, again related to all kinds of antecedents (names, definites, indefinites): (31) a. Her feng to Dearne rice Osric [ bone Paulinus aer gefullode... ] (=28) b. bass cinges begnas [ pa basftan him wasron ]... (ASC Cott. Tib. A. 755) '...the gen king's thanes [ who behind him were ]...' c. Gehyr pu arfssta God min stefne [ mid baere ic earm to be cleopie ] (Blickl. 89.13) 'Hear you merciful God my voice [with which I poor to you call]' d. Ic seolfa cuöe sumne bropar [ bone ic wolde [ bst ic naefre cuöe ... ]] (=(29a))

It seems sensible to locate OE relative WDs or the phrases containing them in Spec-of-C, just like their German counterparts, obviously for reasons of the uniformity of chains. This is again corroborated by their distributional properties shown in 3. below. Their Spec-of-C status implies that there is some empty C relativizer REL in OE, too. In addition, there are some special cases: pcet is homonymous both with the declarative complementizer and the singular structural case forms of the neutral WD, as in (32a), where one may assume it to be used in a relative complementizer fashion, i.e. like pe, as must be concluded from the fact that it meets conditions neither on lower nor on matrix case and/or gender: (32) a. ... opoaet heora riht cyning Wihtred [ baet -wees Ecgbyrhtes sunu ] waes in rice gestrongad (Bede360.13) '... until their right king W. [ that was E.'s son ] was in throne strengthened (= firmly established on the throne)' b. Soölice oa eagan baet bead ba lareowas sehyrgc oast sint oa hieremenn (CP29.12) Truly the eyes that are the teachers and the back [sic] that are the disciples'

OE "weak demonstratives" are multifunctional items, i.e. share much with their cognate forms in other West-Germanic languages, especially German. Their functional flexibility is illustrated in (i), where article, relative, and pronominal use are found in the three instances of sea, respectively: (i) Seo ilce burg Babylonia, seo oe maest waes 1 aerest ealra burga, seo is nu lasst... (Oros. 74.22) 'the same city Babylonia, that the largest was and first allgen citesgen, that is now least...'

Verb Second, Alternatives, and Economy

211

But as the use officet in Left Dislocation cases as (32b) shows, this item might also be taken to be some kind of case- and gender-neutral WD, comparable to modern German das in similar contexts. Some relative clauses make use of an initial locative freer, which, though not in the WD paradigm, behaves analogously: (33) Cwom he to bam cyninge by serestan Eastordaege bii Deorwentan baere ea, basr wass ba cyninges aldorhold (Bede 122.13) 'Came he to the king the first Easter-day near Derwent the river where was the kings' royalestate' 3. Both elements from 1. and 2. may co-occur in the order [... WD ...] +jje: (34) a. ...on his dagum sceolde weorban geboren se [ se be leohtra is ... ] (Oros. 131.2) "... in his days should be born he [ who REL brighter is ... ]' b. ...Ί ofslogen bone cyning Ί Toglos eorl Ί Mannan eorl his sunu 1 his brobor Ί ealle [ ba be basr binnan waeron ] (ASC Corp.Chr. 921) '... and killed the king and T. nobleman and M. nobleman his brother and all [ who REL there inside were ]' c. la leof hlaford [ bone be bulufast ],... (vE.Hom.Pope 6.10) Oh dear God [whoacc REL you love]... ' In this case, the initial WD may also be "correlative", i.e. exhibit the case of the matrix clause nominal (the older forms), or it may show the case appropriate to the relative clause (a later development, exemplified in all examples used here) - or of course match both. 4. There is also a rare possibility of having no relative marker at all: (35) a. Him pa answarode his ealdorbisceop [ Cefiwass haten ] (Bede 134.11) 'Him there answered his chief-bishop [ C. was called ]' b. on bys ilcan gere foroferde jEbered, [ wass on Defenum ealdormon ] (ASC Corp. Chr. 901 'in this same year died RL. [ was of Devon magistrate ]' These cases are still relative clauses, because they contain a gap related to a nominal expression of the matrix clause. They are most easily analyzed as cases of a dropped fre or empty relative C. 5. And there are several types of relative or closely related constructions we won't look at in the present context, namely cases of fre or frcet reduplication and relative clauses introduced by Aw-words (which anyway double as indefinite pronouns in OE), alone or in combination with swa.

2.4.2. Verbal Position in Relative Clauses Many of the relative clauses we have cited so far exhibit positions of the finite V at or towards the end of its clause, as we indeed know to be common for subordinate clauses in OE. Here are some additional examples with WD or fre: (36) a. St d se biscop Ί bass cyninges suna twegen ait bam lice, Sigeheard Ί Swefred [pa aefter him to ricefengon] (Bede 296.26) 'Stood the bishop and the king's sons both by the body, S. and S. [who after him to the-throne succeded ]'

212

Hans Thilo Tappe

(36) b. Oft öonne se hirde gaeö on frecne wegas, sio hierd [ beunwajrre biö, ] gehrist (CP 29,23) Often when the sheperd goes on dangerous ways, the flock [ REL unwary is ] falls'

There nonetheless appear to be quite a few relative clauses that place the finite verb far to the left. We have seen some of these, too, and the marked clauses in the following examples are further cases in point: (37) a. weorbian we nu todaeg bone tocyme bses Haigan Gastes [ se wees of heofonum onsended]... (Blickl. 131.9) 'Commemorate we now today the coming thegen Holygen Ghostgen [ who was from heaven sent]...' b. ...he wolde adraefan anne aebeling [ se was Cyneheard haten ] 1 se Cyneheard wses baes Sygebryhtes brobur. (ASC Corp. Chr. 755) '... he wanted-to drive-off a prince [ who was C. called ] and the C. was the gen S.'s brother' c. Her forbferde Oskytel arcebisceop [ se wees aerest to Dorkeceastre to leodbisceope gehalgod eft to Eoferwicceastre... ] (ASC Cott. Tib. A. 971) 'Here died O. archbishop [ who was first to D. to to Dorchester to district-bishop hallowed and afterwards to York ]'

The bulk of such cases seem to involve nominative WDs as in (37), which do not supply us with unambiguous information as to the position of the verb. But it is evident that a nominative WD cannot be a necessary property of the construction, since there are also instances of WDs in other case forms and even inside PPs, as in (38). Also reconsider (33) in this context: (38) a. Weorbian we eac ba clabas his hades [of baem wees ure gecynd geedneowod ] (Blickl. 11.9) 'Honor we also the clothes hisgen persongen [ of whom was our condition renewed ]' b. Abel, Adames sunu, rihtwis and Gode andfenge, [ bone ofsloh Cain his broöor ]... GECHom. ii. 58.25) ., A.'s son, righteous and to-God acceptable [ whom killed C. his brother ]' c. Tyrus 1 Sidon syndan twegen burga [ be ba;m sprcec se Hasland ] OE.Hom.Pope xvn.52) 'T. and S. are two towns [ about which spoke the Saviour ]'

It is never quite clear, though, whether such constructions involve relatives at all: the marked portions in (37) and (38) could indeed be part of the related nominal's clause, but they might also be independent non-embedded sentences whose initial WD is licensed through principles of discourse structure.31 So before we can evaluate the contribution of these alleged relative clauses to the V2 question, we must determine their status, either as traditional adjuncts or as independent root clauses. Actually there is also a third option: on the basis of comparative data, one may consider the feasability of a dependent projection, yet one of special, non-adjunct status. Standard German could be a model for that approach, because it has two kinds of apparent relatives, a conventional one with a standard verb-final and another one with a somewhat surprising V2 structure:

There are no orthographic clues. Original punctuation does not clearly distinguish commas and periods, which may both be represented by a point. So the question of the independence of final WD-clauses must be decided without orthographic evidence.

Verb Second, Alternatives, and Economy

213

(39) a. der Franz hat einen verhauen, [ den er gar nicht kannte] 'the F. has someone beaten-up, [ whoacc he at-all not knew ]' b. der Franz hat einen verhauen, [ den kannte er gar nicht ] 'the F has someone beaten-up, [whoacc knew he at-all not ]'

There are two pretty solid restrictions on V2 relatives of the kind in (39b) First, (40) shows them to be impossible in non-final adnominal position: (40) a. wir haben ein Problem, [ das wir nicht l sen konnten, ] im Seminar besprochen 'we have a problem [ thatacc we not solve could ] in class discussed' b. *wir haben ein Problem, [ das konnten wir nicht l sen, ] im Seminar besprochen

To account for (39), G rtner (1995) has proposed a structure like (41): (41) [,2 tcp w'r haben ein Problem] [„] [Λ 0 ] [CP das k nnen wir nicht l sen ] ] ]

Secondly, V2-relatives, as opposed to V-final relatives or discourse-linked independent clauses, are restricted to presentational matrix structures and non-specific antecedents, as shown in (42):" (42) a. ich kenne Leute, [ die haben einen Hund ] Ί know people [ who have a dog ]' b. * ich hasse Leute, [ die haben einen Hund ] Ί hate people [ who have a dog ]' c. *ich kenne diese Leute, [ die haben einen Hund ] Ί know these people [ who have a dog ]' d. ich kenne diese Leute. Die haben einen Hund. Ί know these people. They have a dog.'

Given the structural option in (41) that German apparently makes use of and the more comprehensive idea argued for by Haumann (1997) on the basis of adverbial clause data that adjunct clauses in complex sentences quite generally involve π-like structures, one may feel tempted to try that approach for OE, too, especially in cases like the following, which appear to comply with the German requirements: (43) a. ... he wolde adrasfan anne aepeling [se was Cyneheard haten ] Ί se Cyneheard waes pass Sygebryhtes brobur. (=37b.) b. ... alle butan anum [se waes baes aldormannes godsunu ] Ί (ibid.) 'all but one [ who was the magistrate's godson ]' c. ...hi gedydon anre westre ceastre on Wirhealum [seo is Liegecester gehaten]. (ASC Cott. Tib.B.i. 894) 'they made (arrived at) a desolated town on W. [ that is L. named ]' d. ...op baet hie comon on Eastseaxana lond eastweard on an igland [ baet is ute on basre s ] [ past is Meresig haten ]. (ASC Corp. Chr. 895) 'until they came in East-Saxon land eastward to an island [ that is out in the sea ] [ that is Mersey called ]' e. Seo cwen het pa baem cyninge pat heafod of aceorfan, Ί beweorpan on anne cylle [ se wees arylled monnes bl des ] (Oros. 76, 31) 'The queen ordered there thedat kingdat the head off cut and throw on a vessel [ which was filled man's bloodgen ]'

G rtner argues that V2 clauses in German are required not to be topical, hence can only be embedded when their content is not (entirely) presupposed, as would probably be the case in presentational or non-specific cases.

214

Hans Thilo Tappe

Yet while their V2 structure may be taken as a hint that these are not traditional relative adjuncts, none of the examples in (43) argue strongly against a systematically bisentential analysis for (37) and (38). So there must be other ways to distinguish it from a proposal along the lines of (41). And indeed, whatever the latter's merits may be for both Standard German and the data in (43), the π-structure proposal does not seem to be as easily applicable to all OE cases as one would want, because there is an abundance of such apparent relative clauses related to definite antecedents, in particular names, as in (44): (44) a. by ilcan geare forbferde Wulfric cynges horsbegn [ se wees eac Wealhgerefa ]. (ASC Corp. Chr.897) 'that same year died W. king's groom [ who was also Welsh-reeve ]' b. Her forbferde Oskytel arcebisceop [ se wees serest to Dorkeceastre to leodbisceope gehalgod 1 eft to Eoferwicceastre... ] (= (37c)) c. Her Osred Norbanhymbra cyning wear{D ofslasgen [ se hcefde VII. wintra rice ]... (ASC Corp. Chr. 716) 'Here O. Northumbrian king was slain [ who had 7 winters throne ]' It is hard to see how one could explain these OE examples away, yet maintain an explanation for (42). But even if some way could be devised, some OE data remain that are crucially in conflict with a π-type structure analysis. These are adnominal clauses of this form, with all kinds of antecedents: (45) a. On byses cinges dagum Larentius ercebiscop [se was on Cent asfter Augustinus ] forbferde iiii. Nofi. Feb. Ί he was bebyred be Agustine. (ASC Corp. Chr. 616) 'In this King's days L. archbishop [ who was in Kent after A. ] died 4th-of-the-Nonesof February (= Feb. 2nd ) and he was buried beside A.' b. ...1 Leofwine abbat [se woes unrihtlice of Elig adrefed ] waes his gerefa Ί ... (ASCBodl. 1022) '... and L. abbot [who was unjustly from Ely expelled ] was his companion' c. Da gelamp baet he sumne Godes mann preosthades, [se wees oa reban ehteras fleonde ], on gestli nysse onfeng (JECUom i.24.3) 'There happened that he some Godgen man priest en (= man who is a priest of God) [ who was the fierce pursuers flying ] in hospitality received' Given (45), (41) cannot be a model for OE even for basic structural reasons. So we have to discard this proposal. But (45) obviously also argues strongly against an analysis in terms of independent projections, which therefore must be discarded, too. This leaves us with an adjunct status for these clauses as the only viable analysis. Since we have now established them to be just plain relative clauses with a far left position of the finite verb in the light of examples like (45), let us consider the position the verb actually occupies in these clauses, which subject WD cases again won't tell us much about. As to relativizers, all alternatives occur with a far-left position of the finite verb. There are clauses with the relativizer pe, both "pure" as in (30a) and (3 Ob) or with an accompanying WD as in (30c) and (30d): (46) a. ... on bam sciprapum [ be bead of hweeles hyde geworht ] (Oros. 181.8) '... on the cables [ REL are of whale's hide made ]' b. Se o er godspellere is marcus [ be wass mid bam apostele PETRE getogen on lare ] OELSxv.141) 'the other (2nd) Evangelist is Mark [ REL was by the Apostle Peter educated in doctrine ]'

Verb Second, Alternatives, and Economy

215

(46) c. ... sumne menn ... [ oa be wceron fram naedran geslegene ] (Bede 30.4) ' ... some men ... [ who REL were by snakes bitten ]' d. Da waes eac swylce heafde besiegen gemartyrad se mon [ se öe wass aer öon mid bam uplican mihte georead ... ] (Bede 40.11) There was also such head cut-off and martyred the man [ who REL was before that by the heavenly power rebuked ... ]'

If the REL item ]>e is indeed the C element we take it to be, we don't expect the finite V to visibly move up to it." Hence (46) cannot be instances of V2. One wouldn't expect these to be clear V2 cases anyway, because they again all involve relativization of the clause's subject. In these cases, the subject attractor is therefore a much more plausible candidate for the position of the finite verb. So for data to indicate a true V2 possibility we must obviously look at non-subject WD relatives. And we have already seen some of those. Reconsider (38a), repeated here as (47a), where the nominative phrase ure gecynd is obviously in between the finite verb to its left and a second participle to its right, a position that cannot be argued to be "extraposed" in any sense, or (47b) where the finite verb precedes the subject, while an accusative object follows it: (47) a. Weorpian we eac pa clapas his hades [ of paem waes ure gecynd geedneowod ] (=(38a)) with the structure clabas ... [CP [ of basm ]PP [c [ wass ]c [jp[ ure gecynd ]Dp_n0m geedneowod ] ] b. Basilla haefde enne ha;öne wogere pompeius gecyöed swiöe aöelboren [bam geuöe se casere baet kyneborene masden ] (/ELS n.350) 'Basilla had a heathen suitor P. named, very noble-bom [ whom granted the emperor the royal maiden ]'

The only assumption that would make this kind of example irrelevant to our question would be to allow nominative DPs to always visibly stay in some lower specifier than that of the subject attractor. But such an assumption would also damage the overall concept of visible movement to C, hence do us no good: movement to C would be indistinguishable from movement to whatever other functional head below C, both for embedded and nonembedded clauses. As that does not seem to be a workable approach, we take the findings in (47) to be strong evidence that V2 occurs in relative clauses of OE. And because there is no indication whatsoever that the different choices of verbal position have any distinguishing effect on relative constructions, we have to assume that V2 is indeed optional. Since the other embedded contexts we examined are all compatible with optional V2, too (all we said was that it might be hard to show V2 in them), we may conclude that there is an option of visibly moving the finite verb to the highest head position in all OE nonroot clauses (unless that position is otherwise occupied, of course): this is in fact the most general descriptively adequate position. V2 optionality in non-root contexts, taken together with our observations concerning root clauses, makes V2 an "optional alternative" in all clauses of OE.

" There is no hint whatsoever of cliticization.

216

Hans Thilo Tappe

3. Alternatives for "Alternatives"? With the load of evidence just compiled let us return to our initial question concerning the best way to treat "optional alternatives". There is no way now to explain them away, and this state of affairs poses a severe problem for the minimalist approach, as we saw at the beginning. Therefore we will look at whether, and if so, how an Optimality approach could deal with these facts. In the OT syntax fragment proposed by Grimshaw (1997), which we take here as an elaborate example of this approach, the following constraint structure is responsible for V2 and V2 asymmetries in languages like German or English. There is a set C of universal constraints containing at least (48) and a transitive binary relation » on the members of C providing a "ranking" of the form in (49): (48) OB-HD (Obligatory Heads): A projection has a head (which presumably means a syntactic object with at least one feature. PURE-EP (Purity of Extended Projection)'. No adjunction takes place to the highest node in a subordinate extended projection; and no movement takes place into the highest head of a subordinate projection.34 STAY (the basic economy principle): Trace is not allowed.

(49) PURE-EP »

OB-HD » STAY

This ranking is language specific, in fact assumed to apply to English only, yet probably also relevant in its form and function for a few related languages. The constraint structure in (48) and (49) has two different tasks: OB-HD and STAY force heads to move up into empty head positions if there are any (i.e. are in conflict whenever there are more head positions than lexical heads), and prevent them from doing so if there are not. PURE-EP on the other hand governs the basic root-non-root distinction, overriding the requirements imposed by OB-HD, yet stands alone and therefore is hardly more than a diacritic. The effects of (48) and (49) on embedded clauses (PURE-EP applies) and on non-embedded clauses (PURE-EP doesn't apply) are as follows: PURE-EP

(50) ab-

[Cpv [π·.- t... ] [ C pe [jp... v... ]

C.

[jp... V . . . ]

d

-

OB-HD

STAY

*

(*) *

[CPC b > - v - l

In embedded contexts, non-movement of v as in (50b), (50c), and (50d) is favoured over movement, even if the clause then remains without a visible head in (50b), which is nonetheless ruled out because it is worse than having a real C in there (if such is supplied by GEN), as in (50d), which is best. Alternatively, GEN may derive a structure without any CP overhead, at least if there are no other constraints to prevent such clauses. Both c. and d. are "optional alternatives" in our sense.

14

Previously and in other contexts PuRE-EP is also known as PROJ-PRIN (Projection Principle} to the effect that adjunction is impossible to any projection of C.

217

Verb Second, Alternatives, and Economy

In non-embedded contexts, (50c) and (50d) should be optimal, as well - if they are available as candidates. For (50c) this depends on the language specific availability of a fitting C, of course, for (50d) there may again be intervening constraints concerning the internal structure of CP, for instance with respect to material in Spec-of-C. (50a) isn't constrained by anything but STAY (PURE-EP being satisfied in this case), so that in a language that doesn't supply other ways of complying with OB-HD (e.g. German), movement is optimal in all those cases where the GEN-alternative (50c) has to be ruled out by the necessity to incorporate operators. Given these universal constraints, what kind of constraint ranking might OE V2 result from? Not only should c. and d. type cases be "optional alternatives" in this language, but the effects of PURE-EP on V2 should be neutralized as well. Getting rid of PURE-EP effects is possible by demoting this constraint through the ranks. In our fragment there are four options for this: we can "unrank" PURE-EP with respect to its neighbouring constraint, i.e. "tie" it with OB-HD; we can demote it to a position below OBHD, but above STAY, and we can push it further down so as to either "tie" with STAY or assume a position below STAY. PURE-EP interacts with OB-HD in such a way that the former prevents V2 where the latter wants it. If we "tie" them, violating the former won't be worse than violating the latter: going against PURE-EP to get embedded V2 will be just as bad as violating OB-HD in order to satify PURE-EP and not have embedded V2 to an empty C, hence give us the desired "optional alternative". In a non-embedded context, irrelevance of PURE-EP will leave the field to OB-HD, to the same effect as above. If we demote PURE-Ep to any position below OB-HD, the latter will force us to have V2 in all cases of empty Cs, because it overrides PURE-EP's effects. Therefore, a position lower than OB-HD cannot possibly supply the "optional alternatives" we are looking for. So it seems that our only option is to follow Pesetsky (1998), Müller (1997) and others in trying to tackle optionality with the tool of "unranking" constraints, in this case with effects as in (51): PURE-EP

(51)

a b c

[cpvfo-t-] [cp e [ip- v -] [CP C [IP- V -I

OB-HD

*

STAY

* *

But as (51) shows, unranking doesn't help any as long as (51c) is a candidate competing with (5la) or (51b). A language with an appropriate C element supplied by GEN couldn't ever have optional verb movement: it would always be prohibited by STAY. As far as nonembedded contexts of OE are concerned, that prediction is without problem, since there probably is no such C. Yet we saw that at least OE relatives exhibit optional V2. So we have to decide the question whether an invisible REL head of CP may be a C in this sense. If so, there cannot be any V2 relatives, since the (Slc)-type candidate will always be available and hence prevent movement, contrary to fact. If on the other hand REL is not a C in this sense, OB-HD will prevail over STAY in forcing something to move up to the otherwise empty C position (a position we couldn't possibly do without because of the WD in Specof-C). So contrary to fact, there wouldn't be any V-fmal WD relatives.

218

Hans Thilo Tappe

Finally, if REL were a truly lexical item, i.e. part of the input, c. would be the only candidate anyway, with no V2 wherever REL appears. Simple optionality of embedded V2 therefore cannot be accounted for. Note that we cannot neutralize the adverse effect of STAY by adding it to the "unranked" combination, because PURE-EP violations and STAY violations coincide, to the effect of a double violation competing with a simple OB-HD violation in (51b) - not to speak of c.-type clauses. So, whatever our decisions are, our predictions won't match our findings. Why does it appear that we cannot make this constraint structure work? The constraints themselves (despite their informal statement) are each quite plausible and actually also rather traditional. Therefore we shouldn't try to trace our failure back to them. This presupposed, the reason for our failure must be their ranking. As we have just seen, it cannot be due to a specific ranking, hence must depend on the concept of ranking itself: it may be a wrong approach to order all of the proposed constraints with the same relation. Of course such "one relation ranking" should be a mistaken conception only if the constraints were of basically different types - otherwise "one relation" would be the simplest and hence preferable assumption. It is actually quite evident that the types of constraints involved are systematically different: STAY is an economy condition on chain formation, OB-HD a visibility condition of potentially phonological character, and PURE-EP an asymmetry diacritic. So if we are on the right track concerning the defects of the present approach, we will have to propose constraints of a more similar type whose ranking may overcome these difficulties. In order to do so, let's return to minimalist conceptions of movement. If we take up the idea that syntactic structure building is driven by feature checking, we have to conclude that V2 must be as obligatory as any movement. First, there is evidently no way for a finite verb drawn from the lexicon to move to T and with T on to C unless there are features in those items to be checked against those of the moving element (the Last Resort condition on movement." And secondly, once we endow potential movers with such features, there is no way for us not to move and hence not to check them: obligatoriness of chain formation is a built-in property of a feature checking approach. As we noted above, if "optional alternatives" are to be alternatives in syntactic derivation, they can be described in terms of numerations only, hence in terms of lexical properties. Given the non-lexical optionality of V2, in fact the general optionality of any verb movement in OE, this is unattractive: all lexical and functional heads in the extended projection of the verb up to C would have to be doubly specified so as to either carry relevant features or not, or, insofar as these features are relevant at LF, would have to be doubly specified with respect to strong or weak attractor features. To supply both attracting and non-attracting Ts and Cs and corresponding attractable and non-attractable finite Vs is a rather non-illuminating solution, since it makes optional verb movement the accidental result of having such doublets all over the place, instead of with certain items only.

" Last Resort: "Move F raises F to target K only if F enters into a checking relation with a sublabel of K" (Chomsky 1995: 280); or, inverting Move to Attract and including the Minimal Link Condition: "K attracts F if F is the closest feature that can enter into a checking relation with a sublabel of K" (Chomsky 1995: 297).

Verb Second, Alternatives, and Economy

219

Evidently, some better way must be devised. Poole (1996) argues in favour of a divorce of chain formation from actual movement, such that we may have the latter without the former, with the moved item treated like an expletive, hence deleted and thus "reconstructed" (more or less trivially under the Copy Theory of Movement) at the interface. Though problems for this proposal abound, we will consider the idea of a divorce of "actual", hence visible movement and chain formation. Poole's approach need not be elaborated, since Chomsky (1995) actually already provides the means for such a divorce: being able to influence "Spell-out" through diacritics on features may do the desired trick. Although the properties "strong" vs. "weak" don't carry much substantive weight, they allow the existence of chains and the distribution of properties not to coincide with the positions of elements. This distinction can be exploited for our purposes. Suppose then that syntactic verb movement is indeed obligatory in all cases because of checking necessities involving V, T, and C, where it creates head chains linking all relevant positions in ways constrained by the properties of Attract. This is the standard assumption for the mapping of num to λ in a minimalist framework. We follow Pesetsky (1998) in assuming that in all cases where there is no variance within or across languages, OT GEN must be constrained in such a way as to not produce any illegitimate candidates in the first place, so that there cannot be any ranked constraints that apply in all cases. GEN in this sense is the D (num) = λ part of the minimalist system. OT constraint structures can be responsible for the other, more variable aspects only. As a corollary, OT is best at dealing with the phonological side of things, namely where it defines the distribution of phonological realizations within an otherwise rigid syntactic frame. So in a manner of speaking, OT meets minimalism on the way to PF: OT can be a minimalist Spell-Out theory - in such a way that the set of competing candidates is the set of possible Spell-Outs related to a given syntactic structure. It is a common assumption that the distribution of visible items in chains is basically a PF phenomenon even in a theory that makes use of "strong" features and Spell-Out. In these terms, V2 is obviously GEN-obligatory, but not PF-obligatory. The actual position of the "visible", i.e. phonologically realized chain element is determined by syntactic properties only and at best insofar as there may be some default correspondence between phonological and syntactic distribution (i.e. some default coincidence condition for chain heads and visible items). Suppose therefore that PF contains a set of ranked Spell-Out constraints for chains, just as Pesetsky proposes. Such constraints do not allow for the type distinctions we criticized above: being tied in with the process of Spell-Out they must all be related to some aspect of phonological realization of syntactic structures. For our V2 problem of head chains, there are a few obvious constraint candidates. Under the Copy Theory of Movement, where traces and their antecedents have identical syntactic content, a set of phonological constraints is necessary to govern the phonological realization of the various copies: for our purposes, Pesetsky's SILENT-/ comes in handy, which says that the foot of a chain may not be pronounced. If this constraint is active, spelled-out material will always occupy the head position of a chain. Since we don't want V2 partout, SILENT-/ must be checked. One obvious area for this to happen is the field of morphological structure conditions on spelled-out heads: when the head of a chain cannot be spelled out because of its morphological incoherence, SILENT-/ must be overruled. But such constraints are obviously not enough to allow simple non-V2 clauses: there must be something else above SILENT-/. And whatever there is must must take care of the

220

Hans Thilo Tappe

contexts in which only "weak" features appear. Given that pronouncing the heads of chains happens quite regularly, while V2 is blocked ever so often, there should be a constraint involving the V2 landing site, like EMPTY-C, or: "Don't pronounce the head of the clause" (a distant relative of Pesetsky's Telescope). If EMPTY-C outranks SILENT-/, we will never get V2, if there is a "tie", we will get optional V2, and if it is outranked by SILENT-/, we will get V2 everywhere. If there are constraints requiring certain material to appear on the left edge of any CP (cf. Pesetsky 1998), and that overrule EMPTY-C, we will also be able to account for non-V2 clauses with complementizers. Since the root-non-root asymmetry (at least as characterized by Grimshaw 1997) seems to be a primitive, unreducible asymmetry, we may treat it as such and have EMPTY-C outranked by the constraint ROOT: "Pronounce the head of a root CP". So if becoming the best candidate implies compliance with EMPTY-C, which necessitates a SILENT-/ violation, Root may now step in to sanction the opposite distribution - in root contexts. Any demotion of ROOT to some position far down the ranks will of course result in a language without rootnon-root asymmetries. In this way we are able to account for languages that are non-V2 all over the place, those that allow root V2 and non-root non-V2, languages that have root V2 and optional non-root V2, as well as OE, which has optional V2 all over the place. Whether the third of these four cases is a real possibility, and of course what other constraints may do to these possibilities, are questions that we must leave open in the present context. This also holds for our lack of an account for the contrast between English and German in terms of root clause verb placement, i.e. the unanswered question of the IP- or CP-nature of simple English root declaratives. In other respects, it appears to us that an approach to verb placement phenomena in terms of a "phonologically oriented" OT seems promising enough to pursue, in particular in the light of the fact that more traditional approaches have difficulties in dealing with "optional alternatives" of the OE V2 kind - difficulties that our revision does not run into.

Old English Sources

[yiiChom] B. Thorpe (ed.): The sermones Catholici or Homilies ofALlfric. London 1844-46. [jEColl] G. N. Garmonsway (ed.): Allfric's Colloquy. London 1939. [j€.Hom.Pope] J.C. Pope (ed.): The Homilies of/Elfric. EETS. [j£LS] W.W. Skeat (ed.): Alfric's Lives of Saints. EETS. [ASC] B. Thorpe (ed.): The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. London 1861, repr. 1964. (Rerum Brittannicarum Medii Aevi Scriptores (Rolls Series) 23). [Bede] T. Miller (ed.): The old English Version ofBede's Ecclesiastical History of the English People. EETS. [Blickl.] R. Morris (ed.): The Blickling Homilies. EETS. [Boeth.j W.J. Sedgefield (ed.): King Alfred's Old English Version ofBoethius. Darmstadt 1968. [CP] H. Sweet (ed.): King Alfred's West-Saxon Version of Gregory's Pastoral Care. EETS. [Oros.] H. Sweet (ed.): King Alfred's Orosius. EETS. [Wulfstan] D. Bethurum (ed.): The Homilies ofWulfstan. Oxford 1957.

Verb Second, Alternatives, and Economy

221

References Bean, M. (1983): The Development of Word Order Pattern in Old English. London: Croom Helm, den Besten, H. (1983): On the interaction of root transformations and lexical deletive rules. In: W. Abraham (ed.): On the Formal Syntax of the Westgermania, 47-131. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Chomsky, N. (1995): The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press (= Current Studies in Linguistics 28). Frampton, J. (1996): Expletive insertion. In: C. Wilder, H.-M. Gärtner, M. Bierwisch (eds.): The Role of Economy Principles in Linguistic Theory, 36-57. Berlin: Akademie Verlag (= Studia Grammatica XL). Grimshaw, J. (1997): Projections, heads, and optimality. In: Linguistic Inquiry 28, 373-422. Haegeman, L., Zannutti, R. (1991): Negative heads and the NEG criterion. In: The Linguistic Review 8, 233-252. Haumann, D. (1997): The Syntax of Subordination. Tübingen: Niemeyer (= Linguistische Arbeiten 373). Hulk, ., Kemenade, A. van (1995): Verb second, pro drop, functional projections and language change. In: A. Battye, I. Roberts (eds.): Clause Structure and Language Change, 227-256. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kemenade, A. van (1987): Syntactic Case and Morphological Case in the History of English. Dordrecht: Foris. Kiparsky, P. (1995): Indo-European origins of Germanic syntax. In: A. Battye, I. Roberts (eds.): Clause Structure and Language Change, 140-170. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Legendre, G., Smolensky, P., Wilson, C. (1998): When less is more? Faithfulness and minimal links in wh-chains. In: P. Barbosa et al. (eds.): Is the Best Good Enough? Optimality and Competition in Syntax, 249-290. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Manzini, M. (1994): Triggers for Verb Second. In: The Linguistic Review 11, 299-314. Mitchell, B. (1985): Old English Syntax. Oxford: Clarendon. Müller, G. (1996): Optional movement and the interaction of economy constraints. In: C. Wilder, H.M. Gärtner, M. Bierwisch (eds.): The Role of Economy Principles in Linguistic Theory. 115-145. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag (= Studia Grammatica XL). - (1997): Partial wh-movement and Optimality Theory. In: The Linguistic Review 14, 249-306. Müller, G., Stemefeld, W. (1993): Improper movement and unambiguous binding. In: Linguistic Inquiry 24, 461-507. Pesetsky, D. (1998): Some optimality principles of sentence pronunciation. In: P. Barbosa et al. (eds.): Is the Best Good Enough? Optimality and Competition in Syntax, 337-384. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Poole, G. (1996): Optional movement in the Minimalist Program. In: W. Abraham et al. (eds.): Minimal Ideas. Syntactic Studies in the Minimalist Framework, 199-216. Amsterdam: Benjamins (= Linguistik Aktuell 12). Rizzi, L. (1991): Residual verb second and the WH criterion. In: Technical Reports in Formal and Computational Linguistics 2, University of Geneva. Sternefeld, W. (1996): Comparing reference sets. In: C. Wilder, H.-M. Gärtner, M. Bierwisch (eds.): The Role of Economy Principles in Linguistic Theory, 81-114. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag (= Studia Grammatica XL). Zwart, J.-W. (1996): Morphosyntax of Verb Movement. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Hero Janßen

Types of VP-Preposing

0. Introduction For many years movements to the clausal periphery, to the left or to the right, have been neglected especially by generative linguistics. Obviously, such constructions, hardly obligatory and formally supported, seem to run counter to the various theoretical generative frameworks, assumptions and abstract principles developed in the past. For instance, peripheral movements are only functionally motivated and - on a first superficial analysis - do not conform to the principles of economy discussed in the Minimalist Program (Chomsky 1995) and in its application to English (e.g. Haegeman/Gueron 1999, Culicover 1996). Therefore generative linguists tend to regard such constructions of the clausal periphery as structurally irrelevant and thus not as parts of the grammar, but - as stylistic phenomena of a discourse module, which is therefore excluded from strictly grammatical research.1 However, parallel to the evolution of a theory of functional categories which focuses on the syntactic representation of morphological information, the relevance to syntax even of pragmatically motivated features (discourse-based functional categories) began to be discussed as soon as formal and constructional reflexes were discovered. In particular, intensive work on the syntax of non-arguments (A-bar-syntax) and on topicalization and Right and Left-Dislocation (RDL, LDL) has resulted in the grammatical significance phenomena of the clausal periphery.2 Although function-based research on discourse and information structure provides an empirically and quantitatively more promising foundation, such studies lack meaningful and adequate explanations of the formal restrictions of peripheral constructions.3 This paper examines a set of such peripheral constructions, commonly subsumed under the notion of VP-Preposing (Emonds 1976, Akmajian et al. 1979, and others). It works out a refined typology of distinctive VP-configurations of VPs that are fronted to the clause initial position and examines their compatibility with abstract grammatical principles, especially with the principles of economy proposed in minimalist approaches. I will argue for the perhaps obvious assumption that VP-Preposing is a subtype of regular non-argument(A1-) topicalization, from which we distinguish Left-Dislocation of VP, and that this assumption holds for both preposing types, regardless of occurrences of inverted configurations. This includes the question of which projections (i.e. categorial type, formal spell-out)

In the past their exceptional nature was implied in the so-called root character of these movements assumed by Emonds (1976), Hopper/Thompson (1973), amongst others. For topicalization and A-bar-movement in general cf. Park (1998), Müller (1995), Müller/Sternefeld (1993), Culicover (1993), for RDL Beerman et al. (1997), and for LDL Anagnostopoulou et al. (1997); cf. also Rizzi (1997). Cf. Birner/Ward(1992, 1998), Dorgeloh (1997), Erdmann (1979, 1981, 1990), Hartvigson/Jakobsen (1974), Ward (1990), Ward/Birner (1992).

224

Hero Janßen

can be fronted. The exploration of the subtypes of verbal projections is followed by general questions of an extension to certain categorial sets and of differences between argumentand non-argument-topicalization. From a contrastive perspective, the VP types in English will be compared with German VP-Preposing, which will be demonstrated as totally different though similar at the clausal surface.

1. Types of VP-Preposing

Several types involving the proposing of verbal configurations (in short, of VPs) can be identified. VPP1: The first and most general type consists simply of a preposing of a non-finite VP that may be combined with different functional projections. Simple infinitival VPs with periphrastic do (la), modals (Ib), and participial VPs with progressive (2), passive (3) and perfective forms (4).4 Also more complex verbal clusters combining various functional projections may occur (2b, 3b, 4b).5 (1) (2) (3)

(4)

a. b. a. b. a.

They all said that John would pass the test, and pass the test he did. They all said that John had to get his Ph.D., and get his Ph.D. he must. He swore he would sail across the Pacific, and sailing across the Pacific he is. He vowed he would get even some day, and getting even he has been. I was told that John must have been arrested by the police, and arrested (by the police) he was. b. They had persuaded Mary to be examined by a doctor, and examined (by the doctor) she has been. He claimed he could take first place, a. and taken first place he has. b. and taken first place he will certainly have.

The preposed VP part in //zowg/j-constructions may also be subsumed under this type of VPP, because it shares all characteristics of the examples above.6 (5)

a. Eat ham and eggs though John did, nobody realised that he wasn't hungry. b. Eating ham and eggs though John was, nobody realised that he wasn't hungry. c. Eaten ham and eggs though John has, nobody thought that he likes it.

Type 2 of VPP constructions consists of a preposed VP and an additional "inverted" structure involving the clausal subject obligatorily and without exception (VPP2).

The data in (1), (2), (4a) are from (Akmajian et al. (1979: 23). Examples for VPP have been presented - since Emonds (1975), Akmajian et al. (1979) - only with fronted VPs that repeat the VP preceding in the text in exactly identical lexical form. However, this absolute lexical-phonological identity is not a necessary property of VPP as data from Erdmann (1981), Ward/Birner (1992) and others illustrate. Irrespective of what an adequate analysis of these constructions may be, it consists of a fronted VP and the lexicalized TENSE remnant (see section 2.3.1.); and preposing with /Ao«gA-attraction here behaves like general topicalization, i.e. includes other XPs (see below). Cf. also Sawada (1991: 389ff.), following a proposal by Culicover.

Types ofVP-Preposing (6)

225

a. Taking tickets at the door was a person I had previously roomed with. b. Examined today and found in good health was our nation's chief executive. (aandb: Emonds 1976:36) c. Running a mile every morning has been John Smith. (Ward/Birner 1992: 581)

Type 3: As a third type, left-dislocated VP structures (LDVP) suggest themselves as an alternative to the types of preposed VP above. (7)

... and sleep the whole day, we are sure that John would do so if he were allowed.

In (7) do so as the typical proform of VP functions as a lexically realised copy of the preposed VP. Type 4: Discontinuous VPP. Culicover (1997: 164 ff.) examines constructions in which a preposed verb is found in the clause-initial position of English sentences so that the verbal phrase appears to be discontinuous: (8)

They said that Bill would give a present to someone, a. and give a present he did, to me. b. and give he did a present to me.

(Culicover (1997: 164 f.)

It will be demonstrated that without any exception even these discontinuous VPP structures are examples of VPP 1 and show similarities with VPP2 structures with regard to constituents postposed to the right periphery. As a mere hint it should be noticed that the direct and indirect objects of give obviously require marked contrastive stress as Culicover (1997: 165,410n.28) correctly remarks. A particular type of a preposed verbal constituent should be added here: participle movement (PaM). PaM is a special type of fronting a participle, hence of a V"-constituent (cf. BoSkovic 1998, Roberts 1993:37ff., Zubizarreta 1998). It cannot be subsumed under VPP described above because it is only the participle that is moved (i.e. head movement, not movement of a maximal projection VP);7 and as the target position is under CP, COMP", PaM is more similar to Verb Second (V2). PaM, however, seems to occur in languages without obligatory V2 and vice versa.8 A certain closeness to Verb Raising phenomena (VR) may be assumed. VR is right movement and mostly obligatory (see Felser, this volume), PaM is optional left movement. Both are clause internal phenomena. In this article, it will suffice to simply state that English can be characterised as a language which lacks V2, VR and PaM, a typological fact that cannot be explained. It is only at first sight that this statement contradicts the assumption about the discontinuous VPP just mentioned.

Roberts (1993:38f), referring to studies by Lema and Rivero, emphasises the difference between participle fronting (as a case of long head movement) and VP-fronting. The behaviour of auxiliaries that license these types of movement is completely complementary. In the languages in question (Germanic languages are not included here), purely temporal auxiliaries allow participle fronting but not VPP, auxiliaries "with semantic content different to or additional to purely temporal content" (1993: 39), e.g. modal verbs, however, only license VPP, and not vice versa. PaM is also reminiscent of German infinitive pro participle (IPP). However, similarities and differences have not been examined so far to my knowledge.

226

Hero Janßen

2. Properties of VP-Preposing (VPP1)

Apart from the most obvious fact that VPP1 contains a proposed VP followed by sentences with regular word order, VPP1 has to be examined as to the question of whether it is a simple VP that is moved to the front, i.e. the categorial status of the moved constituent needs further clarification: a) the precise type of VP (projections of lexical verbs or of any [+V] heads and b) the combination with functional categories bound to VPs. A second question concerns a prominent feature of VPP1, namely that there is an obligatory remnant under the clausal functional node of INFL/Tense or AGR so that this functional head is always lexically filled when combined with a VPP1 construction. The characterisation of VPP as topicalization constitutes a third area to be discussed in this section.

2.1. Tensedness: VPP of Non-finite Projections As the examples above already imply, only phrases with non-finite verbal forms can be preposed, i.e. VPs headed by infinitives and present or past/ passive participles are subject to VPP. The interaction with various other functional projections will be discussed in section 2.3.2.. Structures with postposed (or stylistically inverted) subjects and fronted finite verbal phrases are always ungrammatical in English.9 (9)

a. *...and enters the room the well-dressed dark-haired woman. b. *...and is entering the room the well-dressed dark-haired woman. c. *...and has entered the room the well-dressed dark-haired woman.

These data show that any projection headed by a finite verbal element including the matrix TP may not be moved to the front of a clause. '" This restriction of VPP to non-tensed phrases will be extended below by another condition on the tensed head of TP (cf. section 2.3.1.). So far, it appears that only lexical VPs, i.e. phrases projected by lexical (full) verbs, are subject to VPP - which is permitted only when they are non-finite. As a first approximation, a candidate for VPP1 may be any constituent specified as [+verbal,-tense] in the broader context [+tense]. As a merely observational rule, Akmajian et al. (1979) suggested that the first VP whose head is specified as [-AUX] is fronted. This emphasises the status of the lexical verbs and

Thus VPP differs from "quotation inversion". The fact that finite verb forms can precede the subject even in English is illustrated by , e.g. "Leave the room", says the man. German behaves the same way. Languages specified for the pro-drop parameter such as Italian and others are typologically different even in this regard. The same restriction for non-finite verb phrases is valid for VPanaphors (VP-deletion phenomena). The fronting of a finite verb should be distinguished from the verb fronting phenomena in discontinuous VPs (cf. section 1, type 4 and section 5.2.). It goes without saying that verb first in imperatives, verb second or auxiliary inversion in direct questions are different. In addition, it should also be clear that preposed small clauses with participles as predicates (reduced participial clauses) are to be treated in a different way.

Types of VP-Preposing

227

the exclusion of auxiliaries." Facing complex combinations of VPs and functional projections to be discussed below, we may also reformulate the condition so that only the lowest projection level of V can undergo VPP. Thus, it could be assumed that the VP dominated by the lowest functional projection will be moved, i.e. the VP with a lexical item categorically specified as [+V,-N], including participles, as its head (a "lexical VP"), and excluding all auxiliaries which are lexicalizations of functional projections "higher" in the clausal hierarchy. That these suggestions are not sufficient will be shown in section 2.3.1 .ff. -/'«g-constructions in complements of aspectual verbs (see examples in (10)), or as passing, gerund and nominal -ing constructions (see (11)) may not be moved by VPP: (10) They all said that Tom might have continued studying Spanish, and a. * study ing it he might have continued. (Sawada 1991: 388) b. continued studying it he might have. (11) They all said that they enjoy dancing the foxtrot, and a. *dancing the waltz they enjoy. b. enjoy dancing the waltz they did.

Phrases headed by verbal elements that have changed their category (e.g. nominal -ing, poss-ing) or are part of projections with clausal character (cf. complements of verbs like begin, and gerunds) cannot be candidates for VPP. This corresponds to the observation that extractions out of infinitival clauses (control and ECM constructions) are ungrammatical; infinitival VPs can only occur with their superficially bare infinitival verb form in preposed position - which is strong evidence for the assumption that in general a TP (in this case even untensed clauses) cannot be fronted.12 (12) a. b. c. d. e.

*...and to leave the room John is/tries/wanted. *...and to leave the room John persuaded Mary. *...and to leave the room John was persuaded. *...Mary to leave the room John expected. *...to leave the room John expected Mary.

The restriction to true verbal projections and exclusion of "higher projections" from VPP can also be extended to the behaviour of small clauses and clausal complements of sensory verbs, which have structures superficially headed by a participle:13

11

12

13

Cf. also Sawada 1991: 389 "Front the highest V to the S-initial position". For an extensive criticism of Akmajian et al. (1979) see Janßen (1993). These proposals are problematic especially (but not only) under the current standard assumption of a layered VP shell. The question of which VP is moved in a layered/stacked VP, along the lines now commonly assumed, has to be neglected here. Whether a vP in the sense of Chomsky (1995) is subject to VPP becomes irrelevant as soon as we adopt the generalisation in section 2.3.3. that VPP is in fact AspP preposing. The fact that they do not occur with the particle to independently results a) from the clausal (hence non-verbal) status of the complement of the verb, i.e. the data (12a, b, c, e) are not examples of VP-Movement (parallel to the gerund-constructions), and b) from the fact that only auxiliaries, hence complements without to, licence VP-preposing (see section 2.3.1.1). Sometimes, sentences like (i) are analysed with a small clause structure including [near himself]. However, see (ii) for the observation that this small clause may be fronted like any other type of AdjP-fronting: (i) John saw a snake near himself, (ii) Near himself John saw a snake. The difference to other small clauses does not affect the VPP analysis presented here.

228

Hero Janßen

(13) a. *his hair cut John had/would like to have. b. *the thieves arrested by the police got. c. *the prisoners singing they heard. Preposed configurations evidently do not allow patterns with lexical subjects, which once again indicates that only VPs are fronted.14 This also provides evidence for the question of whether AgrPs may be fronted. They obviously do not differ from TPs and are blocked for movement.

2.2. The Internal Structure of VP As the data of clausal complements in VPs presented above have already implied, the specific internal structure of the VPs involved in preposing is irrelevant for application. Only the status of the VP or of the projection dominating it plays a significant role. The internal length and/or the internal complexity do not influence the grammaticality of preposed structures, although these factors, among others, play a crucial role in acceptability judgements (see section 4.2.).15 The preposed VP may contain, for example, complement small clauses (14) or adverbial modifiers (15). (14) a. Noa said that she would eat dinner nude, and eat dinner nude she did. b. Noa said that she would eat the meat raw, and eat the meat raw she did. (Rapoportl991: 165)16 (15) a. John said that the gang would open the safe after sunset, and open the safe after sunset they certainly did. (Takami 1991: 425) b, John said that the gang would open the safe with a drill, and open the safe with a drill they certainly did. (Takami 1991: 417) c. John said that the gang would open the safe with a drill after sunset, and open the safe with a drill after sunset they certainly did. d: ?John said that the gang would open the safe with a drill after sunset, and open the safe with a drill they certainly did after sunset. Preposing VPs with (even extensive) adverbial modifiers demonstrates that not parts of a VP, but rather the VP as a whole are typically moved by VPP.17 The partial optionality of

Lexical-semantic restrictions on VPP do not exist. The ungrammaticality of certain preposed -ingVPs with state verbs is explained by the fact that they do not occur in the progressive aspect. However, even here some verbs may be preposed (Erdmann 1981; see section 6 below). For the concept of complexity defined in structural terms cf. Zubizarreta (1998). For the purpose of this paper (only), it is unnecessary to distinguish between linear length and configurational complexity, which is neglected in section 4 and 5. The structures differ in that nude in (a) must be preposed, raw in (b) however may be omitted - an observation which proves that nude, but not raw, is an obligatory part of the lexical VP to be preposed, thus providing evidence for the internal structure of VP; for VPP, it is irrelevant since it does not present a new candidate for preposing (see also Aarts 1995: 88,92): (i) *Noa said that she would eat dinner nude, and eat dinner she did. (ii) Noa said that she would eat the meat raw, and eat the meat she did. (Rapoport 1991: 165). (iii) *Jim said he left his house angry and leave his house he did angry. (Aarts 1995: 88) Assuming the VP-internal subject hypothesis, there could be an additional problem: a VP including a subject trace is moved. But see section 4.5. for similar binding problems that occur in treatment of any VP movement.

Types of VP-Preposing

229

including adverbial modifiers in VPP can only be explained on the basis of a valid theory of adverbial distribution.18 (16) Tom swore that he must have been carelessly driving my car, and a. carelessly driving it he must have been. b. »driving it he must have been carelessly. (Sawada 1991: 389) (17) a. ?...and be arrested by the police the thieves will by Friday. b. ...arrested by the police the thieves will be by Friday c. ?...and have bought a car John will by Friday. There is a strong tendency for VP-internal adjuncts to be fronted together with the verb, and for adverbials in functional projections (e.g. by Friday in an AspP or PerfP) as long as they are subject to VPP.19 In general, typical sentential adverbs appear to be blocked for movement. This is explained by their potential position inside the TP, which is not moved.20 And if we accept that free local adverbials are also positioned outside the VP, the in situ position of adverbials in (18), otherwise unexplained, can be accounted for: 21 (18) They said that Bill would read the book somewhere, and read the book he did in the library. (Culicover 1997: 163) As a consequence, these data entail several indications for the relevance of verbalfunctional phrases that may be involved in VPP.22 Not only the lowest VP can be moved,23

|g

If we argue for the temporal AdvP after sunset as part of TP, this seems to suggest that a TP can be preposed because after sunset cannot be left behind: (15c) vs. (15d). Also consider (i) and (ii). However, it is the position of the adverbial that seems unclear (cf. fn.20). (i) ?... and leave our town tomorrow the stranger will, (ii)... and leave our town the stranger will tomorrow, (cf also (17b) The unacceptability in (17a/c) below results from the divergent behaviour of the PerfP and the AspP (cf. section 2.3.2.) and cannot be related to the status of the adverbial phrase. " There are data which show that the manner adverbial in VP may also be left in situ, i.e. in the right adjunct area of the clause. However, speakers'judgements are very insecure here, (i) ?? ... and fixed the sink John will have with a hammer by Friday. 2(1 The exact structural position of temporal adverbs is rather unclear (but cf. Takami 1991, Alexiadou 1997, Cinque 1999, among others). As temporal adverbs share selective restrictions with the Tense head, we take this as an argument for their position inside the TP. Even if a temporal adverb in TP can be preposed by VPP (cf. fn. 18 and examples (15c/d), which has to be explained in an adequate theory of adverbs, all other facts presented contradict an assumption that a TP can be moved to the front by VPP. 21 If these adverbials, as free adverbials, can be located inside one of the dominating functional projections, AspP and/or TP e.g., they may be moved as an AspP adjunct (see below), but not as a TP adjunct - the TP blocked for independent reasons. 22 Cf. Takami (1991) for differentiating the adverbial modification; only VP internal adverbs may be preposed with the lexical VP. 23 Given the assumption of the Layered-VP hypothesis, the indirect object, the subject and the light verb v in VP-shells are included in the movement of the maximal verbal projection, but excluded if we restrict the fronting to the lowest lexical VP. As soon as we accept the generalisation in section 2.3.3. that VPP is in fact AspP preposing, the problems of inclusion of complements, adjuncts and the subject are solved. In addition, we have to accept a verbal head movement from the lexical head position in VP to projection of light v, i.e. the vP. Thus, the projection of vP is involved independently of a particular analysis of verbal adjuncts. That adjuncts are preposed by VPP (AspPPreposing) is correctly predicted by our analysis, since AspP dominates VP and vP and thus includes the adjuncts of the verb.

230

HeroJanßen

which is by definition the verbal projection with a lexical verb and is dominated by functional projections that are relevant for V, but also other projections typically headed by functional elements may be candidates for VPP (as long as they are integrated in non-finite contexts and do not occupy a Tense head position).

2.3. Functional Projections Containing VP Although TP and AgrP are not subject to fronting processes such as VPP, it appears a very natural question to ask under what conditions a VP (as the lexical-verbal projection) can be separately fronted or and to what extent other dominating functional projections AspP, PerfP, or NegP (perhaps as extended projections of lexical verbs), are subject to the fronting process. To answer this question, we have to look at the functional projections themselves and the properties of the elements left behind after VPP application.

2.3.1. Functional Licensing of VPP: Lexicalization of TENSE More striking than the observation mentioned above that phrases headed by finite elements cannot be fronted is the fact that, without any exception, the finite verbal or functional element must always be left in its original position inside the right domain of the TP. Whenever an auxiliary is not available, even do insertion must apply (see 19a). In all other cases modals, have and be occupy a position nearest to the finite head of TP (see 19b-e): (19) a. b. c. d.

They all said that John would pass the test, ana pass the test he did. They all said that John had to get his PH.D., and get his Ph.D. he must. He swore he would sail across the Pacific, and sailing across the Pacific he is. I was told that John must have been arrested by the police, and arrested (by the police) he was. e. He claimed he could take first place, and taken first place he has.

Thus, adding our observations on the status of the TP above, this suggests that the head of the TP is not only present in its original D-stmctural position, but has to be lexically filled by a (finite) auxiliary- or at least connected with it.24 Empty TP heads invariably result in ungrammatical constructions: (20) a. *... and leaves the room John. b. *... and is leaving the room John.

i.e. T[ e ].... VP[ e ] i.e. T [ e ].... AspP [ e ] VP [ e ]

The head of TP must be lexically realised in T or in an adjacent projection - thus creating a structure with a VP-trace preceded and governed by a lexicalized remnant. This can only be fulfilled by a lexical item of functional-categorial status, in other words, by the English auxiliaries. Several explanations have been suggested for this fact (e.g. Roberts 1990, Janßen 1993). As the head of the English TP can only be filled by auxiliaries, we may roughly speak of a

24

Or in the Finiteness Phrase FP - if we adopt Rizzi (1997)'s account of a split CP structure, an analysis also used by Haegeman/Guiron (1999).

Types of VP-Preposing

231

licensing of VPP by the auxiliaries (e.g. Roberts 1993) - which, however, is a misleading and non-explanatory specification - for reasons just given.25 For example, as VPP is based on tensed TPs the [-tense] marker to under T may not satisfy the condition oftensedness and is not allowed (21). This cannot be explained by simple auxiliary licensing: (21) a. *... and dance with Mary the waltz John tried to. b. *... and dance with Mary the waltz John is to. Thus, the requirement of VPP that the head of TP is specified [+tense] must be combined with the condition that tensedness has to be realised by or connected with a lexical element. Let us call this a Generalised Tensedness Condition on VPP. The approach of AGR-identification developed by Bode (this volume) for different reasons may account for this condition for independent reasons. Finite verbal or functional forms are necessary for the identification of Tense, which is possible only by a tensed head T that is lexically filled or by adjacent (thus non-moved) functional material dominated by the TP. It does not only explain the necessity of lexical remnants of tensedness, but also the fact that finite VPs and verbal-functional projections may not be preposed and why a TP cannot be moved to the front. This explanation thus provides a promising general structureoriented hypothesis avoiding observationally adequate surface conditions (e.g. Tensedness Condition) or ad hoc filters (Iwakura 1983 ).26 It focuses on the interaction of Tense and its dominated verbal-functional projections and it demonstrates that the categorial status of an auxiliary element does not play a role: VPP is blocked whenever Tense is not identified.27

2.3.2. Complex Functional Configurations and the Blocking of VPP Problems with any version of the Tensedness Condition occur when we examine the divergent behaviour of perfective, passive and progressive VPP in more complex configurations, i.e. projections that are embedded under a TP which is already identified in the above sense. The AGR-identification hypothesis does not account for the observation now to be discussed that other functional projections are frequently blocked for preposing, but may undergo VPP in some contexts.

25

26 27

The same holds for VPP in German when a complete VP is preposed. (i) und sein Auto waschen tut er normalerweise (am Samstag). and his car wash does he usually (on Saturday). 'and wash his car he usually does (on Saturday)'. These are cases of a periphrastic do common in colloquial spoken German, but not allowed in Standard German (from a prescriptive view). Do has to be inserted although this type of inversion position in German is quite different from the English structure (see section 7.); it involves the V2 position in German, not the Tense head as in English. Cf. also Janßen (1993). Aspectual complements following verbs of direct perception and aspectual verbs cannot be preposed, for reasons at least implied by Felser (1999). Note that this type of licensing only applies to the lexical realisation of the TP head. The licensing of movement of other functional projections is accounted for by Felser (1999).

232

Hero Janßen

First of all, projections headed by a form of auxiliary have or be cannot be preposed in many cases (see examples in (23)), whereas a VP with a participle of the lexical verb can be fronted, leaving behind a perfective auxiliary have1* or a form of be, as in (22 a-c). (22) a. b. c. (23) a. b. c.

... and left the dark room John has. ... and leaving the dark room John was. ... and examined by the doctor John has been. *...and have left the darkroom John will. *...and be leaving the dark room John will. *...and have been examined by the doctor John will.

In other words, functional projections, like PerfP, and passive small clause configurations, including the functional verbal head be or have in their preposed constituent must not be fronted.2' It appears that only the constituent including the lexical VPs is preposed, and the element governing the functional projection remains in situ. At first sight, this restriction also seems to hold for AspP. A projection with a simple functional configuration (finite form of be + wg-participle), see (22b), is grammatical in a VPP position, but preposing the same projection (headed by /«^-participle in VPP in (24) or by progressive be in (23)) leads to ill-formed structures as soon as the AspP is dominated by a lexically filled PerfP (24) or a passive construction (23c). (24) ??... and leaving the dark room John has been. On the other hand, an AspP specified [+progressive] containing a he-form in the progressive (be-ing) cannot be left behind and is ill-formed (see 25a, 26a,c),30 although the fronted VPs with preposed being are grammatical (see 25b, 26b,d): (25) a. They all said that John was being obnoxious, and obnoxious he was being, b. They all said that John was being obnoxious, and being obnoxious he was. (Akmajian et al. 1979:28) (26) a. They said that John was being followed, and followed he was being. b. They said that John was being followed, and being followed he was. (Akmajian et al. 1979:28) c. *I never dreamed that Mary was being treated by a psychiatrist, but treated she was being. d. I never dreamed that Mary was being treated by a psychiatrist, but being treated she was. (Iwakura 1983: 285)

28

29 30

Native speaker judgements on the acceptability of a fronted perfective have are very insecure. With only a few exceptions preposed PerfPs are not possible: (i) ??... and have examined the students the professor will. As well as any projections headed by a finite element, as was shown above under the aspect of Tensedness. The same situation occurs in the case of VP-deletion: (i) *John was being noisy, and Bill was being, too. Cf. Akmajian et al. (1979), Iwakura (1983), Sawada (1991) and others for these and additional data concerning VP-deletion. We will not discuss these early analyses which did not adequately differentiate between heads and specifier constructions (cf. Janßen 1993).The fact that they do not yet distinguish between lexical and functional projections, thus allowing all projections of be and have to be VPs, is a minor counterargument because this decision depends on a classification of auxiliaries. For divergent views on the status of auxiliaries see Sawada (1991), Janßen (1993) and the articles in this volume.

Types of VP-Preposing

233

Examples (25) and (26) also show that preposed VPs and AdjP behave in the same way, so that we may conclude that the status of the lexical verb is irrelevant for an explanation. That this divergent behaviour can also be traced back not to potential properties of the AspP, but rather to the specific combination of VP and one functional projection with additional verbal-functional projections can be demonstrated by the fact that a preposing of passive phrases and AdjP, which are allowed in VPP when combined with a simple be form, also results into ungrammatical structures. (27) They all said that Tom must have been being examined by the police, and a. *examined by the police he must have been. b. ? being examined by the police he must have been. c. *been being examined by the police he must have. (Sawada 1991: 388) (28) They swore that John might have been taking heroin, and a. ...taking heroin he might have been. b. *... been taking heroin he might have. c. *... have been taking heroin he might. (Akmajian et al. 1979: 23, 28).

In particular, sentence (27b) should be well-formed following the distribution above, i.e. that the phrase including be+ing may be fronted (esp. cf. 26b, d). It is evident that the addition of the PerfP in all sentences in (27) and (28) is responsible for the ungrammaticality being the only additional factor in the functional configurations. It should suffice here that AspP (in addition to overt lexical VPs) may be fronted. The PerfP seems to block VPP and PerfP itself cannot be subject to VPP (see (29 and (28c)):11 (29) *They all said that Tom must have been being examined by the police, and have been being examined by the police he must. (Sawada 1991: 388)

2.3.3. Preposing AspP instead of Lexical VPs The fact that a configuration of be-ing is obligatorily moved and cannot remain in situ as be-ing , however, empirically motivates an additional assumption, namely that it is the AspP that is fronted, and not simply the lexical VP. However, TP, AgrP and PerfP are not subject to fronting. How can this prominence of AspP be explained? In any case, the proposal by Akmajian et al. (1979) and others who focus on the exclusive status of the lowest (or smallest) non-auxiliary VP does not suffice to account for the distributional facts presented so far, in particular the differences between functional and lexical projections and the prominence of AspP. In deciding on the proper candidate for preposing (AspP or VP), we find theoretical support in Felser's (1999: ch.3) proposal that the verb moves from the lowest VP (here the lexical VP) up to the head position of the AspP," whose head is specified as [+progressive] for verbal -mg-forms and [-progressive] for bare infinitival forms. Phrases with infinitives

The grammatical status of (28a), however, does not fit into this pattern and represents an explanatory gap. The restriction above also holds for the inverted VPP structures (VPP2): (i) *Been running down the road had a man who everyone recognised, (ii) Running down the road had been a man who everyone recognised. One intermediate position is vP, which can also be assumed in our generalisation. Cf. fn. 23.

234

HeroJanßen

and -ing-verb forms are precisely the candidates of VP. Therefore, for both empirical and theoretical reasons, we conclude that, in every case of VPP, it is the AspP that is moved to the front. It is only for the sake of convenience that we will keep to the common notion of VPP in the following, instead of relabelling the phenomenon as AspP-Preposing. The fact that the preposing of passive participles and be-ing clusters is grammatical as shown above is explained by their original position inside a passive configuration which is hierarchically included under the node of AspP. The passive be (and also copular be) is moved up to the AspP head position if it is empty. The complete AspP is fronted even ifsuperficially - the AspP is empty. In other and more precise words: VPP is the preposing of the AspP in a clause." However, it can be blocked by the Generalised Tensedness Condition (or by AGR-identification) and by the (unfortunately unexplained) presence of PerfP.34

2.3.4. NegP as a Candidate for VPP? To look for other candidates for VPP to support the conclusion that AspPs are subject to VPP, we may ask whether the functional projection of Neg(ation) may be included in a VPP.33 As the examples overwhelmingly show, the NegP cannot be included in VPP:30 (30) a. b. c. d. e. f.

33

34

35 36

37

*... and not read a book about star wars John does / will. ... and read a book about star wars John does not / will not. *... and not leaving the room Mary is. ... and leaving the room Mary is. *... and not written in small letters the book has been. ... and written in small letters the book has not been / was not.37

Felser (this volume) also proposes specific lexicalization conditions for functional elements (incl. AspP) to be moved. These can be extended from head movement to the movement of the AspP, because of the properties of the aspectual head. If the verb is moved out of the lexical VP into the AspP this condition even holds for the preposing of infinitives and past participles. In arguing for a multistratal specifier analysis along the lines of Akmajian et al. (1979), Sawada (1991) formulates another condition on VPP: A fronted VP must be introduced by a head verb, but not by specifier or complement verbs. Thus, he is able to differentiate between well-formed VPP with a passive be and aspectual verbs on the one hand and on the other hand ill-formed structures introduced by progressive be, and perfective have. The analysis presented in this article offers a more adequate solution because it is not based on a problematic categorial classification of auxiliaries. The same can be said about Iwakura (1983). Cf. Janßen (1993) for arguments against specifier classifications of auxiliaries. We subsume never under VP, unlike not, whose position is the NegP - for reasons not discussed in this context. The ill-formedness of sentences with contracted auxiliaries is connected to the well-known fact (e.g. Radford 1988) that the contraction before "gaps" (in this case trace of the VP/AspP) is impossible, which is of course not an explanation, but a mere observational statement. In addition, it cannot account for the following data: (i) ??... and read a book about.... John doesn't/won't. (ii) ??... and leaving the room Mary isn't. (iii) 11... and written in small letters the book hasn't been/wasn't. With contrastive or focal stress on WAS NOT, the sentence is more acceptable.

Types of VP-Preposing

235

This corresponds to the behaviour of negative polarity items which are licensed by preceding negative elements.31 Whatever VP is preposed, polarity elements are not possible in the residual clause: (31) a. b. c. d.

??... and leaving our town anyone is. ??... and leave our town anyone will tomorrow. ??... and leave our town he ever will / will ever. ??... and leaving our town he is ever / ever is.

Note also that negative polarity items are not licensed when they are included in the preposed VP:39 (32) a. ??... and sending anyone the latest review no none is. b. ??... and send anyone the latest review no one will. Thus the salient status of the AspP among the functional projections that form verbal clusters with a lexical VP is affirmed.*'

2.4. VPP as A-Bar-Topicalization Similarities between VPP and topicalization should by now have become obvious, regardless of the complexities discussed. If we consider other (non-verbal) phrases XP it becomes evident that there is no separate rule VPP, but a more general one. The examples above already include occurrences of preposed adjectives: (33) ... and fond of chocolate Mary is supposed to be. It is a well-known fact that adverbial adjuncts and prepositional phrases may also undergo fronting to the left periphery.41 31

39

40

Differences of acceptability produced by the clause introducing particles and and but may be explained by semantic and pragmatic differences. Unlike the assumptions in Ward (1990) it is not VPP but non-structural factors which determine acceptability in these cases. Note that acceptability is increased as soon as the auxiliary under TENSE is assigned stress: (i) ... but written in small letters the book WASN'T, (ii)?... but read a book about star wars John WILL. VPP, even with inverted structures does not license polarity items: (i) *... enter the room will ever the dark man with the red tie who we met last year. (ii) *... enter the room will ever no one who we haven't met years before. (iii) *... send anyone the latest review will no one who is proud of writing books. The type of movement which leads to inverted VPP structures, however, cannot be classified as an instance of operator movement (like WH-movement); the inversion if the finite verbal element, i.e. a head movement of INFL/Tense to COMP, is not involved (cf. fn. 40). In addition to the assumption that negative elements cannot be preposed in VPP, this supports the fact that VPP is different from other A-bar-movements such as WH-Movement and the proposing of negated phrases (operator movement), which also trigger the inversion of the finite auxiliary in English as in (i) and (ii) and polarity effects as in (iii): (i) Under no circumstances did he leave his family. (ii) Under no circumstances will he ever leave his family. (iii) Under no circumstances did he leave anyone /*someone. That VPP is not a movement that co-occurs with I-to C-inversion is crucial for the argument that inverted structures combined with VPP are not instances of inversion rules.

236

HeroJanßen

(34) a. In the Italian garden, an elegant fountain stood, b. Over that fence, the outside world begins.42

In any case, the proposing of VP corresponds to other types of XP-fronting since it behaves in the same way as the other constructions. These are commonly subsumed under the label of topicalization. Following Rizzi's (1997) and others' classification of two subtypes, i.e. argument-topicalization (of object DP and PPs) and non-argument-topicalization (adverbial and prepositional adjuncts), it is obvious that VPP corresponds to the latter subtype. VPP shares all the features of non-argument topicalization. Thus, it is not surprising that some linguists prefer the term VP-topicalization (e.g. Vikner 1995, Culicover 1997, Lodrup 1990), unfortunately without any discussion. And more important - only VPP1, i.e. preposing structures without inverted configurations, is analysed under this notion. In the following section, we will extend the topicalization analysis to VPP2 in order to demonstrate that both types of VPP are instances of a general preposing movement which is independent of any categorial or subcategorial status of the verbal head. 43 The analysis of VPP types proposed here is open to different approaches and does not depend on specific assumptions on the landing site of preposing. Therefore, nothing particular needs to be said about the landing site of VPP. Depending on particular analyses of the fine structure of the clausal left periphery different sites suggest themselves.44 But some observational facts should be mentioned. VPP occurs in direct questions, where it precedes the WH-phrases and WH-complementizers, but not in embedded questions. (35) a. b. c. d.

... and working late, John will be. *... he asks whether/why working late, John will be. ... working late, do you really think he was? (Radford 1988: 528)4S ... working late, why do you think he was?

This indicates that the landing site of VPP is left to the CP components. According to (35c) the preposed VP precedes a fronted wh-phrase, which indicates the position of an external

For PP/AdvP preposing with and without inversion cf. Drubig (1991), Janßen (forthcoming), among others. Cf. examples under (54ff) below for inverted counterparts. The status of A-bar-topicalization is relevant, for it accounts for the possible violation of the ECP (i.e. the extraction from subject position even in English). According to Rizzi (1997), there are clear-cut differences in the acceptability judgements of argument-topicalization and nonargument-topicalization when combined with extractions from the subject position. I.e. CP specifier, IP adjunction and CP adjunction as well as independent projections of discoursebased functional features (TopP, FocusP, split CP). Cf. e.g. Rizzi (1997) and Haegeman/Gueron (1999). Radford (1988) argues that VPP requires inversion. However, his analysis of the sentence in (35c) mixes up the independent inversion with the co-occurring direct yes-no question and the additional VPP, which does not require inverted structures. See below for the motivation of different inverted constructions VPP2. The inversion in (35c) is clearly motivated by the status of the clause as a simple direct yes/no question. Example (35d) shows that VPP is not blocked in direct questions.

Types of VP-Preposing

237

topicalization (in the sense of Müller/Sternefeld (1993), whereas (35b) suggests that an internal position (following the question word) is not available.46 Secondly, VPP clusters are typically separated from the clausal core by comma intonation in all examples presented so far. As this intonational or juncture pattern is a characteristic feature of leftmost configurations (including left-dislocation and external topicalization), but not of proposed WH-phrases, a landing site outside the CP is necessary. This is also supported by the observation that VPP is highly unacceptable with clause initial sentential adverbs:47 (36) ??Evidently/ Frankly, working late he really was.

3. A Note on Left-Dislocation of VP Examples with left-dislocated VPs occur extremely rarely, although grammatical sentences (with an obvious artificial impression) may be constructed. (37) a. b. (38) a. b. (39) a. b. (40)

and lurking around, John was in fact doing so. and lurk around, we are sure that John would do so. and sleeping the whole day, John likes doing so. and sleep the whole day, we are sure that John would do so if he were allowed. and run into the garden, John will do so without hesitating. ?and running into the garden, John will be so without hesitating. and read the poem aloud, John tried to do it/ that.

Typical features such as intervening comma intonation indicating a position outside IP/TP, or even CP (depending on the detailed analysis of the left periphery) or the lexical proform indicating coreferentiality with an XP in the matrix clause (here: do so for the VP), etc. are evidence of the underlying configuration of the examples above as left-dislocated VPs. Note that the superficial structure of sentences like (41) and (42) is misleading; although we find a participial and/or an infinitival VP in the LD position, it should be obvious (e.g. by the use of that, a sentential proform) that these VPs reflect an underlying clausal gerund or infinitival construction:48 (41) Eating beans, Steve likes that (42) To eat beans, Steve likes that

(Geluykens 1992:21) (Geluykens 1992:21)

The position preceding CP is shown by the following example:49 (43) and work late do you really think he will do so?

46 47 48 49

Exceptions are occurrences with a) a "light" subject in situ or b) a postposed subject. The same holds for the non-co-occurrence with other types of fronting, e.g. with ADV preposing and other XP-topicalizations above. This is compatible with Geluykens1 (1992:21) analysis; he does not present data of a true leftdislocated VP. This is a modified version of Radford's VPP example discussed above under (35c) which - like a typical topicalization - does not contain the lexical proform of VP.

238

HeroJanßen

The Tensedness Condition from above should be expected to be irrelevant for leftdislocated VPs. As the do -proform occupies the position of the lexical VP, the VP behaves in the same way as a regular tensed VP, i.e. with a fully lexical head. The head of the TP is subject to general principles of functional heads (e.g. cf. Janßen 1993). That examples of LD-VPs sound rather artificial and constructed or even unacceptable to some native speakers can be explained by the textual function of LD. *' LD does not simply introduce topics, but referents of discourse (Geluykens 1992). This makes NPs, for example, and sentences more suitable LD candidates than VPs (which lack any referential property). With caution, the following data may be subsumed under LD-VPs: (44) speaker A: ...doing Old and Middle English dialects speaker B: yes - doing - and the thing is that we have had ... (Geluykens 1992: 48)

(45) below, however, is rather similar to a fronted reduced participial clause (note that there is no coreferential lexical marker):51 (45) ...giving lectures, he's probably got them already prepared... (Geluykens 1992: 93)

And (46) and (47) are definitely not a VP, but a gerund construction again (see proform it): (46) speaker A: ...but.... doing linguistics speaker B: ...it takes you (Geluykens 1992: 73) (47) But as to being happy, if you mean it as a portmanteau word (Geluykens 1992: 125)

Therefore, as LD data are very rare or their exact grammatical analysis leads to quite different constructions, we will not consider this construction in further detail."

30

51 51

In spoken German left-dislocated VPs are more common: (i) Das Buch gelesen, das hat Peter, the book read, that has Peter 'Read the book, Peter has (done that)' The fact that discontinuous VPs are impossible with LD, but acceptable with topicalization does not undermine the analysis: (ii) Der Maria gegeben (*das) hat Hans das Buch (Wiltschko 1997: 334) To Mary given (*this) has John the book 'Given the book to Mary, John has (done that).' Wiltschko neglects a difference between continuous preposed VPs, which can be left-dislocated with typical d-pronouns (das/that), and discontinuous VPs, which are only possible in German, but not in English. Introductions to sentences like Turning now to metapher: if the radiator... (Geluykens 1992: 135) are of course not VPs, and perhaps not even examples of true LDs in the sense of Geluykens. It may suffice here that LD combined with VPP2 is ungrammatical, whereas LD of VPP1 are structurally well-formed.

Types of VP-Preposing

239

4. Inverted Configurations (VPP2)

So far we have examined the properties of VPP1 and proposed a common analysis in terms of A-bar-topicalization in equal terms. But obviously the most prominent property is that VPP may occur with and without positional inversion (VPP2). Some linguists, most of whom work in a non-generative functional framework, argue for a separate inversion configuration which they distinguish from the VPP structures discussed above by analysing these in terms of auxiliary inversion." They assume a movement of the (full) verb or the whole verbal part of the predicate either by proposing the complete predicative verbal cluster (incl. the fronting of a full verb or even the whole VP) in front of the subject position.54 So the impression arises that the inverted construction is quite different from the non-inverted configuration, i.e. a rule of predicate inversion is applied instead of VPP. It will be argued in the following that this is by no means the case: there is no verb movement at all involved in these inverted structures that can be empirically motivated." In the (non-recent) generative framework Emonds (1976), too, tries to account for the positional differences by postulating two distinctive rules: VP-Preposing (VPP) and Participle Preposing (PaP). Whereas functionalists just mentioned cannot completely explain what causes the choice between auxiliary inversion and predicative (or full verb) inversion and why a full verb inversion totally uncommon in Modern English is acceptable in spite of its ungrammatical status, Emonds claims that the categorial status of the respective verbal heads of the fronted VPs are responsible for the divergent application of rules: fronted participles, according to Emonds, require inversion configurations, fronted infinitives occur in non-inverted clauses. However, he does not describe the processes through which these inversions may be created. But what is more important, he totally fails to explain why participles, but not infinitives should logically be connected to inversion structures and trigger inversion - apart from the obvious observation that a mere classification into two rules and two verbal subtypes does not explain anything. In the light of this substantial criticism it seems to be just a minor flaw that Emonds (and functionalists) cannot (and never tried to) account for the phenomenon of the obligatory lexical remnant under INFL/Tense.

4.1. The Category-Neutral Optionality of VPP2 Inversion Most striking, however, are the empirical facts which contradict the view that the categorial distinction between participles and infinitives is responsible for inverted structures.

53

54 55

The statistical restrictions on the use or occurrences of specific VPP2 patterns is not grammatically motivated, but results from basic language-functional tendencies and textual principles (cf. Bimer/Ward 1992, 1998, Dorgeloh 1997). What is important here is the observation that they are well-formed from a grammatical point of view; therefore VPP2 provides for alternative optional structures and is a specific construction of written texts which is subject to theoretical principles of grammar. Note that this type of VPP is different from the one examined in this article for obvious reasons. Not to mention the theoretical problems of such unrestricted movement analyses dating from early transformational approaches.

240

HeroJanßen

The main empirical argument derives from the optionality of both inverted and noninverted structures combining with the same verb form. In other words, the topicalized VP structures discussed above may also occur as inverted configurations and vice versa. (48) a. They all said that John would pass the test, and pass the test did this lucky guy, who even won a prize last week. (cf. la) b. They all said that John had to get his Ph.D., and get his Ph.D. must this lucky guy, who even won a prize last week. (cf. Ib)

Evidently, we also find fronted infinitives (and adjectives) in inverted structures: (49) a. He swore he would sail across the Pacific, and sailing across the Pacific is this rather wicked guy, who we failed to introduce to our company, (cf. 2a) b. He vowed he would get even some day, and getting even has been this curious kind of manager, who we tried to make president of our club. (cf. 2b) (50) a. ... afraid of the police he must have been. b. ... afraid of the police must have been the thief who was discovered in the churchyard. (51) a. I was told that John must have been arrested by the police, and arrested (by the police) was this extremely wicked guy, who never tried to get a job. (cf 3) b. They had persuaded Mary to be examined by a doctor, and examined by a doctor was this intelligent and kind young woman who never tried to get a job.... (52) a. He claimed he could take first place, and taken first place has this lucky guy, who even won a prize last week. (cf. 4) b. He claimed he could take first place, and taken first place he will certainly have.

And, as examples in section 2 show, participles may be subject to (simple) VP topicalization (VPP1), which at least leads to a caveat against the obligatory requirement of participles for inversion. Restrictions on the topicalization of participial phrases have been explained above in terms independent of the categorial status of the verbal element. And not even the categorial status of a VP head as a participle guarantees that inverted structures are acceptable: (53) a. *He claimed he could take first place, and taken first place will have he. b. *He vowed he would get even some day, and getting even has been he.

As these examples with fronted participial constructions are highly unacceptable,56 we cannot but conclude that there is no grammatical connection between the categorial status of the head of a fronted VP and the co-occurrence of inversions. There are no restrictions on VPP structures and inverted structures that depend on the categorial status of the proposed verbal head. What really licences inverted structures will be examined below. But even a cautious restriction of inversion to the general lexical category V (including fronted aspectual phrases, see above) does not suffice to adequately treat inverted structures where verbal clusters and (full) lexical verbs precede the clausal subject. As examples (54a) and (54b) show, inverted configurations can be combined with any subtype of a non-

56

See sections 4.2. and 5. below for a detailed treatment of the asymmetry and balanced weight of verbal clusters and subject complexity.

Types of VP-Preposing

241

argument topicalization, i.e. with all categorial types of projections (PP, AdvP: the socalled locative inversion), as long as they come from non-argument positions. (54) a. In the Italian garden stands an elegant fountain. (Langendoen 1973, Iwakura 1978) b. Over that fence is the outside world. (Bowers 1976) And these structures, too, allow optionality of structures: they also occur in non-inverted configurations (54c) and as simple AdvP-Topicalization (54d):" (54) c. An elegant fountain stands in the Italian garden. d. In the Italian garden, an elegant fountain might have stood. By now it should be more than obvious that the counterpart of VPP (and all other types of non-argument topicalization) is not the movement of a V or a verbal cluster or phrase to the pre-subject position, but rather a simple movement of the subject "around" the remnant verbal and functional projections (in the case of VPP) or the VP in situ (when AdvP/PP topicalization takes place). The examples above illustrate the parallel postposing of the subject, thus creating the inverted structures with VP, AdvP, PP etc. The landing site of the inverted subject is a postposition in the right periphery, which can be shown by the position only to the right of the string of functional-verbal (or auxiliary) elements which form a continuous verbal cluster - as shown in many data above. The verbal cluster cannot be interrupted by the postposed subject, i.e. the target of the subject postposition must be to the right of this cluster. The verbal cluster cannot and may not be destroyed, which accounts for the fact that the subject is extracted out of the TP and moved to the very right periphery. Inversion in the usual sense that a verbal element moves from INFL/Tense to a position preceding the subject is excluded and not supported by the word order data. If we assumed a specific inversion rule, we would have to postulate different rules for each occurrence, thereby losing possible significant generalisations about English inversions.58 And the same would hold if we tried to adhere to (functionalist) predicate (verb) movement. Therefore, VPP is an instance of regular non-argument topicalization, as shown above. Inversional positions of full verbs and complete verbal clusters are independent of the lexical status of the head of the fronted phrase. Of course, this kind of postposing, which resembles Heavy-NP-Shift (HNPS), leaves an A-bar-bound trace in the subject position. Just in line with the HNPS, it poses a typical problem for principles like the Empty Category Principle (but see m. 44). In any case, all types of non-argument topicalization can optionally be combined with this general process of subject-postposition. These are two distinct but general movement rules. VPP as a subtype of non-argument topicalization may thus co-occur with or without subject-posing, i.e. with or without an inverted structure. It remains to clarify the licensing criteria of this kind of optionality in VPP2 and to discuss the stylistic and/or grammatical value of optionality under assumptions of economy postulated in frameworks like that of the Minimalist Program (e.g. Chomsky 1995).

57 58

The fact that a simple AdvP topicalization seems impossible here may be traced back to some complexity properties of the subject and the predicate which will be discussed in section 4.2. This is exactly the case in studies where VPP, PaP, locative inversions, etc. are considered to be distinct processes. Cf. Janßen (forthcoming) for an overall description.

242

HeroJanßen

4.2. The Non-Grammatical Licensing of Inverted Configurations Acceptability judgements seem to differ depending on the complexity of the subject to be postposed on one side and of the cluster of functional-verbal elements that stay in situ after VPP (or AspP, to be precise) has applied. Acceptability increases with the complexity of the postposed subject, and it decreases to ungrammaticality as soon as the subject consists of a pronoun or a simple noun: (55) a. Taking tickets at the door was a person I had previously roomed with. (cf. (6a)) a1 * Taking tickets at the door was he. a" ??Taking tickets at the door was the man.59 b. Examined today and found in good health was our nation's chief executive, (cf. (6b)) b'. * Examined today and found in good health was he. b".??Examined today and found in good health was the executive.

The picture emerges with gradual differences in the verbal clusters. Short verbal clusters are more or less incompatible with complex NP/DPs in grammatical subject position (specifier of TP), see (c and d): (56) a. Taking tickets at the door was a person I had previously roomed with. a' Taking tickets at the door will be a person I had previously roomed with. a" Taking tickets at the door will have been a person I had previously roomed with. b. Examined today and found in good health was our nation's chief executive, b'. Examined today and found in good health will be our nation's chief executive. b".Examined today and found in good health will have been our nation's chief executive. c. * Taking tickets at the door a person I had previously roomed with was. c' Taking tickets at the door he was. c" ?Taking tickets at the door was the man / the man was. d. 'Examined today and found in good health our nation's chief executive was. d'. Examined today and found in good health he was. d".Examined today and found in good health the executive was.

Note that in all these cases the complexity of the preposed VP is to a large extent irrelevant.611 This is in accordance with unrestricted optionality of VP-topicalization discussed above. However, if we analyse possible interactional patterns of more or less complex postposed subjects and verbal clusters, we have to state that the complexity under examination is a rather relational concept: X is considered complex in relation to the other components and Z, i.e. acceptability results from the combination of complex subject and verbal cluster whose complexity is subject to a balanced complexity or weight of constituents. Slightly complex subjects are expected with rather short verbal clusters, long (complex) verbal clusters require more complex subjects, and so on. Examples of these combinations are already inherent in the data given under (54) to (56). The relative weight of constituents discussed so far results from structural complexity of syntactic projections. Yet, there is another alternative to structural constituency weight:

39 60

Without stress intonation. To be mentioned are configurations where simple verbal clusters and a light subject co-occur. Complex VPP and short verbal clusters or light subjects are worse in their acceptability: (i)) ??and running into the room with his mouth wide open is he (ii) ? and running into the room with his mouth wide open is HE (iii) ??and running into the room with his mouth wide open has been HE

Types of VP-Preposing

243

grammatical compensation in configurations involving short verbal clusters and light postposed subjects can be managed by stress assignment: (57) a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j.

Taking tickets at the door was HE. Taking tickets at the door was THE MAN. ?Examined today and found in good health was HE. Examined today and found in good health was THE EXECUTIVE. ?Taking tickets at the door a person I had previously roomed with WAS. Taking tickets at the door he WAS. Taking tickets at the door was THE MAN / the man WAS. Examined today and found in good health our nation's chief executive WAS. Examined today and found in good health he WAS. Examined today and found in good health the executive WAS.

A prominent example is the distribution of a pronominal subject. Only if the pronoun is stressed in postposed position does its acceptability increase (58b), elsewhere postposition is ungrammatical (58c). Stress assignment of pronominal, i.e. light subjects even overrides more complex verbal clusters (58d): (58) a. b. c. d.

?... and running into the dark room is he. ... and running into the dark room is HE. ??/*... and running into the dark room has been he. ... and running into the dark room has been HE.

Summarising, the balance of constituent weight (and resulting compensations) extends from the syntactic configurational level to the level of prosodic patterns. Progressive constructions and infinitival VPs, i.e. the internal specification of AspP, are not involved in the interactional complexity and intonational patterns.61 (59) a. ... and run into the dark room does he/this stranger. b. ... and run into the dark room does HE/THIS STRANGER. As all data presented so far show, the categorial status of the preposed VP (assumed by Emonds and others) is totally irrelevant for the licensing of the inverted structures. The term of a rule of Participle Preposing (Emonds) is insufficient and misleading. Different factors are involved. One salient licensing factor is the relative weight (or complexity) of a) the matrix subject, and b) the functional-verbal cluster on both a structural-syntactic and an intonational level." The probability of an inverted construction VPP2 increases proportionally to the heaviness of subject and verbal clusters. Inversion is unacceptable in the case of extremely light subjects, i.e. structurally simple and unstressed subjects.

61

61

The occurrence of periphrastic do results quite regularly from the separation of the lexical VP and TENSE and is not a particular property of the constructions under examination. Lexical-verbal clusters in sentences where VPP involves the extraction from embedded sentences, are excluded because subject postposition is generally not permitted in these embedded sentences: (i) Washing the dishes, we hope he/John/her best friend will be.

244

HeroJanßen

4.3. Structural Licensing of Inverted Configurations As a well-known fact, subject inversion in English can only occur when it is accompanied by an instance of leftward movement (WH-movement or topicalization), i.e. whenever the CP area is lexically filled. This restriction contrasts to inversion processes (movement of the subject) in other languages." VPP also conforms to this restriction.64 Therefore, the inverted structure produced by subject postposing in VPP2 requires VP-topicalization on a strictly syntactic level.63 Even stress assignment to the whole NP/DP cannot compensate the structural ill-formedness. It is only the preposed constituent that permits grammatical subject postposition. (60) a. b. (61) a. b.

*...has been working late in the evening our best friend, ...working late in the evening has been our best friend. *...has been working late in the evening OUR BEST FRIEND, ...working late in the evening has been OUR BEST FRIEND.

Inversion structures combined with operators (like question words, negative or restrictive adverbs never, merely) are products of different principles, are grammatically obligatory and thus derived differently. That only the finite IP/TP head is moved (to the COMP head) is shown by the serial combination under (62); only (62a) with the separated finite IP/TP element is grammatical: (62) a. b. c. d.

Never will he have been interested in political matters. *Never will have been he interested in political matters. *Never will have been interested in political matters he. *Never will have been interested in political matters the man who appears to have studied abroad.

It is evident that such operators are not available in the examples discussed so far under the label of VPP2. In operator-triggered inversions light or complex subjects do not play any role; postposition of a subject to the right of the continuous functional-verbal cluster is ungrammatical.6* (63) a. *Never will have been interested in political matters my new friend from Boston who appears to have studied abroad, b. *Never will have been interested in political matters HE.

63

Cf. Kayne/Pollock (1978), Kayne (1979), Rizzi/Roberts (1996), Bakovic (1998), to name only a few authors. 64 LD is different. A combination of LD plus inverted structure is ill-formed because the trace of the postposed subject cannot be licensed by the clause-initial VP, as it can in the case of VPP as a topicalization structure. LD is "too far away". This supports the hypothesis that only Non-A-bar topicalization licences subject postposing. " The structural licensing of subject postposing by VPP may contradict the "no feeding condition" (Culicover 1996) suggested by Müller/Sternefeld (1993), who postulate that an -bar movement is not allowed to require another -bar movement of a different type. They distinguish between three types. 66 The adding of a topicalized VP is blocked by never in the CP specifier position. For the incompatibility of operators and VPP see section 2.4.

Types of VP-Preposing

245

4.4. The Derivation of VPP1 and VPP2 The data presented show that the position of the postposed subject is the right periphery of the clause. The landing site of postposition is to the right of the complete and always continuous verbal cluster. The postverbal subject never interferes between verbal elements which would result in discontinuous VPs in situ, which, however, never occur in VPP2.67 For the subject, landing sites available are for obvious binding reasons only IP/TP and CP adjunction positions or a rightmost FocusP.68 As properties of VPP are not involved in the motivation of subject postposing at all, we conclude that it is the status, type and context of the subject which motivates movement (i.e. the inverted position of the subject and the verbal cluster). This resembles variants of stylistic inversions. VPP and the continuous verbal cluster in the functional projections in situ are not touched by them. Therefore, we have to assume the grammatical interaction of two processes, which result in 2 types of VPP sharing many properties and differing only in their variable optionality of a postverbal subject. 1. VP-Topicalization as a subcase of non-argument topicalization. According to the generalisation above that verbs move to AspP, we may generally assume that AspP is topicalized. And as the movement and lexical realisation of functional projections is subject to specific relationships between the Tense head and the dominated VPs (see above, e.g. AGR-identification), the restriction to contexts with [-tense] projections is justified. 2. Subject postposing (as a parallel to or a subtype of HNPS) as a general type of rightward movement into a non-argument-position. In both cases general grammatical conditions are at work (e.g. the VP specific condition of identificational chains for TENSE, the licensing of the subject trace by topicalization, etc). As already shown, LD of VP is different from all these constructions but displays the same distinctions to VP-topicalization as LD and topicalization in general. This includes the fact that LD (of VO) is incompatible with the postposing of the subject: (64) a. *... and lurk around, has always done the man who we met in the mall, b. *... and lurk around, always does the man who we met in the mall. This conforms to the structural condition above that "stylistic inversions" are obligatorily licensed by lexically filled topic positions.

67

68

These are arguments against a movement of the verbal element (inversion), as has been assumed under the label of a predicator inversion, where it is claimed that the predicative clusters (in our analysis the verbal clusters and the verbal complements) are moved in front of the subject - which essentially is a transformation of a discontinuous constituent. Note that current anti-symmetric analyses moving constituents from the right to the left (cf. Kayne 1994, Beerman et al. (1997) for a discussion) also have to face the problem of constituent configurations more complex than a simple lexical verb projection. As already mentioned for the left periphery, a decision on the landing site of subject postposing depends on independently motivated analyses of the right periphery. Our analysis is compatible with the various current approaches (e.g. Beerman et al. 1997).

246

Hero Janßen

4.5. Binding and Reconstruction in VPP A derivational problem of preposed VPs might be discovered in sentences where the VP contains anaphoric elements. In passive and passive-like structures, the NP-trace of the subjectivized D-structural object is not bound as soon as the VP is fronted: (65) ... and attacked t by his best friends Jack would have been [VP .... ] The same holds for lexical reflexives (Haegeman/Gu6ron 1999): (66) ... and criticize himself John never will.

Evidently, in order not to violate the binding principle A, preposed VPs have to be subject to reconstruction.69 This conclusion even holds if we adopt the (meanwhile standard) hypothesis of a VP internal subject (VPISH), see (651). (65 ')... and [vp / attacked t by his best friends] Jack would have been [VP ....]

Lexical anaphors being properly bound in such structures by the subject trace in the VP (see 66 ), the need for reconstruction is only shifted to the subject trace in the VP. (66') ...and [ VP t criticize himself] John never will

In any case, the hypothesis of a VP internal subject does not pose a new problem for the analysis proposed here, but simply reflects a common binding relation following fronting processes as movements upwards. Not only in any simple VPP structure, but in any topicalization there already exists the necessity for reconstruction at the level of Logical Form (LF). From this perspective, the change of possible coreference interpretation in VPP structures is merely an additional fact, see (67) for AdjP-Preposing, which Kuno (1987: 279) subsumed under VPP, and (68) for true VPP: (67) a. b. (68) a. b.

*ShCi wasn't fond of everyone MarVj came in touch with, Fond of everyone Mary, came in touch with she wasn't. *She; was in fact criticizing everyone Mary; came in touch with, Criticizing everyone Maryi came in touch with she ^ in fact was.

VPP structures do not create new problems and may be subsumed under general assumptions of grammatical theory (and unfortunately unsolved problems). As a second crucial conclusion (cf. also Kuno 1987: 278f.), these problems of coreference and binding (at LF) show that VPP cannot be a simple stylistic rule, but rather it displays considerable grammatical impact - and thus underlies general principles of grammar, as proposed in GB or MP.

69

Haegeman/Gueron (1999) conclude that reconstruction has to take place in the base position of the VP (extending the data to complex sentences). This is irrelevant for the line of argument developed here; it is sufficient to state that reconstruction is necessary independently of any type of analysis.

Types of VP-Preposing

247

5. Relativized Weight, Prosody and the Economy of "Optional" Movements So far, a derivation has been proposed with VP topicalization and subject postposing as a rightward movement resembling HNPS. But this is not an explanation and, in particular, it is uncertain whether it conforms to the principles of grammar, in particular to the principles of economy. Following several studies on focus structure by Rochemont (e.g. Rochemont 1986, Rochemont/Culicover 1990), Drubig (1992) comes to conclusions similar to our derivation in terms of the two rules suggested, when he analyses the phenomena of PP preposing. Based on concepts of a structure-oriented focus theory (cf. also Zubizarreta 1998, Winckler 1997 for an overview,), the combination of a topicalized adjunct PP and subject postposing (labelled stylistic inversion SI) is explained by the notion of presentational focus. Restricting to preposed PPs, Drubig (1992: 179) explicitly differentiates between the construction of SI on the one hand and HNPS and presentational there on the other; the latter, but not the first involve complex focus constituents. Some shortcomings of this explanation follow from the facts presented here. First, as we have seen in section 2.2., complexity is a regulating factor even in subject postposing - and in verbal clusters (not dealt with by Drubig). There is an obvious tendency towards a balanced distribution of constituents (by proposing and postposing) and an avoidance strategy for clusters of preposed constituents and a complex subject including complex verbal-functional clusters. Thus, the interaction of verbal clusters and subjects (discussed in section 4.2.) cannot be explained by an approach that is based only on the assignment of presentational focus. Secondly, the optionality of postposing and non-inverted structures especially with constituents of equal complexity (that is when focus stress does not trigger the word order) and the gradual differences of acceptability up to high unacceptability (but seldom to strict ungrammaticality) is not accounted for. And thirdly, it cannot be explained why there are cases of strict grammatical obligatoriness in the preposing of AspP discussed above and of VP-preposing (cf. section 6.), where inversion is obligatory and canonical word order is ungrammatical. Inversion is not the problem to be accounted for, but preposing. In other words, focus assignment alone, in particular when only the focused component is examined and integrated in an explanation, does not suffice.70 Both the balanced weight of the verbal clusters, i.e. the configuration of verb relevant functional projections and the

70

Without adding a new definition to lots of approaches, we consider focus to represent the nonpresupposed material in an utterance (cf. Zubizarreta 1998 in the tradition of Chomsky and Jackendoff). Topic differs from focus, because it is located on another pragmatic level: a clausal topic contains discourse-old information (cf. Birner/Ward 1998). Thus, a focus can contain discourseold or discourse-new information. Therefore, focus and topic are not contradictory, but complementary concepts. The status of non-presupposed information can be linguistically realised by structural position or by focus stress. The fact that, in VPP, the lexical material is often repeated may also be interpreted as an indication of a non-presupposed utterance meaning (often with specific intonation). A simple topic could be possible even with the semantically empty VP proform do so: (i)... and doing so, he will write two new books.

248

HeroJanßen

value of an AspP itself must be added. All this should conform to grammatical principles and could not be reduced to a merely stylistic inversion. This calls for a refined explanation in terms of a general focus theory.

5.1. VPP2 and Prosodically Motivated Movements In her examination of syntactic optional constructions from a perspective of grammatical economy as suggested in the Minimalist Program, Zubizarreta (1998) shows that there are both intonational and syntactical configurations that may be supposed to be optional but on a closer analysis are necessarily based on types of prosodically motivated obligatoriness. Certain languages display intonational contours and/or prosodically motivated movements (PM) that result from two prosodic principles of focus attachment and thus are instances of the LAST RESORT principle in the framework of economy. Zubizarreta argues that there is no PM (to the left) in English and concludes that prosodic features in English cannot be satisfied by movement, but only by stress assignment. However, confronted with the facts of relative weight above and the similarities with presentational focus phenomena just discussed, it seems plausible that the subject postposing in VPP2 is an English variant of PM, i.e. the postposing of a complex subject combined with the complexity of verbal clusters and the substitutional attachment of focus stress takes place in order to satisfy the needs of a well-formed prosodic structure of the clause. Therefore the subject postposing in VPP1 (and in discontinuous VPP) conforms to the assumption of economy, namely that necessary movements are allowed. The most important advantage of the analysis of postposing in terms of Zubizarreta's PM approach lies in the suprasegmental domain of her principles, which covers the facts of contextually relativized constituent weight better than the isolated focus stress attachment assumed in other analyses. In applying the PM approach to VPP1, it is necessary to emphasise that complex or "heavy" NP/DPs have a prominent status of information, i.e. the complexity of a NP/DP indicates that there is material introduced in the subject position that may be assumed to contradict the presupposition (thus being a focus candidate); and that the preposed VP realises the topic function of material/information that is already known.71 In order to satisfy the prosodic requirements, syntactic movement or stress assignment must apply - with regard to the internally complex phrases (i.e. to the relativized weight of the adjacent constituents). The fact that preposing of VPs is compatible with these principles is no longer debatable because topicalization in general is economically motivated by the existence of projections of discourse-based functional features.

71

We may therefore conclude that complex phrases are inherently marked as bearing a focus feature: "A complex XP is inherently marked [+foc]".

Types of VP-Preposing

249

5.2. Discontinuous VPP: Postposition and Stress Assignment It has already been indicated above that discontinuous VPP structures result from VPP1 structures and involve constituents postposed to the right periphery that require contrastive stress to be grammatical (Culicover 1997: 165,410n.28): (69) They said that Bill would give a present to someone, a. and give a present he did, to ME. b. and give he did a PRESENT to ME. ( cf. (8)) In accordance with Culicover, constructions like (69b) cannot be considered examples of simple Verb fronting, but have to be analysed as a result of VP topicalization (VPP1 in our terminology) plus the postposing of an NP out of the preposed VP, which is typical Heavy NP Shift of objects, as Culicover states). First, it should be evident that such configurations cannot occur with VPP2 structures, i.e. together with a postposed subject. Only one constituent (subject from the matrix clause or the complement level of the two objects in the preposed VP) can occupy the right focus position." Secondly, this is supported by the fact that the direct and indirect objects of give require marked contrastive stress or, we may add to Culicover's proposal, internally complex objects (typical HNPS items). Thus, it can be concluded that discontinuous VPPs conform to the description and an explanation in terms of focus principles.

6. Another Type of Obligatoriness: The Focalisation of VP in the Left Periphery VPP1 and VPP2 structures discussed so far allow both topicalized VP and VP in situ resulting in the canonical (regular) word order (SVO) of English. In both cases we have argued for a redefinition of preposed VPP in terms of preposed AspP. Erdmann (1981), Birner/Ward (1992), Ward/Birner (1992), however, found another type of preposed VP (participial -ing VP) which does not allow the canonical word order but obligatorily yields VPP structures: (70) a. Capping our tour was a visit to the Royal mansion. b. *A visit to the Royal mansion was capping our tour. c. Winning the diving competition will be John Smith.

(Erdmann 1981:363f.) (Ward/Bimer 1992: 581)

Canonical word order is possible only with simple tense in some cases (7la), but with the progressive and simple forms in others (71b, 70c). (71) a. A visit to the Royal mansion capped our tour. b. John Smith will win/will be winning the diving competition.(Ward/Birner 1992: 581)

We do not agree with Culicover's corresponding derivation of two separate object movements to the right, i.e. with two distinct target focal positions in our terms. The data including the rightward movement of a single object and the second inside the preposed VP - as suggested by Culicover are more than questionable. To native speakers, only postposition of both objects seems acceptable (if and only if these objects are stressed).

250

Hero Janßen

An interesting fact, however, is that the topicalization of a VP/AspP without the progressive specification is ungrammatical, too: (72) a. *Cap our tour does a visit to the Royal mansion. b. *Win the diving competition will John Smith.

(Ward/Bimer 1992: 581)

The authors mentioned argued for an "aspectual asymmetry" of "imperfectivity" in these constructions, which is supposed to account for the grammaticality of the preposing structures and of the VP in situ. In our analysis the head of the preposed constituent (AspP) is specified [+progressive]. The aspectual asymmetry concerns the implicit implicature of imperfectivity. Ward/Birner also add the observation that the auxiliary be must be present as a syntactic restriction. Auxiliary have, for example, is not subject to this restriction (Ward/Birner 1992: 581). Obviously, this does not count as a valid explanation but gives a hint as to the differences between have and be and to the divergent involvement of AspP and PerfP in VPP1 already discussed . The crucial question unexplained so far concerns the ungrammaticality of canonical word order and the corresponding obligatoriness of VPP. The postposition of the subject does not display any novelties because the inverted structures can be accounted for by the balanced weight of the constituent involved. For example, with a pronominal subject the inversion is ungrammatical; and with stress assignment some of the data become more acceptable. (73) a. *... winning the diving competition will be he. b. ... winning the diving competition will be THE MAN. c. ... winning the diving competition the man WILL BE.

The fact that the aspectual asymmetry (or obligatory VPP2 in our terms) also may co-occur with verbs that regularly do not allow the progressive aspect, i.e. non-dynamic or stative verbs, may serve as an indication of the crucial role of the aspectual information: (74) a. Falling somewhere in a category between Einstein's theory and sand fleas is the tropical 'city' of Islandia.... b. The tropical 'city' of Islandia... falls somewhere in a category between Einstein's theory and sand fleas.... (Ward/Birner 1992: 580)

Contrary to the data presented by Erdmann, Ward/Birner and others, who only analyse VPP data taken from written texts, canonical word order becomes more acceptable when the progressive constructions are assigned contrastive stress (cf. 75b): (75) a. Dividing each box is a panel of thin plywood. (Erdmann 1981: 376) b. This panel of thin plywood IS DIVIDING each box. (e.g. in a context like "Now look! This panel IS DIVIDING each box!)

It should also be noted that several examples independently are possible in regular word order (see above). The complementary status of positional obligatoriness of VPP and stress assignment on the VP in situ leads back to the assumptions on economy principles and obligatory processes. The information of "imperfectivity" implied by aspectual asymmetries is information that is not simply new, but seems to contradict, for example, current presuppositions: it has

Types of VP-Preposing

251

to be emphasised.73 The progressive aspect comes into focal interest. Either the AspP is moved to a position where the focal feature may be attracted (VPP) or prosodic rules assign focal stress, fulfilling LAST RESORT processes. The preposing of VPs/AspPs in these cases is not a topicalization, but focalisation. Satisfying the focal feature is a grammatical requirement - and thus this type of VP-preposing is subject to grammatical principles without any exception and no longer optionally.

7. English - German Contrasts: Obligatoriness of VPP in German

If we compare English VPP structures with German sentences containing a preposed VP, first of all, an (only) superficial similarity of VP inverted structures needs some clarification: (76) Das Buch in der Nacht gelesen hat Hans natürlich. The book in the night read has John of course 'Read the book in the night John of course has.' Leaving aside the VP-internal word order differences, it is worth recalling that this German structure results from obligatory Verb Second moving the finite verbal element in front of the subject and the general "move XP" rule. This rule, which is seen as a generalisation of WH-movement and topicalization in German (since e.g. Thiersch 1978),74 takes a more or less optional maximal projection and moves it so that it obligatorily occupies the clause initial field.75 Thus the inverted structure is created by verb movement (V2), and not by subject postposing as in the English sentences. The preposed VP is only a candidate among other constituents in the clause to be moved to the clause-initial position. Any XP may suffice to satisfy the condition of the clause initial position. The assumption that VP-initial structures with inverted positions in German and English result from quite different processes can be briefly illustrated by the observation that the initial VP in German is not separated from the whole sentence by comma intonation, as it is in English, see (77): (77) a. ... and working in the evening, John really was. b. *... und gearbeitet am Abend, hat Hans wirklich. In addition to this, the passive sentences (78a) and (78b) prove that the verbal cluster, which typically - without any exception - forms a single continuous verbal group in English and precedes the subject as a cluster, is discontinuous in German: V2 moves the finite verb into the typical V2 position leaving the non-finite verbal elements in their original VP-

Cf. also Brinton (1988: 39f.) for implied dynamic reading effects, not included in the canonical lexical representations, when stative verbs appear with the progressive aspect. Different target positions of focalisation are possible if we adopt the Split CP analysis mentioned above; superficially, however, an XP (incl. a VP) is "fronted". Cf. Vikner (1995: 154, 230) echoing common assumptions for positioning the topicalized VP in the specifier position of CP.

252

Hero Janßen

final positions. The same is demonstrated by sentences with more complex verbal clusters in (78c): (78) a. In der tiefen Nacht gelesen ist dieses Buch über Nabokov worden. In the deep night read has this book on N. been. 'Read in the deep night this book on N. has been.' b. *In der tiefen Nacht gelesen ist worden dieses Buch über Nabokov.76 In the deep night read has been this book on N. '*Been read in the deep night this book on N. has.' c. Dieses Buch über Nabokov bis zum Sonntag gelesen wird Hans sicherlich haben. This book on N. by Sunday read will John certainly have. 'Read this book on N. by Sunday John will certainly have.' The appearance of verbal clusters like (79) may once again be misleading: they are moved by two different processes (V2 and Move XP/VP), where in this case the higher lexical VP gelesen haben has been fronted: (79) Dieses Buch über Nabokov bis zum Sonntag gelesen haben wird Hans sicherlich. This book on N. by Sunday read have will John certainly. '*Have read this book on N. by Sunday John will certainly.' Confusing, too, is the lexical realisation of the finite auxiliary, including the dialectal periphrastic tun (do) in German: (80) a. Bücher in der Nacht lesen tut Hans oft. Books in the night read does John often. 'Read books in the night John often does.' b. Auf den Markt gehen um frisches Obst zu kaufen tut Hans oft. To the market go in order fresh fruit to buy does John often. 'Go to the market to buy fresh fruit John often does.' c. Auf den Markt gehen um frisches Obst zu kaufen hat er oft getan. 'Go the market to buy fresh fruit John has often done.' (80c), for example, seems to be an example of a LD-construction; in general, the data in (80) look like auxiliary licensing for the Tensedness Condition in English. But it is the obligatory filling of the COMP position in German that requires a finite periphrastic do or a finite auxiliary, as the examples show. The claim that COMP and not INFL is involved here can be proved by the distribution of verbal elements and the ill-formedness of a VP in embedded clauses.V2, responsible for inversion, is blocked in German embedded clauses (cf. the complementizer doss/that): (81) a. * Er weiss, dass das Buch über Nabokov gelesen in der Nacht Hans hat. He knows that the book on N. read in the night John has '?He knows that read the book on N. in the night John has.' b. *Er weiss, dass auf den Markt gehen um frisches Obst zu kaufen er oft tut. He knows that to the market go in order fresh fruit to buy he often does '?He knows that go to the market to buy fresh fruit he often does .'

This is only well-formed with a right dislocation reading of the subject (or subject postposing in English) and divergent verb order: (i) *In der tiefen Nacht gelesen worden ist dieses Buch über Nabokov. In the deep night read been has this book on N. '*Read in the deep night has been this book on N.'

Types of VP-Preposing

253

Following the line of argumentation that different movement rules result in superficially similar sentence forms with positional inversions in English and German, the reasons for movement are expected to differ as well.77 The two movement types in German (V2 and Move XP/VP) are without any doubt obligatory and are subject to the same set of general principles compatible with grammatical economy.78 VP-movements in English, however, are obligatory for different reasons according to the type of VP-preposing, as has been demonstrated above.

8. Summary

The descriptive purpose of this article has been to demonstrate that there are distinct types of VP preposing in English as well as in contrast with German. As a general conclusion, the preposing of VPs must be reanalysed as the movement of AspP immediately dominating the lexical VPs (and NegP). In addition to this, the VPPs (a term that has been maintained for convenience instead of AspP preposing) differ in their derivational history and in their motivation and status as superficially optional and as obligatory movements. The central types, i.e. VPP1 and VPP2, result from two partly independent movements: topicalization as a leftward movement and subject postposing as a rightward movement; both enriching the fine structure of the clausal peripheries. By analysing these constructions in this way, it has been shown that these constructions do not involve the movement of a verbal head (neither finite verb inversion as Move INFL element to COMP nor a subtype of Verb Second), but that XPs (including predicative maximal functional/verbal projections) sort of scramble around a finite auxiliary verbal element under INFL. In addition to this, it has been demonstrated that AspP items are relevant for movement; the categorial status of a participle, however, as is assumed in several studies, is irrelevant for provoking specific inverted structures combined with VPP (i.e. in VPP2). Participles do not have the status of triggering VPP2 configurations. Although the categorial status of a participle is not important for subject postposing, specific properties of the progressive AspP (vs. simple tense) are relevant in a third type that is strictly obligatory for grammatical reasons: the asymmetric aspectual alternation is connected to focus processes of the use of progressive aspect with verbs commonly classi-

Even the internal structure of VP is different, as can be illustrated by the occurrence of discontinuous VPs in German (Dürscheid 1989: lOOff): (i) Dem Kind spendiert hat der alte Mann ein Eis. (Dürscheid 1989: 100) The child bought has the old man an ice-cream. 'Bought the child an ice-cream the old man has.' This is ungrammatical in English, although there are some options for creating VP discontinuity even in English (see above; and Culicover 1997: 164ff.) Whether we have to generalise that AspP instead of VP is preposed in German cannot be discussed here. However, this may seem plausible according to Felser's (1999) suggestion for Verb Raising to AspP in German and Dutch (based on observations different from those presented here).

254

HeroJanßen

fied as Stative, relational etc. verbs. This obligatory proposing of a progressive AspP is an instance of focus feature attraction on the left periphery. Thus, this type is subject to grammatical economy (obligatory and necessary feature checking, LAST RESORT, etc.) in the syntax. Apart from this focalisation structure, other grammatical reasons for VPP1 and VPP2 cannot be found, and merely stylistic accounts do not suffice. Whereas the syntactic optionality of such structures contradicts economy principles of grammatical theory, it can be shown that obligatoriness on the level of prosody complements "stylistic" optionality on the syntactic level. VP-preposing in German is different for reasons concerning the parameters of structural configuration, incl. the lexical filling of the initial clausal projection, and those of the movement rules in general. Therefore it is not surprising that German VPP obeys grammatical principles in a way quite distinct from the English constructions, which are counterparts only at the level of an unanalysed surface.

References

Aarts, B. (1995): Secondary predicates in English. In: B. Aarts, Ch.F. Meyer (eds.): The Verb in Contemporary English. Theory and Description. 75-101, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Akmajian, A., Steele, S., Wasow, T. (1979): The category AUX in universal grammar. In: Linguistic Inquiry 10, 1-64. Alexiadou, A. (1997): Adverb Placement: A Case Study in Antisymmetric Syntax. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Anagnostopoulou, E., van Riemsdijk, H., Zwarts, F. (eds.) (1997): Materials on Left Dislocation. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Bakovic, E. (1998): Optimality and inversion in Spanish. In: P. Barbosa et al. (eds): Is the Best Good Enough? Optimality and Competition in Syntax, 15-58. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Beerman, D., Leblanc, D., van Riemsdijk, H. (eds.) (1997): Rightward Movement. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Birner, B.J., Ward, G.L. (1992): On the interpretation of VP inversion in American English. In: Journal of 'Linguistics 28, 1-12. - (1998): Information Status and Noncanonical Word Order in English. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Bode, S. (this volume): One 'be' - one syntactic function. BoSkovic, Z. (1997): The Syntax ofNonfinite Complementation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Brinton, L.J. (1988): The Development of English Aspectual Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Cinque, G. (1999): Adverbs and Functional Heads. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Culicover, P.W. (1996): On distinguishing A'-Movements. In: Linguistic Inquiry 27, 445-463. - (1997): Principles and Parameters. An Introduction to Syntactic Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dorgeloh, H. (1997): Inversion in Modern English. Form and Function. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Drubig, H. B. (1992): Zur Frage der grammatischen Repräsentation thetischer und kategorischer Sätze. In: J. Jacobs (ed.): Informationsstruktur und Grammatik, 196-219. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. (= Linguistische Berichte Sonderheft 4). Dürscheid, C. (1989): Zur Vorfeldbesetzung in deutschen Verbzweit-Strukturen. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier. (= Fokus 1).

Types of VP-Preposing

255

Emonds, J. (1976): A Transformational Approach to English Syntax. Root, Structure-Preserving, and Local Transformations. New York: Academic Press. Erdmann, P. (1981): Preposed ING-forms in English. In: Folia Linguistica XV, 363-386. Felser, C (1999): Verbal Complement Clauses. A Minimalist Study of Direct Perception Constructions. Amsterdam: Benjamins. - (this volume): Aspectual complement clauses and the (un-)availability of verb raising. Geluykens, R. (1992): From Discourse Process to Grammatical Construction. On Left-Dislocation in English. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Haegeman, L., Guoron, J. (1999): English Grammar. A Generative Perspective. Oxford: Blackwell. Hartvigson, H.H., Jakobsen, L.K. (1974): Inversion in Present-Day English. Odense: Odense University Press (= Odense University Studies in English 2). Hooper, J., Thompson, S. (1973): On the Applicability of Root Transformations. In: Linguistic Inquiry 4, 465-499. Iwakura, K. (1983): A Filter on Auxiliary Verbs. In. Linguistic Analysis 11, 285-294. Janßen, H (1993): Verbstellung und Satzstruktur im Englischen. Tübingen: G.Narr. - (forthcoming): Inversion und Extraposition im Englischen. Kayne, R. (1979): Rightward NP-Movement in French and English. In: Linguistic Inquiry 10, 710719. - (1994): The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Kayne, R., Pollock, S. (1978): Stylistic inversion, successive cyclicity, and Move NP in French. In: Linguistic Inquiry 9, 595-622. Kuno, S. (1987J: Functional Syntax: Anaphora, Discourse and Empathy. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Lodrup, H. (1990): VP-topicalization and the verb 'gjore' in Norwegian. In: Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 45, 3-12. Müller, G. (1995): -bar Syntax. A Study in Movement Types. Berlin: Mouton, de Gruyter. Müller, G., Sternefeld, W. (1993): Improper movement and unambiguous binding. In: Linguistic Inquiry 24, 461-507. Nakajima, H. (ed.) (1991): Current English Linguistics in Japan. Berlin: Mouton, de Gruyter. Park, Y-M. (1998): Zur Theorie der A'-Bewegung. Eine universalgrammatische Analyse von Topikalisierungsphänomenen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. (= Linguistische Arbeiten 380). Radford, A. (1988): Transformational Grammar: A First Course. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rapoport, T.R. (1991): Adjunct-predicate licensing and D-structure. In: S.D. Rothstein (ed.): Perspectives on Phrase Structure: Heads and Licensing, 159-187. San Diego: Academic Press (= Syntax and Semantics 25). Rizzi, L. (1997): The fine structure of the left periphery. In: L. Haegeman (ed.): Elements of Grammar. Handbook of Generative Syntax, 281-337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Rizzi, L., Roberts, I. (1996): Complex Inversion in French. In: A. Belletti, L. Rizzi (eds.): Parameters and Functional Heads, 91-116. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Roberts, I. (1990): Some notes on VP-Fronting and head government. In: J. Mascaro, M. Nespor (eds.): Grammar in Progress, 387-396. Dordrecht: Foris. - (1993): Verbs and Diachronie Syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Rochemont, M.S. (1986): Focus in Generative Grammar. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Rochemont, M.S., Culicover, P.W. (1990): English Focus Constructions and The Theory of Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sawada, H. (1991): The perfective 'have1 and the progressive 'be' as spec verbs and the INFL system in English. In: H. Nakajima (ed.) (1991), 381-411. Takami, K.I. (1991): A functional approach to preposition stranding. In: H. Nakajima (ed.) (1991), 413-453. Thiersch, C. (1978). Topics in German Syntax. Ph.D. Diss. Cambridge, MA. Vikner, St. (1995): Verb Movement and Expletive Subjects in the Germanic Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ward, G.L. (1990): The discourse functions of VP-Preposing. In: Language 66, 742-763.

256

Hero Janßen

Ward, G.L., Birner B.J.(1992): VP inversion and aspect in written texts. In: D. Stein (ed.): Cooperating with Written Texts, 575-587. Berlin: Mouton, de Gruyter. Winckler, S. (1997): Focus and Secondary Predicates. Berlin: Mouton, de Gruyter. Wiltschko, M. (1997): Parasitic operators in German Left-Dislocation. In: E. Anagnostopoulou et al. (eds.) (1997), 307-339. Zubizarreta, M.L. (1998): Prosody, Focus, and Word Order. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

List of Contributors

Stefanie Bode Universität Göttingen Seminar für Englische Philologie Kate-Hamburger-Weg 3 D-37073 Göttingen Nicole Deho Universität Leipzig Graduiertenkolleg "Universalität und Diversität" Brühl 34 -50 D-04109 Leipzig [email protected] Hildegard Farke Universität Göttingen Seminar für Englische Philologie Kate-Hamburger-Weg 3 D-37073 Göttingen [email protected] Claudia Felser University of Essex Department of Language and Linguistics Wivenhoe Park Colchester OO4 3 SQ United Kingdom [email protected] Hero Janßen Technische Universität Braunschweig Englisches Seminar Mühlenpfordtstr. 23 D-38106 Braunschweig [email protected] Alexander Kaiser Universität Göttingen Seminar für Englische Philologie Kate-Hamburger-Weg 3 D-37073 Göttingen [email protected]

Jelena Krivokapic Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf SFB "Theorie des Lexikon" Universitätsstraße l D-40225 Düsseldorf [email protected] Gisa Rauh Bergische Universität GH Wuppertal FB 4 Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaften. Anglistik/Amerikanistik Gaußstr. 20 D-42097 Wuppertal rauh@uni-wuppertal. de Hans Thilo Tappe Bergische Universität GH Wuppertal FB 4 Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaften. Anglistik/Amerikanistik Gaußstr. 20 D-42097 Wuppertal tappe@uni-Wuppertal. de Joachim Tuschinsky Universität Göttingen Seminar für Englische Philologie Kate-Hamburger-Weg 3 D-37073 Göttingen [email protected] Anja Wanner University of Wisconsin - Madison Department of English 6111 Helen C. White Hall 600 North Park Street Madison, Wisconsin 53706 [email protected]