X-bar grammar: Attribution and predication in Dutch 9783110883343, 9783110133684

Table of contents :
Acknowledgements
Table of Contents
Chapter 1. Domain of Investigation
Chapter 2. Transformational Analysis
Chapter 3. S-bare and X-bar
Chapter 4. Stacking and the Notion Head
Chapter 5. Transfer
Bibliography
Index
Samenvatting
Curriculum Vitae

Citation preview

X-bar Grammar

Frank C. van Gestel

X-bar Grammar:

Attribution and Predication in Dutch

¥

1986 FORIS PUBLICATIONS Dordrecht - Holland/Riverton - U.S.A.

Published by: Foris Publications Holland P.O. Box 5 0 9 3300 AM Dordrecht, The Netherlands Sole distributor for the U.S.A. and Foris Publications U.S.A. P.O. Box C-50 Riverton N.J. 08077 U.S.A.

Canada:

Cip-data

ISBN 90 6765 251 2 © 1986 Foris Publications - Dordrecht No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission from the copyright owner. Printed in the Netherlands by ICG Printing, Dordrecht.

for Ingrid, Paula and Marc

Acknowledgements

This dissertation, although finished later than I care to admit, has benefitted greatly from the support of many people. I will be glad to single out a number of them here. To my great regret, Prof. Van den Berg did not live to see the day of my promotion. He had a decisive hand in the course of my life when he offered me the chance to become a linguist at the University of Utrecht. He then gave me the freedom to find my own way, and would have been a self-evident promotor. I am very grateful to Henk Schultink for replacing him without a moment's hesitation. He and his affiliates have always made me feel at home at the department of general linguistics. Not intending to slight the beneficial influence of my teachers Van Haeringen and Smit, I must mention first and foremost Wim Gerritsen as my initiator into the secrets of scientific research. I am grateful to him for his personally styled introduction, and for his understanding when science, being the reluctant mistress she can be, turned out to please me transformationally rather than medievistically. It was in fact Maarten van den Toorn who in 1968 aroused my interest in generative grammar, and who has encouraged me ever since by his critical enthusiasm. The growth of my linguistic abilities owes the greatest debt to Arnold Evers. His inspired and inspiring lectures easily enlisted my sympathy for generative syntax and also later, when he was the supervisor of my dissertation, he graciously allowed me to profit from his knowledge and insight. His active concern for my research, to which he gave generously in both time and attention, and his ever-unmoved faith in the dictum that all's well that ends well, stimulated me enormously, and can now be said to be the prime source of this final report. I would be surprised to learn that his influence on both form and content fails to shine through clearly and obviously. Wim Zonneveld might be called the translator of the manuscript, but was in fact more than that. He suggested improvements of both presentation and content; I am grateful for his important contribution to the final version, and his oncall availability even under the pressure of time. Gisela Gerritsen-Geywitz and

Frank Drijkoningen were so kind to help me out with the German and French examples. Needless to say that all responsibility for this text is my own. Within the department of Dutch language and literature, I am especially grateful to my medievist colleagues. They, together with the members of the linguistics section, made it possible for me and Fons van Buuren to share a sabbatical leave in 1978-1979. The research conducted during this year laid the foundation for this thesis. I am also grateful to drs. J. van Heijst, the head of the Utrecht University Library, for making available the facilities of this institution during that year and the Spring of 1984. It gave me the opportunity to continue my studies in an atmosphere of salutary isolation and optimal concentration. The Utrecht linguistic climate is one that is praised here not for the first time for being utterly beneficial to the execution of research. This holds for the various forms of linguistic cooperation among the participants of the Formal Parameters-program, and the active and hospitable group of junior researchers, who set themselves the important and fruitful task of making rapidly available the most recent and advanced work in the field. Likewise, I would like to thank my colleagues of the Modern Linguistics section of the Institute De Vooys. I am happy to be a member of this team, and am grateful for assistance both within and beyond the call of duty to Kees-Jan Backhuys, Peter van Bart, Egon Berendsen, Lisan van Beurden, Arthur Dirksen, Sandra Hop, Franciska de Jong, René Kager, Ans van Kemenade, Johan Kerstens, Luuk Lagerwerf, Anke Le Loux-Schuringa, Leonoor Oversteegen, Det Paulissen, Thijs Pollmann, Joleen Schipper, Arie Sturm, Henk Verkuyl, Ellis Visch, Fred Weerman, Meike Weverink, and, again, Wim Zonneveld. Next to them I thank my faculty colleagues Geert Koefoed and Jan Schroten for their relaxed cooperation in the field of bilingualism. It is impossible to adequately express what I owe to Aafje and Harry van Gestel, my parents. I gratefully mention here their openmindedness, their stimulating support and trust, and warm attention, through the years. Finally, I dedicate this book to Ingrid, Paula and Marc, for reasons that concern only the four of us, and will hence remain unmentioned here.

Table of Contents

Chapter 1

DOMAIN OF INVESTIGATION

1.

Attributive predicates: empirical setting

1

1.1

Intuitive correspondence

1

1.2

Syntactic correspondence

1.3

Exceptions

12

3 15

1.4

Central questions

2.

History of the problem

16

2.1

Transformational analysis

16

2.2

Base generation

17

2.2.1

Annotation

18

2.2.2

Reconstruction

20

3.

Conclusions

22

Chapter 2

TRANSFORMATIONAL ANALYSIS

1.

Outline

25

2.

Modifier Shift

27

2.1

A ST-version

27

2.2

Empirical defects

28

2.3

Modifier Shift adapted

30

2.3.1

More variables

30

2.3.2

X-bar notation

31

2.3.3

Domain delimitation

34

2.3.4

Minimal factorization

37

3.

Relative Clause Reduction

40

4.

Re-orientation

41

4.1

Independent S-bare

41

4.2

The head of the sentence

42

4.3

Generalized predicate

47

5.

Transition: conclusion and outlook

50

Chapter 3 1.

S-BARE AND X-BAR The abandonment of S 3

53

1.1

Arguments for X

1.2

The levels of the X -system

60

1.2.1

Non-maximal projection

61

1.2.2

INFL-projection

62

2.

Consequences

65

2.0

Outline

65

2.1

65

2.2

Against label-derived features 3 X as a theta-domain

2.3

Unexceptional Case-marking

71

2.4

The redefinition of government

74

2.5

Subject and Specifier

81

2.6

The present participle

86

2.7

Making sense of 'zijn1

90

3.

Conclusion

98

Chapter 4

3

53

68

STACKING AND THE NOTION HEAD

1.

Stacking

1.1

History of the problem

99

1.2

The range of stacking

104

1.2.1

Cross-category stacking

104

1.2.2

Nominal stacking

109

1.2.2.1

The relative relation

109

1.2.2.2

Quantifying nouns

117

100

1.2.2.2.1 Observations

117

1 .2.2.2.2 Account

121

2.

Non-predicative prenominals

123

2.1

Survey

123

2.2

Cardinals

129

2.2.1

Observations

129

2.2.2

Account

133

3.

Bar-hierarchy and the notion 'head'

140

3.1

Hierarchy

140

3.2

The notion 'head'

143

A.

Conclusion

147

Chapter 5

TRANSFER

1.

Introduction

149

2.

Radiation

150

2.1

D-transfer

152

2.2

S-transfer

156

3.

PRO-problems

3.1

NP-internal X -adjuncts

160

3.2

Coindexing

164

3.3

X 3 -harmony

168

4.

The scope of transfer

173

5.

Conclusion

175

3

159

BIBLIOGRAPHY

177

INDEX

181

Chapter 1

Domain of Investigation 1.

Attributive predicates: empirical setting

1.1 Intuitive correspondence

The point of departure for this dissertation are the following observations about the syntax of Dutch. The subject-predicate relation expressed explicitly through a form of the verb zijn (English to be) in the sentences of (1), is implicitly present in the nominal phrases of (2), which have an attributive adjective functioning as a predicate.

ADJECTIVE (1a)

De sopraan is trots

(1b)

The soprano is proud

(2a)

de trotse sopraan

(2b)

the proud soprano

The very large majority of Dutch adjectives has this characteristic. In most cases, it also manifests itself if the adjectival predicate is deverbal, although English is clearly different; cf. (3) — (10).

PRESENT PARTICIPLE (3a) *De sopraan was schilderend

(3b)

The soprano was painting

(Ça)

de schilderende sopraan

(4b)

the painting soprano

(5a)

De sopraan is gewaarschuwd

(5b)

The soprano has been warned

(6a)

de gewaarschuwde sopraan

(6b) *the warned soprano

PASSIVE PARTICIPLE

PERFECT PARTICIPLE (7a)

De sopraan is gevlucht

(7b)

(8a)

de gevluchte sopraan

(8b) *the fled soprano

The soprano has fled

1

MODAL PASSIVE (9a)

De sopraan was te overtuigen

(9b)

(10a)

de te overtuigen sopraan

(10b) *the could convinced soprano

The soprano could be convinced

The Dutch present participle is odd in that it lacks the ability to occur in predicate noun position (cf. (3a)). In apparent counterexamples such as (11)-(12) the participle has clearly become a lexicalized adjective. (11a)

De opkomst was verheugend 'The crowd was gratifying'

(11b)

de verheugende opkomst 'the gratifying crowd'

(12a)

Zijn gedrag was opvallend 'His behaviour was outstanding'

(12b)

zijn opvallende gedrag 'his outstanding behaviour'

This lexicalization is confirmed by the ability to take degrees of comparison: verheugender/ -st 'more/ most gratifying', opvallender/ -st 'more/ most outstanding 1 . English, on the other hand, is the mirror image of Dutch in that the present participle is regular, while the remaining three deverbal forms cannot occur attributively. For the passive participle this seems to be related to the fact that the finite passive has an attributive parallel only if the periphrastic form contains just zijn as an auxiliary. Because Dutch (5a) equals English (5b), have been in the latter does not fit this condition. An additional complication is the fact that the required combination is present in the pair of (13):

(13a)

De sopraan wordt gewaarschuwd

(13b)

The soprano is warned

The semantic difference between static (5b) vs. dynamic (13b) prohibits us to relate (13b) and (5a). The post-nominal be-less variants of (14), however, must be associated with 'be + passive participle'.

(14a)

the soprano warned against the danger

(14b)

the soprano just mentioned

2

We conclude that, on the one hand, the reduced variant of the Dutch passive participle corresponds interpretively with a different syntactic construction than that of English. On the other, we have reason to consider (5a) and (13b) similar from the point of view of syntactic valence. Since we are concerned with the latter much more than the former, we will take this similarity as one of our points of departure here. Note that even then the prenominal use of warned in (6b) is unacceptable (see Lakoff (1970:46) for some exceptions), an observation which will have to receive an explanation (see section 1.2) independently of what has just been said. The perfect participle takes only to have (and not to be) as an auxiliary, and this explains the lack of parallelism observed in (8). In this case even a postnominal variant such as (14) is lacking. Finally, as far as the modal passive is concerned, there is no English equivalent to the Dutch 'te + infinitive' type of phrase. The conclusion appears to be that English participles are much less adjectival than their Dutch counterparts.

1.2

Syntactic correspondence

A second type of restriction typical of English as compared to Dutch, concerns the structural shape of prenominal adjectival predicates. In either language, an adjective or participle can be accompanied by two types of material in finite clauses. There may be present non-inherent and inherent constituents, exemplified by (15)-(44) and (45)-(65), respectively. The non-inherent material may have the form of the negation marker niet 'not' (see (i) below) and adverbs of various types (cf. (ii) and (iii)). Inherent constituents are represented by the subcategorizing complements (iv) and their anaphoric variants (v). Both types of accompanying material may also appear simultaneously (see (vi), i.e. (66)-(75) below). The difference between English and Dutch here is that in the latter the additional material generally shows up in the corresponding prenominal predicates, too, which is not the case in English. For instance, examples (15)-(24) below show that niet is much closer to its adjective than English not, and (25)(34) do the same for sentence adverbs. Note that in some cases, the ungrammatic a l l y of the English examples has two sources: one following from the observations of the previous section on simple predicates, and another based on those made here. This is indicated by a double asterisk.

3

(i)

Negation ADJECTIVE

(15a)

De sopraan is niet trots

(15b)

(16a)

de niet trotse sopraan

(16b) *the not proud soprano

The soprano is not proud

PRESENT PARTICIPLE (17a) *De sopraan was niet schilderend

(17b)

The soprano was not painting

(18a)

de niet schilderende sopraan

(18b) *the not painting soprano

(19a)

De sopraan is niet gewaarschuwd

(19b)

(20a)

de niet gewaarschuwde sopraan

(20b)**the not warned soprano

PASSIVE PARTICIPLE The soprano is not warned

PERFECT PARTICIPLE (21a)

De sopraan is niet gevlucht

(21b)

(22a)

de niet gevluchte sopraan

(22b)**the not fled soprano

The soprano has not fled

MODAL PASSIVE (23a)

De sopraan was niet te overtuigen (23b)

(24a)

de niet te overtuigen sopraan

The soprano could not be convinced

(24b)**the could not convinced soprano

(ii)

Sentence adverbs ADJECTIVE

(25a)

De sopraan is misschien wel trots

(26a)

de misschien wel trotse sopraan

(25b)

The soprano is possibly proud

(26b) *the possibly proud soprano PRESENT PARTICIPLE (27a) *De sopraan was misschien wel schilderend (28a)

4

de misschien wel schilderende sopraan

(27b)

The soprano was possibly painting

(28b) *the possibly painting soprano PASSIVE PARTICIPLE (29a)

De sopraan is misschien wel gewaarschuwd

(30a)

de misschien wel gewaarschuwde sopraan

(29b)

The soprano is possibly warned

(30b)**the possibly warned soprano PERFECT PARTICIPLE (31a)

De sopraan is misschien wel gevlucht

(32a)

de misschien wel gevluchte sopraan

(31b)

The soprano has possibly fled

(32b)**the possibly fled soprano MODAL PASSIVE (33a)

De sopraan was misschien wel te overtuigen

(34a)

de misschien wel te overtuigen sopraan

(33b)

The soprano could possibly be convinced

(34b)**the could possibly convinced soprano

In so far as English allows non-epistemic adverbs before adjectives or participles, only manner adverbs in -ly and specifiers such as very occur in prenominal position: cf. the very proud soprano and see (38b). Dutch, again, is much more liberal in this respect, and shows structural symmetry between sentential and prenominal predicates.

(iii) Other adverbs ADJECTIVE (35a)

De sopraan is dikwijls trots

(36a)

de dikwijls trotse sopraan

5

(35b)

The soprano is often proud

(36b) *the often proud soprano

PRESENT PARTICIPLE (37a) "De sopraan was altijd schilderend *De sopraan was eenvoudig schilderend (38a)

de altijd schilderende sopraan de eenvoudig schilderende sopraan

(37b)

The soprano was always painting The soprano was simply painting

(38b) *the always painting soprano the simply painting soprano

PASSIVE PARTICIPLE (39a)

De sopraan was snel gewaarschuwd

(40a)

de snel gewaarschuwde sopraan

(39b)

The soprano was rapidly warned

(40b) *the rapidly warned soprano PERFECT PARTICIPLE (41a)

De sopraan is weer gevlucht

(42a)

de weer gevluchte sopraan

(41b)

The soprano has again fled

(42b)•"the again fled soprano MODAL PASSIVE (43a)

De sopraan was nooit te overtuigen

(44a)

de nooit te overtuigen sopraan

(43b)

The soprano could never be convinced

(44b)**the could never convinced soprano So far, the survey (15)-(44) exemplified categories (i)-(iii) of the non-inherent adjuncts of adjectival heads. We will now turn to inherent complements.

6

The adjectival head of a prenominal predicate must be immediately before the head of the nominal phrase. Acknowledging its lack of explanatory power, we may still for the time being accept Williams' (1982:160) Head Final Filter (HFF) "barring post-head material in prenominal modifiers" in English and German. Dutch AP's containing complements (such as in (46a)), including those from a verbal source (e.g. (48a)), conform to this, but the English ones do not: cf. (46b) and (48b). The reason for this is that in Dutch subcategorizing constituents can or must appear to the left of adjectives and verbs, respectively (recall that Dutch is a SOV language), where English has them to the right, (English being SVO). In English, post-head adverbial phrases are blocked in the same way. Examples (45)-(54) illustrate this opposition for complementation phenomena.

(iv)

Complements ADJECTIVE

(45a)

De sopraan was op de onderscheiding nogal trots

(46a)

de op de onderscheiding nogal trotse sopraan

(45b)

The soprano was rather proud of the award

(46b) *the rather proud of the award soprano

PRESENT PARTICIPLE (47a) *De sopraan was landschappen schilderend (48a)

de landschappen schilderende sopraan

(47b)

The soprano was painting landscapes

(48b) *the painting landscapes soprano PASSIVE PARTICIPLE (49a)

De sopraan was voor het gevaar gewaarschuwd

(50a)

de voor het gevaar gewaarschuwde sopraan

(49b)

The soprano was warned against the danger

(50b)**the warned against the danger soprano

7

PERFECT PARTICIPLE (51a)

De sopraan is voor het gevaar gevlucht

(52a)

de voor het gevaar gevluchte sopraan

(516)

The soprano has fled from the danger

(52b)**the fled from the danger soprano MODAL PASSIVE (53a)

De sopraan was van het belang van de rels te overtuigen

(54a)

de van het belang van de rels te overtuigen sopraan

(53b)

The soprano could be convinced of the importance of the trip

(54b)**the could convinced of the importance of the trip soprano

Part of the usefulness of the HFF is the assumption (Williams (1982:161-162)) that in English the trace _t of the moved object to the right of the passive participle [warned _t] is post-head material to the HFF, blocking its prenominal occurrence (cf. (6b)). This differs crucially from Dutch [t gewaarschuwd], where J; is to the left, allowing its prenominal occurrence (cf. (6a)). In this way, trace theory combined with HFF, and the SOV-SVO distinction between Dutch and English, explain the different syntactic behaviour of Dutch and English attributive participles. Examples (56)-(65) have, both in their sentential and attributive variant, adjectival predicates in which the complement is, or contains, an anaphor. The sentential constructions are grammatical (again granting the exceptional present participle), since the subject-NP is a suitable antecedent. This implies, given our recurring symmetry, that the anaphors in the prenominal predicates will need subject-NP's as antecedents as well, as an explanation of the grammaticality of the attributive variant (this observation goes back to Woisetschlager

(1973:19)). *

This raises the problem of the lack of such a subject-NP inside the attributive constituent. This is so since the assumed nominal structure in (55b) differs from the sentence structure in (55a) by not having de sopraan in subject-position, which implies the impossibility also of having it serve as an antecedent to the anaphor. (55a) see page 9

8

(55a)

S NP

VP

de sopraan was op zichzelf erg trots

=(56a))

the soprano was very proud of herself

=(56b))

(55b)

NP Det

AP

N

de bp zichzelf erg trotse sopraan

=(57a))

the very proud of herself soprano

=(57b))

In spite of this syntactic difference the grammar will have to account for the fact that both the predicative relation between sopraan and trots, and the anaphoric relation between sopraan and zichzelf are highly similar in both cases. Below I will develop a proposal toward this. The HFF, moreover, is just as applicable in the cases (56)-(64), as earlier in ( 4 5 M 5 4 ) .

(v)

Anaphors

ADJECTIVE (56a)

De sopraan was op zichzelf erg trots

(57a)

de op zichzelf erg trotse sopraan

(56b)

The soprano was very proud of herself

(57b) *the very proud of herself soprano PRESENT PARTICIPLE (58a) *De sopraan was zichzelf schilderend (59a)

de zichzelf schilderende sopraan

9

(58b)

The soprano was painting herself

(59b) *the painting herself soprano

PASSIVE PARTICIPLE (60a)

De sopranen waren voor elkaar gewaarschuwd

(61a)

de voor elkaar gewaarschuwde sopranen

(60b)

The sopranoes were warned against each other

(61b)**the warned against each other sopranoes PERFECT PARTICIPLE (62a)

De sopraan is naar een veilige plaats voor zichzelf gevlucht

(63a)

de naar een veilige plaats voor zichzelf gevluchte sopraan

(62b)

The soprano has fled to a safe place for herself

(63b)**the fled to a safe place for herself soprano MODAL PASSIVE (64a)

De sopraan was van haar eigen talent te overtuigen

(65a)

de van haar eigen talent te overtuigen sopraan

(64b)

The soprano could be convinced of her own talent

(65b)**the could convinced of her own talent soprano

In order to illustrate these points once more, we may combine the separate phenomena discussed so far with others, for instance the behaviour of enclitic (CL) pronouns. Their distribution is the same in sentential and attributive predicates, as is shown by the example of er 'there' in (70)-(71) and (74)-(75). This form represents NP from PP, and its source is indicated by an indexed trace t. The surface position of a clitic is left-peripheral in a predicate, which property stands out clearly if further material creates some distance between it and its base-position, as complex predicates do.

10

(vi)

Combinations ADJECTIVE

(66a)

De sopraan was op de onderscheiding misschien wel erg trots

(67a)

de op de onderscheiding misschien wel erg trotse sopraan

(66b)

The soprano was possibly very proud of the award

(67b)**the possibly very proud of the award soprano PRESENT PARTICIPLE (68a) *De sopraan was altijd met felle kleuren aquarellen schilderend (69a)

de altijd met felle kleuren aquarellen schilderende sopraan

(68b)

The soprano was always painting aquarelles with vivid colors

(69b)**the always painting aquarelles with vivid colors soprano PASSIVE PARTICIPLE (70a)

De sopraan was er\ (CL) destijds niet voor t^ gewaarschuwd

(71a)

de er\ destijds niet voor t^ gewaarschuwde sopraan

(70b)

The soprano was not warned against it in those days

(71b)***the not warned against it in those days soprano PERFECT PARTICIPLE (72a)

De sopraan is gisteren opnieuw naar een veilige plaats gevlucht

(73a)

de gisteren opnieuw naar een veilige plaats gevluchte sopraan

(72b)

The soprano has fled to a safe place yesterday anew

(73b)**the fled to a safe place yesterday anew soprano MODAL PASSIVE (74a)

De sopraan was er^ (CL) toch niet helemaal van t^ te overtuigen

(75a)

de er\ toch niet helemaal van t^ te overtuigen sopraan

(74b)

The soprano could not be completely convinced of it yet

(75b)***the could not completely convinced of it yet soprano

Essentially, the sets of examples discussed so far show that the intuitive correspondence between sentential and prenominal predicates is strongly supported by a syntactic parallelism in Dutch, which is absent nearly completely from English. Rather, the systematic structural symmetry in explicit and implicit predication in these"cases, manifests itself in English in post-nominal modifiers, such as in (76):

(76a)

The soprano was warned against the danger (=(49b))

(76b)

The soprano warned against the danger (carelessly went out)

Even in Dutch, however, the structural parallels are less than complete: there are two types of exceptions, which will be discussed in the next section.

1.3

Exceptions

First, just as for English, the HFF prohibits a number of adjectival phrases to occur prenominally, since they have constituents to the right of the head.

(77a)

De sopraan was nogal trots op de onderscheiding

(78a) *de nogal trots op de onderscheiding sopraan (77b)

The soprano was rather proud of the award

(78b) *the rather proud of the award soprano

(79a)

Drie leerlingert waren een half jaar ouder dan 15

(80a) *drie een half jaar ouder dan 15 leerlingen (79b)

Three pupils were half a year over 15

(80b) "three half a year over 15 pupils

(81a)

Het huis is even groot als een paleis

(82a) *het even groot als een paleis huis

12

(cf.(45a)) (cf.(46a)) (cf.(45b)) (cf.(46b))

(81b)

The house is as large as a palace

(82b) *the as large as a palace house

It is, in addition, not sufficient to require simply that there be no intervening surface material between attributive adjective and noun. The nominal examples (84a), (86a), (88a) and (90a) below seem to conform to the 'head-final'condition, but are still ungrammatical. Apparently, an intervening factor is the close relation between the material to the right of the nominal phrase and its adjectival relative. In order to show that, in spite of this, these constituents are syntactically separate from the AP also in corresponding sentential surface structures, we have taken subordinate clauses for comparison: in these cases the relevant constituents are to the right of the finite verb.

ADJECTIVE (83a)

(dat) de sopraan nogal trots was op de onderscheiding

(84a) *de nogal trotse sopraan op de onderscheiding (83b)

(that) the soprano was rather proud of the award

(84b) *the rather proud soprano of the award PASSIVE PARTICIPLE (85a)

(dat) de sopraan erop voorbereid was dat haar stem achteruitging

(86a) *de erop voorbereide sopraan dat haar stem achteruitging

(85b)

(that) the soprano was prepared that her voice would decline

(86b)**the prepared soprano that her voice would decline PERFECT PARTICIPLE (87a)

(dat) de sopraan gevlucht is over de grens

(88a) *de gevluchte sopraan over de grens

(87b)

(that) the soprano has fled across the border

(88b)**the fled soprano across the border

13

MODAL PASSIVE (89a)

(dat) de sopraan niet te overtuigen was van haar eigen talent

(90a) *de niet te overtuigen sopraan van haar eigen talent (89b)

(that) the soprano could not be convinced of her own talent 8

(90b)* *the could not convinced soprano of her own talent

The subcategorization-relation between the adjective form involved and the corresponding PP or S can be taken as an indication that they are positionally close in underlying structure, and that the discontinuity in (83)-(90) is the result of movement. If the original position of the extraposees is that to the left of the noun, the ungrammaticality of the nominal phrases can be explained through the HFF: again, a trace will then function as blocking 'post-head' material. The second type of exception is found among two classes of adjectives, which are asymmetrical in that either the sentential variant or the prenominal one is ungrammatical. Some examples are the following.

(i)

exclusively attributive

(91a) *De voorzitter is huidig

(91b) *The chairman is present-day

(92a)

(92b)

de huidige voorzitter

the present-day chairman

(93a) *Het hek is ijzeren

(93b) *The fence is iron

(94a)

(94b)

het ijzeren hek

the iron fence

(95a) *Deze misdadigers zijn potentieel

(95b) "These criminals are potential

(96a)

(96b)

deze potentiële misdadigers

these potential criminals

(97a) *Die roker is zwaar

(97b) *This smoker is heavy

(98a)

(98b)

14

die zware roker

this heavy smoker

(ii) exclusively predicative (99a)

Het boek is kwijt/ zoek

(100a) (101a)

9

h e t kwij te/ zoeke boek

(99b)

The book is missing/ lost

(100b)

the missing/ lost book

De sopraan was het zingen beu 'The soprano was tired of singing'

(101b) *de het zingen beue sopraan 'the tired of singing soprano' One will allow me the licence here and elsewhere to mix literal and idiomatic translations.

1.k

Central questions

It seems that the empirical material of the previous sections raises two questions which may be singled out as the central topics for this study: (a)

How does the grammar account for the interpretive analogy between

(b)

how does it describe the syntactic symmetry between these structures?

the sentential and the attributive structure, and

In adressing these questions it will be crucial to decide on the proper representation of the implicit subject-predicate relation within the attributive NP. A number of related secondary issues that were raised above were the following: (c)

an account of the exclusively attributive and exclusively predicative adjectives;

(d) (e)

the status of the 'head-final' condition; and the explanation of the syntactic difference between Dutch and English within our domain of investigation.

Of these, I will adress the behaviour of the exclusively attributive adjectives in section 2.1 of Chapter 4. Outside that, I will not return to (c)-(e) in this thesis. The category of exclusively predicative adjectives seems to me, until further notice, a candidate for an idiosyncratic treatment in the lexicon. For 15

lack of principled alternatives, I will rely on the HFF for (d), for the time being. In so far as it has explanatory power, it explains that part of (e) that relates to the difference in syntactic valence between English and Dutch passive participles, with the help of trace-theory. Before going into (a) and (b), I will first provide a brief survey of the relevant research in this area so far.

2.

History of the problem

2.1 Transformational analysis Chomsky (1957:72-75) derives prenominal attributive adjectives from 'kernel sentences' consisting of subject-copula-adjective. A nominalization transformation deletes the copula in e.g. The soprano is proud, and places the adjective inside the subject between article and noun, giving the proud soprano. With the introduction of recursively embedded S's in the standard theory of Aspects (134), the kernel sentence is replaced with the deep structure of the relative NP. The attributive configuration is then derived in essentially two steps. Given e.g. the underlying structure [the soprano [the soprano is proud]], a reduction rule deletes the identical subject and the copula, after which the separate rule of modifier-shift moves the adjective to the prenominal position. In essence, though, this standard theory-analysis does not differ from the nominalization approach: both derive the attributive adjective transformationally from a source with explicit predication. Potentially, there were three arguments in favour of a desentential derivation of attributive adjectives. The underlying representation with the explicit subject-predicate relation (i) reduces the underlying valence of adjectives to the post-copular position: this has a simplifying effect both on the base-rules and on lexical specifications; (ii) gives a formal formulation for the predicate-subject interpretation of the adjective-noun pair, and accounts in this way for the intuitive similarity with sentential structures; (iii) accounts for the syntactic parallel between full-fledged predicates and full-fledged attributive adjectival phrases.

16

The argument from simplicity of the base-rules conforms to the hypothesis that the base-rules were to define universally relevant configurations only, and underlies both the nominalization- and the relative phrase-analysis. The argument from simplicity of the lexicon is relevant only to those stages of the theory positing a separate lexicon, i.e. the post-Aspects versions. Similarly, the argument from isomorphy under (ii) holds for the ST, which bases parallels of interpretation on parallels of deep structure. The third argument has a slightly anachronistic status. The initial descriptive models were based mainly on English, and we have already seen in section 1 that this language lacks the structural symmetry between, on the one hand, sentences with an adjectival predicate, and prenominal attributive phrases on the other. The grammar of Dutch, however, does show that the syntactic parallelism is a crucial issue, and one might guide history by adding this argument here. It holds equally for other Germanic languages, such as German, Frisian and Afrikaans. In fact, students of these languages were the first to consider an account of the structural parallel between adjectival copular sentences and attributive adjectives as a prerequisite for an adequate syntactic description of their correspondence; see Woisetschlager (1973) and Reuland (1979).

2.2

Base generation

A major turning point in generative grammar of the post-Aspects period was Jackendoff (1972). His introduction of empty places and interpretation rules virtually abolished the need for erasure precedures, especially equi-subject deletion. On the other hand, Jackendoff (1972:60-61) did not really commit himself to a non-desentential derivation of attributive adjectives, although he suggested the possibility of generating them by a specific base-rule. Variant (102) is taken from Klein (1977:51), and (103), its recursive counterpart, from Culicover (1976:183).

(102)

NP

(103)

N

•*

(DET) ADJ

(ADJ)

N

N

One important reason for Jackendoff to be sceptical about the desentential derivation of prenominal adjectives was the existence of exclusively attributive adjectives such as those in (91)—(98). There does not appear to be a likely predi17

cative source for this type of adjective, and this can be seen as an independent argument for rules such as (102) or (103). Once this is accepted, however, they can be used to generate áll prenominal adjectives. This has been proposed, for instance by Klein (1977). The predicable and non-predicable attributives on the other hand have a different semantic relation to the head-N. This distinction may be expressed by deriving the predicable attributives, but not the non-predicable ones, from a sentential structure, or it may be expressed in a completely different way. However this may be, the point is that by their specific status the non-predicable attributives cannot decide the issue between sentential or non-sentential basis for predicable attributives, and are as such irrelevant. In section 2.1 of Chapter 4 a separate rule is suggested for the introduction of exclusively attributive adjectives.

2.2.1

Annotation

A grammar containing base-rule (102) or (103) will also have an interpretive procedure for selecting the nominal head as the subject of an implicitly predicating attributive adjective. The first to seriously develop such a procedure was Klein (1977). Focussing on appositions, he pointed out the shortcomings of an analysis which takes appositions such as those in (104) as derived from nonrestrictive post-nominal sentential adjuncts, - parenthetic or relative.

(104a)

De componist van deze sonate, Schubert, (is jong gestorven) 'This sonata's composer, Schubert, (died young)'

(104b)

Willem, vermoedelijk al jaren de beste leerling van de klas, (was vergeten waar hij woonde) 'Bill, probably the best pupil of his class for years, (had forgotten where he lived)'

(104c)

Willem, ziek van ellende, (was vergeten waar hij woonde) 'Bill, severely ill, (had forgotten where he lived)'

(104d)

Willem, begeleid door zijn vrienden, (kwam zingend de kamer binnen) 'Bill, accompanied by his friends, (entered the room singing)'

Klein (1977:Chapter III, section 4) argues convincingly against a rule deleting the subject and copula from the assumed underlying embedded sentences; see also 18

Williams (1975:249-252) and Stowell (1981:Chapter 4). Instead, he proposes an account sans reduction, with (102) and base-rule (105), which generates appositions directly:

(105)

NP

NP

(Adv)

n

This NP-branching generates the antecedent-NP to the left, and the nominal, adjectival or verbal 'predicate' (cf. (104a)-(104b), (104c) and (104d), respectively) to the right. In between, one or more adverbial phrases may be present, like vermoedelijk 'probably' and al jaren 'for years' in (104b). Presumably the attributive adjective of (102) has to be supplemented separately with the possibility of adverbial adjuncts such as those in (105). In order to take care of the predicative interpretation of both the prenominal adjective and the appositive phrases, Klein designs a projection rule assigning the functions of subject and predicate to the head (N or NP) and the modifying element within NP, respectively (cf. Klein (1977:47)).

(106)

Predicative Relation SD:

[(modifier) - HEAD - (modifier)]

SI:

HEAD : modifier = subject : predicate

This functional 'annotation' aligns implicit predications with explicit ones. Given rule (106), the notions subject and predicate no longer exclusively concern the specific syntactic configuration dominated by S. Williams' (1980) approach is essentially similar. He brings about the functional annotation of syntactic structures by 'coindexing'. Under some uncertainty about structural and thematic conditions, his predication-rule coindexes at S-structure level a NP and X (= NP, VP, AP, PP a.o.). The latter therefore counts as a predicate at Predicate Structure level, with the NP as its subject. If X is an AP, then it gets assigned the NP as its subject under the following circumstances (AP or NP may already have an index as a result of some transformation); see Williams (1980:205):

19

(107) a b c

... NP ... AP ...->-... N P t ... A P i ... ... NP. ... AP ... ... NP. ... AP. ... 1 1 1 ... NP ... AP. ... + ... NP. ... AP. ... l 1 1

(108a)

John ate the meat^ raw

(108b)

John ate the raeat^ raw^

S-structure representation!108a) turns into Predicate Structure representation (108b) by rule (107b). Note that the meat has become the subject of raw. Predication rule (107), as opposed to (106), is not limited to the NP-domain. Its empirical range is larger, in that it captures both predicative adjuncts as the one in (108), and the predicative relation holding within the appositional phrases of (104), given (105). Rule (106), on the other hand, is, but (107) is not able to capture the predicative interpretation of attributive pre-adjuncts. This is so because, the order of adjective and noun aside, rule (107) demands NP in order to assign it the role of subject. But when we compare also our discussion of (55) and rules (102)—(103), we see that inside a NP the subject of an attributive adjective can be N or N at most. Rule (107) therefore is unable to account for attributive predication, and crucially inadequate in the relevant task. The HEAD in (106), though, can be NP or N

and, under (103), presumably

N as well. Rule (106) is therefore adequate in the relevant respect.

2.2.2

Reconstruction

The annotational interpretive rules in Klein and Williams share the property of adding information on the predicative relation between constituents to syntactically derived structures, but do not modify these structures themselves. The present theory of grammar, however, does also offer the opportunity of a completely different approach. Although my conclusions below about this variant will be sceptic, I will nevertheless briefly outline here its general drift. The approach implies that the predication-relation between base-generated constituents which are not sentences in syntax, is accounted for by the type of rule mapping S-structure onto LF-representation. These LF-rules may remodel syntactic structure relatively radically, and contrary to rules such as (106) and (107) they even have the ability of creating structure that was not there earlier in the derivation: they are 'structure-building' (Chomsky (1980:18; 1981: 20

110)). An example of this type of rule is Chomsky *"s ( 1976:344) Focus-rule which, given the capitalized main sentence accent of examples such as (109), may restructure them to their logical forms in (110).

(109a)

Carla verafschuwt SPINAZIE 'Carla hates SPINACH'

(109b)

CARLA verafschuwt spinazie 'CARLA hates spinach'

(110a)

de x zodanig dat Carla x verafschuwt, is SPINAZIE 'the x such that Carla hates x, is SPINACH'

(110b)

de x zodanig dat x spinazie verafschuwt, is CARLA 'the x such that x hates spinach, is CARLA'

The LF-representations arise by the introduction of the focus-constituent as a variable, while this constituent receives the prominent position on the right as a separate predicate noun. The theory of grammar incorporating this suggestion assigns responsibilities in the following way. The syntactic structures fall into a restricted and systematic class of patterns because they are derived by a narrow class of transformational rules from base-generated underlying structures. The representations in LF are "propositional" because that is the character of the syntax of LF. (Chomsky (1980:18)) Within this model a structure-building rule could restructure NP's with base-generated adjectives in such a way that the predication-relation between attributive adjective and nominal head is made explicit at the level of LF. Under this view the S-structure of the proud soprano might be turned roughly into (111a) or (111b).

(111a)

the x, such that x is proud and x is a soprano

(111b)

... x, proud (x) & soprano (x)

This is of course a tentative description in the sense that a proposal of this type is absent from the literature. In fact, it seems to me worthy of the following comments. 21

Chomsky (1980:18) anticipates that "it is unlikely that structure-building rules of interpretation go beyond narrow limits, though this remains to be investigated." Even disregarding the question how the reconstruction required for (111) may be constrained, it strikes me as problematic anyway how the assignment of a predicative interpretation to divergent syntactic structures might be described in a generalizing fashion. This will become apparent upon inspection of examples such as (112a), where the relation between the two parts of the appositional NP is radically different from that between noun and adjective in an attributive NP; see also the discussion in the previous section.

(112a)

Willem, ziek van ellende, (was vergeten waar hij woonde)

(=(104c))

(112b)

John ate the meat raw

(cf.(108))

Besides, the structural relation between object and predicative adjunct in (112b) differs in itself from both others, especially under the hypothesis that NP and AP are not one node. As long as a uniform predication assignment for dissimilar syntactic structures remains questionable, the outlook for the alternative structure-building approach appears to be bleak. I conclude that our central questions (a) and (b) from section 1.4 cannot be answered through ad hoc semantic reconstruction, which implies of course a syntactic approach to them. This line will be followed below.

3.

Conclusions

The above discussion results in two major alternatives for the characterization of the subject-predicate relation in attributive NP's. (113)

The predicative properties are accounted for by first generating a sentential basisj the attributive structure is derived by some procedure of S-reduction.

(114)

Attributive structures are base-generated; their predicative properties are accounted for by adding annotation separately.

The first alternative is the relatively traditional approach, the second combines the essential aspects of the Klein/Williams variants. 22

The configurational definition of subject and predicate in the sense of (113) requires a syntactic reduction-cum-movement procedure. One of the major drawbacks of this operation is no doubt its structure-deleting and construction-conditioned character. This implies that the assumed transformations are as little generalizing, and ad hoc, as the specific structure-building interpretive rules discussed in 2.2.2. The indexing mechanisms of Klein and Williams (cf. (114)) have empirical and theoretical weaknesses. Klein's rule (106) is just as construction-conditioned as the transformational analysis of (113): being limited to NP, it does not cover e.g. predicative adjuncts, a demarcation which is both arbitrary and indicative of the lack of generalizing power of this proposal. Williams' account shares this evaluation, in requiring, in particular, an ad hoc enumeration of the conditions and domain-limitations of its predication rule (cf. (107)). (See also Pollmann's (1983:6-10) criticism of these points). Even worse for our purposes, his proposal does not cover the attributive structure. Both variants, finally, rely on directly generated structures disharmonic with (granting its validity) the so-called projection principle of Chomsky (1981:29;38):

(115)

Representations at each syntactic level (i.e., LF, and D- and S-structure) are projected from the lexicon, in that they observe the selection properties of lexical items.

For if a lexical item selects a subject-argument, as almost all adjectives do, it will be structurally associated with that argument from the outset by virtue of (115). For prenominal adjectives, appositions and predicative adjuncts, which are base-generated subject-less in Klein and Williams, D- and S-structure level do not reflect the argument-structure of the predicate constituent. Hence, their analyses are at odds with (115); see also Chomsky (1981:109-110) for a similar observation.

Of course, the choice between an ad hoc reduction procedure and ad hoc annotational rules seems to be no better than one between six and half a dozen. On the other hand, the traditional transformational approach of (113) is able to support attempts to express in Dutch grammar the crucial syntactic symmetry between prenominal adjuncts and adjectival predicates, an area which is a clear nuisance to the base-generation proposals. Precisely this, then, leads me to the attempt to try and formulate in this thesis an account of the Dutch attributive NP star-

23

ting from the idea that the configuration with S in top underlies uniquely all subject-predicate relations. Consequently, I will try to formulate Modifier Shift and Relative Clause Reduction as far as the present theory of transformations allows. For S-reduction that attempt will imply an evaluation of the analyses by Woisetschlàger (1973) and Reuland (1979), who have proposed to generate S prenominally, just to account for the sentential properties of attributive AP's.

24

Chapter 2

Transformational Analysis 1.

Outline

In this chapter we will take up the suggestion made at the end of the previous chapter to carry out our research into attributive predicates by first investigating the tenability of a transformational derivation of prenominal adjectives from underlying post-nominal relative clauses. This idea reflects an early stage of traditional generative thought on this topic, but theoretical developments since motivate a serious re-examination of its current feasibility. Toward the end of this chapter we will in fact suggest that a deletion-plus-movement analysis cannot be maintained. The flow of this chapter will not be entirely negative, however, as we will have the opportunity to introduce and discuss a lot of data relevant to the development of our own theory of attribution. Let us begin simply by observing that the parallelism in well-formedness between the phrases of (1) and (2) can be accounted for by deriving the ^-variants from the underlying structure they are supposed to share with the relative NP's of a.

(1a)

de sopraan die trots is/was 'the soprano who is/was proud'

(1b)

de trotse sopraan 'the proud soprano'

(2a) *de sopraan die misschien was 'the soprano who was perhaps' (2b) *de misschien sopraan 'the perhaps soprano' The derivation of (1b) would consist of the three steps illustrated below: (3)-(6) see page 26

25

(3)

NP DET

fl

de sopraan die trots zijn

(5)

de sopraan trots

(6)

DET

y

N

AP I

A

de trots sopraan

de trotse sopraan

The first step - Relative Clause Reduction - deletes the copula and the subject relative pronoun from (3). It is accompanied by the operation of some general pruning convention, destroying the S-label. The second step - Modifier Shift would move the reduced relative clause in (4) to the position in front of the noun, resulting in (5). Finally, the preposed adjective is supplied with inflective -e_ (schwa), in definite singular (de trotse sopraan, het grote huis 'the big house'), in plural ((de) trotse sopranen, (de) grote huizen), and in indefinite non-neuter (een trotse sopraan), but not in indefinite neuter singular (een groot huis). While this procedure correlates the well-formedness of both (1a) and (1b) to the deep structure they share, it equally predicts the simultaneous unacceptability of (2a) and (2b). I will now inspect the first two rules in detail, making a number of standard assumptions: (i) (ii)

categorial structure has to be determined by X-bar theory, the organization of transformations should satisfy the condition of minimal factorization (Chomsky (1976)), and

(iii)

their operation is restricted to minimal domains (Reinhart (1976)).

The rules of Modifier Shift and Relative Clause Reduction will be discussed in that order. 26

2.

Modifier Shift

2.1

A ST-version

Going back the required one and a half decade in time, we find the transformation of adjective preposing formulated as in (7) in Burt (1971:79).

(7)

Modifier Shift SD

SC

W, - [

N p

D E T -

N

- [

v p

W

2

- 0 ] ] - W

1

2

3

A

5

1

2

4+3

0

5

3

oblig.

The variables W 1 and W^ cover the syntactic context. The labeled bracketing specifies the NP-internal nature of the operation, and requires the VP to end in A or V. In Dutch as well as in English VP-internal material to the right of A or V would cause ungrammaticality, as (8b) shows; material to the left is allowed: the variable W^ correctly permits the italicized part of (9); the participle is considered to be V.

(8a)

de sopraan die erg trots op de onderscheiding was 'the soprano who was very proud of the award'

(8b) *de erg trots op de onderscheiding sopraan 'the very proud of the award soprano' (9a) *de sopraan die wild gebarend was 'the soprano who was wildly gesturing' (9b)

de wild gebarende sopraan 'the wildly gesturing soprano'

The data in section 1 of Chapter 1 illustrate that Wj in (7) is motivated a fortiori for languages like Dutch, which show much more variety of material to the left of the head of the prenominal modifier.

27

2.2

Empirical defects

Rule (7) as it stands, although empirically correct for the handful of cases considered so far, has a number of defects, which require serious reconsideration of its formulation. First, it allows no more than one modifier shift to take place within a NP, and consequently it fails to capture the recursive property of the attributive adjective illustrated in (10). (10a)

die [lekkere] [grote] [sappige] peren •those nice big juicy pears'

(10b)

deze [fraaie] [uit ivoor gesneden] miniaturen 'these beautiful cut from ivory miniatures'

(10c)

een [uit Afrlka afkomstige] [veertigjarige] [vrouwelijke] olifant 'a from Africa forty year old female elephant'

(10d)

zijn [risico's nemende] [voor niemand bevreesde] compagnon 'his risks taking of no one scared partner'

One might interject that the interrelation between the prenominal adjuncts may be co-ordinative, but this will be argued against separately in Chapter 4. A second difficulty is demonstrated by (11)-(14). (11a)

de scherpe kritiek [op z'n boek] 'the sharp criticism of his book'

(11b) *de kritiek die scherp was [op z'n boek] 'the criticism which was sharp of his book' (11c)

de kritiek [op z'n boek] die scherp was 'the criticism of his book which was sharp'

(12a)

de opengemaakte fles [melk] 'the open bottle (of) milk'

(12b) *de fles die opengemaakt was [melk] 'the bottle which was open (of) milk' (12c)

de fles [melk] die opengemaakt was 'the bottle (of) milk which was open'

28

(13a)

de volledige vernietiging [van de stad] [door de vijand] 'the complete destruction of the city by the enemy'

(13b) *de vernietiging die volledig was [van de stad] [door de vijand] 'the destruction which was complete of the city by the enemy' (13c)

de vernietiging [van de stad] [door de vijand] die volledig was 'the destruction of the city by the enemy which was complete'

(14a)

de dringende vraag [of ik meeging] 'the urgent question whether I would go along'

(14b) *de vraag die dringend was [of ik meeging] the question which was urgent whether I would go along' (14c)

de vraag [of ik meeging] die dringend was 'the question whether I would go along which was urgent'

The unacceptability of the b-variants implies that the relative clause which provides the attributive phrases of a must have the base-position given in £. This position is not immediately next to N, as the rule demands. Hence factor 3 is not so much a lexical item N, as a lexical item plus its subcategorizing complements. Rule (7) as it stands would incorrectly exclude the derivation of the attributive elements in a^. The third defect is that rule (7) specifies incorrectly that in factor 4 the rightmost element is simply some arbitrary A/V. But the phrases shifted in (15)(18) end in A/V, and the rule would allow them to be moved. The result is, nevertheless, ungrammatical.

(15a)

de onderwijzer [ v p zich niet ^

kunnende [ ^

beheersen]]

'the teacher not being able to control himself' (15b) *de [yp zich niet t^ kunnende [ ^ beheersen]] onderwijzer 'the not being able to control himself teacher' (16a)

the sergeant [^p visiting someone

(16b) *the [yp visiting someone (17a)

de ramen [y p van het huis

rich]]

rich]] sergeant links]]

'the windows of the house (to the) left' (17b) *de [yp van het huis [

linkse]] ramen

'the of the house (to the) left windows' 29

(18a)

de artsen

de enige hulpverleners daar [

aanwezig]]

'the doctors the only medical assistants there present' (18b) *de [yp de enige hulpverleners daar

aanwezig]] artsen

'the the only medical assistants there present doctors'

The crucial point is that the rightmost elements within the VP's of (15)-(18) do not constitute the heads of those VP's. The relevant V or A must not only be final, they have to be the head of phrase simultaneously in order to allow the VP to move to prenominal position. Rule (7) does not express this head-final property.

These three empirical problems, (i) the recursion of the prenominal modifiers, (ii) the presence of post-nominal complements, and (iii) the head-final property of the modifying phrase, lead us to an adaption of rule (7). As far as (ii) and (iii) are concerned, the adaption simultaneously improves these defects and is motivated by theoretical considerations. The solution of problem (i), dealt with at the beginning of the next section, is much more of a technical issue.

2.3

Modifier Shift adapted

2.3.1

More variables

In order to be empirically adequate, rule (7) must account for the recursivity of attributive adjectives. This is achieved by two changes of its structural description. First, the addition of an extra variable to the right of the VP of factor 4 within the NP at issue will permit more than one relative clause to be present at the same time as the source of more than one prenominal modifier. Second, the replacement of DET by another variable clears away the obstruction to repetition of the preposing operation. In accordance with these two considerations rule (7) has to be changed into (19).

(7)

30

Modifier Shift

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

4+3

0

5

(19)

Modifier Shift (first revision) W

1 "

[

N P

W

2 -

N

"

[

VP

W

3"{

v

}

]

"W4

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

4+3

0

5

]

"

W

5 6

=

^

6

The necessary enlargement of Modifier Shift's empirical domain must be payed for by rule complication, by the looks of it. However, what seems to be the mere stipulation of new factors is simplified away by the further revision of the formula in section 2.3.3, and will appear to be no complication at all.

2.3.2

X-bar notation

The observation that factor 3 of rule (7) had best be looked upon as a lexical item plus its complement(s) is problematic for the theoretical framework of Burt's (1971) rules, but is easily captured by a better theory of phrase structure, viz. the X-bar theory. As is well-known, this generalizing schema of rewriting rules captures the idea that each constituent or word-group can be labeled by the category of its head plus a superscript. Reintroducing ideas already suggested in Harris (1951: Chapter 16), Chomsky (1970) is the standard reference for X-bar theory, although his proposals have been elaborated upon in Emonds (1976), Jackendoff (1977) and Stowell (1981). According to X-bar theory each lexical head X constitutes a subconstituent X 1 together with its subcategorizing complement(s). The diagrams (20) contain illustrations of this point of view, taking N, V, A and P to be the values of X. (20b)

(20a)

-

kritiek

op

'criticism of -

angst 'fear

-

voor

het onbekende

of

the unknown'

begeerte naar 'lust

zijn boeken his books'

for

macht power'

wachten

op

'to wait

for

de tram the train'

verlangen naar het feest 'to long

for

afrekenen met 'to deal

with

the party' het verleden the past'

31

(20c)

(20d)

- nijdig

op

'angry

with

the board'

the queue'

van

afgunst

de borrel

with

envy'

the party'

de afloop

zijn bureau

- ziek ' sick

het bestuur

- nieuwsgierig naar 'curious

de rij

his desk'

after the end'

The junction of X

1

and elements from a limited class of non-recursive category-

sensitive "specifiers", indicated as [Spec.X^J, constitutes the level of consti2 tuents, i.e. X .

(21a)

(21b) [Spec.

de

kritiek

op zijn boeken

'the criticism of his books'

(21c)

erg

verlangen naar het feest

'much long

for the party'

(21 d)

[Spec.A ]

tamelijk nijdig op het bestuur 'rather

angry

with the board'

vlak

achter

'right behind

de deur the door'

With regard to the nature of specifiers I follow the canonic view of Chomsky (1970), with the exception of the choice of [ S p e c . v ' ' ] . For a reasoned defence of this deviation see Van Gestel (1983a), where it is shown that specifiers constitute a category of their own. Its properties are not shared by the Aux-element Chomsky proposed to be [Spec.V^], but formatives like erg 'much' in (21b) show the characteristics observed.

The second objection - that rule (7) does not permit post-nominal complements -

32

can now easily be obviated by representing factor 3 as N1 rather than N. The third problem, i.e. the head-final property of the modifying phrase, can be taken care of in the following way. Representing factor 4, the VP consisting 2 of a variable and A/V, as A guarantees that the constituent to be moved will have an adjectival head. To do so implies that participles are not any longer verbal, but have the status of adjectives. That this is indeed the case is argued for in Van Gestel (1981;1983b), the main point being that in Dutch the distribution of adjectives and participles coincides nearly completely. Our observations of Chapter 1 represent one of the 1arguments. In accordance with the 2 improvements caused by the introduction of N and A , rule (19) has to be changed into (22). (19)

Modifier Shift (first revision) W

(22)

1 " [ NP W 2 "

N

" [ VP W 3 " 0

1

2

3

4

1

2

4+3

0

]

Modifier Shift (second revision) W

1 "

[

N2

" 2 - N1 - A 2 - W 3 ] - W^

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

4+3

0

5

6

=

^

6

Although (22) is certainly more adequate both empirically and theoretically, we cannot but observe at the same time a number of further shortcomings. Spe2 cifically, the A

in (22) does not guarantee that factor 4 is head-final. In

that respect it fails even more clearly than the internal analysis of factor 4 in (7), cf. the exposition concerning (15)-(18). My diagnosis is that the relevant property cannot be naturally expressed within the X-bar notation. One might suggest that the adjacency of adjectival and nominal head is taken care of by a different grammatical rule: rather than the organization of (22) it may be the contextual specification of the inflectional rule changing (5) into (6) or an adjacency requirement on its application (cf. Reuland (1979:122)). However, such a requirement is as much a stipulation as the HFF I adopted in Chapter 1 as a provisional arrangement. For that matter, it may appear that this filter is an instance of a more general principle concerning head-relations, such as the pro33

posals discussed in Emonds (1976:18-19) or Van Riemsdijk (1983:236-237). I leave this issue for further investigation. Rule (22) also fails to express what W,, in (7) covers: VP-internal adverbial elements (to say nothing of the Dutch sentence adverbs in the examples (25)-(3A) of Chapter 1) have to be moved along with the adjectival element they precede. Rule (22) does not permit the presence of adverbial constituents on the left of 2 A . If the structural description is to be empirically adequate, the hypothesis 2 must be that adverbials are somehow incorporated in A . Then their presence does not have to be accounted for by Modifier Shift at all. We will return to this issue at the end of section 4.3.

2.3.3

Domain delimitation

Tree (23c) represents the underlying structure of sentence (23a) and evidently 2 may not be the source of (23b). The presence of the N -brackets in (22) rightly 1

prevents Modifier Shift on a N -A

2

sequence such as that framed in (23c). (The

absence of INFL below the level of S will be supported in section A of this chapter). (23a)

(dat) de man ongelukkig is/was '(that) the man unhappy is/was'

(23b) *(dat) de ongelukkige man is/was '(that) the unhappy man is/was'

Therefore, it seems impossible to simplify rule (22) by first leaving the domain brackets out, and then do the obvious by amalgamating the two successive variables on the left- and right-hand edges of (22) to one W

3A

on each side.

However, measures against transgression of domain boundaries do not constitute a problem specific to Modifier Shift. The same effect must be reached for other operations inside NP's or other domains. A theory of grammar incorporating private domain indications in the structural index of transformations would permit an exclusive use of brackets for every individual rule in each language in a fundamental way, and resigns itself to non-generalizing solutions in advance. For a child attempting to acquire the grammar of its language such a linguistic theory would imply that domain delimitations have to be learned with respect to each transformation separately, an undesirable situation by any standard assumption of generative grammar. A universal principle such as (24) from Reinhart (1976:183) has just the opposite effect. (24)

THE MINIMAL DOMAIN HYPOTHESIS (MDH) Major linguistic rules may operate on two nodes A and B only if A and B are within a minimal domain.

Such a domain principle is naturally supposed to belong to the set of restrictive conditions that transformations of all natural languages have to obey, i.e. to be part of the innate language faculty. The child does not have to acquire anything in this respect, and as a consequence a theory of grammar containing constraint (24) potentially contributes to the explanation of language acquisition. The idea of minimal domain essential to (24) is defined as in (25), and is based on the primary concept domain formulated in (26), which utilizes the notion c-command demarcated in (27) (cf. Reinhart (1976:183, 33 and 32 respectively)) [my italics].

(25)

Two nodes, A and B, are within a minimal domain if either A is in the domain of B, or B is in the domain of A, (or both).

(26)

The domain of a node A consists of A together with all and only the nodes c-commanded by A.

(27)

Node A c(onstituent)-commands node B if neither A nor B dominates the other and the first branching node which dominates A dominates B.

35

Furthermore, the distance between A and B is presumably kept within bounds by a version of the Subjacency-condition; the version in (28) is adapted from Kerstens' (1979:346) useful formulation: (28)

No rule relates A and B in ... A .. [ a ... [g... B ...] ...] . . . A ... where a and 0 are cyclic categories (i.e. S and NP)

Assuming Modifier Shift to be among the 'major linguistic rules' mentioned in MDH, we may now simplify rule (22) in the way suggested earlier, because its domain brackets can be dispensed with by virtue of 024).

(29)

Modifier Shift (third revision) W

1

- N1 - A 2

"

W

2

1

2

3

4

1

3+2

0

4

=>

The MDH being in force, (29) will operate correctly in the case it is designed for, stripped to its essentials in (30), and is correctly prohibited in the case of (23c), schematically repeated here as (31). The encircled nodes are the A and B of ( 2 4 M 2 8 ) ,

respectively.

1 2 2 Structure (30) is subject to (29) as N £-commands A , A is in the domain of 1 2 2 N and both are in the minimal domain N . In (31), A is neither in the domain 1

1

2

of N nor is N in the domain of A . Consequently, they may not be related transformationally, and this conclusion predicts the unacceptability of (23b), as required. I conclude that the simplification of (7) via (19) into (22) is not only empirically justified, but also theoretically required by X-bar theory, while changing (22) into (29) is motivated by MDH, claiming that individual domain 36

delimitation is ad hoc.

2.3.A

Minimal factorization

Table (32) sets against each other as to their comparative complexity the essential formal properties of the 'initial' version (7) of Modifier Shift and its revision in (29): initial version (7) SD (a) 4 syntactic categories

revised version (29) (a) 2 syntactic categories

(b) 3 variables

(b) 2 variables

(c) labeled brackets

(c) -

(d) braces

(d) -

SC (e) movement of complex factor (4 = variable + syntactic category)

(e) movement of non-complex fac2 tor (A

= one syntactic cate-

gory)

The reduction of the descriptive devices in (29) is evident. However, to know which degree of simplicity is required for a transformation, we should avail ourselves of an independent measure of the complexity of a rule, in order to decide on its plausibility. Such a standard would mean a sharper limitation of the concept 'possible transformation' and imply a further characterization of the learnability of human language. The principle of minimal factorization (MF) constitutes such a simplicity condition. This radical though not maximal restriction on the form and functioning of transformations was introduced in Chomsky (1976:312). He suggests: (33)

that the SD [...] cannot contain two successive categorial terms unless one or the other is satisfied by a factor changed by the rule. This condition in effect extends to the context of the structural change the requirement of analyzability as a single constituent.

From this statement I infer the following properties of MF, in terms of the survey of (32) :

37

(34a)

The SD of a rule exists of at most two constant, identifiable syntactic categories and - implicitly - three variable terms; the constant terms constitute single constituents, i.e. they are not internally specified.

(34b)

The SC only concerns one of the constant terms, the other one functioning as a contextual specification.

It may be understood from (34a) that labeled brackets, braces and other abbreviative devices are excluded from possible rule schemata. At first sight the formal properties of (29), summarized in the right half of (32), stay within the limits of what (34) allows, and the simple formulation reached by virue of X-bar notation and MDH seems to be approved of independently by Minimal Factorization. But the conclusion that the revised version of Modifier Shift is a possible transformation is unjustified, as long as it is unclear whether the single categorial term N1 counts as a constituent, as (33) and (34a) require. If 'constituent' is taken as equivalent to 'maximal projection' in the sense of X-bar theory, then rule (29) is not permitted, for N1 does not repre2 sent the top level of X

(cf. (21a)).

However, further theoretical developments have in fact obviated the need for a decision on these matters: context-specifications have disappeared from the formulation of transformational processes. In these developments the role of the simplicity measure incorporated in the MF-constraint of (33)-(34) itself, may be described as that of a theoretical catalyst. It marks a decisive step in the history of transformational theory, not least because the spirit of its constraining approach naturally inspired the question whether the task of rule-specific context specification should not be adopted by universal grammar, in the same way as rule-specific

domain delimitation may be entrusted to a general prin-

ciple such as MDH. Such a 'more minimal factorization' was already reached in Chomsky (1976:313), restricting transformations to rules of the format 'Move NP', kept within bounds by the structure preserving hypothesis of Emonds (1976) "which entails that NP can move only into an NP-position in the phrase-marker" (Chomsky (1976:313)). Later (Chomsky (1980:3)) the further generalization 'Move a' was proposed, with a as a parameter, replacing the rule-specific target predicate. As for 'Move NP', the regulating role of the structure preserving constraint is taken over by modular subsystems of a more abstract nature, a development starting with Chomsky's 'On Binding'. The output of 'Move NP' appears to be sub-

38

ject to independently motivated wellformedness conditions, of which the main concept is constituted by Case-theory. In order to account for the distribution of lexicalized and non-lexicalized NP's, especially PRO, the system of abstract Case requires a lexical NP to have Case, by means of the Case-filter: *NP, if NP has phonetic content and has no Case (Chomsky (1981:49)) In the configuration [

INFL ...], where INFL contains , a NP re-

ceives nominative Case and therefore has to be lexicalized. For (35) this requirement is fulfilled in deep structure.

(35)

John INFL hit the ball

(36a)

JoIhk INFL was seen t^

(36b)

John t INFL seems [

(36c)

John^ INFL was seen

t

to hit the ball] t^ to hit the ball]

In (36) the requirement of being lexicalized is fulfilled in S-structure, due to •Move NP', which transports the lexical NP John to the unlexicalized matrix subject position. Independently from this rule the substitution is required because the Case-configuration defined by the INFL assigns nominative Case to this NP-position. Thus, Case-theory, together with e.g. conditions on trace, determines the output of movement. This obviates contextual specification within the rule itself. It will be clear that we now face the question whether the supposed movement 2 1 of A which Modifier Shift associates with the presence of N immediately to the left, may be considered as an instance of 'Move a' as a rule of core-grammar. The assumption is justified only then if, analogous to the conditions under which 'Move NP' takes place, modules as independently motivated as Case-theory 2 define the configurational functions which force the output that A exclusively occupies the prenominal position in front of N'' . To my knowledge there are no such general configurational conditions that limit the possibilities of 'Move 2 A ' to exactly this single position. This may indicate that the phenomenon of Modifier Shift is not accounted for by the general schema of transformational movement. Whether this conclusion implies a true problem depends on the raison 2 d'être of the transformation that creates the point of departure for 'Move A '. I will investigate this feeding rule next.

39

3.

Relative Clause Reduction

The hypothesis that the complete relative clause is the source of the attributive adjective, implies that, given standard-assumptions on the lay-out of S-bar, four elements of the post-nominal clause in (37), enumerated in (38),must be eventually disposed of. An earlier version of the deletion rule such as the one in Burt (1971:78) mentions three of these, no complementizer being postulated.

de (38)

sopraan

die

trots

zijn

i. complementizer ii. (relative) subject (pronoun) iii. tense iv. copula

Our conclusion below will be that the absence of the four elements of (38) must not be accounted for by the reduction rule under discussion, but is in fact due to independently needed functional principles and plausible assumptions on baserepresentations. In order to see how we arrive at this conclusion, however, consider the following. It appears to be well feasible to diminish the four intended victims of (38) to two. First, the deletion of the subject-NP may occur after the (cyclic) movement of the relative pronoun to COMP, both factors disappearing simultaneously if the reduction rule erases COMP. Second, the advocate of the reduction analysis might challenge X-bar theory by supposing that the verbal projection in (37)

AO

could underlyingly lack the V-head, and that the properties of INFL are phonetically realized by a form of zijn 'to be' to the right of the predicate noun instead. In that case the deletion of INFL includes the disappearance of the copula. By these two assumptions Relative Clause Reduction would consist of the double deletion applying to the string in (39):

(39)

... N1

COMP

t

INFL

0

A2

...

0

In spite of these considerations, however, there appear to be at least two strong reasons why such attempts at a reduction transformation are futile from the outset. First, elimination of the tense-factor in INFL would be in clear conflict with the principle of recoverability. This principle allows deletion of a constituent only under the presence (and continued presence) of an identical constituent. This condition is violated by the removal of INFL from the relative clause by (39). Even more, in the light of this principle the erasure of the subject-NP in COMP is questionable, if the NP is not suitably recoverable from the N^-antecedent. Second, the formulation of the rule would be incompatible with even the moderate version of Minimal Factorization in (33)-(34): the structural description would have to mention separately the two constituents to 1 2 be deleted, COMP and INFL, next to the contextual predicates N and A at the edges, to which double context the rule ought to be restricted.

A.

Re-orientation

A. 1

Independent S-bare

The discussion of the previous section suggests that the idea of a rule of Relative Clause Reduction feeding Modifier Shift will have to be abandoned. This raises the question of an alternative to this procedure, one that may proceed along the following lines. The optional absence of the elements at issue (cf. (38)) may be predicted by the not uncommon strategy of making their base-generation optional, and it appears that INFL is the crux in this. Let us assume that S-bare's may function syntactically independently of S-bar, for example as relative 'small clauses', and that the syntax of the base locates INFL within S-bar, but outside of S-bare,

41

a way of representing matters that was advocated by others previously:"

Sturm

and Pollmann (1977), Taraldsen (19S3) and Koopman (1984). Under this view, three desirable consequences appear to follow at the same time. First, the existence of independent S-bare implies that its subject will not be marked for nominative Case by the tense-factor of INFL, hence cannot be lexicalized and will have to be PRO. This effect mimics the deletion of the relative subject of (37). Second, while the reduction transformation treats the erasure of COMP and INFL as a coincidence of two separate deletions, the view of S-bare just mentioned suggests

a non-arbitrary relationship between both factors. At any rate, a

representation such as

COMP

INFL [- COMP S

1

->• INFL

S1

(41a)

INFL

[Spec.INFL ]

S°

(41b)

INFL1

(41c)

S

INFL0 S „2 „2

(40c)

INFL

These two systems make different claims as to the heart of the standard S-bar sentence, but both express the view that INFL is not a part of the predication as such, and the organization of both may be related to the general X-bar system In (42).

(42a)

X2

(42b)

1

X

[Spec.X1] -»•

X1

X°

where X = N, V, A, P and .... = the set of complements A theory of grammar containing (40) considers S to be a separate value of X, COMP being the specifier of S 1 , and INFL the complement of S°, i.e. S-bare. In (41) INFL constitutes the head of the maximal sentence,

the same structural

function being proposed for Aux by Sturm and Pollmann (1977:477); S functions as the complement of INFL. A problematic aspect of (40) is that X° = S° is syntactically expanded by (40c), while INFL0 in (41) undergoes no further branching, as is proper for a X°. Another disadvantage of (40) is that the syntactic node S is an unlikely lexical category, contrary to INFL which abbreviates a cluster of features that may be associated with the properties of one or more lexical categories, anong them gender, number and person. In (40) the status of INFL is exceptional; there are no other X-bar configurations in which it functions as a complement. Moreover, its peripheral role fails to express the observation of 4.1 that INFL makes the crucial distinction between small clauses and S-bar sentences. In (41) this distinction constitutes the basis of the organization. The choice of S as the head of the maximal S-bar sentence in (40) makes it difficult to consider it the independent small clause we want to account for: the isolated use of S is in conflict with the idea that the presence of a head implies its projection. Given 2 this view, the organization in (41) is uncontroversial, since INFL includes S but not vice versa. The considerations above are in favour of (41). On the other hand, in (41) the status of the complement S is odd, as in this particular framework it has no relation whatsoever to X-bar theory. This defect will be remedied in Chapter 3.

43

Note also that the nominative Case-assignment by INFL needs to be adapted as well, given (41). I will return to this issue in Chapter 3, too. The presence of INFL 0 in (A1) implies the full projection and, as is the case with other values of X, it is ultimately the head that determines the nature of complementation and specification. This means that (41) claims that the complementizer, i.e. [Spec.INFL 1 ], reflects the character of INFL. This appears to be correct. There are various co-occurrence restrictions on INFL and COMP (cf. Chomsky (1973:237)), determined in the first place by the external structural 2

2

position of INFL . That is, it makes a difference whether INFL

is a root sen-

tence or a subordinate clause. In the latter case the nature of the INFL-projection is dictated by the properties of the matrix-phrase of which it is a part. In the second place, the properties and define the potential combinations of COMP and INFL; cf. table (A3): +tense

-tense

+WH

a

b

-WH

c

d

The two sets of examples in (44)-(45) show how Dutch utilizes the eight possibilities. The specification is assumed to be realized as te + infinitive. The a, t), c_, ci of (A3) correspond to the relevant examples in (AA)-(A5).

(AA) (AAa)

Subordinate clauses i

(Hij vroeg) of het verhaal waar was '(He asked) whether the story was true'

ii

(Hij vroeg) wat^ ik t^ gezegd had '(He asked) what I had said'

(AAb)

(Hij vroeg) wat^ PRO nu t

_te doen

'(He asked) what to do now' (AAc)

i

(Hij zei) dat hij niet kwam '(He said) that he would not come'

ii

(De man.) die. t. daar loopt I 1 l — '(The man) who walkes there'

(AAd)

(Hij beloofde) (om) PRO op tijd te komen '(He promised) (-) to be in time'

AA

(45)

Root sentences i

(45a)

heeft. hij dat gezegd t. ? 'Has he said that?'

ii Wat. heeft. hij J t. gezegd t. ? 1 J i J 'What did he say?' (45b)

Wat^ PRO nu t^ ^e beginnen? 'What to do now?'

(45c)

Dat^ heeft. hij gisteren t^ gezegd t. 'That he has said yesterday' «

(45d)

This survey strives for essentials, not for completeness (cf. Reuland (1979: chapter 3) on further data). The co-occurrence restrictions mentioned relate specifically to the non-existence of examples in (45d), the obligatory in the relative clause, and the subordinate clauses with their relationship between the (non-)finite verb form and the overt complementizers £f 'whether', dat 'that' and (om) '-' in (44). In a sense these are analogous to a nominal specifier such as the article, including the zero-form manifested in (45ai) or, optionally, (44d). The presence of -phrases or -constituents in the complementizer position may be considered as a parallel to the -specifier and the prenominal genitive-NP in NP's, respectively, the latter being presumably generated post-nominally (cf. Hornstein (1977:144-150)):

(46a)

Welk huis (heb je gekocht)? 'Which house (have you bought)?

(46b)

Carthago^'s verwoesting t^ door de Romeinen 'Carthago's destruction by the Romans'

The evidence in (44)-(45) supports the correctness of the decision to locate INFL outside of S, introduced for programmatic reasons to do with Relative Clause Reduction: the syntactic junction of COMP and INFL in (41) creates the configuration (in harmony with the X-bar pattern) by which their close connectedness may be expressed. This cannot be easily done with INFL inside of S-bare. The claim of the INFL-COMP-coherence incorporated in (41), and supported by the co-occurrence phenomena of (44)-(45), is confirmed by further evidence showing their coinciding absence, independent of the relative 'small clause'-idea 45

that suggested the proposal in the first place. The surface structure S-bare's in (47)-(48) represent the specific kind of sequel sentences used in "the middle of some vividly narrated story" (Reuland (1979*44)), and the type of 'disbelief'sentences observed in Sturm and Pollmann (1977:477). (47a)

(Toen bleek hoe bang de biologielerares voor spinnen was). De jongens haar uitlachen, natuurlijk. (Maar daar werd ze weer boos om). '(Then it turned out how spiders scared the biology teacher). The boys laugh at her, of course. (But she got angry at that).'

(47b)

(Nou, we wilden graag het naadje van de kous weten). Hij toen allerlei vage beschuldigingen naar voren brengen en wij daar weer uitvoerig tegen in gaan. '(We wanted to know about specifics, naturally). He then make all kinds of vague accusations and we react elaborately to that!'

(48a)

Hans een huis kopen ? (kom nou) 'Henry buy a house ? (You're kidding)'

(48b)

Bert mij een loer draaien ? (dat geloof je zelf niet) 'Bert go behind my back ? (You don't believe that, do you?)'

(48c)

Karel naar Parijs fietsen ? (van z'n leven niet) 'Charles cycle to Paris ? (Never!)'

These small clauses occur as root sentences only, but they cannot be considered separately generated S-bare's without a COMP/INFL-component. This conclusion is motivated by two considerations. First of all, this kind of sentence contains a lexical subject, which is only explainable in our framework if at some stage of the derivation the nominative Case-assigner was present in INFL. Its absence must be arranged in such a way that the realization of the finite form of V is prevented, in order to account for the bare infinitive. The lack of t£ 'to' is also predicted by the assumption of instead of . Second, the two categories of (47) and (48) differ in that the 'narratives' of (47) have a -character, whereas the 'disbelief'-phrases in (48) are interrogative, i.e. . This manifests itself clearly through their intonational patterns, and is accounted for if the COMP/INFL-complex specifying the type of the predication is present from the first stage of the derivation. Its disappearance en route is plausible on two additional considerations. First, no leftward operations defined as movements to COMP are permitted, as

46

the Topicalization- and WH-movement cases in (50)-(51) show. The clause-initial positions of the adverbial phrases in (49) are not necessarily counter-examples, as COMP-position may not be involved here.

(49a)

...Nou, toen de jongens haar uitlachen natuurlijk

(cf.(47a))

'...Well, then the boys laugh at her, of course' (49b)

Daarom Bert mij een loer draaien ? (dat geloof je zelf niet)(cf.(48b)) 'For that Bert go behind my back ? (You don't believe that, do you?)'

(50a) *...De lerares^ de jongens t^ uitlachen natuurlijk '...The teacher the boys laugh at, of course' (50b) *...Die vage beschuldigingen^ hij toen t^ naar voren brengen. '...These vague accusations he make then'

(51a) *Wat^ Hans t^ kopen ? (kom nou) 'What Henry buy ? (You're kidding)' (51b) *Wat voor loer^ Bert mij t^ draaien ? (te gek) 'How Bert go behind my back ? (Far out)' (51c) *WaarheerK Karel t. fietsen ? (van z'n leven niet) 'In which direction Charles cycle ? (Never)' The ungrammatically of (50) — (51 ) follows from the absence of COMP. Second, the V of these predicational structures has not been moved to the second position as is predictable in Dutch root sentences. This would be explained if, at the time of the Verb Second-operation, the target position INFL, was lacking. We conclude that both paired properties of these special root-clauses are predicted simultaneously by the absence of the COMP/INFL-complex. Their stylistic markedness perhaps justifies a separate measure, for instance INFL-deletion, but I will not pursue a precise account of that here. It is much more important to note that the verbal subject-predicate configuration is apparently a coherent independent constituent in which COMP and INFL have no role.

4.3

Generalized predicate

In (52)-(53) below I give examples of non-verbal variants of the 'narrative'and 'disbelief'-clauses discussed above. I also include here deverbal adjec-

47

tives of the participial kind. The reason why the present participle does not occur in these contexts, will come up for discussion in Chapter 3, section 2.6. (52)

(Mia zat met Wim te flirten). Nou, die in alle staten, maar Hans jaloers natuurlijk, en wij de dupe van hun geruzie '(Mia was flirting with Bill). He flustered, but Henry jealous, of course, and we the victims of their row'

(53a)

Marie weer misselijk ? (wat akelig) 'Mary sick again ? (How awkward)'

(53b)

Menno gisteren geslaagd voor zijn examen ? (hoe is 't mogelijk) 'Menno passed his exam yesterday ? (That's a surprise)'

(53c)

Hans door Mia bedrogen ? (tja, dat zat er wel in) 'Henry cheated by Mia ? (My, that was predictable)'

(53d)

Dik een oplichter ? (dat kan niet) 'Dick a crook ? (Impossible)'

(53e)

Katinka in Amerika? (dat wist ik niet) 'Katinka in America ? (That's new to me)'

Similarly, the same non-verbal 'small' root sentences are found in the more neutral announcements of the abbreviative language of newspaper headlines. (54a)

Beurs nu stabiel 'Wall Street stable now'

(54b)

Drie treinen ontspoord 'Three trains derailed'

(54c)

Kabinet gereorganiseerd 'Cabinet reshuffled'

(54d)

AOW'ers opnieuw het slachtoffer 'OAP's victims again'

(54e)

De Koning naar Antillen 'De Koning to Antilles'

(54f)

i

*Prinses schip dopen

ii

Prinses doopt schip

'Princess ship baptize' 'Princess baptizes ship'

48

Verbal variants (see (54fi)) such as those in (47)-(48) are missing here, presumably because in

telegraphese nothing is gained by using a bare infinitive

instead of a finite verb. The explicit subjects of these clauses show again that the subject-predicate combinations are within the range of INFL. Apparently, this node does not affect the verbal and non-verbal predicate of S-bare, and therefore the examples of (52)-(54) constitute important empirical support in favour of a replacement of (41c) by (55):

(41c)

S

N2

V2

(55)

S

->• N 2

X2

That is, following others (cf. Sturm and Pollmann (1977) and Stowell (1983)), I claim that all values of X share the possibility of being the head of a predicate in a subject-predicate relation. This implies that a S-bare may for instance have an adjectival predicate, and that non-verbal maximal projections do not need the assistance of copular zijn 'to be' to function as a predicate. The

2

predicate may then be represented in a generalizing way as X . This account of all elementary subject-predicate relations, and the addition to the grammar of an independent S-bare ( see the plea for (41) in 4.2), yield exactly the equipment needed to represent the relative 'small clause' with an adjectival predicate. Finally, we are now able to propose a tentative but rather generalizing provision to account for the presence of adverbial elements in non-verbal predicates (cf. weer 'again' and gisteren 'yesterday' in (53a) and (53b)), a problem that emerged at the end of section 2.3.2. The recursive nature of a base rule 2 2 2 of the format X Adv X allows several adverbials simultaneously, arranged in a hierarchical structure. But this rule is inadequate because its application

2

has to be restricted to configurations where X

is a predicate, which is fre-

quently not the case for NP and PP. To guarantee the attachment of adverbials to predications only, a conceivable solution would be to attach them to S-bare, 2 for instance by a rule such as S

Adv

S. We leave the consequences of this

to future research, however.

49

5.

Transition: conclusion and outlook

Although a transformational reduction of the full relative clause proved to be theoretically unacceptable, another post-nominal sentential source for attributive adjectives seems to be available on the basis of the hypothesis that S-bare 2 consists of subject and X -predicate exclusively. Given (55) and assuming (56) the underlying structure of the proud soprano would be (57). (55) (56)

S

->• N 2

n2

_ „1, ^ ->• r[Spec.N J

N

X2 „1 N

flNFL 2 \ J

There are two reasons to reject this representation. First, rule (56) denies the generalizing identification of the 'full1 relative clause and the source of the attributive adjective which was the point of departure for the transformational approach. Since a

causal relationship is no

longer assumed, there is no obligation to maintain the same underlying post-no2 minal position for S-bare and INFL . Second, if N is to be a value in the general X-bar system of (42), the state of affairs in (56) can only 2be expressed in a non-category-specific manner, i.e. by the assumption that the X -rule is that of (58), which correctly introduces a specifier-position across categories, but also predicts the optional presence of both small and full clause to the right of X^ for all values of X. (58)

v2

X

->•

rc,

v1, [Spec.X ]

1 Vx

flNFL 2 \ L s J

I am not aware of any evidence that this prediction is borne out. As a matter of fact, this negative result already holds for the presence of the full clause 50

alone. The conclusion must be that (56) constitutes an unsurmountable complication for the universal X-bar system and that we have to develop a different account for both types of post-nominal clauses. I will suggest first a solution for the small clause variant, postponing the discussion of the full relative clause to Chapter 4, section 1.2.2.1. On the basis of the conclusion that (56) is an untenable hypothesis, the inevitable decision must now be that we abandon completely the transformational analysis of prenominal adjectives: if post-nominal S-bare is not a plausible source of the attributive adjective, there is no reason to maintain a movement 2 rule that transports A to the prenominal position. I also call to mind the 2

diagnosis concerning 'Move A ', at the end of section 2: no configurational circumstances are known that would guide the application of the 'Modifier Shift'instance of 'Move a' into the right channels while obviating rule-specific context-specifications. This is an indication of the non-existence of a transforma2 tional preposing of A . The correctness of this diagnosis is confirmed here by the implausibility of the supposed post-nominal basis. It follows then, that the prenominal adjective must be generated in the base. Toward a concrete suggestion, I introduce the tentative rule (59), claiming that the realization of the attributive subphrase requires a category-specific stipulation, specifying the order of the syntactic head and the modifier in a language-specific way (cf. Woisetschlager (1973) and Reuland (1979)): (59)

N

S

N

Maintaining S-bare as an independent level of representation constitutes a solid basis from which to account for the sentential syntactic properties of the prenominal adjective phrase, so manifest in Dutch (cf. Chapter 1), and for the subject-predicate relation between nominal head and attributive adjective, i.e. the intuitive correspondence with explicit predication in the relative clause. Given (59), the underlying structure of the proud soprano is now as in (60): P

(60'

,0 the

PRO

proud

soprano 51

Several questions arise, of course. Does the theory of syntax permit base-rules outside of the X-bar schema (cf. Stowell (1981-.chapter 2) to the contrary) and if so, will repetition of the levels defined by this schema be allowed (cf. Jackendoff (1977:36) to the contrary)? Is PRO in such a configurational position that it may be said to be ungoverned (Chomsky (1981))? Why does the internal relationship in (60) imply 2 obligatory control and how does the grammar cope with a pronominal N that has a N^ as its antecedent. We will meet these problems in the chapters to come, but first of all will have to get even with the fact that (59) produces prenominal S's with all kinds of predicates, given (55): of these, the result is wellformed in exactly one case, since the deverbal participles pattern with the adjective, as we saw earlier: (61a)

*de [PRO op haar hoede] sopraan ' the on her guard soprano'

(61b)

*de [PRO zingen] sopraan

(61c)

*de [PRO het slachtoffer] sopraan

'the sing soprano'

'the the victim soprano' (61d)

de [PRO trotse] sopraan 'the proud soprano'

This overgeneration shows that labels outside the projection system of phrase structure malfunction in a specific way: rule (59) overgenerates because label S underspecifies. It would be easy to eliminate the overgeneration if we could refer to S-bare and specify at the same time the lexical, i.e. adjectival category of its predicate in a linguistically interesting fashion. To develop such a representation will be our aim in the next chapter.

52

Chapter 3

S-bare and X-bar "Suppose that X-bar theory is generalized so that all maximal projections may have subjects, PRO or phonetically realized under the usual conditions." Chomsky (1981:111)

The goal of this chapter is as follows. In the previous chapter we have seen that the theory of grammar needs S-bare as a level of representation independent from S-bar, and that the prenominal S-bare must be adjectival. It is therefore a logical step in our exposition to look after a category-specific representation of S-bare, and in order to develop this, I will do two things in this chapter: in section 1 I will reinterpret the label S as X^, where X stands for 3

N, V, A, P, INFL and where the level S/X

defines the subject-predicate rela-

tion; subsequently, in section 2 I will consider several implications of this reinterpretation, especially those for the notion government.

1.

The abandonment of S

1.1

Arguments for X

3

It was argued at the end of Chapter 2 that the rules (55) and (59), repeated here as (1) and (2), base-generate prenominal predications, but overgenerate in that the label S underspecifies the category of attributive phrases. (1 )

S

(2)

1

N

+ ->- S

N2

X2 N

1

Suppose now, that we replace (2) by (3), where the level A subject/ A 2-predicate.

3

defines the relation

53

(3)

N1

A3

N1

Accordingly, diagram (4) represents the underlying structure of the proud soprano .

the

PRO

proud

soprano 3

The introduction of predicative A

basically solves the problem of stating Burt's

(1971) description of attribution within a more restrictive theory of grammar. From here, the further object of this chapter is to investigate the main con3 sequences of the A -hypothesis for the theory of grammar, and, more generally, to present empirical and theoretical considerations in support of a tighter theory of phrase structure. One of the fundamental claims of X-bar theory is the structural symmetry of wordgroups with one of the3usual syntactic categories N, V, A, and P as a head. Hence, the appearance of A in (3) is justified only if it can be generalized 3 3 3 3 to N , V and P , i.e. the cross-category generalization X that will define the subject-predicate level for any X

that is a phrase structure projecting

category. More precisely and following the lead of X-bar theory, the claim is that the label S constitutes an inappropriate characterization of the subjectpredicate relation. The S does not fit the X-projection system, underspecifies its content and - barring the addition of ad hoc assertions - will overgenerate. Consequently I propose to abolish the label S all together, and to replace rule (1) by (5). (5)

X3

-

N

2

x2

Arguments in favour of this rule are as follows. First, note that the root-sentences formed by the small 'narrative'- and 'disbelief'-clauses, and by the newspaper headlines discussed in chapter 2, constitute no decisive evidence. Since these surface small clauses show no differentiation in well-formedness on the basis of the lexical category of the pre54

3

dicate-head, they are neutral as to the choice between S and X . On the other hand, with respect to subcategorization and otherwise (cf. (6)-(17)), the grammar of Dutch makes crucial use of such a category-based distinction, especially as regards the opposition between verbal and non-verbal predications. There are three clusters of evidence which demonstrate this contrast, next to the A- vs. non-A distinction implied in (3). Our first argument is based on the two types of predicative adverbial constituents in (6)-(7) below. These examples show a non-verbal X

within the syntac-

tic context of the so-called 'absolute' met 'with' (cf. Van Riemsdijk (1978), Klein (1983), Beukema

& Hoekstra (1983)), and as a complement of a subcategory

of 'subordinate conjunctions' (Reuland (1979)). The proposition combined with met contains a non-nominative lexicalized subject, whereas the complements of hoewel 'although', tenzij 'unless', etc. require a PRO-NP in this position. This difference must be accounted for by Case-theory.

(6a)

Met [Julia zo

jaloers]] (zou ik maar uitkijken)

'With Julia as jealous as she is (I would be careful)' (6b)

Met [Wilma

geslaagd] voor haar examen] (kon de vakantie doorgaan)

'With Wilma having passed her exam (we went on our holidays)' (6c)

Met [Truus diep

beledigd] door je opmerkingen] (zou ik maar op mijn

woorden letten) 'With Trudy as offended by your remarks as she is (I would mind my words)' (6d)

Met [Hans moeilijk [^ te overtuigen]] (zien we maar van het plan af) 'With Henry hard to convince (we had better drop the plan)'

(6e)

Met [Ajax nu al [^ kampioen]] (verliest de competitie aan spanning) 'With Ajax the champions this early (the league is much less exciting)'

(6f)

Met [Cruyff eenmaal echt [p1 op dreef]] (voetbalde Ajax weer ouderwets) 'With Cruyff really at his best (Ajax were their usual selves)'

(6g) *Met [hem in het doel [^ staan]] (komt er geen bal door) 'With him be the goalie (we won't get a goal against us)' (7a)

Hoewel [PRO^

jaloers] op ons succes] (kwam Julia i toch kijken)

'Though jealous of our succes (Julia came to look nevertheless)' (7b)

Tenzij [PRO^ [^ geslaagd] voor haar examen] (komt Wilma^ niet achter het stuur) 'Unless having passed her exam (Wilma will not be allowed to drive)'

55

(7c)

Voorzover [PRCK

beledigd] door je opraerkingen] (wil ik^ dat buiten

de kwestie houden) 'In so far as offended by your remarks (I will disregard that)' (7d)

Ofschoon [PRCL moeilijk

te overtuigen]] (gaf Hans^ eindelijk toe)

'Although hard to convince (Henry gave in finally)' (7e)

Indien [PRCK morgen al

karapioen]] (levert Ajax^ vijf spelers voor

Oranje) 'If the champions tomorrow (Ajax will provide five players for the national team)' (7f)

Mits [PRCL eenmaal goed [ p 1 op dreef]] (doet Cruyff^ prachtige dingen met een bal) 'Provided really at his best (Cruyff handles the ball wonderfully)' g

(7g) Hoewel [PR(X graag in het doel

staan]] (wil Schrijvers^ volgend

jaar stoppen) 'Although be an eager goalie (Schrijvers will retire next year)' The second cluster exclusively contains non-verbal subject-predicate constituents again, in the function of 'free' or 'bound' predicative adjuncts, exemplified by (8)-(9), the latter also known as appositions. Both lack a clauseintroducing element (cf. the first argument) and have PRO-subjects.

(8a)

[PRCK

jaloers] op ons succes] kwam Julia^ toch kijken

'Jealous of our succes Julia came to look nevertheless' (8b)

[PRO^

geslaagd] voor haar examen] komt Wilma^ vandaag met de auto

'Having passed her exam Wilma will drive here today' (8c)

[PRCK diep

beledigd] door je opraerkingen] ben ik^ gisteren niet

op je voorstel ingegaan 'Yesterday, deeply offended by your remarks, I disregarded your proposal' (8d)

Hans^ gaf [PRCh moeilijk [

te overtuigen]] toch toe

'Hard to convince Henry gave in finally' (8e)

Ajax^ levert [PRCK nu al [

kampioen]] vijf spelers voor Oranje

'The new champions already, Ajax provides five players for the national team' (8f)

[PRCh eenmaal goed [p1 op dreef]] doet Cruyff^ prachtige dingen met een bal 'Really at his best, Cruyff handles the ball wonderfully'

(8g) "Schrijvers^ wil daarom [PRCK graag in het doel

56

staan]] dit jaar toch

stoppen 'Be an eager goalie, Schrijvers will nevertheless retire this year' (9a)

Julia^, [PRCK

jaloers] op ons succes], (kwam toch kijken)

'Julia, jealous of our success, (came to look nevertheless)' (9b)

Wilma^, [PRCh [

geslaagd] voor haar examen], (komt vandaag met de auto)

'Wilma, having passed her exam, (will drive here today)' (9c)

(Daarom ben) i k ^

[PRCh diep

beledigd] door je opmerkingen], (niet op

je voorstel ingegaan) 'This is why I, deeply offended by your remarks, have disregarded your proposal' (9d)

(Eindelijk gaf) Hans^, [PRCL moeilijk

te overtuigen]], (toch toe)

'At last Henry, hard to convince, gave in' (9e)

Ajax^, [PRCX nu al

kampioen]], (levert vijf spelers voor Oranje)

'Ajax, the champions already, provides five players for the national team' (9f)

(Met een bal doet) C r u y f f ^

[PRCL eenmaal goed [ p 1 op dreef]], (prachtige

dingen) 'Cruyff, once really at his best, handles the ball wonderfully' (9g) *(Daarom wil) Schrijvers^, [PRCL graag in het doel

staan]], (dit jaar

toch stoppen) 'This is why Schrijvers, be an eager goalie, will nevertheless retire this year' The third argument comes in the form of a variety of individual verbs, which appear to be subcategorized for non-verbal complements of a predicating character, while a handful of others select only and

precisely verbal small clauses.

Some can be followed by all four types of predication. Our selection in (10)-(17) is a representative choice, which, however, lacks examples with participial adjectival predications. These are possiible, but can be found discussed in Van Gestel (1983b:9)- The fact that these category-determined complements have an explicit subject of a non-nominative kind may again be attributed to Case-theory.

(10a)

Zij achtten [Julia jaloers]

A

'They considered Julia jealous' (10b)

Zij achtten [Ajax de betere ploeg]

N

'They considered Ajax the better team' (10c)

Zij achtten [haar erg in de war]

P

57

'They considered her very confused' (10d) *Zij achtten [Wim fel reageren]

V«

'They considered Bill react furiously'

(11a)

Henk noemde [Julia jaloers]

A

'Henry called Julia jealous' (11b)

Henk noemde [Ajax de betere ploeg]

N

'Henry called Ajax the better team' (11c)

Henk noemde [haar erg in de war]

P

'Henry called her very confused' (11d) »Henk noemde [Wim fel reageren]

V*

'Henry called Bill react furiously' (12a)

Zoiets maakt [Julia jaloers]

A

'This makes Julia jealous' (12b)

Zoiets maakt [Ajax de betere ploeg]

N

'This makes Ajax the better team' (12c)

Zoiets maakt [haar erg in de war]

P

'This makes her very confused' (12d) *Zoiets maakt [Wim fel reageren]

V»

'This makes Bill react furiously' (13a) »Bob deed [Julia jaloers]

A*

'Bob forced Julia jealous' (13b) »Bob deed [hem het slachtoffer]

N«

'Bob forced him the victim' (13c) »Bob deed [haar erg in de war]

P»

'Bob forced her very confused' (13d)

Bob deed [Wim fel reageren]

V

'Bob forced Bill to react furiously'

(14a) *Ze zagen [Julia jaloers]

A*

'They saw Julia jealous' (14b) *Ze zagen [Ajax de betere ploeg]

Nc

'They saw Ajax the better team' (14c) *Ze zagen [hem uit z'n gewone doen] 'They saw him off balance' 58

P»

(14d)

Ze zagen [Wim fei reageren]

V

'They saw Bill react furiously' (15a) *Julia hoorde [mij opgewonden]

A*

'Julia heard me excited' (15b) »Julia hoorde [hem het slachtoffer]

N*

'Julia heard him the victim' (15c) "Julia hoorde [haar uit haar gewone doen]

P*

'Julia heard her off balance' (15d)

Julia hoorde [Wim fei reageren]

V

'Julia heard Bill react furiously' (16a) *Ik voelde [Julia jaloers]

A»

'I felt Julia jealous' (16b) »Ik voelde [hem het slachtoffer]

N*

'I felt him the victim' (16c) *Ik voelde [haar uit haar gewone doen]

P*

'I felt her off balance' (I6d)

Ik voelde [Wim naar beneden glijden]

V

'I felt Bill slide' (17a)

De jongens vonden [Julia jaloers]

A

'The boys thought Julia jealous' (17b)

De jongens vonden [Ajax de betere ploeg]

N

'The boys thought Ajax the better team' (17c)

De jongens vonden [hem uit z'n gewone doen]

P

'The boys thought him off balance' (17d)

De jongens vonden [Wim te fel reageren]

V

'The boys thought Bill react too furiously' In 'Subjects Across Categories' (1980;1983) Stowell also gives as one of his arguments for the categorial typification of subject-predicate combinations in English, the subcategorization properties of a number of verbs, e.g. to want and to make. He also mentions in his examples matrixverbs which differentiate further among their non-verbal predicative complements. Thus, to allow selects only prepositional predications (Stowell (1980:19)). Although Stowell proposes that the subject-predicate node be characterized by the lexical category of the 59

predicate head, he does not, however, push through to the conclusion that this implies a separate subject-predicate level, as proposed here. The above range of observations on (i) complementation (with met, and with individual 'subordinate conjunctions' and verbs) and (ii) adjunction (with appositions and free predicative adjuncts) constitutes empirical confirmation of the predictions of X-bar theory once we allow a predicative level for one value of X. The remaining values are allowed that level as well and, as we have seen, the evidence at hand is sufficiently strong to erase the S-bare level from our 3 syntactic vocabulary, and replace it by X . Within such a system, based on the lexical category of the head, the language- and category-specific rule (3) may 3 contain the individual category A

in a natural way. This rule is therefore far

from ad hoc, and motivatedly suppresses the excesses of (2).

1.2

3 The levels of the X -system

In line with the ideas discussed so far I now propose that the universal phrase structure pattern is the X-bar system of (18): (18a)

X3

(18b)

X2

(18c)

1

X

N2

X2

->- [Spec .X1 ]

X1

X°

where .... = Y n and X, Y = N, V, A, P, INFL Each level of projection serves a specific grammatical function: a. b. c.

X"^ defines the domain of the subject-predicate relation X2 defines the domain of specification 1 X defines the domain of subcategorization

2 3 This classification differs from that in Jackendoff (1977:57) in that X and X are not the levels of restrictive and appositive modifiers, 3 respectively. Besides the abolishment of the category S in favour of X , the "uniform three level hypothesis" defined as in (18) contains two specific claims concerning levels of representation: 60

a.

Contrary to the position in Jackendoff (1977:33-34) the choice of any X does not automatically imply the presence of the full 0 1 2 3 projection X - X - X - X . 3

b.

As INFL is a value of X, the existence of INFL -configurations is predicted.

I will discuss these two issues in this order.

1.2.1

Non-maximal projection

Two parts of (18) imply that the grammar utilizes non-maximal projections. Rule 3 2 (18a) requires a N for a subject, not a N , while the notion of 'possible complement' is characterized by (18) as Y n in a generalizing fashion. The first implication represents the observation that nominal subjects do not always consist of a subject-predicate combination. The second, similarly, that complemen3 tation may concern subject-predicate combinations (Y ) as well as non-predi2 eating nodes (Y ). Rather than allowing a choice between subcategorization by Y 2 and Y 3 , I propose that the level be free. The implication is that a deri3 vation does not necessarily originate in X : (18b) may be a startingpoint without the appliance of (18a), and X^-representations are possible as well, 2 . 3 lacking X

and X . Clearly this seems to predict more possibilities than natu-

ral language calls for, and consequently reasonable restrictions must be derived from the theoretical framework. The following restrictions are natural ones that go a long way. (i) The lexical categories A and V always define a subject 0-role or a subject position, and therefore require projection up to the three-bar-level. (ii) Certain members of N and P, especially in idiomatic expressions such as de dupe 'the victim' and op z'n hoede 'on one's guard', follow the same pattern, but as a rule P and N do not select a subject; they allow it. So, the projection-level of P and N 3 usually will be lower than X . (iii) The differentiation between the highest and lower levels does not depend on category-internal properties but on contextual requirements, by subcategorization or otherwise. The examples (6)-(17) 61

3

show that if there is a context allowing N , it will also allow 3 3 P

and A . In other configurations allowing N-projections, there

is no such simultaneity, and therefore the level of representation has to be lower than three bars. (iv)

We assume 0-theory to dictate that the level of N-projection is not lower than two bars: a O-role is assigned to an argument and to be an argument the N-projection must have referential status. In languages such as Dutch the determiner 2 represents 2 referentiality, and requires the level of specification X , i.e. N . Hence, the level follows from independent grammatical requirements,

(v)

On the other hand, the category P is distinct from the other three lexical categories. It requires neither a subject nor a specifier, though it may allow both. Consequently, to be subcategorized by P will mean to be subcategorized by P 1 . The usual assertion that all 1 2 P are at the same time P , is spurious.

Admitting that I will not go further than this here, I suggest that a more substantial theory of lexical categories will deal with subcategorization. It seems that distinctions on the basis of grammatical functions will be able to handle many problems, i.e. further restrictions may be stated in terms of requiring 3 2 or not requiring a predication level X , a specifier level X or a subcatego1 rization level X .

1.2.2

INFL-projection ?

In Chapter 2 the representation INFL pansion rules (19a)

INFL 2

+

(19b)

INFL1

->- INFL 0

(19c)

was proposed to replace S-bar, the ex-

being the ones in (41), repeated here as (19): [Spec. INFL 1 ] N2

S

INFL1

S V2

The node [Spec.INFL1] equals COMP. The only remaining task of non-projecting S 0 3 was that of being a complement to INFL . S being eliminated in favour of X , I 2

suggest the X -projection of INFL to be like (20), in conformity with (18).

62

(20a)

INFL 2

(20b)

1

INFL

+ +

[Spec.INFL1] INFL

0

V

INFL1

3

0 A substantial assertion is that INFL

3 requires a V -complement. I do not know

how to explain such a restriction, but I expect it to be theoretically deri3 vable. The expansion of V is accounted for by (18a). On the basis of (20), the underlying SOV-structure of (21a) is that of (21b). (21a)

Karel kiest kaas 'Charles chooses cheese'

As in Dutch the complement occurs to the right of the X°-head (just as for the other values of X, bar V), INFL0 specifies the second position in the left-toright sequence of constituents. It will be worth investigating whether the second position of the Dutch finite verb in declarative main clauses such as (21a) after Verb Second, follows from INFL0 being the target for movement. This idea will be left for future research, however. The fact that for an independent main clause such as (21a) the INFL-pro2 jection stops at the X -level, conforms to a grammatical system that does not (cf. 1.2.1) require a maximal level for all projection. On the other hand, (18) predicts that there will also be a maximal 3 projection for the value INFL. The claim is in fact that there will be INFL -configurations in which subordinate 2 INFL -clauses function as predicates. Examples are not abundantly available, but the sentential complements of zijn 'to be', which occur in the (pseudo-)cleft sentences of (22) and the replies of (23) appear to be true representatives of this category. 63

(22a)

Wat Joop niet wist, (dat) was of hij er op tijd kon zijn 'What Jack did not know, (that) was whether he could be there in time'

(22b)

Het is (om) op tijd te komen, - wat hij beloofd heeft 'It is to be there in time, - what he has promised'

(23a)

(Wat is de oorzaak van zijn vreemde gedrag?) Het blijkt dat hij moeilijkheden thuis heeft te zijn '(What is the cause of his strange behaviour?) It appears that he has domestic trouble to be'

(23b)

(Wat was zijn vraag ook al weer?) Mij leek het wie er opgebeld had te zijn '(What was his question again?) It struck me as who had called to be'

The predicate-noun character of the subordinate clauses is betrayed by their position immediately to the left of (te) zijn in (23):'extraposition' is not obligatory in these cases in Dutch. Partly anticipating our analysis of copulative clauses in section 2.7. of this chapter, I will represent the underlying structure of the relevant part of (23a) as in (24). (24)

INFL2

The embedded non-argument subject het 'it' undergoes raising to the subject position £ of zijn, as has also happened in e.g. (dat) Jan. [.3 _t. ziek] is 64

'(that) John is ill'. In order to reach the subject-position of blijken 'to appear' the raising operation is performed on the het already raised, once more. We will also have the opportunity to establish that the subject of INFL"^ may take the form of PRO as well.

2.

Consequences

2.0

Outline

Naturally, as we concluded earlier, the introduction of a predicative projection 3 level X

has a variety of consequences. I propose to consider seven of them here.

Four concern the organization of the grammatical system, and they will be discussed below under the following headings: 1. Against label-derived features 3 2. X as theta-domain 3. Unexceptional Case-marking A. The redefinition of government Three others are related to a specific type of phrase, and they will be discussed in the following sections:

5. Subject and Specifier 6. The present participle 7. Making sense of 'zijn' 2.1

Against label-derived features

The observations of section 1.1 supporting the claim that the predication level X^ has to be specified by the lexical category of the head of the predicate, have revealed the relevance of the contrast V vs. non-V (next to A vs. non-A), i.e. between V-projections and projections of N, A and P. Van Riemsdijk (1978:118119) discusses other examples of the natural connection between those three categories. The opposition of one specific value of X vs. the others raises a fundamental question as to the tenability of the standard label-derived features. Since 'Remarks on Nominalization' (Chomsky (1970:210)) the category names N,

65

A and V are considered bundles of distinctive features. Diagram (25) contains the current system, that contains P as well since Jackendoff (1973). Given the two factors [ ±N, ±V ], it defines four natural classes, and the reader is referred to Stowell (1981:21-51) for a case-history, and an evaluation. P

A

V

-N

+V

N

-V

+N

Various proposals have been made to incorporate traditional distinctions within this framework. Thus, Stowell (1981:44-45) supplies his taxonomy with [±Tense] in order to incorporate differences and similarities between sentences, NP's and gerunds: (26a)

[ +N, -V, +Tense ]

(26b)

[ +N, -V, -Tense ]

(26c)

[ +N, -V ]

In his words (p.45): The matrix in (26a) [my numbers] represents subcategorization for S; that in (26b) represents subcategorization for NP; the matrix in (26c) is the unmarked case of subcategorization for the natural class comprising both NP and S. But gerunds are a neutralized category, exhaustively characterized by the matrix in (26c), so subcategorization for the natural class of NP and S will necessarily include gerunds.

Rouveret and Vergnaud (1980:121) propose to derive the passive participle from the underlying verb, partly by deleting the latter of the verbal features [ +V, - N ]. This neutralization results in the pairing of (27):

(27a)

[ +V, - N ]

: perfect participle

(27b)

[ +V ]

: passive participle

In these ways generalizations stated in terms of traditional distinctions were shown to be restatable in feature terminology, but as far as I can see not a very great amount of insight has resulted from these adaptations. 66

In actual fact, the situation appears to be worse, for the system of (25) or one of its elaborations is not able to express the generalizations that, for instance, met 'with' is subcategorized for non-verbal predications (cf. (6), this chapter), and a verb such as zien 'to see' refuses just these and only takes verbal small clauses (cf. (14), this chapter). The [ ±N, ±V ] analysis rather predicts that a differentiation between V vs.N, A and P is clearly unexpected, and that the set N, A and P constitutes an unnatural class. Moreover, in order to see further disadvantages of simple label-derived feature systems, assume that each lexical category is specified for [ ±N, ±V, ±A, ±P, ±INFL ], i.e. positive for one feature and by convention negative for the others. This system would successfully describe the relevant distinctions: (28a)

x

[ + v]

(28b)

X

[ + INFL]

^

X

: verbal vs-

[ V] X

^

[ INFL]

: bi

non-verbal projections

® clause vs. small clause

But, unfortunately, it would also imply the existence of generalizations such as those of (29): (29a)

X

(29b)

X r „,, / [+NJ

vs. the natural class Xr „, [-N]

(29c)

Xr [+AJ

vs. the natural class Xr „, L-A]

[ + p]

/

/

vs

-

the

natural class Xj-

These oppositions are as expected as [+V] vs. [-V], but this prediction is not borne out in any natural language, to the best of my knowledge. Thus, the [ ±N, ±V ] system fails to capture the required natural distinctions and is unable to anticipate the various deverbatives such as supina, gerunds, participles and infinitives in a systematic way. And as the alternative just discussed is theoretically and empirically unacceptable, I propose to give up label-derived features all together. Of course, this does not imply that the grammar may not utilize the labels themselves, or cannot make use of other features. On the other hand, although the system proposed in Jackendoff (1977:32-33) and his definitions of lexical categories also fail to meet the empirical requirements concerning the verbal/non-verbal opposition, his approach may be on the right track, nevertheless. He attempts to connect each lexical category with characteristic, possibly universal, syntactic functions, such as subject, object 67

and complement. Functions like these add content to the notion lexical category and may explain the highly intuitive appeal that the distinctions N, V, A and P have in a variety of languages. In this

spirit, I propose to make the distinction of verb vs. noun, adjec-

tive and preposition dependent of the syntactic function of question-formation. It is a common property of NP, AP and PP that they can be moved by Wh-movement, this in contrast with VP:

(3Ua)

i.

Wie heb je gesproken?

NP

'Who have you seen?' ii.

Welke functionaris heb je gesproken? 'Which official have you seen?'

(30b)

Hoe groot is het gevaar?

AP

'How great is the danger?' (30c)

i.

Op welke manier vroeg Karel dat?

PP

'In which way did Charles ask that?' ii.

Hoe op haar hoede was Wilma? 'How on her guard was Wilma?'

(30d)

i. 'Hoezeer haar best doen 't winkelmeisje?

VP

'How much her best do the shop-assistant?' ii. *Welk boek kopen de student? 'Which book buy the student?'

Note that generating yes/no-questions is independent of VP-movement, since in fact they are created by moving V^1 to the second position of the sentence, leaving the COMP-position empty. Given these observations and in order to express the cross-category generalization required for N, A and P, I will use below the WH-property plus the 3 3 3 3 relevant number of bars, for instance WH for N , A and P . This shows that, next to the supercategory X and the labels N, V, A and P, non-label-derived features may function in syntactic representations and rules.

2.2

X^ as a theta-domain

The integration of a generalized subject-predicate level within the X-bar system

68

offers one the opportunity to obviate the anomaly that X^ always assigns 0-roles to constituents for which X is subcategorized, but X^, especially V^ does not assign a 0-role to its subject. Stowell (1981:34) relates this subcategorization level to the 0-grid, "the internal representation of the verb's argument-structure", "an explicit representation of all of the 0-roles".

Independent considerations put forth in Chomsky (1981) lead to the assumption that subjects of clauses receive their 0-role from the VP, rather than from the verb [-], this 0-role being 'compositionally' determined from the content of the VP. (Aoun and Sportiche (1983:216))

Aoun and Sportiche subsume 0-role assignment under their axiom (2c), repeated here as (31). Government between a thematic role assigner [-] and the target phrase is a necessary condition for 0-role assignment, (p. 212) 2 They assume that the maximal projection X is the domain of government, where 2 0 only X is a governor and the traditional VP is V . This implies that VP is not a governor, and actually cannot be one. This avoids obligatory government for the subject, which would, incorrectly, exclude PRO from subject position, for "PRO must be ungoverned". See also Stowell (1983:307). This leads Aoun and Sportiche (1983:229) to characterizing VP not as a governor, but still as a 0role assigner, by stipulation. In terms of Chomsky (1981) a lexical head assigns 0-marking to a subject indirectly, and 0-marking to subcategorizing complements directly: Direct or indirect 0-marking are therefore properties of lexical items determined by the lexicon. If a directly or indirectly 0-marks

we

say that a [my correction] selects g. A verb, for example, selects its complements and also selects its subject if it participates in assigning a 0-role to the subject. (Chomsky (1981:38))

Both the stipulation that 'VP is a 0-role assigner' and the distinction between direct vs. indirect 0-marking are superfluous within a theory recognizing X^ as a predicating maximal projection. Since the subject turns out to occur not 69

2

only with V , but also with non-verbal predicates, we are able to extend the

2

projection from X

3

to X . This appears to be the natural context for the selec-

tion of, say, all dependents, a neutral term introduced here as a cover-term for all material directly dependent on the projection, in other words dominated directly by a projection-node, i.e. both complements and specifiers on the one hand, and subjects on the other, as well as various kinds of adjuncts. (32)

X3

The selection domain of a lexical item is defined lexically by the length of the projection, and the nature of the various dependents. A number of dependents have their thematic function specified, and the subject may be one of them. The se3 lection domain of V and A is, generally, X , i.e. these categories select a subject. This holds as well for a number of N - or P-headed idiomatic predicates, such as de dupe 'the victim' and op z'n hoede 'on one's guard', but these are marked and usually the 0-domain of N and P is confined to the X 1 -level. There3 3 fore, when N or P are non-idiomatic predicates (insertion in a N - or P -headposition is not blocked by the lexical specification), the subject remains unspecified, especially for its 0-role. In Dutch this is shown by the frequent occurrence of an expletive subject (het 'it', dat 'that', dit 'this'), as in Het zijn onderdrukkers 'They are suppressors' and Dat was tijdens de staking 'That occurred during 3the strike'. The choice of the X -projection as the maximal thematic domain implies that subcategorization is only one of the parts of that domain and does not hold an 3 exclusive relation to 0-role assignment. One lexical item has X as its 0-grid, while another may have X 1 . Some items allow both possibilities. In contrast to 3 the implications of (31), the X -grammar of (18) does not have the structural relation of government as a prerequisite for 0-role assignment, but the syntactic configuration defined by the X-projection. The difference between subject and complement for 0-role assignment is thus not expressed as indirect vs. direct 0-marking, but in terms of the level of attachment: the subject differs from other dependents in being the topmost. A further difference follows independently from Case-assignment being specifically subject to government, i.e. it is

70

principally limited to the subcategorization level X^, and relevant to X® and its sister(s). See for this e.g. Rouveret and Vergnaud (1980:108) and also 2.4, this chapter. As a result complements receive both 0-role and Case through their relation to X . Subjects, on the other hand, do receive the 0-role from their 'own' X^, but, as the subject cannot be a sister of that X^, the Case-assigner 2 3 for subjects [N , X ], if present, is always external, that is, a Case-assigning category outside the projection containing the subject. The absence or presence of that external factor directs the PRO- or non-PRO-status of the subject. Finally, if 0-role assignment takes place within the X-projection domain, and does not depend upon government but on properties of the projection, adjustment of the projection principle is called for. Stowell's (1981:35) version is easyly modified by replacing complement by dependent: (33)

Projection principle If a has the lexical property of requiring 6 as a dependent, then a selects 6 at every grammatical level.

2.3.

Unexceptional Case-marking

Chomsky's (1981) approach to infinitival complements is based on the following pair of interrelated positions:

(34a)

Verbal phrases originate under S-bare alone and subcategorizing complements are maximal projections: consequently, infinitive complements are maximal projections of S, i.e. S-bars.

(34b)

The S-bar status of complements makes them opaque and constitutes "an absolute barrier to government" (Chomsky (1981:66)). So the matrix verb does not assign Case to the embedded subject.

Since PRO must be ungoverned, infinitive complements have a PRO-subject as a rule, as in the unmarked English cases of control in (35). (35a)

I. believe [•=• COMP [

(35b)

Mary i tried

1.

i_/

O

PRO. to be ill]] 1

COMP [ g PR0 1 to come home early]]

The lexicalized subjects of the infinitives in (36), on the other hand, consti71

tute a marked phenomenon. (36a)

We preferred [for them to take part]

(36b)

I believe [him to be ill]

The oblique Case of them in (36a) is accounted for by the governing and Caseassigning prepositional complementizer for, but the objective Case of him in (36b) is unfortunate, viewed in the light of (34b). With respect to explicit subjects of this type Chomsky (1981:66) argues as follows:

A reasonable assumption [-] is that English has a marked rule of S-deletion for complements of verbs of the believe-category, permitting the verb to govern the subject of the embedded complement, thus excluding PRO and permitting phonetically realized NP.

The S-bar deletion property of a given verb "is in part a lexical idiosyncrasy" (p. 68). Although it is not hard to see the line of reasoning behind this proposal, it is in fact worth commenting on in several ways. First, while S-bar deletion is adequate as an account of the systematic absence of an overt complementizer in these cases, it is a highly debatable type of operation. As has been observed by Reuland (1981:2-3), it cannot even be reasonably formulated as a rule of grammar, since a grammatical rule is not supposed to delete a constituent label, not period, or at least not without changing the terminal string. Moreover, government of the embedded subject by the matrix verb is not that exceptional. First, it holds for grammatical categories rather than individual lexical idiosyncrasies: sentence-qualifying verbs, causatives and perception verbs reach the embedded subject in a variety of languages. And second, as we observed in 2.2, it is a general property of subjects that they are governed by an external factor. Consequently, one would rather expect a regular parameter of matrix elements

defined on a specific syntactic configuration, than

a deletion procedure that is excluded by the restricted notion of grammatical rule Chomsky as well as anybody else would like to advocate. As was argued by Koster (1984), the lexical manifestation of the embedded subject or its unlexicalized status should follow not from its being (un)governed, but from the Case-assigning property of the governor, if present at all. This holds under the provision that the infinitival complement label is not

72

a barrier in the relevant cases. I will adopt Koster's view on this differentiation between lexical and PRO-subjects, where PRO is obligatory controlled in the sense of Williams (1980:209), the main property of obligatory control being that there must be an antecedent. Contrary to the position of Chomsky (1981), the findings of Reuland and Roster are perfectly compatible with the introduction of the subject-predicate 3 level X

advocated above, and consonant with the framework developed in (18).

In view of this I will assume that 2 3 3 a. both INFL and X are potential complements, where X especially subcategorizes verbs belonging to the categories mentioned above, and other lexical elements which are sensitive to the value of X (cf. the observations 2 3 (6)-(17)); 3 b. contrary to INFL , V and other X -complements are transparant, i.e. these labels do not act as barriers to Case-marking from outside and to extractions from inside, such as NP-raising. In conformity with these assumptions, two Case-configurations will be distinguished at this stage, one for complements (37) and the other for subjects (38); the arrow indicates Case-assignment.

(38)

(37)

Diagram (38) covers the following five specific relations.

/ NFL'

(38a)

(38b)

Cf

INFL

N' Jan 'John

V slaap sleeps'

met

hem

in het doel

'with

him

in goal'

73

(38c)

(38d)

/

NF

INFL

N haar •her

een kreng

acht

a bitch consider'

PRO '

slapen to sleep'

(38e) Adv

indien 'if

PRO

aanwezig present'

Note that in accordance with Roster's view on PRO, the embedded subjects of (38d) and (38e) are governed, but not Case-marked: only assigns Case, and apparently the adverbial category of indien does not. The cases (38a)-(38c) represent the syntactic circumstances under which a subject receives nominative, oblique and objective Case, respectively. Above I noted that Exceptional Case-marking is much less idiosyncratic than usually assumed. What remains is the separate status of Case-assignment to subject in the dichotomy of (37)-(38), and especially the question whether it is possible to further reduce this peculiarity in favour of a uniform Case-configuration. In the next section I will make a proposal with respect to this question.

2.k

The redefinition of government

Aoun and Sportiche (1983:215) define government as in (39).

(39)

a governs y in [g... y ... a ... y ...] where

(i) a = X° (ii) where tp is a maximal projection, cp dominates a if and only if cp dominates y

74

They argue for this position by, among other things, deriving the English pattern (40)-(A3).

(40a)

I like [PRO reading books]

(40b)

I like [his reading books]

(42a)

*I like [PRO book]

(42b)

I like [his book]

(41)

[

NP*

VP]

(43)

[

NP*

N1]

In this, it is essential that both NP and VP count as maximal projections. Chomsky (1981:165) summarizes the findings of Aoun and Sportiche as follows [my numbers]:

Under the definition of "government" based on (39), the head of VP in (41) does not govern NP* since it is dominated by a maximal projection (namely, VP) that does not dominate NP*. But the head of N in (43) does govern NP*, since NP is the least maximal projection dominating NP* or the head of N, and it dominates both of them, so they are contained in all the same maximal projections. Thus PRO is a possible choice for the ungoverned NP* in (41) (as in (40a)), but not for the governed NP* in (43) (as in (42a)). A phoneticallyrealized NP (e.g. his) is a possible choice for NP* in either (41) or (43), since genitive Case is assigned in this structure. 3 Obviously this explanation no longer holds if the maximal projection is X . If the subject is contained within the maximal projection of the predicate-head it belongs to, and if government is defined as in (39), the subject is governed by its X^. It then follows that the subject is just as governed as the object is. Therefore, it will be both Case-marked and lexicalized, and it will be unable to have the PRO-form, in Chomsky's view by being governed and in Koster's approach because a NP must be PRO when it lacks Case. The fact that only the3subject may be PRO in control- and control-type structures such as prenominal A , and its specific role in the description of phenomena such as Raising, Reflexivization and Long Wh-movement,- could thus be derived no longer from the unique structural position of the subject. In order to save the subject-object asymmetry, we will therefore have to redefine the notion government, and I propose to do so through (44). 75

(44)

X^ governs Y n in [X1

... Y n

X°

Y n ... ]

This definition contains two interrelated claims:

(i) The domain of government is the minimal projection of the head rather than the maximal one mentioned in (39). (ii) As a result, Case-marking under government may only involve complement-sisters of X^. The implication is that (45) constitutes the uniform Case-configuration. J

(45) X^

Complement X1

(46) X"

(47) Y2

> Y3

X N

2

\ 2

The subcases (46)-(47) mimic (37)-(38), and the arrow again indicates Case-mar3 king. The difference is that in (38) Case penetrates into the non-opaque Y -node 2 (cf. the b-assumption of section 2.3) reaching for the N -subject, while in (47) 3 2 Case is assigned to the small clause-label Y

itself, which then leaves N

with-

out Case. This effect of the modification in (44) is of course acceptable only if we can come up with an alternative account of subject-Case, required by the Case-filter as it is. A likely candidate appears to be the procedure of transfer, which performs just this task and is independently required, as argued for in Chapter 5. Anticipating that discussion, I will only give an illustration of its operation 3 here. The idea is that, after Case-assignment to Y as indicated in (47), the 2 3 3 N -subject of Y receives Case indirectly: the Case-marked Y -node passes on its Case to the non-Case-marked subject-dependent. The downward arrow in (48) represents this Case-transfer.

76

(48)

X — > = Case-assignment i ^ S - Case-transfer

2 Unless a Case-assigner is absent and N

is PRO for this reason (cf. (38d)-(38e)),

all subjects are uniformly Case-marked in this indirect way (cf. (38a)-(38c)). This is the only remarkable feature that remains of Exceptional Case-marking if there is anything exceptional, that is, in the uniform treatment of all subject-Case, nominative or otherwise, by a general device which also accounts for the transfer of other properties, such as gender and number; see Chapter 5. There are many other consequences of the minimal definition of government in (44), among them the difference between nouns and gerunds that is so crucially important for Aoun and Sportiche's motivation of the definition of government involving maximal projection: see (39). In conformity with this definition PRO in (49), repeating (42), is governed, making (49a) unacceptable, in contrast with (49b). (49a)

*I like [PRO book]

(49b)

I like [his book]

Following Koster's differentiation instead, we can explain the opposition without an appeal to government. In [^2 PRO [^1[^0 book]]] PRO is blocked from the Case-marked position, because it presupposes the absence of Case: (49b) proves that genitive Case is required. Note that the specifier position is occupied by N

2

and not by a zero article, as in I like books. The explanation in terms of Case for (49) does not hold for (50), repeating

(40), where PRO and Case-bearing N (50a)

I like [PRO reading books]

(50b)

I like [his reading books]

2

are not mutually exclusive.

In the Aoun and Sportiche analysis [

NP* VP], i.e. (41), the NP 9 may be PRO

because outside of the maximal projection VP it is ungoverned, while it may be marked for genitive Case, since NP* occupies the nominal specifier position. The question rises, however, what makes (50) different from (49) within a framework that associates PRO with non-Case-marked positions instead of deriving PRO from its ungoverned position. I would like to propose that this difference is due to

77

the structural dissimilarity of gerund and non-gerund NP. The distance between them is in any case more radical than in (41) and (43). (41)

[ N p NP* VP]

(43)

[ N p NP* N 1 ]

We make this observation because the gerund-analysis in (41) is rejected by Xbar theory as the nominal phrase does have a nominal specifier but lacks a nominal head: X must have the same value throughout the projection, and NP presupposes N^ as a head. This holds for any assumed gerund-analysis, which must also minimally cover the observation that gerunds are NP's with verbal predication properties and explain the absence of the PRO/his contrast in (50). This leads me to the following speculative view. 3 Suppose that English morphology allows any V -projection to occur in nominal 2 1 position through the insertion under N of a lexically derived N -configuration of the following shape. N1

(51)

This may be looked upon as a consistent development of Jackendoff's (1977:52) analysis of English gerunds, and conforms to Williams' (1981:248) Righthand Head Rule (RHR), which assumes "the head of a morphologically complex word to be the righthand member of that word." In other words: (51) expresses the fact that the suffix determines the lexical category of this configuration. In Dutch, a similar set-up may hold for derivatives in -en. 3 One will grasp that the availability of our X -level is crucial to represen3 tations of this type. As elsewhere, 0-roles are assigned within V and Case1 assignment to the object takes place within its V ? (52a)

(52b)

[Spec.N ]

read 78

books

-ing

-ing

3

The subject of V is PRO as there is no available Case-assigning governor for 0 3 2 2 N . Since N also fails to assign Case to V transfer-able to N , PRO is the only possibility left. In (52a) N 1 's specifier is left phonetically unspecified. This implies that the interpretation of PRO is determined from outside the gerund: by the matrix-subject in (50a). If the specifier contains a genitive-NP, as in (52b), this is the antecedent for PRO. This is so in (50b). Hypothesis (51) denies that in (50) PRO and his have the same syntactic position: see (52). This accounts for the difference with (49), where they do have the same position. Over and above this, the proposed structure for the gerund

2

conforms to the requirement thatN

have a N-head, but has all relevant verbal

properties to boot. This line of argument shows that there is really no conflict between principle (44), government in the minimal domain of projection, and the explanation of the gerund-noun difference vital to our discussion. The new analysis has a clear advantage over the Aoun-Sportiche-explanation, because it maintains X-bar2 0 principles: the gerund, being a N , is headed by a N , the ing-affix. At the 3 same time, its V -complement accounts for the internal subject-predicate struc3 ture, that is, within this V

assignment of Case to the object and of 0-roles

to the arguments (including the subject) is accounted for straightforwardly. It also explains how a gerund-NP contains a subject in the absence of a genitiveNP, and that a predicative adjunct and/or adverbs may be part of a NP-structure; cf.: (53a)

his arriving ill

(53b)

his arriving too early yesterday

(53c)

his arriving ill yesterday 3

Although the internal V

is governed by -ing, this is compatible with the fact

that the embedded subject is PRO: N^ does not assign Case to PRO, neither directly nor indirectly, since N° is no Case-assigning category. The Aoun-Sportiche-analysis did not employ an affixal N^-head. But even if it had done so, an embedded S-bare would have brought the PRO under government, and an opaque internal S-bar-complement would have prevented3 the necessary intrusion of -ing. So, owing to the introduction of transparant X and given the Righthand Head Rule, (51) represents the crucial generalization. It will come as no surprise, however, even after our crescendo exposition on the

Y9

gerund, that a redefinition of such a central concept as government not only provides new perspectives, but also leaves us with problematic consequences. One of them concerns the subject-traces of Move-a, Wh-movement and NP-raising respectively, as illustrated in (54). (54a)

(54b)

Given

(44), thege traces are ungoverned, let alone properly governed, since

government is a structural relation and not a transferable property like Case; in other words, the corresponding wellformed sentences are incorrectly disqualified by the Empty Category Principle of (55) (cf. Chomsky (1981:250)).

(55)

[^p t] must be properly governed

In Van Gestel (1984) I discussed an idea that still strikes me as promising, i.e. the notion that all traces are essentially lexically specified NP's, and therefore must be uniformly Case-marked. This includes NP-traces such as that in 3 (54b), where seem assigns Case to V and the trace becomes Case-marked by trans80

fer. This section is not the place to develop these non-standard assumptions, so I will restrict myself to mentioning them as a suggestion for further investigation.

2.5.

Subject and Specifier

In 'Remarks on Nominalization' Chomsky introduces the X-bar notation in order to explain the parallel properties of complements such as the PP's in (56): they have the same complement-position to the right of the head, the choice of the preposition being determined by that head, in VP and NP.

(56a)

John reported to Bill

(56b)

John's report to Bill

(56c)

John's letter to Bill

In spite of the observed mutual symmetry between the structures of (56), he proposes non-parallel syntactic positions for the sentence subject in (56a) and the max

corresponding genitive-NP's in (56b) and (56c) ! outside V

maX

and inside N

,

respectively.

John

reported to Bill

John's

report/letter to Bill

Jackendoff (1977) expresses the parallelism of (56) by structure (59), in which subject and genitive-NP have a similar structural position. X3

(59)

John('s)

reported/report/letter to Bill fflcLX

His proposal is that V

m a x

is S, while Chomsky's V

is VP.

My claim is that the parallelism between subject and genitive-NP is not syntactic in nature. Williams (1982) reaches the same conclusion from a different 81

angle. Claiming that X

3

is the bare subject-predicate, I of course do not share

with him the idea of the subject as an external argument. As is shown by the base-rule schema (18), repeated here for convenience in (60) below, my analysis maintains Chomsky's original difference between the levels involved, but does not retain his level of S: just as Jackendoff, I argue for a generalizing subject-predicate relation, incorporating all values of X, and not just N and V. (60a)

X3

-

2 N

(60b)

X2

-

[Spec.X 1 ]

(60c)

x1

-

.... X° ....

X

2 X1

where .... = Y n and X, Y = N, V, A, P, INFL

There are, as far as I am aware, at least five arguments in favour of the nonidentification of subject and genitive-NP claimed by (60): (i)

The genitive-NP occupies the specifier-position, while the characteristics of specifiers differ essentially from those of subjects,

(ii)

The subject of the nominal subject-predicate relation shows no genitive shape. 3

(iii) (iv)

In X

the subject is obligatory, while genitive-NP is optional,

There are possessive NP's without any subject function; and subjectlike genitive-NP's are not likely to originate in a position symmetrical to that of sentence subjects,

(v)

Subject-predicate relations contain constituents that are absent in NP's (with the exception of gerunds).

These points will be dealt with in this order. First, specifiers are distinct from subjects. The existence of a specific category of specifiers accounted for by the generalization of (60b) was discussed elaborately in Van Gestel (1983). Briefly: not only N, A and P may be accompanied by material exhibiting specifier behaviour, but Dutch V has similar companions, with the same characteristics (cf. Van Gestel (1983:69) for these properties, and (21) in Chapter 2 for examples). It turns out that on this score the specifier for V and the sentential subject are highly dissimilar. Genitive-NP, on the other hand, is exactly like the specifier for N both in its surface position and distributional properties.

82

Second, the nominal predications in (61) lack a genitive-NP subject: (61a)

[^3 Ajax nu al kampioen] ? Zozo! 'Ajax the champions this early ? My-oh-my!'

(61b)

[^3 Ajax kampioen]! 'Ajax the champions!'

(61c)

Met [^3 Ajax nu al kampioen] (verliest de competitie aan spanning) 'With Ajax the champions this early (the league is much less exciting)'

(61d)

Ze achtten/noemden/vonden [^3 Ajax de betere ploeg] 'They considered/called/found Ajax the better team'

This indicates that Jackendoff's system is wrong in assuming a symmetry between S and NP on the basis of the symmetrical properties of subjects and genitiveNP' s such as those in (56). This is confirmed by the examples in (62), diagnosed as problematic for parallel English cases by Stowell (1983:311, fn 30).

(62a)

[^3 Deze wedstrijd Bob's beste prestatie sinds maanden] ? Kom nou! 'This match Bob's best result in months? You make me laugh!'

(62b)

Ze vonden [^3 deze wedstrijd Bob's beste prestatie sinds maanden] 'They thought this match Bob's best result in months'

(62c)

Deze wedstrijd^, [^3 PRCK Bob's beste prestatie sinds maanden], was een lust voor het oog 'This match, Bob's best result in months, was a feast for the eyes'

(62d)

Hoewel [^3 PRCL Bob's beste prestatie sinds maanden], levert deze wedstrijd^ hem geen voordeel op 'Although Bob's best result in months, this match gave him no advantage' 3

Subject of N

and genitive-NP thus turn out to be combinable. Under the assump-

tion that Bob's is the subject of prestatie, the latter predicate would have to be assumed to have a second structural subject as well, either PRO or deze 2wedstrijd. Grammar (60) lacks this inconsistency: the genitive-NP is part of N , 3 while the subject is dominated by N , which accounts for their simultaneous presence in (62), given the assumed difference in the representational level of S and NP. The third, fourth and fifth argument constitute independent confirmation of such a distinction. Third, although not aimed at, the grammar incorporating (60) removes an asym83

metry which is inexplicable in Jackendoff's framework: for him, the subject of 3 3 V is obligatory, but that of N is optional, - consider the contrast between the following examples. (63a)

* - report to Bill

(63b)

John reported to Bill

(64a)

a/the report to Bill

(64b)

John's report to Bill

This asymmetry is literally explained away by (60a) and (60b): genitive-NP is not a subject. Fourth, claiming structural identity of subject and genitive-NP, Jackendoff's (1977) framework is confronted with a further opposition between them. The genitive-NP is not only optional, its position is often occupied by NP's which are in no way comparable to sentence subjects. This comparability is usually considered intuitively obvious by advocates of the claim that cases such as (65) and (66) are syntactically parallel; cf. Jackendoff (1977), Stowell (1983) a.o.

(65a)

The enemy destroyed the city

(65b)

The city was destroyed by the enemy

(66a)

The enemy's destruction of the city

(66b)

The destruction of the city by the enemy

Many nouns are excluded semantically from co-occurring with a door 'by'-phrase containing an agent-NP, which possibility is assumed to constitute strong diagnostic support in favour of the subjecthood of this NP: (67a)

*de fiets door Bob

(68a)

'the bike by Bob' (67b)

*een lamp door Bob 'a lamp by Bob'

Bob's fiets 'Bob's bike'

(68b)

Bob's lamp 'Bob's lamp'

One can only justifiedly compare such nouns with nominals derived from intransitive verbs, like vertrek 'departure', with which they seem to share the van 1

of'-paraphrase.

84

(69a)

Bob vertrok

(70a) »Bob lamp-te 'Bob lamp-ed'

'Bob departed' (69b)

(70b)

Bob's vertrek

'Bob's lamp'

'Bob's departure' (69c)

Bob's lamp

het vertrek van Bob 'the departure of Bob'

(70c)

de lamp van Bob 'the lamp of Bob'

The asterisk in this pattern reflects the fact that lamp is not predicational. Consequently, the genitive-NP cannot be considered a subject in any sense. And in fact it expresses a relationship to N^ completely different from the subjectpredicate relation, and denotes all kinds of possession (cf. Jackendoff (1977: 12-13)), which in turn have no syntactic counterparts in predicative structures. Correspondingly, the possessive NP does not constitute an argument of the headN. This implies that the genitive position is not pre-eminently associated with 3 the subject in predications, contrary to the leftmost position of X assumed in our framework, which does have this property. This of course raises the question whether the "subject" of (66a) and other non-subjectlike genitive NP's originate in the [Spec.N 1 ] position. This question is answered in the negative by Hornstein (1977:14A-150). One of his arguments is that the trace left by movement of the specifying NP to the right of door 'by' will not have a proper antecedent, the trace c-commanding the NP moved. This problem is non-existent, according to Hornstein, if the subjectargument - when present - is generated in the door-phrase, thereby constituting one of the NP's that may be preposed to the possessive position. This and Hornstein's remaining arguments strike me as convincing, at least sufficiently so for me to adopt his NP-preposing analysis here. Then, however, if a sentence 3 subject originates in the leftmost highest position within X , while the intuitively corresponding argument-NP within NP is base-generated in a position to the right of the N^-head, probably under N 1 , the deep structures of these types of wordgroups are totally asymmetrical. It follows that the grammar cannot be based on the assumed symmetry. Therefore, the base rules (60a)-(60b) correctly 3 2 deny this symmetry: X

and N

are represented on different levels.

Fifth and finally, the hypothesis concerning the parallelism of S and NP incorrectly predicts that there ought to be points of resemblance between them, other than those involving subjects and complements. The examples of (71)-(72) show that the adverbs which may occur in sentences do not occupy a parallel position in NP's. 85

(71a)

John anewly reported to Bill

(71b) "John's anewly report to Bill (72a)

(dat) Marie altijd nerveus is '(that) Mary always nervous is'

(72b) 'Marie's altijd nervositeit 'Mary's always nervousness' 2 Adverbs occur not at the level of N

3 but at that of N

(cf. nu al 'this early'

in (61a)). This supports the distinction made by (60a) and (60b), and therefore indirectly confirms the dissimilarity of subject and specifier. Nevertheless, in cases such as (65)-(66) there is a systematic relation between sentences and nominal phrases. Now the hypothesis of their syntactic correspondence appears to be unmotivated, I suggest that the intuitive symmetry may be accounted for by their parallel thematic properties. For the Word Formation Rule that derives destruction from destroy restructures the verbal selection domain (V plus its dependents), into a nominal representation. This configuration inherits the 0-roles assigned by the verb, and I suppose that these roles remain associated in some way with the former verbal dependent-nodes. This would explain the systematic correspondence between such interrelated sentences and NP's.

2.6

The present participle

Participles are adjectives, as one will recall from Chapter 1, section 1.1. With3 in the framework of (60) they are A 's. Present participles (and the perfect (non-passive) participle not discussed here) reflect directly the argument structure of the parent verb; the passive participle restructures the GF-template of the underlying action verb. Both present (73) and passive (74) participles may be analysed along the lines developed for the gerund construction in section 2.4: the representations assumed are again in conformity with the Righthand Head Rule: (73) and (74) see page 87 The A-morpheme -end in (73) is subcategorized for a maximal V-projection, by 3 (lexical or morphological) stipulation. The V guarantees the assignment of

86

(74)

(73)

V"

./X

N

e

V

A

(N )

V1"

A «

V

0

gl-d

-end

theta-roles to the arguments inherent to the verb, and the possibility of defining an accusative object. Both operations can be accounted for through the introduction of X 3 in the grammar. By contrast, the A-morpheme of (74) is subcategorized for a minimal V-projection and consequently does not assign an agent-role, while the internal objective Case is absorbed, given standard GB-assumptions. Both structures (73) and (74) contain an empty, i.e. theta-less subject-position. This position must be connected with the embedded subject in (73) and the embedded object in (74) by NP-raising. The fact that in the latter case the object must be raised is the reason why (74) contains the option of a V1-complement to A. 3 If the present participle defines its own subject-position in the top of A , the problem arises why this position can 3 never be lexicalized: the corresponding position within a passive participle-A or a simple adjective phrase can contain explicit subjects within appropriate contexts. X3-COMPLEMENT (75a) *We vonden [^3 de kinderen slapend] 'We found the children sleeping' (75b)

We vonden [^3 de kinderen slaperig] 'We found the children sleepy'

(76a) 3 We vonden [^3 de kinderen onhandig fotograferend] 'We found the children taking pictures clumsily1 (76b)

We vonden [^3 de kinderen prachtig gefotografeerd] 'We found the children portrayed beautifully'

87

ABSOLUTE met 'with' (77a) »Met [ 3 de kinderen slapend] (zetten we de reis voort) 'With the children sleeping (we continued our trip)' (77b)

Met [^3 de kinderen zo slaperig] (ga ik niet verder) 'With the children so sleepy (I will stop here)'

(78a) *Met [^3 de kinderen onhandig fotograferend] (krijg je wonderlijke foto's) 'With the children taking pictures clumsily (the result is remarkable)' (78b)

Met [^3 de kinderen samen gefotografeerd] (ontstond er een leuk plaatje) 'With the children portrayed together ( the result was nice)'

These observations must not lead to the conclusion that the present participle had better be withdrawn from the class of adjectives: the two participles and the adjective appear equally easily in the attributive phrase and other structures where A"^ is assumed to have a PRO-subject, viz. appositions, free predicative adjuncts and complements of adverbs such as hoewe1 'although', of which only the first are exemplified here for comparison.

ATTRIBUTIVE ADJECTIVE (79a)

de [ 3 PRCL slapende] kinderen^^ 'the sleeping children'

(79b)

de [^3 PRCL slaperige] kinderen i 'the sleepy children'

(80a)

de [^3 PRCL (bloemen) fotograferende] kinderen^ 'the taking pictures (of flowers) children'

(80b)

de [^3 PRCK prachtig gefotografeerde] kinderen^ 'the beautifully portrayed children' APPOSITION

(81a)

De kinderen^, [^3 PRO^ slapend op de achterbank], (lieten zieh niet horen) 'The children, asleep on the rear bench, (were quiet)' De kinderen^, [^3 PRO^ slaperig van de lange rit], (maakten 'The children, sleepy after the long trip, (were quarreling) 1

(82a)

De kinderen^, [^3 PBO^ vlinders fotograferend], (raakten de weg kwijt) 'The children, taking pictures of butterflies, (lost their way)

88

(82b)

De kindererK, [^3 PRCL eerst afzonderlijk gefotografeerd], (kwamen bijeen voor een groepsfoto) 'The children, portrayed separately first, (returned for a group-picture)'

I am not acquainted with any theory that is able to explain why of all predicates the present participle has an unlexicalized subject obligatorily, and why this occurs in a language such as Dutch, but not universally. Even GB-theory, in which the explicit vs. unlexicalized character of subjects is such a central issue, does not yield any clarifying insight. As far as I can see, the version of the theory advocated here, does not solve the problem either. The only contribution I have to offer is an articulated diagnosis of the problem and two suggestions. The first introduces the feature , that could be idiosyncratically assigned to the present participle subject and would be represented as in (83).

This stipulation prohibits an embedded subject other than PRO to be raised to 2 3 [ N , A ], given the Case-filter. A second conceivable solution along somewhat different lines is to say that the suffix -end absorbs the subject 0-role of the verb, analogous to the passive participle with respect to the accusative Case. The addition of a lexicalized subject would subsequently violate the theta-criterion, quoted here from Chomsky (1981 :36) as (84) :

(84)

Each argument bears one and only one G-role, and each 0-role is assigned to one and only one argument.

89

2.7

Making sense of 'zijn'

A grammar which distinguishes a predicative X -level offers a sound basis for an account of the seemingly multi-functional verb zijn 'to be'. This supportive verb enables non-verbal predications to have the central role in inflected struc2 tures, INFL in our framework. Suppose that the category copula consists of three members: zijn 'to be', worden 'to become' and blijven 'to remain', each subcategorized for the maximal 3 3 3 projections N , A

and P . They appear as matrix-verbs in the parallel syntactic

contexts of (85), the claim being that copulas are raising verbs. (85b)

kundig

zijn

able

be'

e

Hans 'Henry

het slachtoffer worden the victim

become'

(85c)

op z'n hoede

blijven

on his guard

remain'

We now expect that V -projections organized as in (85) can function as bare predicative complements to a verb such as zien 'to see', which is subcategorized both for V (86a)

3

2 and N . This prediction is borne out only partly, as (86) shows.

We zagen [^3 hem het slachtoffer worden] 'We saw him become the victim'

90

(86b)

We zagen [y3 hem op z'n hoede blijven] 'We saw him remain on his guard 1

(86c) *We zagen [^3 hem kundig zijn] 'We saw him be able'

Obviously zijn is excluded from this context, while worden and blijven behave like any ordinary verb. The example in (86c) constitutes no idiosyncratic or accidental phenomenon; every use of zijn gives the same picture: each of the sentences (87) is ill-formed.

(87a) *We zagen [^3 hem aan de magere kant zijn]

(copula)

'We saw him be on the lean side' (87b) *We zagen [^3 hem het slachtoffer zijn]

(copula)

'We saw him be the victim' (87c) *We zagen [y3 hem te intimideren zijn]

(copula)

'We saw him to be intimidated' (87d) *We zagen [^3 hem geslagen zijn]

(passive aux)

'We saw him be beaten' (87e) »We zagen [^3 hem gekomen zijn]

(aux of time)

'We saw him be come' (87f) *We zagen [^3 hem in de tuin zijn]

(main

verb)

'We saw him be in the garden' These observations justify the conclusion that one should generalize over zijn not only morphologically but also syntactically. The identification is supported by semantic considerations: zijn is not subjected to any selectional restriction, contrary to worden and blijven (cf. Van Gestel (1981:86), to which article this section is heavily tributary). It co-occurs freely with all nominal, adjectival and prepositional predicative complements, without any exception. I consider this to be characteristic of the semantic indifference of this verb. To illustrate this thesis: in Marie is door Karel gemeen behandeld 'Mary was treated badly by Charles' it is not the meaning of zijn which makes the embedded predication passive, but the meaning of the passive participle. This is confirmed by the passive complement in Ik vind [Marie door Karel gemeen behandeld] 'I consider Mary treated badly by Charles', with no "auxiliary" present. Equally, it is not the sense of location in the is of Karel is in de tuin 'Charles is in the

91

garden' which accounts for the locative reading, but the locative phrase in de tuin. So, all uses of zijn are copulalike, and there is no semantic reason whatsoever to distinguish between them. Given the other similarities, I will therefore assume only one verb zijn. Although I will advocate the contrary within this section, the semantic indifference of zijn seems to imply that the uniform unwellformedness of (86c) and (87) is unlikely to have a semantic reason. This conclusion appears to be confirmed in the first place by the fact that the corresponding finite complements make (86c)-(87) grammatical:

(88a)

We zagen dat hij kundig was

(cf. (86c))

'We saw that he was able' (88b)

We zagen dat hij gekomen was

(cf. (87e))

'We saw that he had come' And, second, a syntactic reason may be found for the deviating behaviour of zijn. Observationally, the ungrammaticality of (86c)-(87) may be attributed to the 3 lack of INFL in the V -complement of zien. If, on the other hand, zijn is the head of a verbal predicate within the domain of INFL, it is automatically allowed to appear in such cases. In brief: 'no INFL > no zijn'. Consequently, the bare infinitive, without te 'to', is impossible in the case of zijn. The ungrammaticality of (86c)-(87) follows, while the examples of (89) are wellformed. (89a)

Hij maakte de indruk erg kundig te zijn 'He made the impression of being very able'

(89b)

Zij schijnt steeds erg op haar hoede te zijn 'She seems to be on her guard all of the time'

(89c)

Om een goed bridger te zijn, moet je hard studeren 'To be a good bridge-player, one has to study hard'

An interesting exception to the generalization of 'no INFL > no zijn' is constituted by the epistemic modal verbs in (90), again irrespective of the category the complement of zijn belongs to.

(90a)

Hij kan (best) ziek zijn

(adj)

'He may well be ill' (90b)

92

Hij mag (dan) op tijd gekomen zijn, toch...

(perfect part.)

'He may have been here in time, still...' (90c)

Hij zal (misschien) bedrogen zijn

(passive

part.)

'He may have been cheated' (90d)

Hij moet (wel) in de tuin zijn

(PP)

'He must be in the garden' It is a remarkable additional fact that the epistemic modals cannot appear in the complement of accusativus cum infinitivo-verbs either, since they are usually finite, as noted by Evers and Scholten (1980). As the epistemic modal has a fixed relationship to and as zijn appears to be systematically connected with INFL, it is a plausible assumption to apprehend the modal as a part of the INFL-complex and to suppose that a form of the dummy verb zijn appears as support of the INFL-element when its complement is non-verbal in nature. This way of representing things would account for the fact that epistemic modals may be accompanied by the bare infinitive zijn, as zijn is in the domain of INFL. The morpheme _te 'to' is missing because the modal INFL must be . In spite of all this, however, I prefer to maintain Evers' (1975) generalization that all verbs have the same status and are main verbs, at least in the grammar of Dutch, including the modals and including zijn. An important reason for this view is that epistemic modals and a.c.i.-verbs such as zien 'see' are 3 alike in that both exclusively select X -complements with the value V and show the verb raising property evident by the verbal clustering in Dutch (and German), illustrated by the subordinate clauses in (91)-(92). (91a)

(dat) we [y3 hem aan de overkant t ^

zagen lopen^

'(that) we him on the other side saw walk' (91b)

(dat) we [^3 hem het slachtoffer t^] zagen worden^ '(that) we him the victim saw become'

(92a)

(dat) hij^ [^3 t^ (best) op mij t^] kon wachten^ '(that) he (easily) for me could wait'

(92b)

(dat) h ^

[ y 3 t ± [ft3 t 1 (best) ziek] t.] kan zijn.

'(that) he well ill may be' The view that both epistemics and zijn are main verbs explains the verb-raising behaviour above, while the hypothesis that they are expressions of INFL-properties does not. 93

The implication of the main-verb point of view is that epistemic modals appear in the same syntactic configuration as zijn in (85), the differences being the following three. 3

(i) (ii)

Epistemics must have a verbal X -complement, Epistemics are semantically and phonetically specified, while the dummy character of zijn becomes evident by the absence of semantic and phonological content. That is, zijn is an empty, sheer syntactic verb

e], phonetically realized in PF, pre-

sumably by spelling-out rules, (iii)

Epistemics may have zijn as the head of their complements, but not vice versa.

I have nothing to say about the obligatory finiteness of the epistemic verbs. But I like to suggest an alternative solution for the opposition between (86c)(87) on the one hand and (90) on the other. It proves to be based on the semantic indifference of zijn after all, and not on 'no INFL > no zijn'. I propose to differentiate on one point between a.c.i.-verbs such as zlen in 3

(86)-(87), and both epistemics and zijn. Given that X

may be marked for Case

and theta-role, but can do without them, the difference that matters here is that zien assigns a 0-role to both its subject and complement, while epistemics and zijn do not. With respect to the subject position this implies that kunnen and zijn are defined as NP-raising predicates, contrary to zien; and with respect to the complement the absence of 0-marking appears to be the reason why zijn may be the head of that complement, which is impossible within the complement of zien. The idea of 0-deficiency of the complement was inspired by Scholten (1983:184-187), although my view is not identical to hers. The semantically empty verbal head zijn is unfit to be the bearer of the 0role assigned to its projection. It may therefore be the head of the complement in an epistemic predicate, since the predicate does not make any semantic demands upon the embedded V-projection. But (86c)—(87) are rejected, because the derivation will run aground in the semantic component: as a result of the seman3 tic imperfection of a V with the zero-element zijn as a head, the projection cannot count as an argument. The effect is that the second part of the ©-criterion (84), repeated here for convenience as (93), is violated. (93) 94

Each argument bears one and only one 0-role, and each 0-role is

assigned to one and only one argument. 3 This explains why zijn constitutes an exception with respect to the V -complementation of zien in (86)-(87). The appearance of zijn can now be predicted in

a unified way. Just as in the

complements of epistemics, it is allowed to show up in the domain of INFL, 3 since this value of X does not assign a 0-role to the V -complement in the context of (94). INFL 1

(94) INFL

0

>3 V

This assumption follows naturally from the circumstance that INFL is a non-lexi3 cal value of X. Given the absence of a 0-role for V in (94) it is predicted both that zijn manifests itself as a finite verb, and occurs to the right of te (cf.

(88M89)).

The semantic emptiness of zijn strikes one as also possibly relevant with respect to its nominal and adjectival derivational forms. The gerund-like phrases in (95) are wellformed, but the present participle zijnde 'being' of (96) - barring bookish or red tape style - appears to be out of the question, even when the environment is a suitable one for the required PRO-subject. (95a)

Karel z'n altijd maar voorzichtig zijn ergert me weleens 'Charles' always being careful, bothers me sometimes'

(95b)

Zo kundig zijn als hij, dat is niet voor iedereen weggelegd 'His level of being able, that cannot be reached by just anybody'

(95c)

Carla had een hekel aan altijd maar voorzichtig zijn 'Carla resented being always careful'

(96a) *[ft3 PRCX ziek zijnde] bleef hij.^ een week thuis '111 being, he stayed at home for a week' (96b) « R a r e l y

[fl3 PRCL ziek zijnde], bleef een week thuis

'Charles, ill being, stayed at home for a week (96c) *de [fl3 PRCh ziek zijnde] minister-president 'the ill being prime minister'

95

This opposition may be explained on the basis of the analyses in (97) and (98), which simplify (52) and (83): (98)

(97)

It is plausible that neither N° nor pP assign a 6-role to V"^ in these configu3 rations, since it is typical of them that the thematic pattern of V prevails. 3 No verb is blocked to enter as the head of V , with one exception: zijn does not 3 join (98). My hypothesis is that -en does nothing other than to enable V to function as a NP and that N^ does not make any semantic demand on the head of 3 V . The context (97) is semantically neutral and therefore zijn is permitted to appear in this Dutch gerund-nominalization. On the other hand, the dummy verb cannot enter (98), where -end is associated with a categorial meaning, i.e. it determines the continuing or unfinished operation mentioned by the verb under V^. When zijn has no semantic content, it is impossible for its durative aspect to be expressed. Hence zijnde is i n f o r m e d . The picture is different again with the perfect participle geweest 'been'. It does not appear in configurations requiring a 0-role (i.e. (99a) and (99b)), although it shows up as the adjectival head of the free predicative adjunct (99c) or apposition (99d), both non-thematic. These possibilities are absent for the present participle zijnde (cf. (96a)-(96b)), with which geweest however shares the property of being unfit to function as a prenominal adjective: compare (96c) and (99e). (99a) *Met [^3 Karel zo ziek geweest] moet je kalm aan begihnen 'With Charles been so ill you must begin slowly' (99b) *Ik vind [ft3 Karel heel erg ziek geweest] 'I thought Charles having been very ill' (99c)

[^3 PRCL net ziek geweest] bleef hij^ nog een week thuis 'Having been ill just previously, he stayed at home for another week'

(99d)

Karel^

[ft3 PRCL net ziek geweest], bleef nog een week thuis

'Charles, having been ill just previously, stayed at home for another week'

(99e) R de [^3 PRCK ziek geweeste] minister-president 'the having been ill prime minister' I cannot claim any true understanding of the behaviour of geweest. It is conceivable that it is not really the participle of zijn but of the near-identical but also defective verb wezen. But the latter verb establishes a semantic neutrality equal to zijn, so this leaves us with the same problem. The only contribution I have to offer is the suggestive observation that the behaviour of the empty morpheme geweest corresponds with that of the small class of exclusively attributive adjectives including beu and moe 'tired of', and specifically shares with them the property of not appearing prenominally. I recognize that for the time being I have only available a sharper formulation of the problem. I am unaware of a theory that offers an explanation. It may be concluded that the raison d'être of the verb zijn is to assist nonverbal predications to appear in the domain of INFL and other verb-requiring contexts (epistemics, gerunds) which do not assign G-roles. It functions as a 3 matrix verb for non-verbal X -complements and differs from a.c.i.-verbs and epistemic by being a dummy verb. Lexical insertion being optional, the forms of zijn are the phonetic expression of a purely grammatical formative realized by spelling-out rules. As it assigns no 0-roles, and as it is semantically and phonologically empty, zijn seems to be best considered a non-lexical verb, i.e. a [y e], in syntactic structure. This view is in conformity with the observation that several languages allow the situation where Dutch puts forward zijn to go without a verbal form whatsoever or, if the language has an equivalent, to use it less frequently or under more restricted conditions, or with the effect of code-differentiation. This variation can be taken as another indication that the supportive verb zijn (and its equivalents) has no semantic content: it need not even be present. Such languages - Russian and Tagalog appear to be examples are mentioned by Bach (1967:462) and, repeating Bach, in Dik (1980:9). The latter discusses the absence of be from 'simplified speech registers', a general property of these styles. It seems to me that the differentiation among languages can be easily explained on the basis of the assumption that they differ in the way of making the empty verb explicit by non-central rules.

97

3.

Conclusion

The central claim of this chapter is that the generalized subject-predicate level 3 of X

is a true component of the universal X-bar system. This hypothesis covers

INFL as a value of X as well. The modifications of X-bar grammar proposed obviate the need for the categories S-bar and S-bare, and redefine the notion of complement by allowing projection of all levels. 3 Empirically, the introduction of the X -level covers directly the categorysensitivity of predicative clauses (cf. section 1) and, from there, the predicating properties of prenominal adjectival phrases. Assisted by the semantic 3 component, X -grammar goes a long way in explaining the seemingly awkward syntactic behaviour of zijn. The reason why Dutch present participles deviate syntactically from other have participles and other was reduced to their A"'status: an A 3 cannot the obligatory PRO adjectives without having a subject position. 3 into the underlying structure of gerunds and 3 (some) participles appears to be feasible only within a X -grammar; it accounts

The suggestion to incorporate V

for the verbal properties of these categories, and throws new light on the PRObook-problem. Theoretically, X -grammar bears negatively on the [±N, ±V] feature system, and implies a motivated syntactic divergence between specifier and subject, and a definition of the thematic domain without any exceptional status for the subject. The X"^-system can do without the i n f o r m e d notion of S-bar-deletion. The modified contents of the notion of 'maximal projection' forces a reinterpretation of the closely related notion of 'government' in the form of a reduction to the minimal projection, the level of subcategorization. This has the additional advantage of eliminating Exceptional Case-marking, under the assumption of Roster's definition of PRO through Case and an account of indirect Casemarking through a general transfer device. This will be developed, as promised, in Chapter 5. In Chapter 4 we will deal with the possible (Dutch) prenominal constituents and their mutual relations. We will start by continuing the discussion on our main theme, the attributive adjective, because we still have to motivate the type of rule introduced for (3), a so-called stacking rule. This type of rule also raises questions as to the identification of the head in a number of nominal structures, and therefore this will be the second topic of the next chapter.

98

Chapter 4

Stacking and the Notion Head 1.

Stacking

The base-rule (1) for prenominal adjectives was formulated at the beginning of 3 Chapter 3, in anticipation of the introduction of the X -level, and without a discussion of the rule type or the level of attachment. (1)

N1

->• A 3

N1

As we will see at the end of section 1.1 below, the rule originates essentially from Culicover (1976). We will first discuss its essentials, and then give a brief overview of the history of prenominally generated adjectives. 3 The node A for the attributive phrase gives one the opportunity to simultaneously capture the categorial type, the (implicit) subject-predicate relation, and the syntax of the attributive adjective. Example (2) illustrates the hierar1 2 3 chical levels of subcategorization (A ), specification (A ) and predication (A ), and the relation between a subject and a subject-oriented reflexive. (2)

de [ 3 PRCK [^2 uitermate [^1 over zichzelf^ verbaasde]]] sopraan^ 'the very about herself baffled soprano'

N^ is the level of attachment because, first, N is not subcategorized for A 3 and, second, the 3 proposed hierarchy also accounts for the nominal specifier's always preceding A . NP can easily contain more than one adjective phrase (cf. (3)). Rule (1) will assign roughly the structure of (4) to (3a), for example. (3a)

de trotse / jonge / blonde / sopraan 'the proud young fair soprano'

(3b)

deze fraaie / uit ivoor gesneden / miniaturen 'these beautiful cut out of ivory miniatures'

(3c)

een uit Afrika afkomstige / veertigjarige / vrouwelijke / olifant 'a from Africa originating forty year old female elephant'

99

(3d)

zijn risico's nemende / voor niemand bevreesde / compagnon 'his risks taking of nobody scared partner' ,2 N'

A

N

O k A

N ,0 N

de

trotse

jonge

blonde

sopraan

The iterative generation of prenominai adjectives has its own history in the generative literature. In order to support the claim that the stacking procedure of (1) is superior to earlier proposals, we will briefly discuss them here.

1.1

History of the problem

Bach (1964) develops the following rules for 'stacked adjectives'. (5a)

NP

(5b)

A

(5c) Adjt

-

(T)

(A)

Adj

(Adjt)

Noun

A

The set in (5) generates adjectival clusters such as the one in (6): (6)

A Adj

Adjt A Adj

trues

100

juiig

u-LOnd

It seems to me that the recursiveness of A in (5) will run aground if a cluster such as (6) functions as the complement of a copula as in (7a), or as a free predicative adjunct as in (7b): (7a) s D e sopraan was trots jong blond 'The soprano was proud young fair' (7b) ''Trots jong blond stond de sopraan op het toneel 'Proud young fair stood the soprano on the stage'

Be this as it may, Bach prefers another solution, anyway. He feels that recursiveness assigns "far too much "structure"" and does not meet "the demands of simplicity" (Bach (1964:68)). He subsequently proposes a co-ordinative representation, essentially the one in (8). NP

(8)

de

trotse

jonge

blonde

sopraan

Even if the serialization in (8) could be considered an adequate analysis of coordinated adjectives, it seems to me that any co-ordinative account of adjectival combinations such as those in (3), runs into a new problem. It would fail to capture the fact that the sequence of prenominal adjectives requires no conjunction-element, where in true co-ordination such an element is obligatory, at any rate in the two-membered cases exemplified in (9)—(10) (in longer sequences the conjunction may be indicated optionally by an intonational break).

(9a)

de trotse jonge sopraan 'the proud young soprano'

(9b) M e jongens meisjes 'the boys girls' (9c) ^ze wilden spelen werken 'they wanted to play to work' (9d) *op onder de bank 'on under the couch'

101

(10a)

de trotse en jonge sopraan 'the proud and young soprano'

(10b)

de jongens en meisjes 'the boys and girls'

(10c)

ze wilden spelen en werken 'they wanted to play and to work' op en onder de bank

(10d)

'on and under the couch' The relation between the adjectives in (9a) must be different from their conjunction in (10a). The latter may be combined with further attributive adjectives, in a way not permitted for example in the copular context: see (11). True co-ordination of three or more elements gives a conjunction between the two rightmost members, also prenominally, as (12) illustrates.

(11a)

de [trotse en jonge] blonde sopraan 'the [proud and young] fair soprano'

(11b)

a

D e sopraan was [trots en jong] blond

'The soprano was [proud and young] fair' (12a)

de [ trotse, jonge en blonde] sopraan 'the [proud, young and fair] soprano'

(12b)

De sopraan was [trots, jong en blond] 'The soprano was [proud, young and fair]'

These observations confirm the claim that the prenominal sequences of (3) are non-co-ordinative and that Bach's (8) must be abandoned in favour of a different description. An attempt to capture the iteration of attributive adjectives was also made by Jackendoff (1977:105). His rule (13) generates (14) through the newly introduced device of starring the repeatable category. (13)

N

(Q ) - (A )

(14)

see page 103

- N' - ...

This representation accords perfectly with Jackendoff's general requirements for 102

,2

(1A) Q'

A'

A'

A'

N N

veel

trotse

jonge

blonde

0

sopranen

possible phrase structures (Jackendoff (1977:36)), but is nevertheless empirically inadequate: essentially equivalent to (8), it meets the same objections. In addition, the examples in (15) (cf. Culicover (1976:186)) prove to be organized in such a way that their account requires more structure than (8) or (14) allows for. The parallel Dutch sentence conjunctions (16) contain a zero-anaphor, instead of English 'one':

(15abc)

John admires a proud young fair soprano

(15a)

- and Carl admires a proud young fair one, too

(15b)

- and Carl admires a proud young one, too

(15c)

- and Carl admires a proud one, too

(16abc) (16a)

Jan bewondert een trotse jonge blonde sopraan

- en Carl bewondert ook een trotse jonge blonde 0

(16b)

- en Carl bewondert ook een trotse jonge 0

(16c)

- en Carl bewondert ook een trotse 0

Culicover argues convincingly that the phenomenon of 'one-substitution' involves the replacement of the head-noun (see (15a)) or a subtree consisting of the noun plus one or more of its adjectives (cf. (15b)-(15c)). It is clear that the configurations (8) and (14) do not provide sufficient structure from which to predict the zero/one-anaphor, since in neither case adjective plus noun constitute a subphrase. Culicover's (1976:185) proposal to create the required intermediate nodes is rule (17), producing (18), for instance. Our stacking rule (1) is little more than an adaptation of (17) in terms of the X-bar system developed here.

(17)

N

•* ADJ

N

(18)

103

Unlike the other attempts to account for a sequence of prenominal adjectives this solution achieves their structural arrangement not by some repetition of the adjectival node, but by stacking the noun-node including one adjective instead. The hierarchical result of (17) not only successfully predicts the variety of 'one-substitution', it also solves the problems encountered by the descriptions in Bach (1964) and Jackendoff (1977). Given rule (17), there is no reason to expect the generation of the i n f o r m e d adjective cluster of (6). The facts of (9)(12) are explained, too, as co-ordination of adjectives is an alternative, next to the hierarchical arrangement in (18). This option therefore does not run into the difficulties of a co-ordination of-type approach, nor does it require the awkward star-device used in Jackendoff's rule (13).

1.2

The range of stacking

Stacking by means of an internally recursive rule is not unique to the production of prenominal adjectives: there are other examples that show the relevance of this type of rule. Three of them represent a cross-category generalization (section 1.2.1 below): the attachment of (i) adverbs, (ii) free predicative adjuncts and (iii) free particles. Two additional ones are partly category-specific as they again (like (1)) involve the nominal constituent (section 1.2.2): (iv) appositions and relative clauses, and (v) quantifying phrases such as een fles wijn 'a bottle (of) wine', although the latter's

origin differs from that

of the four others, as we will see below.

1.2.1

Cross-category stacking

In Chapter 2 towards the end of section 3 we made the suggestion that adverbial 3 adjuncts modify predications. A X -grammar expresses this through a rule of the form of (19), assuming Adv to be a value of X without discussion. (19)

X3

->- Adv 2

X3

The examples (20)—(22) show that the recursivity of this rule is meaningful in the sense that non-co-ordinative repetitions of adverbial constituents may occur 104

in front of the subject. The embedded subjects are capitalized.

(20a)

Met [ p 3 onnodig [ 3 steeds [ 3 CRUYFF op het middenveld]]] (draaide de aanval slecht) 'With unnecessarily repeatedly Cruyff playingmidfield (the attack was in bad shape)1

(20b)

(dat) [ 3 daarora [ 3 gisteren [ 3 nergens [ 3 EEN KRANT verschenen is]]]] '(that) for this reason yesterday nowhere a paper appeared'

(21a)

Hoewel [ 3 raisschien [ 3 niet altijd [^3 PRCL een harde werker]]] (voldoet hij^ in die functie goed) 'Although perhaps not always a hard worker (he fits well in that position)'

(21b)

Karel i , [ 3 daardoor [ 3 sindsdien [ 3 ongetwijfeld [ p 3 PRCL op zijn^^ hoede]]]] (liet zich^ niet opnieuw bedriegen) 'Charles, because of that after that no doubt on his guard (would not be fooled again)'

(22a)

Hij.^ vond [ 3 mijns inziens [ N 3 te vaak [^3 ZICHZEU^ de dupe]]] 'He thought in my opinion too often himself the victim'

(22b)

Wij achtten [ 3 toen [ 3 herhaaldelijk [ 3 al gauw [ 3 HET VERKEERDE ARGUMENT doorslaggevend]]]] 'We considered then repeatedly quickly the wrong argument convincing1

The stacking following from (19) implies that the adverbs in (20)-(22) each have 3 scope over the lower X , a situation which strikes me as attractive with respect to semantic interpretation. A second example is the case of the free predicative adjuncts, i.e. non-verbal subject-predicate combinations with a PRO-subject. I represent these predica3 tions as WH

after the suggestion in section 2.1, Chapter 3: recall that WH gen-

eralizes over N, A and P, which may be the head of a Wh-constituent. Admitting that the level of attachment for these predications is unclear, I propose the preliminary rule in (23) (cf. Van Gestel (1983b)). (23) X 2 ->• WH 3 X 2 The crucial observation is again that the relation between the predicative ad105

juncts of some predicate is non-co-ordinative, although they also may be connected alternatively by a conjunction. This supports the stacking analysis of (23) for the embedded predications in (24). (24a)

De supporters^^ trokken

PRCh luidruchtig] [ft3 PRO^ vernielingen

aanrichtend] naar het stadion 'The supporters noisily hooliganning went to the playing-grounds' (24b)

Jaap.^ rende [ p 3 PRCL in de tuin] [ p 3 PRCh buiten z i c h z e l ^ van woede] [ft3 PRO i halfnaakt] [ p 3 PRCK op klompen] heen en weer 'Jack ran in the garden outrageously half-naked in wooden shoes to and fro'

In accordance with rule (23) the relevant relations of (24a) may be the ones in the underlying structure (25).

The examples (26)-(27), however, bring to light a syntactic homonymy, which im3 plies that (25) is not the only possible connection between the WH -clauses of (24a). (26a)

Luidruchtig trokken de supporters vernielingen aanrichtend in de richting van het stadion 'Noisily the supporters went hooliganning to the playing-grounds'

(26b)

Vernielingen aanrichtend trokken de supporters luidruchtig in de richting van het stadion 'Hooliganning the supporters went noisily to the playing-grounds'

(27)

Luidruchtig vernielingen aanrichtend trokken de supporters in de richting van het stadion 'Noisily hooliganning the supporters went to the playing-grounds'

3 The mutual independence of the A 's represented in (25) is illustrated by the 106

fact that they may be topicalized separately, as in (26). But they also may be moved en bloc : see (27), in which case I propose the analysis of (28), where the one adjunct is subordinated to the other. V3

(28)

PRO

luidruchtig

vernielingen aanrichtend 2

Rule (23) makes available (28) as well and hence rightly mentions X

as a head,

adequately referring to all kinds of predicates. There is no uncertainty about the level of attachment of the third cross-category stacking. The specific type of adverbs generated by (29) occurs in all X 2 -constituents, which under these circumstances may or may not be predicates.

(29) (30a)

X2

->• Adv

X2

juist [^2 die boterham] 'precisely that sandwich'

(30b)

toch [ft2 nogal droevig] 'yet rather sad'

(30c)

slechts [ p 2 vlak naast het huis] 'only right next to the house'

(30d)

(dat Fred) zelfs [^2 erg z'n best deed] '(that Fred) even did his utmost'

(30e)

vooral [ A d y 2 vandaag] 'especially today'

(30f)

ook [ J N F L 2 dat Karel ziek was] (was vervelend) 'also that Charles was ill (was a nuisance)'

The presence of ook as an adjunct of the subordinate clause in (30f) confirms 2 the step to label inflected clauses as INFL . Three properties of the 'free particles' in (30) are currently relevant:

107

(i) (ii)

They constitute a closed set. They always appear unmodified, and are therefore supposed to have 2 no projection to X , just as the exclusively attributive adjectives (see 2.1, this chapter); this would explain why they cannot be topicalized.

(iii)

They may precede or follow their host; cf. (31):

(31a)

[^2 die boterham] juist

(31b)

[^2 nogal droevig] toch

(31c)

[p2 vlak naast het huis] slechts

etc.

I will not discuss the question whether one position is transformationally derived from the other, or both are available in the base. More important is the observation that these cases again involve non-co-ordinative iteration: sequences of these adverbs are not a single constituent.

(32a)

juist toch wel die boterham

(32b)

pas zelfs nog gisteren

(32c)

vooral toch juist ook vlak naast het huis

Both peripheral positions may be occupied simultaneously, giving variants such as those of (33). (33a)

vooral toch juist vlak naast het huis ook

(33b)

vooral toch vlak naast het huis ook juist

(33c)

vooral vlak naast het huis toch juist ook

Having thus discussed three examples of internally recursive rules, involving 3 2 cross-category generalization on the levels of X and X , we found that each shows the relevance of the stacking-device. We will now turn to two types of 2 1 category-specific stacking, involving N and N ; they will lead to the same conclusion.

108

1.2.2

Nominal stacking

1.2.2.1

The relative relation

The appositive small clauses in (34) can be generated through the stacking rule 3 in (35). Again WH

covers non-verbal predications. The base-representation of

(34a) is (36). (34a)

De sopraan, de belangrijkste soliste, (arriveerde vroeg in het theaN3

ter) 'The soprano, the most important soloist, (arrived early at the theatre) ' (34b)

3

De sopraan, in de kleedkamer, (wachtte op de ouverture)

P

'The soprano, in the dressing-room, (waited for the overture)' (34c)

De sopraan, zichtbaar vermoeid, (boog voor het publiek)

3 A

'The soprano, visibly tired, (made a bow for the audience)' (35)

N2

->• N 2

WH 3

I propose that (35) suits as well for the generation of relative clauses. This implies that

(i) (ii)

2 both appositions and relative clauses are attached at the N -level; there is no syntactic difference between non-restrictive and restrictive relative clauses;

(iii) (iv)

appositions and relative clauses may be stacked; and 3 the relative clause must be represented in some way by the WH -node.

The remainder of this section is dedicated to an illustration of the correctness of these implications. They will be dealt with in the order given under appro109

priate headings.

(i)

the level of attachment 3

X -grammar augmented with the recursive stacking-device offers four potential trees for post-nominal predications. (37a)

(37b) N

WH

(37c)

(37d) 1

[Spgc.N ]

N

1

WH

3

N

WH

These four are reduced to two when we realize that (a) and (c) prohibit non-coordinative repetition. Besides, both (37a) and (37c) each have their own prob3 lems. Unjustifiedly, (37a) claims that nouns may be subcategorized for WH . Only non-relative INFL2-sentences are inherently related to the lexical head: (38a)

de belofte dat hij met roken zou stoppen die hij deed 'the promise that he would give up smoking that he made'

(38b)

de pogingen (om) Jan over te halen waar ze toe overgingen 'the attempts to convince John that they resorted to'

The presence of the italicized subordinate clauses is made possible by the intrinsic properties of the (deverbal) nouns. The Roman relative clauses, on the other hand, are independent of them. The internal organization of (37c) in its turn cannot be captured by our Xbar system. This would have to incorporate (AO) rather than (39):

(39)

X2

(AO)

2

X

+

[Spec.X1] 1

->• [Spec.X ]

X1 X1

WH 3

But (AO) makes the empirically incorrect prediction that X may be A, V and P as well as N; N, however, is unique in allowing appositions and relative clauses, and it is the stacking-analysis of (37b) or (37d) that expresses this fact directly. Evidence disfavouring (37b) separately will be discussed in subsection 110

1.2.2.2. Anticipating this, we claim that there are more than sufficient reasons 2 to prefer (37d). First, the free particles of rule (29) are attached at X -level, and can occur both at its left- and righthand peripheries. Given this, (37d) pre2 2 diets that both the top-N and the antecedent-N may be joined by free particles at either side. The examples in (A1 )-(42) show that the antecedent of an apposi2 tion and of a relative clause must be a N , for the righthand position of the particle in the (b)-variants motivates the view that the particle in the (a)2 variants may be seen as the lefthand adjunct of the lowest N . (41a)

alleen de sopraan, zichtbaar vermoeid, (kreeg bloemen) 'only the soprano, visibly tired, (was given flowers)'

(41b)

de sopraan alleen, zichtbaar vermoeid, (kreeg bloemen) 'the soprano only, visibly tired, (was given flowers)'

(42a)

zelfs de bariton die een bijrol had, (kreeg bloemen) 'even the baritone who had a supporting role, (was given flowers)'

(42b)

de bariton zelfs die een bijrol had, (kreeg bloemen) 'the baritone even who had a supporting role, (was given flowers)'

(43) ??de sopraan, zichtbaar vermoeid, alleen (kreeg bloemen) 'the soprano, visibly tired, only (was given flowers)' (44)

de bariton die een bijrol had zelfs (kreeg bloemen) 'the baritone who had a supporting role even (was given flowers)' 2

It is slightly harder to see that also the top-N

can be modified by the par-

ticle - and that (41a) and (42a) can be structurally homonymous as a result. The parenthetical modifier intervening in (43) apparently interferes with the possible presence of the focus-marking particle to its right, but (44) shows that a restrictive relative clause does not have this effect. In general, then, the behaviour of free particles supports (37d). Second, relative clauses as well as appositions may follow co-ordinative antecedents consisting of full NP's, as the presence of a determiner in each member indicates; see for this argument McCawley (1981:105), who attributes it to S. Peters. (45a)

(Er werd luid geapplaudisseerd voor) de sopraan en de tenor die een duet hadden gezongen

111

'(there were storms of cheers for) the soprano and the tenor who had sung a duet' (45b)

(Karel plantte) de narcissen en de tulpen, respectievelijk geel en rood, (naast elkaar in de tuin) '(Charles planted) the daffodils and the tulips, yellow and red, respectively, (next to each other in the garden)'

2 The two antecedent-N -phrases of (46) in conformity with (37d), may, after the predictions of (35), contain an apposition, a relative clause, a free particle or any combination of these, in each conjunct; see (47). (46)

(47a)

,2

N'

De sopraan die verkouden was en ook de hese tenor, die operafragmenten ten gehore zouden brengen, (moesten het concert annuleren) 'The soprano who had a cold, and also the hoarse tenor, who would sing a selection of operasongs, (had to cancel their recital)'

(47b)

Vooral de bioloog, uit Amsterdam, en de chemicus die in Princeton had gestudeerd, samen een gekwalificeerd onderzoeksteam, (hebben dit type research geinitieerd) 'Especially the biologist, from Amsterdam, and the chemical physicist who had read at Princeton, together a team of qualified researchers, (have launched this type of research)'

2 Third, Dutch grammar also allows initial co-ordination at X -level (cf. Neyt (1979:1-7)). One is not frustrated in the expectation that this phenomenon provides supporting evidence, for it occurs in co-ordinated antecedent-NP's as well. (48a)

zowel de sopraan als de tenor die een solo zongen,... 'both the soprano and the tenor who sang a solo,...'

(48b)

en de narcissen en de tulpen, respectievelijk geel en rood,... 'both the daffodils and the tulips, yellow and red, respectively,...'

(48c)

noch de bioloog, uit Amsterdam, noch de chemicus uit Princeton, een bekwaam stel onderzoekers,... 'neither the biologist, from Amsterdam, nor the chemical physicist from

112

Princeton, a competent pair of researchers,...' 3 The data in (41)-(48) suffice to conclude that adjunction of X -constituents 2 2 2 within N takes place at N -level exclusively. This implies that within N there is available only one syntactic position for appositions and relative clauses, that of (37d). (ii)

restrictive vs. non-restrictive

3 An immediate consequence of the previous conclusion is, then, that X -grammar does not or cannot incorporate a structural difference between restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses. This clashes e.g. with the view of Jackendoff (1977:57;167), who considers the distinction 2 3between both types a fundamental argument in favour of his seperate X - and X -levels. Opposing Jackendoff's reasoning,

Spooren (1981) derives our conclusion on independent grounds.

One of the consequences of one syntactic position for all relative clauses is our proposal that native speakers mark the difference between restrictive and non-restrictive adjuncts - there is no reason to limit ourselves to post-nominal predicative adjuncts - by pragmatic means, through manipulations of intonation, pause and accent, guided by the need of discourse. The relative clause in (45a), e.g., may be realized as restrictive or non-restrictive at will, and the same holds for the appositions in (49) and (50), and the attributive pre-adjuncts in (51). (49a)

de stad, Paramaribo,... 'the city, Paramaribo,...'

(49b)

de stad Paramaribo 'the city (of) Paramaribo'

(50a)

de recruten, afkomstig uit Zeeland,... 'the recrutes, from Zeeland,...'

(50b)

de recruten afkomstig uit Zeeland 'the recrutes from Zeeland'

(51a)

een tweede, met gobelins behangen, zaal voor ontvangsten 'a second, gobelinned, hall for receptions'

(51b)

een tweede met gobelins behangen zaal voor ontvangsten 113

'a second gobelinned hall for receptions' Our view is also confirmed by the examples in (52), in which restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses occur conjoined peacefully. (52a)

de sopraan die vanavond optreedt, en die een goede reputatie als soliste heeft,... 'the soprano who gives a recital

tonight, and who has a good repu-

tation as a soloist,...' (52b)

de narcissen en de tulpen die gisteren gepoot zijn, en waarvoor we veel betaald hebben,... 'the daffodils and the tulips which were planted yesterday, and for which we payed a lot,...'

(52c)

de bioloog die naast ons woont, en die pas gepromoveerd is,... 'the biologist who lives next to us, and who took his degree recently,..'

The co-ordination of both types of relative clause is simply impossible if they are assumed to be attached at different levels, but it is predicted by our current analysis. Our idea of a pragmatic view of (non-)restrictivity of relative clauses appears to conform to the fact that the examples in (52) are equally wellformed, if both relative clauses are realized (non-)restrictively. (lii)

post-nominal stacking

As (53) demonstrates, the relative clauses occurring in (52) may be attached also non-co-ordinatively, under the same relation between their restrictive and non-restrictive character. This brings us to the stacking-aspect of (35).

(53a)

de sopraan die vanavond optreedt, die een goede reputatie als soliste heeft,... 'the soprano who gives a recital tonight, who has a.good reputation as a soloist,...'

(53b)

de narcissen en de tulpen die gisteren gepoot zijn, waarvoor we veel betaald hebben,... 'the daffodils and the tulips which were planted yesterday, for which we payed a lot,...'

(53c) 114

de bioloog die naast ons woont, die pas gepromoveerd is,...

'the biologist who lives next to us, who took his degree recently,...' These cases remain wellformed if both - or more - relative clauses are realized non-restrictively, and also restrictively, although this is slightly artificial. This may be caused by the fact that the first relative clause is nearly always sufficiently informative to identify the antecedent. It seems relatively complex, for example, to indicate in (53c) among our neighbour-biologists precisely the recently graduated one. This is possible, however, and our proposed syntax in fact allows more complex cases of restrictive relatives:

(54a)

de jongen die voor me zat die rood haar had die zo verlegen was,... 'the boy who sat in front of me who had red hair who was so shy,..'

(54b)

de tas die naast hem stond waarin z'n boek zat die hij vergat,... 'the bag which^ was next to him in which^ was his book whichK he forgot,..'

We find appositional small clauses stacked in (55) and (56), which have similar and dissimilar predicative post-adjuncts, respectively. (55a)

de bas en de tenor, [ p 3 op het terras], [ p 3 in feeststemming],... 'the bass and the tenor, on the terrace, in a jolly mood,...'

(55b)

de gasten, [^3 hun vrienden], [^3 allemaal artiesten], [^3 zangers vooral],... 'the guests, their friends, all of them artists, singers mainly,...'

(56à)

de sopraan, [^3 nerveus], [ p 3 op weg naar de première],... 'the soprano, nervous, on her way to the opening night,...'

(56b)

Karel, [^3 de dirigent], [^3 altijd ontevreden], [ p 3 ook op z'n hoede], 'Charles, the conductor, never satisfied, also on his guard,...'

(57a)

de sopraan, nerveus, die op weg was naar de première,... 'the soprano, nervous, who was on her way to the opening-night,...'

(57b)

de gasten die er waren, artiesten vooral, die van heinde en ver kwamen,... 'the guests who were present, artists mainly, who had come from near and far,...'

(57c)

Karel, de dirigent, die altijd ontevreden is, ook op z'n hoede,.. 115

'Charles, the conductor, who is never satisfied, also on his guard,... 1 (57d)

de bas en de tenor, op het terras, in feeststemraing, die een drinklied wilden aanheffen,... 'the bass and the tenor, on the terrace, in a jolly mood, who wanted to begin a drinking-song,...'

The examples in (57) demonstrate that appositional and relative clauses (restrictive or non-restrictive) can occur stacked in various combinations, an observation that is expressed within the hypothesis that these adjuncts are simi2 larly recursive with respect to N , and belong to the same category. 3 (iv)

relative WH

The non-distinctness of appositions and relative clauses means that the relative 3 clause is a case of the cross-category generalization WH in the stacking-rule (35). (35)

N2

N2

WH3

3 My proposal is that the relative clause be interpreted as an INFL . This category is available from the general X-bar system, and we have met other instances of this type earlier (see the data (22) in Chapter 3). Because of the observation that finite and _te + infinitive sentences may be interrogatives (see (44)(45) in Chapter 2), it is plausible that as a value of X, INFL, unlike V, but 3 3 like N, P and A is an interrogative category. Hence, INFL is a case of WH . This triggers rule (35), which gives one the following structures.

: de sopraan, de belangrijkste soliste,...

(cf. (34a))

'the soprano, the most important soloist,...' : de sopraan, in de kleedkamer,...

(cf. (34b))

'the soprano, in the dressing-room,...' : de sopraan, zichtbaar vermoeid,... 'the soprano, visibly tired,...' : de sopraan (,) die een aria zong... 'the soprano (,) who sang an aria...'

116

(cf. (34c)

3 3 3 Just like N , P and A the relative clause has a PRO-subject. The bottom example of (58) is thus proposed here to have the underlying structure in (59). ,2 N'

(59)

INFL

de

sopraan

PRO

die. • V

(122)

N2

-

(NP)

(PP)

(PP)

(Q 3 ) - (A 3 )* - N 1 - ...

This holds both for rules formulated with standard-labels (121), and those in the X-bar notation (122), from Jackendoff (1977), which generates inter alia attributive adjectives. He rejects such rules because "the rule format has so much descriptive power that it has little explanatory appeal" (Stowell (1981:83)), and adds that

"the formalism of context-free rewrite rules forces several distinct aspects of phrase structure to be stipulated within a single formula. The categorial rules describe the environment in which phrases are found, the number of constituents that they may contain, the categorial 140

status of each constituent, and even the linear order in which the various categories must appear." (p. 82-83) Sturm (1979:8-9), in a critical appraisal of Jackendoff's (1977) Uniform Three Level Hypothesis, observes that some aspects of the linear order of constituents are accounted for by hierarchical relations holding between them, while others follow from ex aequo- attachment at the same level. A level difference e.g. for2 ces the left-to-right order of the determiner (specifier of N ) and the adjective (specifier of N 1 ) , but that of numeral and adjective follows from the stipulation in the category-specific rule (122). This seems arbitrary, and Sturm proposes to improve upon this by restricting X-bar structures to binary branching ones only. This selects a uniform link between linear order and hierarchy, also for those cases attached ex aequo by Jackendoff. Stowell (1981) looked for a remedy in a different direction. Departing from the basic X-bar rules as a universal system with its parameters (values of X, order of head and peripheral constituents), he took it upon himself to derive the descriptive power incorporated in the former separate categorial rules such as (121)-(122), negatively judged in the quotation above, from independent elementary principles. Stowell succeeded remarkably well for the X 1 - and especially the V 1 -level. The presence and order of subcategorizing constituents may well follow from the principles of Case- and Theta-theory. But other phrase-internal relations, higher up in the projection, are not treated in a similarly obvious way within this approach. This is the case, for example, precisely for the attributive configuration. Neither the category-specific nature of both head and modifier, nor their linear order can be derived from Case- or Theta-theory, or comparable constructs. Stowell (1981: section 4.1, Chapter 4) tried to avoid the return of categorial specification in the base rules by proposing that the adjective-noun structure be handled by a word-formation rule of compounding. But he might as well have declared that it remained a problem: although the WFR would account correctly for the stacking of prenominal adjectives by permitting the expansion of [^0 A° N°] to [^0 A 0 [^0 A 0 N 0 ] ] etc., it would also require an tP and a N^ as the left- and righthand members

of the compound, and this is ob-

viously inadequate, because Dutch prenominal adjectives are maximal projections, as we have repeatedly emphasized, while the level of attachment is N 1 rather than N°. Nevertheless, one can only agree with Stowell's idea of deriving the effects of the categorial rules of earlier generative frameworks from fundamental prin141

ciples and parameters. His account of the ordering of the sisters of X^1 inspired by this idea, is successful, and therefore worth adopting. But I also conclude that the attachment of adjuncts such as attributive adjectives to X^ and higher projections asks for an equally fundamental solution, dissimilar from Stowell's WFR-proposal. Given the phenomena to be described, it appears unavoidable that such a solution involves stacking, with its restricted kind of category-specific base-generation. I propose therefore that the general theory define a rewrite rule component of the following content. On the one hand, it has a universal X-bar system, which distinguishes three separate non-internal-recursive base rules with four non-category-specific functions. On the other hand, the general theory allows that individual languages make use of the option of connecting each of the three projection levels with certain types of adjuncts by recursion of the head, with the category of the head and/or adjunct specified. This recursive device, stacking, defines the one and only, and restrictive escape from the universal schema (next to the universally allowed co-ordination). It creates structural space while avoiding the ex aequo-description or the proliferation of bars which would be needed otherwise. The proposal is summarized in the following survey. (123)

Basic bar-rules

Stacking rules

- universal

- language-specific

- non-category-specific

- category-specific

- non-internally-recursive

- internally recursive

Function: - Predication - Specification

: X3 2 : X

•*• N 2

X2

1 1 ->• [Spec.X ] X

X3 x

2

X2

Complementation : X^ Head

... X^

Adv 2 X" 3 2 WH X

N2

Adv X 2 2 3 N WH

N1

A3

N1

N1

A°

N1

: X°

The data covered by the rules in the righthand column appear to be abundant evidence in favour of the theoretical necessity of iterative rules. They have the binary property Sturm (1979) proposes for all nodes. Contrary to Sturm, however, who argues for an unlimited number of bars, I maintain a fixed number of levels. Accepting cross-category- and category-specific stacking implies that these 142

rules may interfere within the set of basic bar-rules. The application of the 3 2 2 •* N X e.g. need not be immediately followed by the rule of 2 specification, since the predicate may undergo a X -stacking rule first. This

universal rule X

appears to be a logical consequence of a theory in which all syntactic rules are optional. Procedures may in fact come to a halt at any point, to wind tip with en bloc-insertion of idiomatic expressions, which I consider to be lexical codifications on all available bar-levels.

3.2

The notion 'head'

Several structural concepts of our exposition so far require a rather precise definition of the notion of projection. This is the case for instance for the identification of the notion of 'minimal projection' crucial to our revised 'government' in (44) of Chapter 3, and for the delimitation of the theta-domain (cf. Chapter 3, section 2.2). Similarly, the notion of projection is crucial to percolation, and the concomitant percolation principles. Finally, we will see that our transfer device (of Chapter 5) requires a clear understanding of which projection is central and capable of distributing its properties, and which ones are dependent, i.e. at the receiving end of such a procedure. A projection is specifically defined by its head, which therefore requires identification. One version of X-bar theory defines the head as a separate primitive notion, while others derive it from the organization of the base-rules. An example of the former is Emonds (1976:15), who in fact stipulates in his Uniqueness Condition that a wellformed base-rule must have a unique head. This is unnecessary for Jackendoff (1977:36), whose definition of 'possible base-rule' uniquely defines X n ~ 1 as the head of X n at all levels, including that of the lex0 1 2 3 ical head. The projection is therefore the continuous string X -X -X -X . Since 0 1 2 all constituents both to the left and to the right of X , X and X usually have a three-bar level specification, there can be simply no doubt as to which branch of a node is a dependent and which one is part of the central projection: the dominating node will be of the same category as the head, and has one additional bar. In precisely the same way we have defined the notion of head in the general X-bar system on the lefthand side of (123). This transparant situation, however, can be obscured principally in two ways: (i)

if stacking causes iteration of levels, and 143

(ii)

if head and modifier belong to the same category.

I will discuss these two situations in the order given. As regards (i), note that the stacking rules of (123) above do not really lead to identification problems for the head. Take e.g. the rule for the attrib3 1 utive adjectives. A cannot be the head of a nominal projection, so N must be. 3 1 X cannot be the head of X , according to Percolation principle 2 of section 2.2.2. This blocks upward percolation if the number of bars reduces and vice versa. This implies that - in the attributive NP - A3-properties do not perco1 3 late to the stacking node N . So the head of A cannot be the head of the full constituent. This explains also that, e.g., in the appositional structure (124) N^ is the head of the tree, and not N?. ' b a (124)

I* N .a '0 n

\ 2 ,b '1 r

V

N

a

ib

i This case sHows that even a stacking rule with modifier and head of the same category, i.e. an example of both (i) and (ii) above, does not create doubt as to the central element of its structure. The conclusion must be that the stacking device itself cannot be blamed for difficulties in identification of the head. Such difficulties may be expected, on the other hand, precisely in (nominal) instances of the general X-bar rules: N3

(125a) KT Z

N

(126a)

(125b) jt2 N

N^ N -s

(125c) \.1 N

Zij achtten [^3 Ajax de betere ploeg] 'They considered Ajax the better team'

(126b)

Jan's boek 'John's book'

144

n" „0 N

\1 N

(126c)

(een) fies wijn ' (a) bottle (of) wine'

The examples in (126) represent (125) correspondingly: the nominal predication (a), the genitive-NP (b), and the quantification-structure (c). 0 2 Given this, the questions arise what makes the N of the righthand N the 3 1 2 head of N in (a); what makes the head of N the head of N in (b); and why in (c) is the lefthand N^ the core of this subphrase? A uniform answer to these three questions can be derived from the following two conditions.

(127)

The expansion of variable labels such as X n is category-neutral in principle.

(128)

The expansion of dependents is initiated after the expansion of the central projection.

It does not seem wildly outlandish to assume that the second assumption follows naturally from the rule system itself. The first assumption is a priori hardly less plausible than its opposite: it seems natural for generalizing nodes to branch generalizingly as well. The branching process does not depend on a preselected categorial value. I therefore assume the plausibility of proposal (127) to be directly proportional to its empirical support. I observe that the heads of the phrases in (125) are unproblematically identified once (127) is accepted as a property of grammars. As an elaboration upon this, consider the following. In the unmarked case, when stacking rules simply do not intervene, the X-bar system generates predication structures such as that in (129).

(129)

[Spec.X ] X

Y

It is only after lexical insertion that we can determine the category of X, and by percolation that of the whole projection, and also which other features are part of the projection, the syntactic category being only one of them. Suppose 0 0 1 2 3 that a noun is inserted under X ; then this N determines X -X -X -X and quali3 fies X as a nominal predication. This implies that in (125a) the head of the 145

righthand N

2

is unprobleraatically identified as the unique head of the tree, giv-

en (127)-(128). Precisely the same holds if nominal stacking rules intervene. The configurations in (130) and (131) indicate the stage at which the specified stacked category enters the tree.

3 Just as in (129) the predication rule results in branching of X , in which the 2 2 N is characterized as the dependent and X as a member of the central projec2 tion. On this X the apposition rule (cf. (123)) has been applied in (130): a category-specific rule is as applicable to a generalizing node as a categoryneutral rule to a category-specific node. An example of the latter is the rule 2 1 1 2 X -»• [Spec.X ] X , which expands a node already specified as a N , such as the subject in (130). By the apposition rule the central projection of (130) is nominal; hence the 2 3 3 2 is also the head of X = N , and, again, the righthand N of (125a)

head of N

is the category-determining predicate. As compared to (130), determination of the category takes place one level down in (131), which is one level up compared to (129), after the application of the attributive rule (1). But this implies that also in (131) the righthand N is the head of the nominal small clause. With regard to (125b) it is rather plausible that the genitive-NP is dominated by [Spec.N1], which would make the identification of the head of phrase unproblematic. Even without this, however, the righthand N^ is the constituent's 2 head. Given (128), the expansion of the N must be completed first, either if it is known as such from the outset (in the case of subjects of predicates), or is identified halfway (cf. (130)-(131)) or at the end of 2 the derivation (cf. (129)), at least so before the expansion of the possessive N . The quantifying phrase in (125c) can be dealt with in the same way. If the expansion of N n or X n arrives at the one-bar level, in- or excluding attributive stacking, the next X° is the lowest member of the projection to be, and any other element is the dependent. This can be a N^ only if the head is a N^. Under 146

these circumstances it is irrelevant whether the nominal character of the phrase is determined early in the derivation or after lexical insertion: in this type of derivation the lefthand N° in (125c) cannot be but the unique head.

A.

Conclusion

This chapter was concerned with the mutual relations among prenominal constituents. We formulated a number of proposals with regard to the status of exclusively attributive adjectives and quantifying nouns, including cardinals. Regular attributive adjectives were accounted for by a N —level stacking rule. The hypothesis that the grammar must be equipped with the stacking device was abundantly supported by empirical material. Perhaps in spite of first appearances, stacking does not hamper the identification of the head of a X-bar configuration. To the contrary, specifically problematic noun phrases turned out to be subcases of the general X-bar system, but plausible assumptions on the application of the baserules ensured unique identification of heads by the X-bar system itself.

U7

Chapter 5

Transfer 1.

Introduction

It may be useful at this point in our exposition first to take our bearings. We may summarize our results so far as follows. (1)

We have argued that A-projections have a subject.

(2)

We introduced the A -level in order to provide that subject with

3

asymmetric c-command. (3)

3

This level was generalized to X

by defending, following Stowell,

subjects across categories. The main argument was the analysis of small clauses. (4)

3 In order to obtain the small clause V , INFL was situated outside

of the V-projection and considered tentatively as an independent projection-category. (5) (6)

The various levels now have the following functions: head (X°), com1 2 3 plementation (X ), specification (X ), and predication (X ). 3 The introduction of X eliminates label-derived features and S-bar-

(7)

A generalized subject-predicate level led to a reinterpretation of

deletion. the notion of government as a relation holding within the minimal projection; PRO is characterized not by the absence of government, but that of Case (after Koster). 3 (8)

The X -generalization normalizes 0-role-assignment, gives insight into the structure of gerunds and participles, throws light on the behaviour of zijn, and provides syntactic motivation for the distinction between subject and specifier.

(9)

The non-null levels of the X-bar system allow the application of in-

(10)

The notion 'head', however, still follows from the operation and or-

ternally recursive rules to introduce stacked adjuncts. ganization of the base-rule component.

149

Given this, the questions below form a summary of the remaining problems. Why is it that (11a)

small clauses which subcategorize lexical elements have, as a rule, a lexical subject?

(11b)

NP-predicates conform to the Case-filter (requiring lexical NP's to have Case), while it is unclear what Case-marks them?

(12a)

NP-internal predicative adjuncts, on the other hand, have an empty subject?

(12b)

this subject is always controlled by an antecedent within the relevant NP?

(12c)

this antecedent is a N

2

for appositions, but an unexpected N

1

for

attributive adjectives? (13a)

X^-constituents, which subcategorize adverbs from the hoewel 'although' -category or have the function of free predicative adjuncts, also have an empty subject?

(13b)

this subject does not have a fixed antecedent-controller?

An attempt will be made in this chapter to answer these questions through the introduction of a new mechanism in addition to percolation: that of transfer. This means leaving relatively firm ground for the uncertainties of the tentative suggestion, which, however, in spite of its speculative and stipulative sides, still seems to contain sufficient empirical and generalizing power to offer interesting perspectives.

2.

Radiation

The X-bar projection is the core of the syntactic structure and constitutes the path for (vertical) percolation to operate in, thereby accounting for the similarity of the constituent-nodes. Percolation in X-bar structures is bidirectional. The inherent properties of the X° percolate up, involving category, AGR (i.e number, gender and person), tense for INFL, and (in)definiteness and index for N. External properties, assigned from outside, percolate down. An example is Case, which manifests itself in the head in various languages, but is assigned

150

to the head's highest projection. Diagram (14) illustrates percolation.

My suggestion is that, in addition to these north-south relations, the projection also influences its dependents. This east-west traffic (see the arrows in (15)) takes place at all levels of projection and moves relevant properties to the dependent-nodes.

For this type of traffic we introduce the term of transfer. In so far as this concerns inherent properties of X, transfer applies at the stage where these become available: at the end of the base-component, i.e. at D-structure. We will call this type of transfer D-transfer. External properties are assigned to the dependents after downward percolation. Since Case is one of these properties, and Case is assigned at the end of the transformational component, we place this type of transfer after Case-assignment, i.e. at the level of S-structure; hence, S-transfer. D-transfer concerns primary transfer of inherent properties, while S-transfer implies both primary transfer of external properties and secondary transfer of inherent properties already transferred at D-level. Primary transfer reaches only immediate dependents, secondary transfer reaches dependents of dependents as well. This is illustrated in (16). (16)

Xn .n-1

a = primary transfer ti = primary + secondary transfer

151

Thus, we posit two stages of transfer in syntax, cf. (17).

(17)

Base-rules

+

i

lexicon

D-structure
Y

n

assigns Case to predications in the following situations:

/NFL\

(40b)

„2

V2

ik

wegloop

N

'I run away'

haar

mooi

vind

'her beautiful find'

157

This proposal eliminates Exceptional Case-marking of the embedded subject, and requires a different account of explicit subjects within complement-small clau3 ses. This account now takes the form of S-transfer: assigned to Y

first, Case

just proceeds to Y 3 's dependent. In this way now all subjects receive Case indirectly, but uniformly, due to our separate subject-predicate level and the 3 3 transfer-mechanism. In {35)—(38) the subject of A and N does not receive Case, as these nodes have Case themselves only through S-transfer. Hence, these subjects are PRO. Since V 3 receives nominative Case in (40a), this holds for its subject as well; it follows that the pronoun in this case is

'I' and not mij/me 'me'.

Similarly, the non-nominative Case of the non-verbal predications in (40b)-(40d) is mirrored in their embedded subjects, which therefore appear as haar 'her', hem 'him' and ons 'us'. In more generously inflecting languages such as German and Latin, the embedded predicates may indeed betray the type of Case assigned to their dominating X3: (Ala)

Ich heiSe [^3 ihn einen Feigling] 'I call him a coward'

(41b)

[^3 Earn pulchram] iudicant 'They find her beautiful'

Example (41a) is the German equivalent of (40c), and the embedded predication has agreement of gender, number and Case between subject and predicate. The Latin version of (40b) in (41b) shows the adjectival predicate in the shape of the accusative feminine singular, agreeing in this with its subject. Our transfer-account of these agreement phenomena predicts also a language allowing, say, second person features on an adjective; overt Case on predicative prepositions; or explicitly non-nominative Case on infinitives as in (42).

158

(42a)

Ik zag [^3 jou weglopen] 'I saw you walk away'

(42b)

Wij vonden [y3 hem zeuren] 'We found him boring'

I simply cannot say at this stage of investigation whether these predictions find empirical support. Advocates of Exceptional Case-marking suspecting on the basis of (41) that the embedded subject's Case defines that of the predicate, will encounter insurmountable descriptive difficulties in trying to cope with agreement. In (35)(38) Case of the embedded predicate would have to rely on an empty subject but, at the same time, the rationale for its being PRO is precisely the fact that this subject lacks Case. And even if the conviction that N is not a Case-assigner would be abandoned in order to use the head-N in these cases for indirect Case-marking, we would be left with the question why the Case of the adjunct simply has to agree with that of the phrase's head. The transfer-analysis of Case-assignment clearly avoids these problems. Moreover, it gives an answer to the question posed in (11a), why small clause-complements have a lexical subject 3 as a rule: these subjects receive Case indirectly from X through S-transfer. In fact the analysis does even more than this. (i)

It explains not only the subject's Case as such, but also the fact that it is precisely the same Case as manifested by the predicate in the qualifying languages,

(ii)

The analysis also explains the point of (11b), i.e. how a predicate noun receives its Case. The examples in (37)-(38) and (41a) show that they should be covered by the Case-filter, which requires all lexical NP's to be Case-marked. Case of predicative NP's then fol3 lows from downward percolation from the top-N of Case assigned earlier directly or indirectly.

These seem to me serious advantages of the approach developed in this chapter and its mechanisms of percolation and transfer.

3.

PRO-problems

A syntactic property left hitherto undiscussed is reference, expressed formally

159

by Indexing. I propose here to restrict Chomsky's (1981:187) assumption "that each lexical element in inserted in D-structure with an index", by saying that only nouns can in fact be indexed when inserted. Furthermore, let us assume PRO to be defined by three coinciding negative properties: it is a N

2

1. lacking expansion, 2. which goes hence without lexical insertion, 3. and as a consequence has no associated index. In order to be a pronoun, PRO depends on an antecedent for identification, disregarding arbitrary PRO. It is associated with that antecedent through the latter 's index. It seems to me that there are two ways for PRO to acquire its index. One is S-transfer, which will be dealt with in the next section. The other is coindexing: see section 3.2.

3.1

HP-internal X -adjuncts

In noun phrases with a prenominal adjective and/or an apposition, indexing via upward percolation in underlying structure is as in (43a) and (44a). (43a)

(44a) [Spec.N ]

(43b)

[Spec.N1]

N1

de

sopraan

PRO

trots

N2 l

(44b) [Sp'éç.lT ] [Spec.N1.]

1

N1.

At l

It

N il PRO

trots

sopraan

de

sopraan

PRO

trots

D-transfer gives the index of the nominal projection to the A-projection, as in160

dicated by the arrows in (43b) and (44b). By S-transfer the index proceeds to 3 the subject-dependent of A , with PRO indexed as a result. At the same stage the Case-marking of the central N-projection transfers to the A-projection. At Sstruçture level the trees in (43c) and (44c) then exhibit the following network of properties.

In effect, these patterns answer question (12a) of the opening section of this chapter. The embedded subjects of these examples

do not even acquire indirect

Case-marking: they are too deeply embedded, and too far removed from the Case2 assigner. This absence of Case gives N its PRO-status. PRO'S index as such answers questions (12b) and (12c). The PRO-subjects of C 43) — C 44) cannot have an antecedent outside their associated N-projections. This type of 'obligatory control' through indirect indexing takes crucial advantage of the fact that a nominal index is already available underlyingly, which allows it to penetrate relatively deeply. This binds the embedded subject firmly to the 2 central N-projection, which means that PRO cannot have an antecedent outside N . This answers (112b). The nominal configurations in (43)—(44) also show that the index of PRO does 3 1 2 not depend on X 's sister being N or N . This implies that through percolation 1 2 and transfer N in (43) is as suitable an antecedent as N in (44): the entire 161

N-projection functions as the antecedent. This obviates the potential paradox 2 that in (A3) PRO'S antecedent would have to be the dominating N of which it is a part. This in fact answers question (12c). The hypothesis of two-stage transfer in (17) appears to be adequate also within a theory allowing stacking rules in the base-component. Multiply stacked variants of (43)-(44) are those below. (45)

(46)

[Spec.N1]

N1

Transfer of index and Case within these structures executes itself in precisely the same way as in (43)-(44), although simply proportionally more often, i.e. not iteratively, but simultaneously for the whole range of dependents. Thus, stacking and transfer appear to be tuned harmoniously. Against the explanatory power of index-transfer as outlined above, we will have to weigh two problematic aspects. (i)

The pattern of indexing in (43c) and (44c) does not fit well the so-called 'i-within-i-condition' in (47), from Zubizarreta (1983:90) after Chomsky (1981:212).

(47) i-within-i Condition *[

...6...], where y and 6 bear the same index, except if 6 is the head of y.

162

Either A

3

or PRO in (43c) and (44c) may be seen as 6, in which case 2 2 3

they are not heads of N . They share their index with y (N

and

A , re-

spectively). The filter thus rejects both (43c) and (44c), but contrary to fact. The question whether the conflict between (47) and the result of index-transfer is due to different views on indexing, is left here as a topic for separate investigation, (ii)

The phenomenon of nominal apposition has been ignored in the above discussion purposefully. NP in the function of predicate noun is nonreferential, and the predicative N-projection may or may not be indexed under these circumstances. If it is, as in (48), the index will 2 prohibit the transfer of the index of the head-N of the top-N by Percolation principle 1 , with the (unfavourable) result that the apposition's PRO-subject is not related to its antecedent by their common index.

(48) N |X 1 N

&

N'T X ^ v 2 >2 N N. N

l

PRO

•o N J

3 Besides this subject receives the index of its "own" N , creating the 2 unique and awkward situation that the predicate-N is the antecedent of its subject. Both observations can only be seen as support for an index-less predicate noun. Under this interpretation, however, the main index will reach the apposition in the same way as it reaches 3 the post-nominal A in (44b), but it is unfortunate that the apposi3 tion cannot contain an A in that situation, again contrary to fact (cf. Jan, een aardige vent,... 'John, a nice fellow'): as transfer 3 3 will not bring the index past A , the A 's PRO-subject will be denied that index, and will lack the required association with an antecedent. Section 4 will provide a solution to this problem. In the meantime we will discuss another way for PRO to acquire its index.

163

3.2

Colndexlng

3 In (49) and similar sentences with a PRO-subject the relevant X -constituents are outside the N-projection which is supposed to provide PRO its index, indirectly. (49a)

H i ^ liep

PRC^ boos] weg

'He ran angry away' (49b)

We aten het vlees^ [,p3 PRCL in gedroogde vorm] •We ate the meat evaporated'

(50a)

Het bestuu^ heeft [hoewel

PRO^ niet enthousiast]] zijn medewer-

king verleend 'The management has although not enthusiastically given its co-operation' (50b)

[Mits [p3 PRO^ op tijd]] worden de brieven^ nog afgehandeld 'If in time, the letters will be dealt with'

(51a)

Hij. heeft mij beloofd [ T „_,2 (om) [„3 PRO, op tijd te komen]] INrL V i 1 'He has promised me to be in time1

(51b)

Carla haalde hem, over [T.7I7I2 (om) [ 3 PRO. mee te gaan]] 1 INfL V I 'Carla persuaded him to go along'

(51c)

Henk zal er bij mij. op aandringen [x.TI7r2 (om) [,,3 PRO. het voorstel XNt L V I 1 in te trekken]] 'Henk will press me to withdraw the proposal'

3 These X -phrases share with adnominal predications that they are out of reach of a Case-assigning governor. In order to give an indication of my ideas of a theory of control that might capture all three types of construction above, I will first discuss the standard control cases of (51). 2 3 The INFL -complements in (51) are non-tensed. The participating V therefore lacks Case. If, then, the question rises of how the resulting PRO-subject will receive the index from its antecedent, an answer might run as follows: unmarked, 3 i.e. Case-less and index-less X , is subject to coindexing rule (52). The idea behind this proposal can be traced back to Williams (1980), although it is developed here rather differently, in the form of (52)-(53).

164

(52)

An unmarked X

(53)

Controller =

3

is coindexed with its controller i. designated N

2

2 ii. c-commanding N^

The two members of the set in (53) are ordered disjunctively. Control verbs such as beloven 'promise' and overhalen 'persuade' each designate a particular NP-ar2

gument to serve as a controller over the PRO-subject in INFL , and this is not always a c-commanding NP. A clear example of this is the preposition-governed controller mij 'me' in (51c). When the controller is not a designated NP, it must be a lexically specified antecedent, which.is why (53ii) asks for an in2 dexed N . Example (54) contains a case of (53i), illustrated through (51c); the designated controller is marked with a £. (54) see page 166 3 The circled V

is unmarked: does not assign Case, and an index is ab-

sent because a nominal projection is lacking which might have transferred one at 2 3 D-level. The mechanism of (52)—(531) now provides the circled N and V with the 2

same index (the one of mij.), as the N is the designated controller of aandrin3 gen. From the V , the index S-transfers to PRO, and in this way the two NP's are associated indirectly in an antecedent-anaphor relation. Neither here nor in PRO-indexing in the case of (43)-(44) do we require a theory of binding in order to account for PRO. C-command control (53ii) may be illustrated through example (49a), with its tree as in (55).

hij

PRO

boos

weglopen 3

The syntactic relation between the free predicative adjunct A

and the remainder

of the tree conforms to rule (23) of Chapter 4. We are especially concerned, how165

J tu o ® D. GO in

166

ever, with the fact that A

3

is index-less and outside of the reach of a Case-as-

signing governor, and that the verb lacks a designated controller. The same 3 holds for X -complements of hoewel-adverbs (cf.(50)). In this case rule (52) co3 indexes A with the c-commanding subject, followed by transfer of the index to PRO. 3 The picture in (55) also answers question (13a): the subject of the relevant X -constituents cannot acquire Case, and must therefore be PRO. Coindexing rule (52) has to apply after Case-assignment. This guarantees that 3 3 Case-marking itself applies to the eligible X -complements (finite V within the range of and bare infinitive-complements as in (42)), and cannot be covered, correctly so, by (52). Rule (52) also applies before S-transfer, which has to send the index to PRO. This implies the mutual ordering-relation of (56). (56)

Base-rules + lexicon D-structure ^

I Transformations

D-transfer

1.Case-assignment 2.Coindexing S-structure